Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 68

WP:ONUS vs. WP:QUO
Spun off from the above discussion. WP:ONUS directly and unambiguously implies that if one editor removes longstanding material, and another editor objects, the default is that that material is removed until consensus is reached. WP:QUO directly and unambiguously implies the opposite - longstanding text remains unless there's a clear consensus to remove it, ie. when dealing with longstanding text, the default is to keep rather than to remove. I've seen frequent disagreements between these, and it contributes to edit wars by leading editors on both sides to think that policy supports putting the page in their preferred state during discussion. These need to be reconciled and either an unambiguous statement added to WP:ONUS referencing WP:QUO and indicating that longstanding text is presumed to have consensus by default; or an unambiguous statement added to WP:QUO referencing WP:ONUS. For the record, I think it's obvious to anyone who has edited for any length of time that WP:QUO is the policy that is actually followed here, and that WP:ONUS, as written, is wrong and does not reflect current policy; anyone who tries to invoke WP:ONUS to remove longstanding text during a dispute without a clear affirmative consensus to do so is going to have a bad time, ie. WP:ONUS applies only to new additions because anything that has been on the page for long enough is presumed to have consensus. But either way one of these needs to be corrected. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if this comes down to a !vote or such, my feeling would be that material that's in dispute should be removed until there's consensus to include it, because IMO it's better to not say something until we feel it's appropriate than to include material that may be inappropriate while a consensus is being built. In other words, err on the side of caution. DonIago (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Much avoidable conflict and ill will results from contradictory and incompatible process rules and common practices. We spend as much time arguing about process as discussing content, and that should not be the case. This has been a pressing need for the five years I've been around, and I've seen no progress in that time. Things need to be firmed up and simplified, and contradictions need to be eliminated; there shouldn't be much discussion about process aside from pointing inexperienced editors to the relevant PAGs.That said, I'm with Doniago: Disputed content should require consensus, at least when an editor chooses to press the point. If editors repeatedly abuse that principle in bad faith, the community should deal with those editors rather than try to design abuse-proof process policies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You are misreading the policy. Status quo says specifically not to revert. Onus says specifically to remove material without consensus. The answer is always keep the consensus version regardless of status quo. If you don't know what's the consensus, don't revert. Bright☀ 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ONUS says to remove disputed content without consensus to include. I'm sure that's what you meant, but it's worth pointing out. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Poorly worded on my part. "No consensus" is specifically stated in policy as a bad revert reason, do not revert simply because there's no consensus. Bright☀ 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, or we'd revert most additions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But in this hypothetical situation, we'd not revert simply because there's no consensus. We'd do it because the content will remain abundantly verifiable to the point of meeting the general notability guideline, because this existing article will still clearly be the most suitable place for it and because the objections to its inclusion will probably stay wild predictions founded on no apparent past performance. Those are three good reasons, regardless of an inconclusive RfC, and I'm not just saying that because they help our case. They help our case because they're good reasons. Of course, if there were consensus to exclude the names for a worse reason, all the propriety in the world couldn't save us. Going forward, we should only ask everyone to affirm whether they want to Keep or Delete similar widely-circulated basic information, avoiding pickles where only one option can win or lose at a time. Agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What hypothetical situation are you referring to? I'm certain of one thing: None of us gets to decide what's a "good" reason to revert (assuming it's not "no consensus", as previously stated, and assuming the revert does not violate a process rule, ArbCom restriction, and so on), for reasons that should be abundantly obvious. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Talk:Virginia Beach shooting situation. I figured at least you'd remember, being the most active participant and one who suggested continuing that conversation here. I figured we were here to work toward stopping the madness, once and for all, and thought my Keep or Delete proposal was a step in the right direction (apparently not). I can't see your "abundantly obvious" reasons for thinking we can't (or shouldn't) decide when it's OK to revert. It's exactly as easy as determing a bad revert reason, just look for it specifically stated in policy. Here are seven good reasons, strictly for example. I'm not saying the censoring of basic and expected information about a subject is as "bad" as the distribution child porn, hate speech or pirated media, but WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and a few others all seem to indicate the distribution of basic and expected information is "good" for Wikipedia. So, absent consensus, that's what determines the "best version" of two possible articles, not some convoluted debate about whether QUO outranks ONUS or vice versa. At the end of the day, they both tend to suggest we arbitrarily and always pick the old or the new, and that's a bad way to decide for (what I think are) abundantly obvious reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" is a non sequitur. Policy and guidelines are often best when they don't bite off more than they can chew. I think in many instances that is one point, and no more. So my question is: what is that one point of WP:ONUS? It has a title: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". That is its main point. In total WP:ONUS consists of three sentences. The first two relate in important ways to the title. Those two sentences read "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." But the last sentence, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", opens up a can of worms. Everything is wrong with that sentence. WP:ONUS would be improved by simply omitting that sentence. Not only is that sentence a non sequitur, but there is no wisdom to support it. I am defining "wisdom" as "a good reason". Consensus determines everything. Whether something is included or omitted is irrelevant in light of the fact that consensus can determine that the material in question is included or omitted. WP:ONUS should address the one issue found in the title. It is an important point, and it should stand on its own. Our processes address more thorny issues and less thorny issues. And I think the most thorny issues are almost irresolvable. Our policies and guidelines should address bite-sized issues. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ONUS places the consensus burden on those who wish to include disputed content. It's that simple despite attempts to complicate it. In five years I've seen it applied that way countless times and never once had I seen any editor interpret it any other way until you. Can you honestly state that you have seen it interpreted your way countless times? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—there is no wisdom to that last sentence and it is off-topic. Do you disagree with either of these points? Is there any justifiable reason (wisdom) for that final sentence? And is it on-topic? The topic is seen in the section heading—"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". This is a very important point: Just because something is supportable by a source does not mean that it must be included in an article. This is what WP:ONUS is about. You don't tag additional points onto this policy/guideline without opening up a can of worms. Whoever wrote that last sentence into WP:ONUS made a mistake. The last sentence should simply be eliminated. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, it's quite possible the policy is in the wrong place, and should be at WP:CONSENSUS instead of WP:V. It's also quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean one thing and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean something different. So what? The one fact that matters here is that "disputed content requires consensus to include" is a very widely accepted principle (even if not universally so, since universally accepted principles don't exist at Wikipedia). Policy derives from common practice, not vice versa, and you are free to advocate a change to policy to bring it into clearer agreement with common practice. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is zero wisdom to that last sentence ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"), not to mention that it is off-topic. Why would there be greater burden to find consensus on those adding than those removing? In truth we are in most cases not simply adding or removing. All disputants are both adding and removing, in most cases. We are discussing "versions" of articles. Any "version" during a dispute is merely a temporary version. It has not yet attained widespread approval. But there is no burden on anyone that is greater than the burden on anyone else. When an admin steps in and "protects" an article, that version enjoys no special status. It is a temporary version. Someone made a mistake when they tagged that non-sequitur sentence onto the end of WP:ONUS and it should simply be removed. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly you failed to hear what I just said. You are in effect saying that very widely accepted practice is wrong, and you can't say that by definition of how Wikipedia works. At the very least you would need a clear community consensus that very widely accepted practice is wrong, and you don't even have any support on this page at this point. Argue all you want with any others who are so inclined, but I'm not going to go around and around with you on this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "It's also quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean one thing and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean something different." What does that mean? Please expand on that. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It means: It's quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean something like what you're saying and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean what I'm saying. According to the relationship between accepted practice and policy that I stated previously, the meaning of the sentence has been effectively changed by accepted practice. I and most other editors are happy with the status quo, but if you find it unclear or misleading because of its placement and context, you can propose an improvement. What you can't do is say that widely accepted practice is wrong without a community consensus to that effect.If you dispute my assertion that "disputed content requires consensus to include" is very widely accepted, show me a few uninvolved closes where the closer assessed "no consensus" and stated that that meant the content should be included. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—you mention how it might have been "originally intended". So, please tell me—how might it have been "originally intended"? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. It matters not whether it was originally to mean what you're saying, that the price of jelly beans is too high, or something else. What matters is what it's widely interpreted to mean today. We could even be citing the wrong policy. The point is that widely accepted practice always trumps any written rules, although we should work harder to keep the two in agreement. If you can't see that, there is little point in continuing here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, you won't answer the question, so I will answer it for you. It is a meaningless, throwaway sentence. It is meant to reinforce the initial assertion as found in the section heading and in the first two sentences of the section called WP:ONUS. It is not making any point about who includes and who omits material, which is not so simple anyway, as both sides are both adding and omitting material in most instances. The sentence was malformed and you are exploiting that lack of clarity for your own purposes. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am exploiting nothing. Forget I ever mentioned ONUS. We go by widely accepted practice or seek a community consensus to change it. Full stop, Bus stop. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you have to understand is that there has to be wisdom behind any policy. It should be possible to articulate the wisdom behind any policy. Therefore I'm going to ask you a tough question: what is the wisdom behind the last sentence in WP:ONUS? Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Disputed material requires consensus to include" is neither accepted policy nor accepted practice on Wikipedia. To demonstrate this, you only need to look at WP:RFC closures over longstanding text, or WP:AFD closures over anything, which near-universally take a "no consensus" outcome as "maintain the status quo" rather than "remove disputed."  (The few exceptions are special cases, like WP:BLP, which have specific policies mandating exclusion due to the enhance risk of harm.)  Therefore, the correct wording of WP:ONUS based on current policy and practice is that "disputed edits require consensus", ie. removal of longstanding content requires that you demonstrate a clear positive demonstration of consensus to remove it.  If your argument is that WP:AFD and WP:RFC should always default to 'delete' when there's no consensus, you'll really need to bring that up elsewhere, but I don't think it's likely to get anywhere.  If your argument is that WP:ONUS accurately reflects that practice, you're going to have to explain how, because I'm not seeing it - "no consensus means a return to status quo" is a central part of how consensus is evaluated.  "No consensus means delete" is nonsense that has never been applied outside of a few specific highly-sensitive areas that require it.  --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree. My head is in the specific case (or set of cases, actually) that brought me, InedibleHulk, and Bus stop to this discussion, to wit: addition of new content. I haven't been thinking about longstanding content, for which I and many others apply the term "de facto consensus". As long as one doesn't read "consensus" as "talk page consensus", my phrasing still works. But if policy can be made clearer, I'm all for it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not "new content" that we are concerned with. We are concerned with different versions of articles. A dispute is about different versions of an article, with one group supporting one version, and another group supporting another version. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be blunt. You are spouting utter nonsense. Yes, we are concerned with new content, that new content being victims' names lists which are challenged long before they have acquired de facto consensus status. But I can't say I'm surprised that you came here, were told by yet more experienced editors that you're wrong, and refused to hear them and instead concocted a fantastical argument to avoid having to admit that you've been wrong all this time. You continue to flirt with topic ban.To other editors, I apologize for my tone. If you had experienced the past couple of years of this editor's obtuseness, you might well be using the same tone or worse. I have rarely seen an editor so vocal and so wrong at the same time, and never one with his edit count. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—even when there is a net addition of material to an article, there is usually some subtraction of material from an article. And even when there is a net subtraction of material, there is usually some addition of material. You are creating a problem when you frame the discussion as being about "new content". A much more enlightened framing of this discussion is between one version of an article supported by one group and another version of an article supported by another group. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, belatedly, the policy that I should be citing is WP:NOCONSENSUS, which specifically says a lack of consensus defaults to last stable version outside of cases where WP:BLP requires removal. --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I said previously that we might be citing the wrong policy, and I can start citing NOCONSENSUS instead of ONUS, with exactly the same effect: Until there is a consensus to include disputed new content, it stays out. Policy semantics. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Concerning WP:NOCONSENSUS, what is the likelihood that the strength of argument is equal on both sides of an RfC? I think it is highly unlikely. If one side's arguments are even slightly stronger than the other side's, the closer should close the RfC in favor of the stronger side. The occurrence of "no consensus" should be extremely rare. Anyone considering closing an RfC as "no consensus" should simply not close that RfC. And again, let me mention that we are not talking about "new content". We are talking about different versions of an article. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A closer will close the way they feel they should close, and any editor is free to request a close review. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope—problems are to be solved. We are not having this discussion so that we can wallow in problems and let problems fester. We propose solutions—that's what we do. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to challenge NOCONSENSUS, go do it at the talk page for NOCONSENSUS: Wikipedia talk:Consensus. That's what we do. If you want to challenge longstanding close practices, I suggest WP:VPP. We are certainly not going to change that on this page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indisputably true that at certain points, there will be no consensus – yet. So long as that (hopefully temporary) situation exists, removal of any newly added content seems to be the usual (but not mandatory) practice.   I wrote most of NOCONSENSUS.  It is a description of what people said in discussions at the time.  The question about changing article content was the most difficult for people to agree on.  It was not carved in stone and handed down from on high.  It can be changed if folks think it should be.  (And perhaps it should be.  I notice that it mentions the removal of text, but does not mention the sub-case of removing text as part of a WP:CHALLENGE.  In that case, the result is removal, not 'no change'.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the ONUS sentence I agree with Bus stop that this part exceeds the scope of the main point, and with "Mandruss" that this piece of purported policy is quite possibly misplaced and/or misunderstood. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the ONUS sentence unless it's shown that the widely-accepted principle "disputed content requires consensus to include" is adequately contained in some other policy, or until that's made so. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  15:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—it should not be found in other policy. The wording shouldn't be anywhere. It misrepresents reality. Even when there is a net addition, there is usually some subtraction. And even when there is a net subtraction, there is usually some addition. There need not be a greater burden to achieve consensus on either side. Importantly, any version that is up while consensus is being hammered out, is a temporary version. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you to supply us with some "wisdom" behind the sentence that we are discussing. You haven't responded. There is no wisdom behind it. Policy always is defensible. Policy always is supported by a rationale. Why should The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion be on those seeking to include disputed content? Is that preferable for instance to a sentence reading The onus to achieve consensus for omission is on those seeking to omit disputed content? Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody down for The onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking it? It'd stay open to interpretation and largely hollow, but briefer and neutral. A bit more logical, too, since those are the only type of people who consistently speak at RfCs. Why shouldn't it be their unified cross to bear against only those few seeking chaos, division and uncertainty? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bus Stop I think you are grievously misreading the policy. Please refer to the previous discussion where the current phrasing of the policy achieved consensus. Bright☀ 17:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can often learn a lot about intent by looking through archives... The sentence in question was first added on 29 May, 2014 - with this edit.   Looking through the archives of talk page discussions from that time (see: Archive 62)... I don't find any discussion of the addition.  However, we were in the middle of an extensive discussion about WP:BURDEN (a similar concept... but one that is more limited in scope).  Perhaps more enlightening... prior to that discussion, the short-cut "WP:ONUS" pointed to the same section as WP:BURDEN.  They were essentially two words for the same concept.  The edit of 29 May broke ONUS and BURDEN apart, and made them two separate concepts.  The next talk page mention of "ONUS" occurs on 29 September, 2015 ... almost a year later... in the context of discussing relevance (see archive 63).  It seems to be accepted as policy at that time. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is best as-is. Despite that fact that prescriptive "what should happen" wording is problematic due to the large amount of variables and factors. First, most of the new suggestions are adding more prescriptive material which would expand that problem. Just like most things in the fuzzy Wikipedia system, the current wording can't be taken categorically or too broadly. And the distinction between contesting new material vs. contesting long-standing material is certainly an influencing factor. I think that the context and preface wording is important. Which is that it largely addresses the common implicit or explicit argument that meeting wp:ver is a force or mandate for inclusion rather than just one of the requirements for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) North8000 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:BURDEN is concerned with whether or not material can be supported by a source. But there is spillover from that which can be supported by a source to that which is supported by a source but nevertheless is unwanted. Material that is supported by a source but is nevertheless unwanted is addressed in WP:ONUS. The upshot of WP:ONUS is that material can still be rejected even though it is sourced. The upshot is not that the burden for achieving consensus is on those wishing to add content. Somebody added that language. But it is illogical. What would be the wisdom behind placing the burden for achieving consensus on those adding content—assuming it is supported by good sources? If there is no wisdom to it, there is no reason for keeping that language.WP:ONUS is about differences of editorial opinion. WP:BURDEN is more objective. It is not about opinions. It is about the availability of support for material or assertions in sources. That is either present or absent. The burden is very clear: the burden for providing support in sources is on those adding content. It is a different situation in WP:ONUS. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether material warrants inclusion. RfCs can resolve this. But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material. At WP:ONUS there is simply a difference of opinion between which version of the article is the "right" version. Arguments are presented in an RfC and a closer evaluates the strengths of the respective arguments. They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments. I think that is very unlikely. Even if one side's arguments are only slightly stronger—that side should be awarded their version of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material. There is "no special burden" until the added material is challenged. At that point there is the special burden of achieving a consensus to include the material. As has been explained to you more times than I can count, here and elsewhere. But keep repeating the falsehood enough times, using articulate language resembling that used by people who know what they are talking about, and maybe it will magically become true by sheer force of will.They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments. And yet they do, all the time, and AFAIK nobody has a problem with it except you. If you wish to propose a radical change to the way Wikipedia works, take it to VPP and stop cluttering this page with repetitive out-of-venue comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the ONUS sentence—this is important in many cases, such as those involving WP:BLPs or political articles. Of course, deleting without a rationale is not protected by ONUS—it applies only when deleting or reverting with a rationale.  The default should be to keep such disputed material out of the article until a consensus forms to include it—keeping in disputed content is potentially far more damaging than keeping it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—WP:BURDEN is different in significant ways from WP:ONUS. They are related but they are different. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This is perfectly understandable. There is wisdom behind it. And it is part of WP:BURDEN. Now let us look at WP:ONUS, specifically its final sentence. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." There is no justification for that. That is because there is no objective need for a special burden to be placed on those "seeking to include disputed content." This is merely an editorial dispute. This does not involve the need for support in a reliable source because both sides in a dispute agree that the material is reliably sourced. WP:ONUS is very different from WP:BURDEN. There is a "burden" in WP:BURDEN. There isn't a "burden" in WP:ONUS. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —the justification is that it is disputed (assuming a rationale for the dispute is provided).
 * —this would be a boon for fringe content and POV-pushers. The default cannot be . Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey—we have admins for a reason. If editors can't work out differences of opinion, articles get "protected", until such time as editors decide on a consensus-supported version. Nothing that is said in policy can avert an edit war. We are expected to be responsible and if that proves impossible someone is expected to summon an admin. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see what aspect of your comment addresses what I wrote. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the third and final sentence of WP:ONUS unless anyone can tell me the wisdom behind that sentence. It is entirely extraneous. The person who wrote it was probably thinking that it sounded like it belonged because a similar sentence is found in WP:BURDEN. But mere editorial disputes should not place special "burdens" on either side. Such disputes are ideally decided on the strengths of each side's arguments. Adding new material under WP:BURDEN matters because we do not allow inclusion of material that is un-sourced. But WP:ONUS is about disagreement over whether sourced material should be included. This is merely a matter of opinion. But there can be stronger and less strong arguments. These arguments determine which of two versions of an article should be allowed to stand.Also, the last sentence is a bombshell. It is an overwhelming surprise. The section heading reads Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The first and second sentences read "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." And then comes the bombshell, that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The last sentence is a non sequitur vis-à-vis that which precedes it. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the ONUS sentence The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is absolutely required. Otherwise, a POV-pusher could ride roughshod over consensus and add WP:FRINGE material.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is about a change being introduced, not necessarily inclusion, it can also be removal, depending on what constitutes longstanding text. But regarding Consensus — I reiterate that this is what a closing of discussion defaults to (to the longstanding text) whenever there is agreement against a proposal or when there is no agreement at all. El_C 06:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to know of a policy or guideline that addresses whether an introduced change including text to a specific section of a regularly occuring sort of article, in a format identical to that of longstanding text in previously occuring sorts constitutes longstanding text? Or one that says each specific instance of the same sort of longstanding text can (or must) be disputed and accepted every single time before it's included again? If so, perhaps we should all hop over to that talk page. If not, thanks for clarifying as much as you already have. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The results of exhaustive and exhausting discussions in community venues have consistently been: Handle on a case-by-case basis. If the community saw things like you describe, the results would have been different. And of course you're free to take another shot at it at VPP.Not the question you asked, nor the person you asked, but relevant. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you'd interjected to answer a question I did ask, you wouldn't be the exhausting and exhaustive contributor we've all gradually come to love and fear. Now what say we sidetrack this thread till everyone forgets I ever asked a serious question, just for old time's sake? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As best as I can determine from your playful, creative, indirect use of the English language, you're saying my reply may have made one from El C less likely. I would dispute that, especially knowing, but I'll ping him for you just in case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, though even if he answers now and even if that answer solves anything everything, we'll still not know how likely it was to happen naturally, and probably never will. I hope you're happy about that. But like, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't tell to what extent you're joking. If you're serious, sorry for contaminating the experiment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of joking, I used the phrase "exhaustive and exhausting" in conversation with you on June 2 and you are using the phrase "exhaustive and exhausting" on June 10.. Great minds think alike? Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Bus stop and I are about equally kidding. Hijacking, witness tampering and joke theft are all very half-serious accusations. But (speaking only for myself), I 100% absolve you of any wrongdoing, on account of your well-documented temporary insanity. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This may sound like me conflicting with my earlier post but it really isn't. First I'm going to agree that such a thing, taken out of context has no business being in this policy. And, in fact, a prescriptive "what to do" that defines an (interim) end result in what should really be a "case by case" situation is a bad idea period. But, in this particular place, it was to mitigate a common mis-use of wp:ver, in essence someone using "it's sourced" as a basis to force material in. And it was a compromise because we couldn't get in what we really needed to do then and do now. Which is to add "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" and then delete the whole onus section. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the two sections can be merged. Certainly they should be placed in proximity to one another. Another possibility: WP:ONUS should be a subsection of WP:BURDEN. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I like that alternative take on WP:ONUS - basically "verifiability is necessary but not sufficient; inclusion is determined by consensus instead." The problem with the current WP:ONUS is that its wording (and particularly the word "onus") makes it sound like it is changing the way we evaluate consensus by shifting additional burden towards anyone who wants to keep material on a page; that was never the intent, merely to say that verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion.  It should probably be replaced with something that refers the reader directly to WP:CONSENSUS.  (This also means that WP:ONUS should be deleted as a redirect, since the word "ONUS" itself is the problem - WP:CONSENSUS is much more careful in its wording in order to encourage discussion and consensus-building rather than just confusing loops of "rv, get consensus" or stonewalling by people who think it means they can just say "no" without explanation or discussion.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that that would be a good way to both implement the concept and also fix it. If the idea gets some traction then perhaps the exact propose change should get written. 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)North8000 (talk)
 * I think there is no reason for WP:ONUS as a separate section. It is further commentary on WP:BURDEN which importantly tells us that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."We should salvage the usable language from WP:ONUS and add it at the bottom of WP:BURDEN. Thus we would add "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." But we should not add the last sentence which reads "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Whichever side prevails in a dispute resolution process, commonly an RfC, is understood to enjoy consensus. Any version of an article is only considered temporary while any dispute resolution process is underway. Those closing RfCs should not close with "no-consensus", thus eliminating the need for "defaulting" to any version of the article. RfCs should be closed in favor of the stronger of two sides of an argument, even if one argument is only slightly stronger than the other. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. "No consensus defaults to the status quo" is important.  If something has been in the article for a long time, it's presumed to have reasonably strong consensus; you shouldn't be able to remove it by just counting noses to 51% (or assessing consensus to that level - yeah, it's not a vote, but you get the idea.)  Similarly, if you want to add a massive contested section or drastically rewrite an article in a way that changes its direction and tone, it should require more than just a bare-majority.  This both lends weight to established consensus (even implicit ones) and helps keep articles stable - if an article could be drastically rewritten by 51% or whatever, you'd see articles constantly swinging back and forth due to very small shifts in the people contributing to RFCs.  That's undesirable.  Stability does have some value, so when consensus is too close to evaluate clearly, we lean towards the last stable version.  --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine—"If something has been in the article for a long time, it's presumed to have reasonably strong consensus"—I agree. But what if it's been in an article for a short time? What if the article is newly created? And also, why should there be "no-consensus"? Closing an RfC means weighing arguments and deciding the stronger of two choices. No one forces anyone to close an RfC. If one is unable to decide which is the stronger argument one should not close that RfC.Please note the discussion at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. It is an article that has been in existence for a few weeks. Yet some are arguing that there is version that has greater status than another version. I find that ridiculous. An RfC can resolve the dispute. But such a resolution should depend solely on the strengths of the respective arguments. And the RfC should not be closed as "no-consensus". Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

ONUS: Proving the positive or proving the negative?
I would like to see some discussion regarding the following: When there is a disagreement between editors as to whether some bit of information belongs in a specific article (or not)...  Philosophically, I don't think these are mutually exclusive... but, in purely practical terms I do lean more towards favoring the first than the second  - as it is almost always far easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Should those seeking to keep/include the material be required to "prove the positive" (ie explain why the material does belong)?
 * 2) Should those seeking to remove/exclude the material be required to "prove the negative" (ie explain why the material does not belong)?


 * No, you don't have to prove that material belongs in an article unless there is a question of whether it is reliably sourced or whether or not it falls within the scope of the article. Articles agglomerate. They grow by addition. Those wishing to keep material out have to present a good argument for keeping material out. Articles start with a kernel of information and grow and evolve from there. They can grow more voluminous or less voluminous. Certainly material can be discarded. But only with good reason. The onus is on the person adding the material to show that the material is within the scope of the article and reliably sourced. And the onus is on the person wanting to remove the material to present a good reason for why it should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree... for example some bit of material may be within the scope of an article, but be considered too trivial to worth mentioning. Editors often make judgement calls like that.  So... on a debate about triviality... should the editor who wants removes have to demonstrate that the material is too trivial... or is the onus on the editor who wants to keep the disputed material to demonstrate that it is more than just trivia. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You say "Philosophically, I don't think these are mutually exclusive." I agree with that. Neither side has to be considered to have a greater burden in matters of opinion. I oppose placing a burden or an onus on any side in a dispute that hinges upon matters of opinion. WP:BURDEN correctly requires those adding material to provide sources. That "burden" is justifiable. But differences of opinion do not call for a "burden" to be placed on either side. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fairly standard that a "no consensus" assessment means the article stays at status quo ante. For disputed new content, it follows that a consensus to include is required to include it. Unless and until that principle is turned on its head, I think that answers your question. Regarding "no consensus" assessments, I'm not going to engage a certain editor's attempts to challenge long-standing and widespread closing practices out-of-venue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—over brief periods of time there is no "status quo ante", or "the way things were before". "Status quo ante" does not apply to any appreciable degree over the short term. Note the discussion at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. It is an article that has been in existence for a few weeks. There is an RfC presently taking place. If the RfC is closed as "no-consensus", does "status quo ante" apply? I think you will say "yes", but I say "no". Another point: there should not be a close of "no-consensus". "Status quo ante" arises when there is a close of "no-consensus". But why should there be a close of "no-consensus"? A person closing an RfC is tasked with determining which side of an argument is stronger. If a person doesn't know which side of an argument is stronger, then they should not close that RfC. Bus stop (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem oblivious to the fact that you are arguing for changes to how Wikipedia has done things for a very long timeas long as I've been around, and probably as long as you've been around. A change that dramatic and consequential would require an RfC at WP:VPP, and any other talk about it is pointless and therefore disruptive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—I am addressing the practice of "no-consensus" closes in the context of WP:ONUS. (I am responding to you saying "It's fairly standard that a "no consensus" assessment means the article stays at status quo ante.") You are correct that it is "out-of-venue". But it can be discussed. It is not taboo. Compartmentalization has its pros and its cons. Bus stop (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out, with anybody who has the time to engage in pointless discussion. I don't. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Compartmentalization frustrates conversation. Is that not obvious? It is not as though subjects are taboo for discussion. Bus stop (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing things in the right ways avoids wasted time. Is that not obvious? Maybe you have unlimited time to waste, but don't assume that of everybody else. I think I'm done here, at least as far as responding to you is concerned. Bye now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2 Like most games, the side with the most valid points should win and each side should shoulder equal responsibility to raise points. If both sides tie in valid points, the onus should be on the closer to determine the better ones, as it pertains to the encyclopedia's greater purpose, perhaps after an overtime period. Draws should not be prohibited, but called as rarely as they truly occur. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that. The possibility of a "no-consensus" close of an RfC should remain possible. But it should be extremely rare. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * tells me here that "Those are but three out of ten RfCs I closed that week." They are saying that they closed 10 RfCs in a week, 3 of which as "no-consensus". (It may be difficult to find because it is within an area of the page which has been hatted.) Though I have never closed an RfC I question that frequency of "no-consensus" closes. There are two problems that go hand in hand, one of which is the last sentence found at WP:ONUS. El C says here: You are wrong on the policy. WP:ONUS reads: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I harbor zero animus toward anyone. is also very concerned with the last sentence of WP:ONUS  although they do not quote it at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. WP:ONUS is different from WP:BURDEN. At WP:BURDEN there either is or there is not a source to support material. That is a clear line. It is therefore understandable that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." But WP:ONUS is different. WP:ONUS is merely about opinion. There is no clear line. Therefore there should not be an onus to achieve consensus for inclusion on those seeking to include disputed content. That sentence is not supported by any wisdom. An RfC decides whether material should be included or omitted. And if there is not a close of "no-consensus" the RfC is decided simply on the strengths of the arguments of the opposing sides. The present arrangement is an uncalled-for morass. In my opinion the first step is to remove from WP:ONUS the sentence reading "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". As a second step I am in a little bit of a quandary. I am not sure how frequently RfCs are closed as "no-consensus". But if this occurs frequently, I think that has to be addressed. That is because a close of "no-consensus" still leaves open the question of which version of a disputed article stays up. Basically, I am opposed to RfC closures of "no-consensus". I think such closures open up a can of worms. I wish to remain on good terms with the editors I've mentioned. It is just the issue I am addressing and not any of my fellow editors. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the most important things about our "default" outcomes have to be as follows:
 * First, the default outcome is bad - it's a failure state to be avoided. Ideally we want a consensus; everyone and everything should have a clear consensus, whether it's to have or omit something.  That said, we can't always get a clear, obvious consensus, so we do need default outcomes at some point in the process.
 * Second, the default outcome should be designed to encourage people to come to the negotiating table, so to speak. This is one of my big issues with the current WP:ONUS - it encourages heel-dragging from people who don't want something in the article, because it leads them to conclude that they don't have to argue their position.  In fact, when you consider that many things are resolved just by one side of a dispute giving up, it makes it incredibly tempting to try and avoid arguing your position - if you don't present any points that can be refuted, consensus can't be reached without significant effort to attract outside views.  This is extremely bad (and it's why WP:EDITCONSENSUS, in contrast, emphasizes that all reverts to good-faith edits should come with an explanation.)  This means we should avoid "default outcomes" that can be easily gamed or which reward a failure to engage in the process.
 * Based on this, I'm generally against the tone of WP:ONUS more than the substance - the whole idea of saying "responsibility falls on that party to make their argument", which implies "the other party doesn't have to make their argument." And this answers your original question - "who should have to make the argument?" - the answer should be "everyone involved."  If there's a dispute, then that means people disagree, which requires that everyone state their disagreement as clearly as possible - if someone is refusing to engage at all while still insisting they object to an edit (or while trying to restore an edit without arguing for it), then they're a problem that needs to be addressed.  That said, I would argue that the person who reverts an edit is saying "I'm raising a dispute to this", and in the context of that dispute, the WP:ONUS should be on them to articulate a policy-based objection - reverting a good-faith edit with no explanation at all is unacceptable.  The explanation doesn't have to be a good one (obviously the other side in a dispute doesn't just get to say "that argument is bad, I'm ignoring it", since that's the locus of dispute), but I think it should be a general rule that reverts made to good-faith edits have to either explicitly or implicitly cite some policy, editorial guideline, or essay that justifies the revert; or, failing that, at least provide some explanation on talk.  It doesn't have to be a good one - as long as there's an attempt to provide a rationale, it's sufficient - but I feel that reverting good-faith edits without explanation (or with an explanation that doesn't make any sense, like the circular argument that an edit lacks consensus when nobody has yet objected to it) is unacceptable and should lead to sanctions of some sort if people do it repeatedly.  Once they've satisfied that bare minimum, however, WP:QUO applies and ideally the two parties to the dispute should be encouraged to hash it out based on the points of disagreement.  (If you want to get technical it then shifts back and forth as they make and argue their points, but assessing who's right, if neither backs down, requires the use of our other dispute-resolution mechanisms, like WP:RFCs.  I don't think the way WP:RFCs are closed is at issue here, though certainly WP:ONUS doesn't reflect that policy right now.)  EDIT:  I'd also point out that while you say it's hard to prove a negative, our policies are really structured in a way that makes it very hard to argue for inclusion in a vacuum - almost no policies mandate inclusion (the best you can do is vaguely point to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV when something's exclusion causes problems along those lines.)  By comparison, there's a huge range of policies covering almost every possible reason to exclude, so it should be easy for someone removing something to at least vaguely point to a policy in order to give the other party a hint of what they need to prove.  (eg. "rv, WP:UNDUE" is requesting a very different sort of evidence than "rv, sources fail WP:RS", which is different than "rv, fails WP:NPOV" or eg. citing some part of WP:NOT.  I feel objecting to an inclusion should have to include that bare minimum so both sides know what they're actually arguing about - after that's been provided, then it's possible to argue for inclusion by digging into whether or not that policy applies.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus by both real world and wiki-definition is something stronger than exists in a "close one". So there are situations which are inherently "no-consensus". Providing a better framework / metrics for such dispute in some of the dysfunctional or missing policies would help these a lot. A few that come to mind: These would both help avoid disputes and help resolve them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Degree of directness of wp:relevance
 * The core method in wp:weight (tally up sources) is impossible to use. Fix that.
 * The more contentious the claim, the stronger the sources required. Metrics for strength of sourcing should include the current ones plus expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which it is supporting.
 * Degree of encyclopedicness of the item. wp:not is no substitute for this
 * The alternative to a No Consensus needn't be Consensus, just Keep or Delete the bit in question. No precedent setting or presumption of a new normal afterward, just a decisive finish to that contest. A general uncertainty can still hang over the wider community between close ones, all the better for the narrow losers to refine their argument and maybe get the next one. Save the Consensus award for ideas that smoke their rivals three times or something, maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I understand you correctly? Currently, the only actionable finding from an RFC is "consensus".  You are basically saying that whichever way the close ones are leaning (even if short of consensus) also becomes an actionable finding on inclusion/exclusion RFC's? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd like, but I'm no boss. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Status quo ante" is construed to apply to a version of an article that is merely hours old. A version of an article that is merely a few hours old is construed as being a "long-standing" version. See the Talk page of Virginia Beach shooting. (And un-hat the hatted area.) For instance "That would be the status quo ante. One version precedes another, by definition of time being a continuum that goes from past to future. It doesn't matter how much time passes." You are wrong when you say Defaulting to a long-standing version that is not really long-standing is an "action". Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Since my previous flowchart cleared up the previos discussion, let's see if this other flowchart will clear up the current discussion: It's pretty straightforward and there's nothing philosophical about it. You want to include something? It needs to follow policies A, B, C... You want to remove something? You need to explain why it goes against consensus or policies A, B, C... The onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to move away from existing consensus. Bright☀ 15:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the proper way to talk about this is not about the including of material but about preferred versions of articles. An RfC should be framed as "Version A" versus "Version B". We should not have RfCs about whether we should include material or not. Two explicit versions of the article should be presented for discussion. At the end of the RfC only one version should be allowed entry into the article. I think all this stuff about "no-consensus for inclusion" and "long-standing version" and "status quo ante" is useless. The first order of business is properly wording an RfC so that the choice is between two "versions" of an article. And at the close of an RfC the "winning" version should immediately be put in place, regardless of the version that may be in place if the article was protected or what version happened to be in place before the RfC began. We cannot rush to post an RfC. Preliminary discussion may be necessary before an RfC even begins in order to agree on two "versions" that reasonably reflect a dispute that presumably is already underway. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CIRC
Although using Wikipedia as a reference might create a circularity, this is not necessarily, and not usually, the case. For example, using a (referenced) German WP article as a reference in an English WP article is not circular. This is one of those areas where WP editors can be too anal. The idea that a normal (non-obsessive) WP editor would want to go to the trouble of copying references from the German article is daft - especially if s/he does not speak German. Dadge (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not acceptable to cite German Wikipedia, since all open wikis (including Wikipedia) are self-published sources with user-generated content. WP:CIRC applies in addition to this. If the editor doesn't speak German and is unable to use an online translator, it would be best for them to add the Expand language tag to the article and let someone more proficient in German handle the article. Editors at the language reference desk and WikiProject Germany may also be able to help. However, editors should only cite sources that they understand. —  Newslinger  talk   10:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that copying other Wikipedia articles is allowed with proper attribution, and this includes non-English Wikipedias. A citation to the Wikipedia article would still not be appropriate here. —  Newslinger  talk   11:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible for a reference to the German WP to be circular... some editor at WP.de reads some bit of information here at WP.en, adds it to an article at WP.de (translating it into German). Then an editor here at WP.en reads it at WP:de and adds it to an article here at WP:en (translating it into English), thus completing the circle.
 * More importantly, in the process of translation, nuance of meaning can be lost. The original WP:en article may accurately reflect what was said in the source material, but after double translation (to German and then back to English) it may no longer do so.  This is why we need to cite the original source material at each step of the process... To ensure that translation drift does not occur. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the considered replies. I have seen messages on WP encouraging users to use material from non-English WP in order to expand English-WP entries. This should indeed be encouraged, as long as there are experienced editors who are willing to "tidy up" the perceived WP:CIRC issues. Dadge (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Aside from content about Wikipedia(s), no Wikipedia or WP article should be cited as a source. Where users are encouraged import material from other wikis the presumption is with the sources. Material from (say) the German WP is not cited to de.wp, but to the same sources cited in the German WP. As to the implied "value added" of the German editors having verified the material against the source, I say that does not carry over: every editor adding material to an article is responsible for verifying that material in the original (ie, non-Wiki) sources. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources are simply incorrect
Hello. I'm not sure about something. If I'm not mistaken, everything added to Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. But what if reliable sources are factually wrong? or what if two reliable sources contradict each other? How to go about from there? KoopaLoopa (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the sources are universally wrong, then Wikipedia will be wrong with them until they fix their mistake. If equally reliable sources disagree, then we should generally include the disagreement in the sources, without picking any side about which was is more likely to be correct.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A source can be discarded as unreliable, or discarded as unreliable for a particular statement, if it is dramatically, obviously, and unequivocally wrong. This is easiest to establish when the source is stating thing outside of its lane, in which case it should not have been used anyway (i.e. a newspaper article by a journalist making false statements of scientific fact). It is hard for a source to be that wrong. Giving a quote and stating it came from a specific primary source, when that quote does not appear in that primary source, is that wrong. Not much beyond that is so wrong. Opinions are not wrong. "I think they misinterpreted that source" is not wrong. And even in that quote case, it would have to be literally a false quote. "I think they paraphrased him incorrectly" is not a false quote. "I think they described it incorrectly" is not a false quote. So basically, unless the source you're talking about is literally saying that the Sun is green, or inventing new specific quotations, you're probably not dealing with an incorrect source, just one you disagree with, in which case leave it to consensus. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can think of a case where a source made an offhand comment that we subsequently did not include in an article after talk page consensus (see Talk:Tower defense). There's another article that I'm working off-and-on where pre-release discussion had a bunch of different descriptions for a "titan" mode of gameplay--I haven't gotten around to release discussion about the topic yet, but there should be one single objective answer as to the gameplay, not 5 answers (see Master X Master). --Izno (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a flaw with wp:ver. Knowledge and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it should be additional metrics that determine the strength of the sourcing in that particular context, and being clear-cut in error should / would then certainly affect that. Maybe some day we can fix it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if it is missing from wp:ver, the reliable sources noticeboard generally factors in these common-sense criteria so you could get help there. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * KoopaLoopa, when one source is wrong, use your Editorial discretion to omit it. Nobody can force you to cite a source that you think is inappropriate, right?  Find a better source and use that one instead.
 * When sources contradict each other, you have to give WP:DUE weight to all the points of view. For example, if Reliable Source #1 says that an artist was born in the US, and Reliable Sources #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 say that the artist was born in the UK, then you'd probably guess that there was a typo in the first source, and omit it.  But if half say that a musician makes pop rock and half say the genre is bubblegum, then you'd say that some say pop rock and some say bubblegum.  You wouldn't try to pick and choose.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: KoopaLoopa has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Zawl. There’s no need to give this discussion the time of day. WP:DENY.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Proof that WP:AGF is all too often a waste of everyone's time and effort. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still a worthy topic. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Like always, a the problem is when a wiki-lawyer POV warrior wants to keep the clearly erroneous material in. I remember one case where an otherwise reliable source chose one word wrong thus making an outlandish statement about a public figure. It was so outlandish that no other sources even addressed the question, so the statement stayed in with no contravening coverage. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A key point often overlooked: aside from self-evident errors and such, on what basis can some point be deemed incorrect without some other source? A lot of times people just "know" something is (allegedly) incorrect, without considering just how they came to have that supposed knowledge. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point which often comes into play. Often, but also often not. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

How can an independent source know about me?

 * ॐ||

I am wondering, how can an independent source's information be considered as a more valid than what I directly experience? ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, we have no way of knowing who you are. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you were way advanced, how can you be certain about what I directly experience?ॐ Tat Sat (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not really the place for broad discussion about the philosophy of knowledge. Does your question somehow pertain to editing Wikipedia?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See my response here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Unresolved discussion
Does anyone want to try to decide what the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 67 was?

The options are:


 * 1) This policy will say "Base articles upon..."
 * 2) This policy will say "Articles must be based upon..."

The first is a direction given to editors (something you really should do); the second is a declaration that any article that doesn't do this is in violation of the policy (something you must do, i.e., without exception). (Either way, the end of the sentence is the same; we're all in favor of good sources.)

The version currently in the policy was boldly changed a few months ago, and it is a stronger statement than has been there (for the last eight years?) in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd favor #1 which as I understand it is the long standing version.  Either is sort of a vague general statement  (by referring to the entire article, and using a somewhat ambiguous word "base") so I personally am not going into the weeds of a logic-of-sentence discussion.   But #1 is the long standing version changed with no discussion (?). Also it's better and smoother grammar. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I like consistency and here are two comments.
 * A The rest of the sentence provides important context.  In dispute is a sentence that says
 * .....upon reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * To the extent this sentence leaves out acceptable use of bised and self-published sources, it contradicts policy elsewhere. So I think whichever way this goes we need to add the sense of "generally" or "as much as possible"
 * B This conversation should probably expand to rope in the twin-sibling language in the nutshell bubble, which now says ...all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources....
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about using sources that require a paid account to view
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I would like to know the stance on adding sources that require one have a paid subscription to read. If all you are able to see without paying is a short blurb that does not actually reflect the statement for which one is sourcing, is it still allowed? How can a reader, or an editor, establish that the source actually does back up the statement if they cannot read it? (For example, a website article that has a short paragraph ending in ... to continue reading, please log in or purchase a new subscription. Thanks in advance, Ariel  ♥  Gold  15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They are acceptable, see WP:PAYWALL. On the other hand, if a quality alternative is open access, switch (or list both). You can also tag these with Template:Paywall. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Curious though, how can it be determined if the source actually does state what the person adding it claims, if it is a rare, obscure, out-of-date publication, or pay-walled source? Is it just taken as a sort of WP:AGF? Ariel  ♥  Gold  16:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of paywalled sources, you can verify what the source says by paying the fee to access the source. For hardcopy print sources... you can often find out-of-print publications through a public library.  Our requirement is that our information be verifiable... not that it be easy to verify. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you READ the links I posted? One of them explains one way to do what you need. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the links. Of course I did... but they don't actually answer what I'm wondering. (Also, perhaps you didn't intend to be rude, but it came across that way.) Perhaps I didn't word my question clearly. For example, it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." But that page doesn't specify if multiple people need to verify the source before it is allowed in those cases - especially when so much is now available online, and there may be an online source that could be used instead. Per WP:RSC "Reliable sources must be able to be verified." Is it a policy for editors to go to the Resource Exchange prior to adding an offline, or paid source to have it verified first?  Ariel  ♥  Gold  17:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy is to assume that the person adding the source is being honest about what it says. If there is a doubt then the first thing to do is bring it up on the talk page or at a noticeboard. Serial misuse of sources can, quickly, lead to an indefinite block. The cost of "anyone can edit" is that correction usually comes after the fact. Jbh  Talk  19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See SciHub. (Provided for information only. Not an endorsement. etc. etc.) Jbh  Talk  19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ...if your concerned that something is off you can ask for help at WikiProject Resource Exchange....there they may be able to access the sources in question.-- Moxy 🍁 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If I seemed rude, it's because the link I posted said to seek help at the place Moxy just mentioned. Personally, I would have said "thanks" here and posted there.  If I understand, someone said X based on ObscureSource-FOO.  You start by assuming good faith which might mean assuming if there is a mistake its an honest one.  So if you want to pursue verification, you wait patiently until you can get to a library that has or can interlibrary loan ObscureSource-FOO (maybe on microfilm) or ask at the resource exchange or call some reference librarian at some university that has it in the resource collection.   Maybe one of them can copy or jpg you a page?  What about talking to the other editor to find out where they saw it?  Will they copy or jpg you a page?  I mean, just for verification purposes (I'm not sure if that's technically a copyvio but personally I'd ignore it in this context.) Is there any harm done in letting the edit you're unsure about remain "live" in an article while you track down the ObscureSource-FOO?  Out of curiousity, where is the disputed edit?  Can we peek in?  Maybe that will allow for additional ideas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is of much more help. Until proven otherwise, they stand as valid and don't need more than one person to confirm. There is no disputed edit, just me wishing to verify and brush up on current policy. Ariel  ♥  Gold  18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy editing! when in doubt, always start by asking the other ed to talk about it, assuming they're still around. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ought to be very careful about using paywalled sources for BLPs, I'd think. Verifiability ought to be at a higher standard, especially if source is possibly being selectively paraphrased to support a POV. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are excellent sources that are paywalled, such as the Oxford English Dictionary or the New York Times. Good sources are better than mediocre sources, even if the good source is paywalled and the free one isn't. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can make something up (or more likely twist what is actually reported), misrepresent the paywalled source as supporting it. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This does happen, and people who do it are warned, then sanctioned, then banned if they don't stop (or maybe straight to indef if it's clearly bad faith). Common sense applies, and it's pretty normal to see editors be cautious with hard-to-access sources, especially if the claim is controversial, and even more so if it's being cited by a new or unregistered user. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Claims about high-profile people only found behind a paywall are suspicious. Better to encourage finding a non-paywalled source for such. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat amused how often this question arises, for the fact that books are effectively "paywalled"... --Izno (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think of books as time-walled, not pay-walled. If my own library system doesn't have it, Interlibrary Loan has never let me down.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

self-published sources
Discuss first, edit later. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't get the memo. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's advisable to be bold on policy pages. I haven't kept track of the times there's been an issue with guidance pages like this only to find some editor made unilateral changes for no good reason. Welcome to WP:BRD. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, what? I did the B, you did the R, and now we're on the D. Why are you pooh-poohing the B? And before you say anything else, the box at the top says Changes made to it should reflect consensus; my addition does reflect consensus, as two other editors, plus me, are trying to help you understand -- just not specifically on this page. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Special:Diff/911880777/911881344, I think WP:ABOUTSELF should cover these use cases, in which the self-published sources are treated as primary source equivalents. —  Newslinger  talk   22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And because there's often misunderstanding on this particular point I thought I'd bring it out explicitly -- there's no thing new about it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. opens room for allowing self-published sources, as if we don't have enough about that, already. Wikipedia should not be allowing the use of SPS to document what somebody said online. Unless The New York Times talked about it, it doesn't matter.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that change gives that allowance... it is inline with WP:BLPSPS. --M asem (t) 01:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, exactly. Where a secondary source says, "X tweeted an explanation on DATE which was widely seen as misleading", we can certainly go to the tweet itself and quote it. We do it all the time. Usually we do this only where a secondary source has called attention to the tweet (or blog post, or press release, or whatever) because otherwise there's a danger we're cherry-picking. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ground Control to Major Tom. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest at WT:INB
A discussion relevant to the section on circular references on this project which may be of interest to you, is taking place at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. See WT:INB. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC re a verification issue
An RFC is being held at WT:MOTOR re the referencing of results tables in motorsport articles. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a silly question
But how to deal with cited sources that may meet all or most the "reliable" criteria, maybe were not even debunked (overlooked) by other reliable sources (or these are way too obscure to find), but make blatantly wrong or outright bullshit claims. E.g. a picture of two donkeys and a bactrian camel standing together titled as "llama herd" or "ruritanian army used these local horse breeds extensively" in some "reliable" source. Since just pointing at it here would be an "original research"?.. 95.32.25.39 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even the most reliable sources can contain errors. When one does, don’t use it. Use other reliable sources instead. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that other editors may use it and refuse to accept deletions and corrections. 95.32.25.39 (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also it might be not even an honest mistake but deliberate falsification in the source. 95.32.25.39 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When there is a disagreement over content (or the sources that support content), follow our Dispute Resolution process. First, go to the article talk page and explain why you think the source is erroneous.  Point out what other reliable sources say on the matter.   Listen to what other editors say and try to compromise.  If that does not resolve the conflict, ask neutral third parties (ie editors who are not part of the dispute) to examine the situation and opine.  Perhaps file a “Request for Comments” (RFC). Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's probably solvable instance by instance in most cases by WP:Consensus prior to a formal RFC. It's not a perfect system, but it works in practice most of the time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the shortcut WP:SELFPUB point to the WP:SELFPUBLISH section?
In case someone here has an opinion on it, I listed the shortcut at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion § WP:SELFPUB – Thjarkur (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding to page
I added a band member to Green Jelly page and it was removed why? Bambamm109w (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Bambamm109w, Please see the articles talk page and read the discussion about adding to that list. Thanks, - Samf4u (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

SPS
This may be of interest [].Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF, what counts as unduly self serving or exceptional?
ABOUTSELF has four listed exceptions. I have a question about the intent of #1, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; What is considered unduly self-serving or exceptional? I've seen this debated in several articles so I think a clarification of the intent may be helpful. Springee (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the reason why this is coming up please see Talk:Andy_Ngo and Noticeboard. I'd ask Springee to please kindly keep this discussion at least a little bit centralized and not initiate questions on other noticeboards without linking back to the central discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How many different places has Springee tried to move this to now to ask the same question again? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Strike per EVADE . Springee (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this topic has come up more than once it would be worth having a clarifying discussion here regardless of the article specific discussion. Springee (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my experience most noticeboards look poorly upon requests for general commentary on broad policies; especially when the concerns are being raised in response to a specific incident. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So what is the correct way to raise this question? Springee (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Curious about this myself, actually. Would presume some claim that would raise an eyebrow, like speaking seven languages or the like. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily... if it is already known that the subject speaks “many” languages, then an ABOUTSELF claim that “the number of languages spoken is actually seven” wouldn’t be self-serving.
 * I think the key to this is whether the claim made in a self-promotional context. If so, then the ABOUTSELF nature of the claim is suspect, and should not be considered reliable. If Professor Charles Le Tan self published an advertisement in a newspaper that stated “Professor Charles Le Tan’s patented snake oil elixir cures cancer” ... that would obviously be an example of self-serving. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At a different board where this issued was raised, I suggested a further consideration of a self-serving statement that is "solicited" - not necessarily the best word but in a situation where the person's self-statement is being made in response into what RSes sources are stating about them, which has been deemed appropriate for inclusion within WP, as a counterpoint or the like to those statements. Such as denials that accusations made about them are true, apologizing for newly-raised past transgressions, or stating in their words what their stance on an issue is. All that is inline with a neutral POV. This does not mean we need to give equal weight to that person's view, nor treat their view as Wikivoice fact (100% of the time should be attributed), and in some more cases, this could be seen as a fringe view and treated like that. But it should be there if this is part of some back-and-forth controversy or similar situation, as in such cases, its hard to call that as "unduly" self-promotion. --M asem (t) 22:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A few key points are missing from this analysis by Masem, at least in regard to the Andy Ngo interview on Joe Rogan's podcast that sparked Springee's page-hopping:
 * 1 - The response comes seconds after Ngo is prompted for the "audience correct" response not just once but twice in short succession.
 * 2 - The response is used, approximately a minute later, to frame Ngo as a "center" journalist reporting on "far left militancy", which is a far cry from what WP:Reliable Sources in the article assess. This is exactly the sort of "unduly self serving" situation that is problematic in that we cannot expect Ngo to be honestly representing his position on the political spectrum. It is not merely a matter of him representing his own position, but doing so to paint his targets in relative terms.
 * At least that's where I see the unduly line being crossed, Masem has not contested the self-serving aspect. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out there, as a WP editor you cannot assess motive behind a statement made in an interview without crossing the OR boundary. If you consider that interview self-serving, I can easily point to 100s of interviews on national news of lawmakers and the like saying what they know the audience wants to hear which would be "self-serving" in the same sense, but we don't blink at that in our articles. That's where I've stressed that we need to evaluate "unduly self-serving" in the context of the information being added to the WP article and whether that addition makes it unduly self-serving, not where the information originated from and made in an unduly self-serving manner. --M asem (t) 06:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that's a gross misrepresentation of the policy as written. ""you cannot assess motive behind a statement made in an interview without crossing the OR boundary" in the text of the article itself. This is, however, an analysis of whether or not the material unduly self-serving and should not be included in the first place. If we were to place something such as "Ngo claimed in the Rogan interview to be center-right but we find he was motivated to say so illegitimately" in the article text that is when WP:OR would matter. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost anything can be interpreted as self-serving and so I think that we must recognize that the policy is unclear / gives little guidance in this area. The structural distinction that I made below goes by reason of the mere presence of the topic. In short, if the topic is deemed suitable for coverage, then their stance and reasons for the stance are also appropriate.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * North8000 has it: the policy is not clear, but considering practice, the "unduly self-serving" is applied to the context of the article, not the origins of the information that is being used. It is meant to avoid self-promotion and the like, not to play games in what views around controversial topics should be included (we are expected to be impartial, but apply appropriate weight to views). --M asem (t) 19:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I can think of three not recent examples where aboutself could have come into play. The first was EXXON's reply to some news stories claiming it's scientist understood the impact of CO2 on global warming as early as the 1970s []. EXXON issued an extensive rebuttal to the report including a number of internal documents. RS's noted that the company issued a denial but such phrasing often sounds like "the guy with the spray paint on his hands denied tagging the wall." In such a case I think it is reasonable to include a link to the company's statements and some level of summary. It shouldn't be long but if we have 2 paragraphs of accusations then at least a few sentences to summarize the rebuttal seams reasonable. I think a case like this easily meets the standard Masem has suggested. Per DUE the new article made it to the Wikipedia page. The company specifically replied to the news article thus the aboutself was directly related to something in the Wiki article. I certainly don't see a direct and detailed reply to a new report with a great deal of damning claims as unduly self serving. I would argue the same of GM's reply to the Dateline NBC expose on the saddle mount gas tanks. In that case a lot of news was made regarding Dateline's rigged demonstrations but I'm not sure if the article ever references any of GM's own replies to the controversy. Probably not needed in that case but I feel it would be reasonable per ABOUTSELF.[] This case raises an interesting question. GM paid Exponent to investigate the NBC story. Does the Exponent report count as 3rd party or ABOUTSELF? My third example I'm sure will be more controversial. It involves a suggestion to add a summary of the NRA's position on various possible gun laws. Not something simplistic like "against red flag laws". Rather something more like "The NRA opposes red flag laws for the following reasons:" In this case there wouldn't be any one particular story that the NRA would be replying to. Instead my thinking goes more like this. The NRA generates a huge amount of controversy because it opposes various proposed gun laws. Additionally, it puts a huge amount of money and effort into fighting against those laws. This is what but the article is very light on details as to why. Even if readers don't agree with the thinking, I believe readers would get more out of the article if it explained the logic behind the actions even if that means directly referencing the NRA's reasoning. While I personally think such information would make a better article, I know some opposed the idea as unduly self serving and this point isn't without merit. I think we would object to spreading a politician's talking points, cited to their website, for the same reason. I bring it up here not to debate the merits of changing that article but rather as a talking point to debate the reasonable boundaries of ABOUTSELF point #1. Springee (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think these Honda Ridgeline articles are good examples of ABOUTSELF being UNDULY self serving [][]. In the case of the first generation vehicle we have a long list of unremarkable equipment such as front and rear tow hooks and power windows. All sourced directly to Honda websites. In the second generation we get some PR puffery to boot. Earth Dreams V6 engine with variable cylinder management—which is designed to operate in three-cylinder mode when not under load This strikes me as the sort of ABOUTSELF material that we are trying to avoid. Springee (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the distinctions that you made. I think that it would useful to point out the structural distinction between them.  For the first three cases, they are providing information on their stance (which includes the reasoning for it) where the stance is already a subject of coverage of the article which means that their "stance" (including their reasoning for it) is useful/relevant information.  In the last case is it is providing a stance answer to a question that nobody is asking about where the stance is not  a subject of coverage of the article.  E.g. the stance of the ABC company on whether or not their new ABC product is awesome and groundbreaking. So the coverage is primarily for promotional rather than informative purposes. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, "is there an encyclopedic reason for the material to exist there?" determines "unduly promotional" more so than judging the material.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the "in reply to" should generally be not unduly.  The NRA case is harder.  I think it should be but more because I think it's critical to understanding why the NRA does the things it does.  Something like WW2 doesn't make sense unless you understand the ending of WW1.  However, I think others may be less willing to accept that less direct path.  I think at least examples 1 and 2 should be clearly allowed under ABOUTSELF and would be open to suggestions as to how to propose the modification.  I'm not going to change policy without input from editors experienced in that area. Springee (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree also with the distinction, and I think the NRA example is a good one to also consider. For example, this question came up in relationship to a running candidate for office who wasn't getting much media coverage, so editors were turning to her political statements made on social media to try to flesh that out. That would be unduly for a candidate, but should that person win the office (and say, this a US Congressional office, so there's some importance to that) it would be reasonable at that point to list out their political positions as we usually do for nearly every other Congressperson; it is not unduly at that point because that tends to be standard practice. --M asem (t) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for addition to the policy page
OK, I've never edited a policy page so I wanted to follow up with some of the discussion above. First, if I'm going about this the wrong way please let me know. Second, I know we need consensus to make the change but does that mean RfC or just local consensus after a discussion like this?

The objective here is to add something to the effect that:
 * ABOUTSELF material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is not considered unduly self serving. 

If actions/ about self material may be both DUE and not unduly self serving in an article in cases where it is in direct or indirect response to questions/comments/criticism raised by others

Anyway, the current ABOUTSELF text says:
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * What about
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is generally not considered unduly self serving.
 * I'm not sure about the best way to deal with the loss of the semicolon at the end of the numbered line. Suggestions/comments?  Springee (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please give an example, from an actual editing situation, where this additional provision would apply. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Two of the three examples I gave in my 03:16, 17 September 2019 edit above are based on my editing experience. The Exxon case [] involved if we could include Exxon's response to, if I recall, an Inside Climate News based report alleging the company had good understanding of climate change but worked to spread misinformation.  The ICN article got quite a bit of press coverage and thus was DUE.  Exxon's reply generally got only limited coverage (typically "Exxon denied" sort of things).  I was struggling to figure out how to include even a link to what is a careful and detailed reply.  Finally I justified inclusion by noting another source linked to the Exxon reply.  Just from the POV of a good article (ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines etc) I think it's always best when we can offer both sides of a discussion.  Exxon's reply was detailed and included quite a bit of supporting evidence and facts that did undermine a number of the accusations.  It seemed like a very reasonable addition to me but, if I recall it was initially rejected as UNDUE since it hadn't received much in the way of RS coverage.


 * The NRA example I gave above didn't result in changes to the article as I didn't think I could get consensus for inclusion. The NRA article has a lot of information on the organization's political activities and how outside sources have viewed and responded to them etc.  What it lacks is any explanation as to why the NRA opposes various laws/regulations.  That looks like a critical oversight to me as the whole reason why the NRA became so politically involved was they were opposed to various laws.  Yet the article doesn't say why.  Here is one example [].  The discussion isn't 100% about what we are discussing here but is related.  If I recall there was text in the article that said the NRA was opposed to the ATF having the ability to run computer searches on gun purchase records.  I think as stated it made it sound like the NRA was doing this just to be difficult/obstructionist.  However, I think there was an NRA published article that said why they opposed these computer searches.  So currently the article states what, "NRA opposed to computer searches" but fails to say why.  The NRA claims/states why (and of course they could be lying) but inclusion was objected to on grounds that it was not DUE and was unduly self serving.


 * We also have the example from the Andy Ngo article where other sources describe Ngo's political beliefs but editors have objected to including Ngo's own answer to the same question. I think  had some examples in mind as well.  Springee (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The other case, in the negative, is about including a politician's position while they are in the running based only on their social media; the case is documented . Here consensus seems to be against the inclusion when the matter is not 'solicitated' from any external event or question, thus adding the information is self-serving. --M asem (t) 05:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my proposed edit? Does this need to go through a RfC process first? Springee (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You might try wp:bold and putting it in. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. I added the sentence to the end of the section rather than in the bulleted list because I couldn't figure out an elegant way to avoid messing up the semi-colon list. Springee (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * , please let me know what concerns you have. The discussion here seems to support the change.  Springee (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I vaguely recall making my post above I somehow missed the rest of the discussion -- it may be have the week I was comatose. I'll try to find some time tmw to review everything and comment intelligently. I'm out of coffee so ping me if don't. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At minimum you probably will want to link DUE. Alphabet soup is okay for talk pages, but we should resolve all those on policy pages. --M asem (t) 13:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, the added text was:
 * Material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to WP:DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is generally not considered unduly self serving.

So first of all, WP:DUE is about whether this or that bit of fact is worth the reader's time and attention, or unbalances an article's POV. I don't know what it means for questions/comments/criticism raised by others to be WP:DUE, unless maybe you mean they're the kind of criticism we would mention in the article.

Beyond that, I'm still unable to tell exactly what the proposed use case is. There's discussion above of Exxon and other cases, but I'm still unclear of what is wanted to go in the article, which is where the rubber meets the road. Please post a clear example: Person/company X was criticized this way, they responded this way, and we (maybe) can't use that response under current wording but could under new wording. Give examples of envisioned article text and links to the sources. The reason I'm asking for such specifics is that I have a feeling the response can, in fact, be used under currently policy, if it's properly interpreted, so I need something specific to talk about. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the intention of these additions is to ensure that a subject can respond to allegations or criticism against them with self-published rebuttals. Articles are generally allowed to include these responses without any changes to the existing policy. However, the key word "unduly" in bullet point #1 of WP:ABOUTSELF restricts the amount of content that can be included from self-published sources that are used in this way. Instead of altering this policy, I think a better solution would be to link the word "unduly" to WP:DUE. I think an expansion of WP:DUE would be the best way to address this. The quantity of content permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF is a due weight concern, and if the current text of WP:DUE leads to the exclusion of self-published rebuttals that should be included in articles, then a proposal to amend WP:DUE should be submitted to WT:NPOV. —  Newslinger  talk   03:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Changed suggestion to reflect point made by  below. —  Newslinger   talk   06:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just saw your comment. That looks like it could be interesting.  Are "DUE" and "unduly" meant to both refer to a question of weight?  Springee (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. I've always interpreted "unduly" in bullet point #1 as a reference to undue weight. When the use of a source falls under WP:ABOUTSELF, the most important policy that determines its inclusion is WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE. Expanding WP:DUE is probably a more effective way to ensure that certain types of rebuttals are included in articles on people and organizations (instead of amending WP:ABOUTSELF). —  Newslinger  talk   05:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. "Unduly" here is in the common English sense, essentially "more than is reasonable"; not the Wikipedia term of art. It is not related to the proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I say that because it is used here as an adjective modifying "self-serving", and WP:DUE makes no sense in that context. WP:ABOUTSELF is an explicit, limited, exception to WP:PROPORTION & WP:DUE. - Ryk72 talk 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the grammar. I still think WP:DUE is the main determinant for whether sources should be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, with WP:ABOUTSELF being an exception to WP:QS and WP:SPS rather than an exception to WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION. Under WP:ABOUTSELF, sources that are generally unreliable can be considered reliable in specific contexts, but can still be excluded as undue weight. —  Newslinger  talk   05:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would likewise agree, not least so because ABOUTSELF is here at V, not at NPOV. However, while I agree in theory, the practical issue that I see is that an unmodified DUE would render ABOUTSELF moot for anything about which there exists difference of opinion. Essentially, if it is only the article subject opining, it will always be considered UNDUE, and excluded. For example, if we have two or more RSOPINION tier sources that say "Ryk72 is a terrible editor", and I say "I'm not that bad, all things considered", DUE will be used to say we should not include the "minority" SPS opinion. And that's not what I read as the intent of ABOUTSELF. - Ryk72 talk 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE (part of WP:BLP) ensures that rebuttals from public figures aren't excluded as undue weight: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I can't find a similar rule for entities who are not considered public figures, so this could use some clarification at WT:NPOV. —  Newslinger  talk   08:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice find. I thank you for it. But I fear that PUBLICFIGURE is likely to be construed narrowly as only relating to a specific allegation or incident. I am thinking more broadly of WP:LABELs which are quite often couched as fact based on collection of very tenuous sources - reliable publishers, reliable publications, but (citogenetic) passing mentions or opinion pieces; and where we see DUE or FRINGE or even the "unduly self serving" of ABOUTSELF invoked to prevent inclusion of a rejection or rebuttal. But I don't want to sidetrack this discussion onto a broader set of issues, and hope to find a day or so to spare to write something up for The Signpost or elsewhere. - Ryk72 talk 09:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can attempt to better describe the examples above. Are you thinking about real, previous cases or something more like a hypothetical?  I'll try to better describe the ExxonMobile example. The current related paragraph is in this section and starts with, "In the fall of 2015, InsideClimate News published..."[]  The paragraph includes a claim, from a source that was well cited by news outlets, that ExxonMobile's internal scientists were in agreement on the causes of global warming, "worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.". Since the original report making this claim received a lot of coverage in the press it clearly had weight for inclusion in this article.  The question is what to do with the EM reply to the report.  The company's reply was not covered as widely but did contain material that directly undermined some of the claims made in the original report (see citations 5 and 57).  The problem is those sources are arguably company press releases.  The detail in those sources largely was not covered my outside media.  However, if you look at the second half of this discussion [] (starting with "Jess, thanks for reversing the crazy quotes.") you can see that EM was making a strong case for selective quoting in the article that was critical of EM.


 * I'm not sure if that is a great example or not. I think the Andy Ngo case is a good example (other than the contentious nature of the discussion) [].  Look at the discussion starting around Sept 11 where it is discussed if it's reasonable to include an interview with Ngo where he claims to be a centrist.  Article related dispute here [].  The general argument against inclusion is that it's a violation of DUE (few sources claim he is centrist or report that he self-identifies as centrist) and that allowing Ngo to make the claim is unduly self serving.  The unduly part is why we are talking about this.  There is a disagreement if ABOUTSELF would see this as unduly self serving.  My feeling is, absent any particular editing rule, if a number of sources say X is red but X self identifies as red-blue, then the simple disagreement becomes a point of interest for readers and thus should be in the article.  Readers can decide if the claim is worth crediting.


 * OK, I'm rambling a lot and just looked at the clock, need to head to bed. Hopefully this is enough to start to get a better idea when this might come into play.  Springee (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you just give the text you'd like to see in the article for this situation (complete with links to sources, assuming they're on line)? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which article do you mean "for this article?" Springee (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Any article. Any actual example of text you'd like to see in an actual article which you think isn't allowed under the current policy but would be under the proposed change. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "isn't allowed" is the useful case. Probably the useful case is "suitable for the article and meets the intent of policies but where wiki-lawyers can easily use the policy to knock out material that they don't like." <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't allowed, deprecated, looked at askance, whatever. A concrete example from an actual article. I'm begging you. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't given up on this but I've been busy off line. Springee (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated sources
Watchers of this page may be interested in this discussion at VPPRO about deprecated sources. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers
The policy says that mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. How can we determine if some newspaper is mainstream? Should we explain the mainstreamness criteria?

Second question: are all newspapers by default considered mainstream unless the opposite is demonstrated, or vise versa: those editors who add a newspaper article are expected to provide a proof that they are mainstream?

Do policy or guidelines say anything about that, and if not, maybe we should explain that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the entire "Other reliable sources include: ..." statement from the policy: it is a travesty of the more nuanced approach in the guideline-level WP:SOURCETYPES guidance. There is no blanket approval of "mainstream newspapers" as reliable sources: the expression doesn't even occur in the more nuanced guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I can see little chance of progress with this RfC (and look at the vast confusion around WP:RSN on this topic) unless the terms used are defined clearly from the outset. Not just "mainstream" but also "tabloid", "deprecated" (see WP:DEPS) as the most problematic. The "mainstream" papers in the UK are presumably those with the widest circulation, which AFAIK are the The Daily Mail and The Sun, two of those with the lowest opinion of them for reliability as sources.
 * I don't think a term of "mainstream", by any useful definition we can arrive at, would have any useful correlation for reliability. As such, do we even care if a newspaper is "mainstream"? Does that matter to us (as regards using it as a source). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that "mainstream" generally relates to circulation. Papers that get national or international publication or are the type you can commonly find archives at your local library even if the city of publication is on the opposite of the country/world. It would exclude local and regional newspapers appropriately. --M asem (t) 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how I understood that. However, some users argue that any newspaper (including a local one) is considered mainstream until the opposite has been demonstrated. The stable version of policy allows that interpretation. I think if the words "mainstream newspaper" will remain in the policy, it should be supplemented by some explanations, similar to what you did in your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, just remove word "mainstream" please. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's stop using newspapers We're an encyclopedia, not a news agregator. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This may depend on the subject area, but in the realm of current events that's extremely difficult to do, as newspapers provide major sourcing, especially in the beginning. As the scholarship solidifies and/or as published books are written, there may be some replacements done. Also WP:NOTNEWS is quite clear that news is often something desired on Wikipedia, but not routine news. (obviously not all news should be on Wikipedia, so maybe WP:NOTALLNEWS would be a better name for the guideline?) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We should follow WP:NEWSORG and leave it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly (we can and should use newspapers and other similar RS), but there is nothing wrong with just removing one word "mainstream". My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSORG contradicts to this version of WP:V (whereas I think the recent change was an improvement, I an not sure it will survive, so I discuss the recent stable version). If the policy says: "Mainstream newspapers are RS", and guidelines say that some materials in some newspapers are reliable, what is more authoritative? The policy's text literally means that all what is published in "mainstream newspapers" (and magazines, btw) is reliable. That means we either define what does "mainstream" mean, or remove "mainstream" (which means anything published in any newspaper is reliable), or replace the statement "newspapers are reliable sources" with "some newspaper materials may be reliable, see guidelines for more details". The later is more preferable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The part I removed also declared that journals were "other" reliable sources (that is "other" than "respected mainstream publications" which were declared reliable sources in the previous sentence). Now, journal is ambiguous, its first meaning on the dab page being diary. To the best of my knowledge an unpublished diary can *never* be a RS in Wikipedia. The whole statement was beyond repair as far as I'm concerned: it could not be repaired without copying large portions of the WP:RS guideline unto the policy page. That guideline never had a policy level of approval, so copying it here can not be done without broad community consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose to wait several days, collect more opinions, then I'll remove the RfC template, and we will start an new RfC about the more clearly formulated question about possible policy improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How does WP:NEWSORG contradict WP:NEWSBLOG? I adhere to both and have never had an issue. No need to ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently, there seems to be no contradiction. However, the stable version of the policy said that "Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources". Some users interpreted it as "any materials published in a [mainstream] newspaper is RS" (and any newspaper was considered mainstream by them until the opposite has been demonstrated). You are lucky that you had no problems, but I had.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Don't want to speak for Paul, but I guess he meant the section above on that version of the page, i.e. – that is the version of that section that contained the "Other reliable sources include: ..." statement which I removed this morning: that statement is incompatible with WP:NEWSORG, declaring all "mainstream newspapers" to be reliable sources. The least that should have happened after the RfC that almost completely outruled Daily Mail is point to important exceptions in that regard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
 * A mainstream news source is one that has demonstrated a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness. Mainstream news sources may lean certain ways in their opinion and editorial content politically, but are not shown to fabricate stories or alter facts, either through commission or ommission, to fit their political narrative.  Examples such as the Guardian, the Times of London, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal are all generally considered mainstream news sources, but newer sources that have developed a similar reputation such as BuzzFeedNews are generally fine.  News sources that are known to have, as their purpose, the advancement of a political position without regard for accuracy, are not mainstream.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With the post by User:Masem at 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC) in mind, circulation is an important factor in whether a newspaper is mainstream, but a newspaper need not have national circulation to be mainstream. For example, I would consider the Hartford Courant to be mainstream even though I can't buy a paper copy in Vermont, and can't find paper or microfilm copies at the nearest university library. It is the main newspaper in Connecticut, what is sometimes called a "newspaper of record". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But is the Courant usually discussed alongside NYTimes, BBC, London Times, etc.? Mainstream newspapers should be a very limited member group. I would pull some list out of Pew RC or CJR to be the basis for that, and I know from the past stuff they've pulished, the Courant would not be on that. "Newspaper of record" while a very valid term relates more to the reliability of the source, whereas with "mainstream" here, we're trying to establish something akin to readership, public awareness, or the like. --M asem  (t) 19:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The stable version of the policy before today's changes said
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers"


 * So we are saying a mainstream newspaper is one with similar reliability to a book from a respected publishing house. If a good publishing house published a guide to New England stone walls, we wouldn't put much weight on what such a book had to say about stone walls in Ireland. But it would be fine to cite it for New England stone walls. Similarly, if an article concerned a recent event in Hartford, Connecticut, citing the Hartford Courant could be at least as appropriate as citing the New York Times. We could also cite the Courant for an event in Los Angeles that was taken from one of the wire services. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on that, I would simply replace "Mainstream newspapers" with "newspapers of record". Something being "mainstream" has no bearing on quality. For example, for all purposes, Daily Mail is "mainstream" but we wouldn't use that for anything nowadays. --M asem (t) 20:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I understand correct that "newspapers of record" is a very small subset of newspapers?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Newspaper of record" has many meanings. Considering the United States, our article on the topic only mentions the New York Times and the Washington Post. But there are thousands of US newspapers which carry legal notices, so are newspapers of record in that sense; some of those consist mainly of ads and local-interest fluff like which organizations marched in the Independence Day parade. Even if we defined the term to the paper people would look to find out about an important local event, like an election or a major crime, there would be hundreds of US newspapers that fit that description. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, a solution should be that newspapers are not considered reliable source by default, but there are some clear exceptions? As you said, some newspapers may be reliable sources for some topics, but that has to be demonstrated by the one who adds such a source. Clearly, some local newspaper should be considered a reliable source for an article about some local event, but unreliable for an article devoted to some general issue, for example, science or history? Anyway, that would require some clarification, and the previous version of the policy page didn't do that adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like re-inventing WP:NEWSORG – and doing a bad job at it. I'm not averse to finding a short summary of the essentials of that guidance and putting it in the policy, but starting with a new set of ideas ("newspaper of record" and whatnot) that doesn't even connect to the current operational guidance on the matter seems to be going nowhere. "high-quality mainstream publications" are sanctioned as reliable sources by the current WP:V policy (*and* by the current WP:RS guideline, see introductory paragraph of its WP:SOURCETYPES section). What more do we need to say about newspapers in the policy? I've not seen anything come up in the current discussion that would even be marginally better than, nor even nearly as good as what already is in WP:NEWSORG. "Mainstream" is at best, to all extents and purposes, unrelated to the quality of a source, it doesn't define, as in not at all, whether a source is reliable. In the guidance (policy *and* guideline), mainstream is only used to differentiate from "academic", pointing to the fact that Wikipedia is not exclusively built on academic sources. Being "non-academic" is not a synonym for "reliable": the reliability depends on the quality of the mainstream source, and that quality is defined, in detail, at WP:SOURCETYPES. The short definition is in the first two paragraphs of the WP:SOURCE part of WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am pretty happy with your version of the policy, but I am not sure if it will be accepted. Maybe, if other users don't mind, we close this RfC and you start the new one to approve your version? Can you please think about the best wording, post it here, and, if other participants will agree with that, start an RfC. Your change is a significant change, and I think it would be good if it was approved by a community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No RfC is needed to remove unsuitable material from a core content policy. It had been overlooked for too long, that's all. Thank you for bringing the point to the table (the problematic passage may have been overlooked for much longer otherwise). You can remove the RfC box from the current section: write "withdrawn by OP" or something in that vein in the edit summary, and that's it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How can we be sure this your edit will not be reverted soon? I would prefer an ironclad RfC to make it stable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I see no further comments or objections, so O remove the RfC box. Let's hope the amended version of the policy will stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No position on the modification itself, but 24 hours isn't enough time for comment on a substantive policy change such as this. I've reverted. Sorry. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no substantive policy change, as the topic is currently, with a stable consensus, regulated by the WP:RS guideline. An older, de facto obsolete, formulation seems to have been left behind in the policy, and should be removed while completely non-operational and counterproductive. The removal was procedurally conforming to How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Policies outrank content guidelines, and the former aren't changed simply to conform to the latter. If it's been like this for so long another week won't matter. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually, it seems that the talk page discussion supported the change. Anyway, if you think the Francis Schonken's edit is a substantive policy change (and I agree with that), do you think we should renew the RfC? The tentative question may be as follows:
 * "Currently, the policy says that "Mainstream newspapers", "Journals", and "Magazines" are considered reliable sources. It seems to contradict to what WP:NEWSORG say. In addition, a recent talk page discussion demonstrated that the term "mainstream" needs clarification. The following change to the policy has been proposed to clarify that issue. Do you support this change?"
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion supported the change, but it had only been underway 36 hours. That's not enough for a fundamental policy such as V. Now I have a plea: please don't start an RfC yet. Just let the discussion here go on for a while (maybe post a invite at WP:RS), let the regulars sift through the possibilities for a week or more, and then, if there's an impasse or two good alternatives to be decided between, THEN start an RfC. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Francis Schonken already made such a post at RSN. How long does "for a while" means, in your opinion? Can you please do the following: just tell how long should we wait (tell the date), and then, if no objections/amendments/corrections will follow during that waiting period, revert your revert to introduce Francis Schonken's text. Does it work for you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For a substantive change to policy (and this is substantive) I'd wait at least a week. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One week? Let's wait two weeks, and if no objections/comments will follow, please, re-introduce the changes that you reverted on 28th of November. Ok?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two is good. But I don't know why I have some special role. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if you reverted just for procedural reasons, you will feel more comfortable if you reverted your revert by yourself, but that is up to you. By the way, I propose the following modification of the Francis Schonken's text:
 * "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in high-quality mainstream publications. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Further details on how and when such sources can be used as reliable sources are explained in guidance such as Identifying reliable sources and Search engine test."
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't plan to get into the details of this, but no way should a policy like V be delegating some of its responsibility to a sprawling how-to like WP:Search engine test. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I myself find it odd. However, that question deserves a separate thread. In my opinion, "Search engine test" contains many valid points, however, I agree it should be at least upgraded to a guidelines status to be mentioned at the policy page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALKFIRST, I am notifying participants of this talk page discussion that this thread was partially inspired by this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I like the word "mainstream". What we're really trying to get at is, the term used in the WP:NOR policy. It would be sensible and useful to reinforce that here instead of introducing a different word like "mainstream", which is apt to be interpreted as more of a WP:NPOV matter. Also, WP:NEWSORG is correct (and importantly so) that only some material in newspapers is reliable or secondary.  Editorials, op-eds, columns, humor pieces, most forms of review, most forms of interview, and of course the advertising(!) are all primary-source material.  So is "news" that's just a regurgitation of a press release, or regurgitation of eye-witness testimony or other primary sources, without any significant WP:AEIS on the part of the writers/editors. And some investigative journalism can be primary, at least in part, e.g. when it's one of those "Here's my grueling odyssey of how I dug up the dirt on this company over the course of two years, and here's my pointed conclusions based on what I found and how much they dodged" kind of heavily first-person-perspective piece (more common in magazines). Some material can be tertiary, such as sidebar tables of stats cobbled together from official sources.   I agree that this policy should not delegate anything to essays, nor to guidelines, or even other policies, except where the material better fits in the other policy, or the material is non-essential detail/explication that's better in a guideline.  Essays (including how-to/information page essays) are off the table.
 * SMcCandlishDo you agree that the current version of the policy contradicts to NEWSORG? If yes, now do you propose to fix this contradiction?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Per SMcCandlish, M asem, Francis Schonken, Jayron , Jc3s5h, and Flyer22 Reborn, I am going to replace "mainstream newspapers" with "newspapers that have demonstrated a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness". Although I agree that is not an optimal wording, I suggest to make that interim change while the policy in being discussed on a talk page. I also suggest to think about "Journals" and "Magazines", because based on the policy's letter one may conclude that Playboy is RS for Wikipedia articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not against the replacement, but I feel a word like "broad" or "wide" or "widespread" in front of "reputation" would help. I may vouch my local hometown newspaper is never wrong, and thus meets what you said, but I would never use that as a key source for a contentious passage, for example. Its the fact the reputation is more global than local is what is key. --M asem (t) 16:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just realized that we can combine "Journals" "Newspapers", and "Magazines". I suggest:
 * "Journals, magazines and newspapers that have a broad circulation and demonstrated a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness".
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That works, though you may have to footnote what is implied by "broad" (to me, being generally of national or international distribution, irrespective of the Internet). But that would be only something to add if editors misuse that. --M asem (t) 17:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I am not sure why you are against Internet: many respectable mass-media are currently existing in a digital format only. Anyway, we can talk about that later, because this version is by no means final--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) IMHO that would be worse than suboptimal:
 * Your disclosure above that you came here from another discussion (a discussion that has now spread to yet another forum where you engaged in it and where it is still active) makes you less suitable to change the policy, lest it would suggest you're updating the policy in order to support your point in that discussion. I'm happy with the suggested grace period of a few weeks before any further changes to the policy (to which you committed too), and would not have updated it when you had done your disclosure *before* I had the opportunity to make any changes. The paragraph is currently marked as "under discussion" with a link to this discussion, that should be enough for anyone wanting to refer to the policy in a discussion to not support an argument based on it without reserve.
 * I prefer "high-quality" over "reputable": reputable is only one of many qualities that make a newspaper rather reliable than unreliable. Other qualities include peer-reviewed, content checked by an editorial board, policy w.r.t. retraction of errors, etc. And "high-quality" is the wording used in the guideline on reliable sources, to which the section in the policy refers.
 * It would solve nothing: the wording would still be thus that unpublished diaries receive a seal of approval as reliable sources (which we definitely don't want), and that reputable newspapers are reliable sources "other" than respected mainstream publications.
 * So let's return to the one or two weeks grace period without significant new comments on the topic before anything gets changed in the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, your selective pinging of *some* participants in the debate, while leaving out others, can be seen as a form of selective WP:CANVASSing: that is not a way to get to a quick decision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, simply saying "mainstream" (or nothing) is a lot better. A good RS should not necessarily have a very broad circulation, and the rest ("a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness") is a repetition of something already on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream" is not synonymous with "realiable" which is the problem. I understand the concern that this change appears to cut out other sources, but I would suggest then, starting the line before the list with "includes but is not limited to:" to impart that the list that follows is what we prefer but we don't exclude other sources as long as they fit the definition of RS. --M asem (t) 17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. That sounds good. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a fundamental change in policy, for which there is no consensus whatsoever: it would promote an uncontrollable host of sources "other" than respected mainstream publications (read: about any disrespected source) to the "reliable" criterion. Actually, in a Trump era that might work: about any source disrespected by the most important American could probably pass as a reliable source, but then we'd need to change the policy again when the next president chooses to respect reputable sources. Sorry for the cheap joke. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See my responce to Masem on 17:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My disclosure was a pure formality, because the source that I was going to exclude is not RS even per a current version of the policy.
 * I am satisfied with your version, but I already see that other object to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand you: do you propose to make policy more loose? "includes but is not limited to" means that policy declares any source may be potentially reliable. That makes the policy toothless and senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even without that change (yours and what I suggested), I never read that list as wholly inclusive (things not listed are excluded), but to give an idea where editors unfamiliar with policies of where to start for sources. Adding both your wording and mine does not weaken the policy, as I see it, since this is more descriptive advice than prescriptive instructions. --M asem (t) 17:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, a correct way would be to write: "The type X, Y, Z sources are reliable; other sources may be also reliable, but the decision about their reliability should be made on a case-by-case basis as described in details in guidelines AAAA".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe instead of Other reliable sources include: we say Preferred non-academic reliable sources include: (with your above text for newspapers/journals/magazines) and then after the list Other sources may be used on a case-by-case basis if they are determined to be reliable sources by consensus. But the gist is there. We do not want to imply the list given is the only extend of allowed sourcing. --M asem (t) 17:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how it works: every source "type" has a list of ifs and buts that can make it more reliable, or less reliable, depending on use, etc. That is the essence of the WP:SOURCETYPES guidance: that can not be reduced to the "absolutes" needed in a core content policy, and that's why the WP:V policy and the WP:RS guideline are two separate pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * M asem, again, we should provide a clear and exhaustive list of typical acceptable sources (which are acceptable without reservations), and supplement it with the link to the rules that describe how should we determine reliability of the sources that are less standard, or that are being used in less standard way. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot nor should not provide an exhaustive list as policy pages are not meant to be prescriptive, but descriptive of practice, and by that nature, it is impossible to provide an exhaustive list. We can provide a list that is most common in practice and point to where more advice is, but it is wrong to present a list as exclusionary to all others. --M asem (t) 18:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem on that one: for reasons explained above the exhaustive list is impossible, on moreso on a policy page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, when a policy says "X, Y, Z, and probably something else is allowed", that means everything is allowed, and the policy is a garbage. However, when a policy says that "an article published in a high rank peer-reviewed journal is allowed without reservations, whereas some other sources may also be allowed if some criteria (follow the link to see details) are met that would be a good policy.
 * In other words, we should provide an exhaustive list of what is allowed without reservations (peer-reviewed journal, university monographs, editorials in top rank newspapers, and some others), and the rules that define how should we deal with other sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, no: with all sympathy for the naiveté of your ideal (we were there too, some 15 years ago), it doesn't work, for reasons already explained, and many more implied by the WP:RS guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't understand what are you disagreeing with: that is exactly how the policy is currently organised. In addition, I think it would be correct to say that in all disputes about sources, 80% of disputes is about 20% of sources, whereas other 80% are pretty uncontroversial. I don't understand what prevents us from codifying what can be easily codified, and then to focus on the rules that explain how to deal with more controversial cases.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For clarity: with you, where you say "we should provide an exhaustive list of what is allowed without reservations (peer-reviewed journal, university monographs, editorials in top rank newspapers, and some others)" – in the policy no less. Please read the WP:SOURCETYPES guidance: the second sentence of the intro to that section starts with a lot of exceptions when "peer-reviewed journal, university monographs" etc can not be used as reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that outdated sources are hardly reliable is obvious, and intuitively clear. What prevents us from adding the "non-outdated" to the policy? Can you imagine any other cases when peer-reviewed publications are non-RS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you managed to read the first two sentences of the WP:SOURCETYPES section (which has several subsections). Further ifs and buts are included in the remainder of the section (and its subsections): as said, the ifs and buts only "start" in the second sentence of its intro. That is, for all the types of sources you enumerate in your tentative list of iron-clad RS types. To give an example: preliminary results of an ongoing research project may be published for the first time in a peer-reviewed journal. Then, further research does not confirm these preliminary results. I know at least two topics where the "reliable source" status of 21st-century peer-reviewed scientific journals could not be maintained in the articles on those topics (the "50 Hz" laboratory-size nuclear fusion reactor; statistical analysis of some of Bach's doubtful music). To give another example, "editorials in top rank newspapers" would rarely be accepted as reliable sources, and then only as opinions of the author which need an in-text attribution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It says When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. And then provides a qualifier about outdated sources. I think you may be misreading it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, ... usually ..., but not "always and comprehensively" – the former is what is in that sentence of the policy guideline, the latter is what you said you want Paul said he wanted , something that can not be met. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "that outdated sources are hardly reliable is obvious, and intuitively clear" (Paul). No, this is total lack of understanding. One can cite directly On the Origin of Species, and it would be a perfectly valid RS to source views by Darwin. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're describing would be a primary source usage in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if primary, it would be legitimate for use per WP:RS. But I doubt it is primary. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources... It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.. Yes, that is what Darwin did. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MVBW's "it would be a perfectly valid RS to source views by Darwin ." is a typical example of primary source usage. And, to avoid possible misinterpretations, let me reiterate that "old" does not necessarily means "outdated". I doubt Euclides Elements is an outdated source, whereas all XX century books that say the Great Fermat theorem had not been proven yet is outdated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it absolutely an outdated source; WP does not every cite ancient manuscripts except as primary sources and in modern editions.  For an article on Euclidean geometry, cite a modern mathematics book. If you need to into what Euclides himself said (in English translation), then, yes, that's primary sourcing but via a modern work that provides that material. You can't just cite Euclides directly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's take a trip back in time. Can anyone do a harp SFX? Thanks. It's 1972. Information is coming to light about breakins at the Watergate building. This is picked up by Bob Woodward. Carl Bernstein and others. It's reported in the Washington Post. Would 1972 Wikipedia include that? If your answer is not "fuck yeah" then I guess we'll never agree. Some newspapers are reliable sources. Others, not so much. I go by the media bias chart and its various analogues. The more contentious a fact, the higher and the more central the source needs to be. AP, Reuters, BBC - fabulous. For everyday use, thoughy, WaPo, WSJ and NYT are fine. But the only source outside the green box that I would use is CNN, and that with caution. If in doubt, find a better newspaper. Guy (help!) 01:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish. Obviously, I agree: one should use moderm sources on evolution and even on views by Darwin. But I am giving this example only to clarify the policy: citing Darwin directly would be allowed per WP:RS.
 * @JzG. Yes, sure, one should look on the specific sources and even specific claims to check if they are plasuble in the context of what we know on the subject. No one disputes that. Also, certain claims even in the most reliable source can be simply false. No one disputes that. I am only saying that a blanket removal of all NEWSORG sources (without even looking!), as the sourcing restriction by Arbcom requires, would be wrong, against the policy and damaging for the project. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's rewrite WP:NEWSORG
Make it really simple: Wikipedia is not a news aggregation website. As such newspapers and similar publications are inappropriate as sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would kill a lot of coverage. News aggregation is supposed to be handled between WP:NEVENT (we don't create articles on every breaking event) and WP:RECENTISM (we avoid overbalancing coverage of "breaking" coverage in favor of enduring coverage). Newspapers/etc. are just fine as sources as long as one avoids the op-eds as factual sources or excessively weighing coverage from op-eds. --M asem (t) 17:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed.Tell me why that source, for example, would be inappropriate. The catch: this is probably one of the best secondary publications on this particular narrowly defined subject. Not allowing such sources be used would be a disaster. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would kill a lot of "coverage" - that is a feature of this proposal, not a bug. I have a long-running beef with how we handle current events on Wikipedia. We often end up with awful biased trash like 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis as articles just on the basis that plenty of right-wing newspapers write awful biased trash. Frankly we should be waiting to cover major events until there's some clarity for WP:V to not be a burning dumpster of soiled diapers thanks to the pseudo-editoral musings of "papers of record". And it would clarify the unspoken rules like "state owned newsmedia is OK as long as they are operated by English speaking white people, but if they're operated by anyone else they're propaganda" by making it clear that, due to the pervasive bias of newsmedia it is inappropriate for use as a source in building a neutral encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply put, I don't believe any newsmedia organization is neutral enough or rigorous enough to be used as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe most other editors are aware that I am also of major concern how NOT#NEWS has been weakened over the years and have tried to push for strengthening it, but consensus from the last RFC I did shows that most editors think we are in the right spot of where we handle coverage of current events (and importantly, forgoing the use of Wikinews that was meant for that). So I consider that trying to change how strongly NOTNEWS is enforced is not possible presently. But I know we can write about current events from a purely factual standpoint (observations of what actually occurred from newspaper coverage) and avoid the massive amount of talking-head coverage opinion on the event until much much later when the dust has settled and we know then how the RSes will describe the event, even where academic sourcing may start. There is a line, and its unfortunately the line that is of so much debate that creates a lot of behavior problems (eg why we have so many right-wing IP editors trying to push against the opinions added to articles from more central/left publications by editors that believe we should cover those opinions now) --M asem (t) 17:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, you are partially right, but think about the following. When some news organisation has published some fresh report about some event it would be ridiculous not to include it under a pretext that no secondary source cited it. To introduce such a barrier would kill a lot of coverage, as you correctly think. However, we know that news organizations intrinsically have much less strict standards of fact checking than, e.g. history monographs. Therefore, it would be correct to prohibit usage of old news reports as reliable sources. In other words, some "NYT breaking news about war in Syria" is a good RS in an article about war in Syria, but NYT report about some WWII should be considered a primary source, and a history book that cites that article should be used instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We should wait until that history book gets written. We're making an encyclopedia, not a news desk. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, let's separate these two questions:
 * Are we allowing newspaper news reports as secondary sources in the articles about past events?
 * Are we allowing newspaper news reports as secondary sources in the articles about recent events?
 * These two questions can be considered in separation from each other, and, as the (negative) answer to the second question may lead to much more dramatic changes in Wikipedia, I propose to discuss it in a separate thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. A NYTimes article covering a recent event in the Syrian civil war would be a reliable primary source. A NYtimes article covering some WWII event that is published in 2019 is a reliable secondary source (there's been more than enough time that NYTimes would be writing it from a transformative stance, not a eyewitness one).
 * The issue with using current sources is the op-ed side of things. Pure facts from newsdesks of reliable sources like the NYTimes are perfectly good articles to build out the basic facts of a news event, we absolutely do not want to stop that. It is when editors then rush to include opinions from RSes or other people involved as to form an initial bias of thought on the article right after the event concludes, which is not appropriate. We want to wait a long time before we start to consider how the event was seen in the long term as an encyclopedia. That coverage may come from academics or newspapers/other sources just as well, but it is important that it is a secondary-type source, transforming the original primary coverage into summaries and conclusions we can actually use without introducing original research. --M asem (t) 17:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say no to both of them. I don't particularly care if the conversation is in a different thread. But WP:NOTNEWS is basically only notable in the absence of its enforcement and it's filling Wikipedia with toxic garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I probably was not clear enough. I meant not 2019 NYT materials about WWII, I meant usage of some 1945 NYT article as a source (I myself did that in the past, but I quickly realized that was wrong).
 * Second, you are raising the point that I myself was going to discuss: currently, the policy does not discriminate news, editorial, and op-ed materials, only guidelines do that. As a result, the policy says "ALL materials in mainstream newspapers are RS", whereas guidelines say that "some" materials in some newspapers are acceptable. That makes guidelines useless and senseless, because in a case when guidelines contradict to policy, we should follow the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the pure facts side of things gets complicated by things like who gets quoted; this is how newspapers sneak opinion into "fact" reporting. For instance, in this cited by MVBW, there are several quotes: Kim Sang-hun, a North Korean human rights worker; Richard Spring, Tory foreign affairs spokesman; Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. Now, as MVBW mentioned, the Guardian is about as good as a news publication gets. And yet, what they're reporting, as fact, are the stories of a Conservative politician, a religious activist and a DPRK dissident. What voices are absent? What is being treated as fact here that just came from the script-writing division of the Conservative party of the UK? If this is the best newsmedia has to offer, why are we using any of it? Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No one will deny that even when "reporting the facts" there will be biases, exclusion of some voices or the like. We can't create a false balance though. But this is also where a firm understand and use of NPOV (particularly YESPOV) has to be used. We would not say, in Wikivoice "NK used gas chambers", but instead "According to several people in an article by The Guardian, NK used gas chambers.", so that if this ended up being factually wrong and those people made it up, WP is not at fault. --M asem (t) 18:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, if some scholar writes a monograph where the analysis of newspaper articles is presented, and his conclusion will be that NK uses gas chambers, AND this monograph is widely cited, we can write about that without attribution. My point is that if some piece of news was published in 1950, and that fact was left unnoticed by historians, then it is probably poorly checked or unreliable news, and it hardly deserves inclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these issues with whose stories get centralized by the press compound and produce trainwrecks, and these trainwrecks are pervasive across current event articles. So 2019 Bolivian protests talks about electoral fraud at length that likely didn't occur, while pushing back against mentions of a coup d'etat despite the president of the country being forced out by the military. 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis treats the business-friendly politician Juan Guaidó as if he were an equal claimant to Venezuela's presidency despite him having neither a de jure nor a de facto claim to the title or its powers. 2019 Hong Kong protests is a constant mess as a result of frequent use of marginal sources like HKFP while having a local consensus effectively banning the use of Xinhua even for basic fact reporting and 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria still has ultra-dubious material all throughout it because the newspapers don't have boots on the ground, but we're using them as sources and just trusting their informants aren't just blowing bullshit. And it's not like these events start switching to historical sources when they become matters of historical record, look at Rohingya genocide. It's still almost entirely sourced to newsmedia. And this problem is even worse when we deal with small flash in the pan type items. 2019 Tacoma attack was a flash-in-the-pan that attracted media attention for a hot minute. Some months after the fact I tried to get relevant facts merged into an article on the facility on the grounds that the independent article was WP:RECENTISM but it was just non-admin-closed as no consensus. Again and again, we have opinion being presented as if it were fact here. Or we have articles on current events that begin life as convoluted messes and end up in disputes on multiple noticeboards. And we could just... stop... by demanding more rigor than newsmedia will provide, by saying that we aren't a clearinghouse for news on current events but rather a good place to review the breadth of the historical record of past events. Wikipedia does not have to be all things for all people. We're not an open-source Google. So let's stop pretending like we aspire to that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec, @Paul) ... and we're back to the topic of your disclosure: not a good idea to rewrite policy or other guidance inspired by an open discussion elsewhere in which you're engaged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite normal that a user comes to a policy page in attempt to resolve some conflict, otherwise I would have never seen this text and never noticed logical inconsistencies it it. Do you propose me to stop participating in that discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want it explained to you the WP:RSN page is a better venue than a policy talk page. The discussion has switched to rewriting guidance (the actual title of this subsection): rewriting policy or guidance at the same time when you're actively engaged in a related discussion elsewhere (the outcome of which may depend on the content of the guidance) is not a good combination. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Francis, let me reiterate: yes, there is a source that I want to remove from some article. However, that source is not reliable source per current version of the policy/guidelines, so I don't need any change to remove it: an RSN discussion was clearly against that source, and it by no means fits "mainstream newspaper" definition. A real reason why I came here is that I see a general flaw in the policy and want to fix it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , No, that's not what it says. That means we don't have a minute by minute timeline, but it does not stop us using the facts adduced by reputable newspapers when describing a clearly notable event. Guy (help!) 01:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And Paul, WRT if some piece of news was published in 1950, and that fact was left unnoticed by historians, then it is probably poorly checked or unreliable news, and it hardly deserves inclusion. I agree with you entirely. I just don't think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a piece of news published in 2019. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree with you, but since I am sure that viewpoint will never be accepted by a community, I am trying not to edit any topic that is not at least 10 years old, because the low level of sources telling about more recent events and high level of passions make editing a pure waste of time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am getting frustrated with the way the encyclopedia is being weaponized to disseminate propaganda. And our current policy framework supports that weaponization actively by lending additional due weight to the opinions of privately owned english language news publications. And I should note: I don't want Wikipedia to spread leftist propaganda instead. I don't want Wikipedia to spread propaganda at all. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There will always be a current event that is a POV nightmare on Wikipedia. And so by your position that should never be addressed by anyone who actually cares about this situation. Yes, I have gotten involved with content disputes surrounding current events. And I will probably be involved with them in the future, especially if this mess isn't fixed. But I'd rather not be involved in these disputes. I'd rather go back to editing articles on martial arts, wuxia novels and Chinese imperial dynasties. But as long as Wikipedia is being actively used to spread propaganda I can't really do that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand, not what I wrote, nor by any stretch of interpretation what I intended. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with that stance ("the encyclopedia is being weaponized to disseminate propaganda") - my whole interest in NOTNEWS extended from how the development of the Gamergate article worked out. The media was in full condemnation mode, with clear bias in how they covered it. Not that we needed to show sympathy to GG at that point, but there's something about writing an encyclopedic article rather than one trying to summarize the news sources which includes that specific POV rather than the impartial one. The situation exists today for anything Trump related or among all your other examples.
 * What I have come to accept is that we can still write on these controversial stories as long as we stick to corroborated facts, write the correct Wikivoice with attribution, and avoid any opinions unless they are central to the situation. That's all possible within the existing framework of policy and guidelines using newspapers and magazines and other current sources. What is hard to do is to stress that we do not need to include opinion (inclusion is usually suggested that it must be included per UNDUE), and that we are able to look at the whole picture of a situation to determine how to use the available sources to write about it, rather than blindly sticking to how the sources tell us to write it. Eliminating newspapers and other current sources would clearly solve that, but would also go against consensus about allowing us to cover current events. Instead, the solution is getting editors to recognize that blind adherence to sourcing without being intelligently aware of the broader picture is what leads to nearly ever dispute in AP2 and other areas. That's a harder, but more practical problem to solve, than just eliminating newspapers. --M asem (t) 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can understand why I find "I know these sources cause nothing but problems, but they're very popular so our hands are tied forever," is not a comforting response. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is a consensus based one, one I have tried to use RFCs to see where it could be changed, as well as others' RFCs and know that it would require a massive sea change in thought (or a resolution by the Foundation) to make such a change. It is not productive to fight against that, but to help identify where areas that have consensus can be improved to help make it better. --M asem (t) 20:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All of that is important, and it deserves a separate discussion, but let's focus at the original question please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's focus at the major point
It seems the discussion has become so convoluted that it would be difficult for new participants to joinn it. Let's summarize our arguments. We have a current version, an interim text, and Francis Schonken's version. Let's summarise pro et contra. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Current version
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Identifying reliable sources and Search engine test.
 * your comments:


 * Pro:
 * proposed minor changes:


 * Contra:

This version is a blanket approval of "Mainstream newspapers", all "Journals" and "Magazines", which contradicts to guidelines, thereby making them useless. In addition, "Mainstream" is vague and misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Interim version
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Journals, magazines and newspapers that have a broad circulation and demonstrated a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness.

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Identifying reliable sources and Search engine test.
 * your comments:


 * Pro:
 * "proposed minor changes":


 * Contra:

Francis Schonken's version
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in high-quality mainstream publications. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Further details on how and when such sources can be used as reliable sources are explained in guidance such as Identifying reliable sources and Search engine test.
 * your comments:


 * Pro:
 * An ambiguous "Mainstream newspapers" is removed, a blanket approval of all journals and magazines is removed, which is definitely an improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * proposed minor changes":


 * Contra:
 * This version transfers important aspects to guidelines. It would be better to take general NEWSORG points and incorporate it into the policy, for example, to explicitly separate news from editorial and from op-ed materials, each of which have a different degree of reliability.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

 * Oppose this messy procedure: the messiness seems primarily caused by Paul, who now, with this new subsection, adds another layer of messiness. What was unclear about: wait two weeks and see whether someone else comments, to which Paul agreed, quickly followed by this editor commenting a few dozen times every 24H, starting to change the policy, selectively pinging other editors to comment, and whatnot. I'd recommend that editor to lay off for a few weeks, as agreed by them above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your position illogical: I clearly explained that I propose some interim version, which was a minor modification (as compared with your major revision). It was not deemed to be a permanent version, and I am surprised that it caused so vigorous reaction. Anyway, if you believe that creates an additional mess, feel free to remove the sections I added, along with your comment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , any detailed analysis of what kind of mainstream newspapers are acceptable is better left to the guidelines, rather than being discussed in a core content policy, because almost everything will depend on the context. SarahSV (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, as you probably noticed, my original post was aimed to resolve a very simple problem: "what does Mainstream mean"? That question has to be explained by policy itself, not by guidelines (for obvious reasons). Originally, I expected just to get an answer to this question, but all other users found the word "mainstream" inadequate.
 * Second, if the policy says "Mainstream newspapers are RS (period)", that makes guidelines redundant: there is no need to discuss nuances if we have a blanket approval of newspapers as RS. And that is exactly what happened during one dispute, when some users argued that since WP:V says newspapers are RS, the rest, including WP:NEWSORG is irrelevant. A correct way would be if policy said something like "Some materials published in some newspapers are RS. Further details are described in guidelines" (something similar to what Francis proposed), and that would eliminate a contradiction between guidelines and policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG) is the place to work out what is meant by "mainstream" if you feel it needs to be defined. There they use the term "well-established". These issues are heavily context dependent. It isn't something that can be developed here. Is this connected to recent disputes about the Holocaust/World War II, and what do you see as the contradiction between the policy and WP:RS? SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, as I already explained in this thread, that was inspired primarily by this, although that was just a recent example. It seems many users believe all newspapers are "mainstream" unless no edivenses of the opposite have been presented. Since the policy is more a rule, but guidelines is more recommendations, it seems many users prefer not to go into details about differences between mainstream and other newspapers, and between news, editorials and op-eds, and interpret "Mainstream newspapers are RS" as "everything that was published in a newspaper that was not broadly discredited is RS, according to our policy, and if guidelines say otherwise, they can be ignored". A change of wording that would stress that there many nuances that have to be taken into account, and these nuances are explained in guidelines would fix the situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What seems to have happened there (based on a quick glance) is that people didn't know whether a local Ukrainian newspaper was "mainstream", and that's why it shouldn't been used as a source. The solution is not to change the policy, but to insist that people stick to it, and when you're writing history, you would ideally rely on mainstream scholarly sources, not newspapers. If the guideline wasn't able to cope with what happened at that article, your best bet is to develop a section in it about how to handle non-English sources. This policy asks for translations and says that English sources are preferred, but it can't go into detail. SarahSV (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for saying that, because I know that you SarahSV were among the people who created this policy, but this your argument looks naive. None of the participants of the dispute concede they do not stick with the policy. They (I don't want to call names) literally say: "All of that is RS, because (i) it was published in a newspaper (formally they right, because it does not automatically follow from the policy that that newspaper in not mainstream), (ii) this newspapper is good (it won some local prizes), (iii) the author is a notable historian (he published a book in some obscure publishing house, and there was one interviews with him)". Formally, criteria are met, and from these criteria there is no difference between some local newspaper and, for example, the New York Times. "Mainstream" is really vague, and it has already created a lot of problems (Sun, The Daily Mail, Playboy - all of that are mainstream media), and it takes a lot of time and efforts to prove some particular source is not mainstream. In contrast, if the policy will stipulate that the burden of proof that some source is mainstream is on those who adds it (and guidelines will provide an instruction how to prove it) - that will save a lot of time.
 * Regarding yours "non English sources", actually, the problem is not in that. Imagine some user decides to add a sentence to, for example, World War II article and to use the op-ed article authored by some local historian with unknown credentials, which is published in some American local paper. Formally criteria are met: it is a newspaper article, so per WP:V is is a RS, and who cares what WP:NEWSORG says? However, you must agree that will discredit Wikipedia in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul, sources have to be appropriate, but unpacking that is another story. I don't think the Ukrainian source was appropriate: in a history article, you need peer-reviewed sources, especially for anything contentious, and because this is the English Wikipedia, we can't evaluate obscure (or arguably any) Ukrainian sources. If people are going to ignore that, there isn't any change you could make here that would help. I assume you held an RfC? SarahSV (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarah, what you are saying about sources is absolutely correct. However, in my opinion, if the policy stipulated that the editors who want to add a newspaper as a source are supposed to demonstrate the publication is RS, that would leave much less freedom of manoeuvre for POV-pushers. Again, there is a big difference between the statement "Mainstream newspapers are RS, see other details in NEWSORG" and "Some materials published in some newspapers may be RS. Reliability of some concrete newspaper material is determined on case-by-case basis as described in details in NEWSORG". In the latter case, I believe, majority of problems could be easily avoided, because POV-pushers will have to provide some rationale for inclusion, whereas currently we have to provide some rationale for exclusion. In general, the present situation with Wikipedia makes removal of poor content more important than adding new content, but a policy is historically more supportive to those who adds some material than to those who removes it. Wikipedia is a complex living organism, and no such organism can survive without Apoptosis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the person adding the information has to demonstrate that it's supported by an RS.
 * (1) Per WP:BURDEN (part of this policy): "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed ..." The onus is on them to show that the source is "reliable".
 * (2) Per WP:NOENG (also part of this policy): "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance ... if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided."
 * This means you can ask the editors adding that material to show that the source is reliable, and assuming they gain consensus that it seems to be, then ask them to add to a footnote what the source says in Ukrainian/Russian and English. Once you have that information, you can look for an academic historian working in this area and ask them to review the edit and the source. (But I'm wondering at this point why so much hangs on this one source.)
 * The problem you're encountering is caused by the spotty application of NOENG, and that most people don't want to spend time trying to figure out whether a Ukrainian source is an RS. It isn't caused by "mainstream newspaper" being unclear. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, the very fact that many users who commented here say "mainstream newspaper" is not clear is an indication that there is some problem with "mainstream". Some people here said that "Mainstream" refers to elite, top rank newspapers similar to "newspapers of records", or something of that kind. Meanwhile, other users argue that "mainstream" refers to any newspaper which has not been widely discredited. Such a broad spectrum of interpretations demonstrates that something is fundamentally wrong with "mainstream".
 * Regarding WP:BURDEN, I also see a problem here, because it stipulates the editor has to provide a reliable source, but it is not clear from this policy that the user is supposed to prove the source is reliable. In practice, that works like this: "I provided the source (newspaper), the quote taken from this source directly supports the statement, so I sustained my burden". I think this policy should be supplemented with the clause the burden to demonstrate reliability of the source lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I understand that that seems obvious, but many disputes are caused by the fact that people expect to get a consensus for removal some source, not for keeping it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think it is helpful to say anything that could be interpreted (or misrepresented in bad faith) as "Newspapers are reliable. Period." or even "Mainstream newspapers are reliable. Period." People tend to assume that The Japan Times is just inherently reliable for all claims about Japanese culture and society, even though its bias in favour of teaching its Japanese readership "standard English" over getting details correct has led to several dozed pretty-laughable errors. That being said, I'd even be in favour of amending the wording to make it clearer that context matters even when evaluating peer-reviewed scholarly sources, since I'm currently involved in a dispute elsewhere on the project where several editors are convinced that an article in The Journal of Analytical Psychology and a journal article co-written by a kindergarten teacher and a specialist in child psychology are reliable sources for cherry-picked claims about Japanese historical linguistics and religious history that are peripheral to the original sources' main points. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are talking about disputes among good faith users. However, imagine one party wants to add some source no matter what? If the subject of a dispute is a popular topic, that is not a problem. However, in low popularity topics, only few users participate in a dispute, RfCs draw little attention, and admins prefer not to interfere into such "content disputes". The current wording provides a lot of freedom of manoeuvre for civil POV pushers, that is the problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are talking about disputes among good faith users. No, I don't think I am -- peer-reviewed sources make an off-handed comment peripheral to their main point and completely outside the area of expertise of the peers who review them, and Wikipedia editors who appear to be primarily interested in promoting a particular ideology regardless of what specialist sources say want to add them "no matter what". Whether such editors are engaged in undisclosed paid editing or are just trolling me and the other Wikipedians involved, I don't think either could be called "good faith". People who are just ignorant and think "Newspaper=Reliable" would probably give up after it was pointed out to them that specialist sources disagree. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And what if they don't? What if they say: "Your speculations are just original research, whereas I am just saying what reliable sources (i.e. newspaper articles, which are reliable per WP:V) say". What would be your next step in that situation? Meanwhile, if we remove the clause about "mainstream newspapers as RS" that type arguments will become impossible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest a way of dealing with bad faith POV editors ... “Let the Wookiee win”.
 * Stop arguing with them. Be patient, and let them write what they want... WAIT until the Wookiee’s attention has shifted to some other article, and then QUIETLY slip in and edit the article to fix any problems they created. Blueboar (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With due respect, that doesn't work (based on my experience). And, by the way, if we have to resort to such tricks, that means something is fundamentally wrong with the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It works with casual visitors, but with persistent POV-pushers it doesn't work. For hot topics with 1RR in place, leaving their POV in place for a day actually helps them as then they can put it back in immediately. Zerotalk 06:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who works with data (every researcher does), I should say the sources, even the best ones (let's say publications in "Nature") do occasionally provide incorrect information. The solution is simple: do cross-verification. In this setting, if multiple sources which arguably qualify as RS tell essentially the same (and the information is significant), then yes, it should be included. Arguing against inclusion in such cases do qualify as "POV-pushing". My very best wishes (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ... because something is covered only in questionable sources, we should relax the sourcing requirement to allow it to be included from those questionable sources..--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure that no one who took part in this discussion (or discussions on other pages) suggested to use Questionable and self-published sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The detailed laundry list of supposedly reliable sources should be removed. Per WP:NOTLAW, reliable sources are not determined by decree.  No evidence is being presented here in support of this OR and so these suggestions are just opinion.  And the propositions being presented are ridiculous.  Let's start with newspapers.  I have a copy of The Times here, which would usually be considered a respectable newspaper.  I just counted and, today, it has 228 pages written by more authors than I can easily count; in total, this is equivalent to a substantial book.  The sections include current affairs, food, sport, travel, medicine, arts, puzzles, weather, obituaries, finance, religion, court news, &c.  This varied content obviously covers a wide spectrum of reliabilty.  At one extreme, we can be fairly sure that plain facts like the football results are reasonably reliable.  But other items, such as Nigel Farage's diary (written by Hugo Rifkind) appear to be a complete fabrication.  Somewhere in between will be other items like the weekend essay about "Putin's private army...".  A one-size-fits-all policy for such a wide variety of material is absurd.
 * The situation is no better for other types of source. The suggestion that articles in peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable is more nonsense.  See Publish and be wrong for details of how many papers in prestigious journals like Nature are wrong .  So, please sweep away any suggestion that there is such a thing as an ex cathedra reliable source.  All types of source should be treated with suspicion.  To evaluate them, we should consider their credibility and consistency, look for corroboration and be guided by caution and common sense.
 * Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, corroboration and cross-verification. Also agree that the idea about peer-reviewed publications being the most reliable is incorrect. For example, WP:MEDRS discourage using research peer reviewed articles and encourage using reviews. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick 2 cents on the meaning of “mainstream”... I have always read that as “not fringe”. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are rigth. Agree. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I would love to have even stricter guidance on using news sources. They are often used inappropriately (to support material that really should be supported by even better sources).  That isn’t a verifiability issue however. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If better sources exist, yes, certainly. But if not, I do not see any problem with citing an article by historian published (not self-published) in a newspaper, and especially if this article just compile materials published in other, primary and secondary sources (and therefore does not make any extraordinary claims). Paul wants to exclude such source and therefore has started this whole thread, I think. Anything self-published by historians in their blogs, websites and emails would be a lot less justifiable because the author can remove or change such self-published content at any moment. Same can be said about biological databases, however this is covered by the same general criteria, such as the reputation for fact-checking by creators of the database. In any event, all sources may include incorrect information; this is unavoidable. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Round II
The text below is an attempt to summarize the above discussion, as well as related discussions at the ARCA page ("Antisemitism in Poland, and Antisemitism in Poland II, see the permalink) and MILHIST), which forced me to reconsider my original point of view. In addition, I found some other problems with this section of the policy, and with NEWSORG.

All opinia about usage of newspapers/journals/magazines can be subdivided on two camps; below I conditionally call them "rigorists" and "liberals". Rigorist views can be summarized as follows: " Newspapers and similar sources are by default not reliable sources, but can be used according to the rules described in WP:NEWSORG. " In contrast, liberals believe that any newspaper article is a reliable source unless that newspaper is not broadly discredited. Below, I present my analysis of strenghts and weaknesses of each approach, and propose a solution.

'' The advantrage of a rigorist approach is obvious: Wikipedia stops being a collection of various rumors, poorly checked facts and questionable opinia that, alas, can be found in virtually any newspaper. However, there is one importrant negative consequence: the scope of Wikipedia will become significantky more narrow if this approach will be implemented. Let me give just one example. Piotrus asked me to take a look at the source usage in the Michler's Palace article, and majority of sources appeared to be newspaper articles, more concretely, editorial or op-ed materials. If we follow the "rigorist" approach, we must concede all these sources are used inappropriately: per WP:NEWSORG, they are not reliable sources for facts, just for author's opinion. Therefore, the first paragraph of the article should be rewritten as:''
 * Michler's Palace or Michla's Palace (Pałacyk Michlera) was a townhouse in Warsaw located at Wolska Street no 40 in the Wola district. It was constructed in late 19th century and destroyed during the Warsaw Uprising. According to Wojciech Rodak and Paweł Czechowski, it is best known for an eponymous wartime song, Pałacyk Michla, which was written by poet and insurgent Józef Szczepański. 

Obviously, addition of explicit attribution to every piece of text written based on newspaper articles (actually, the second source is a popular Polish history portal, which, probably, makes it as reliable as an average newspaper) makes the whole text look ridiculously. Meanwhile, I doubt the facts about this building look not trustworthy, and that we need better sources to support the first paragraph.

The strengths and weaknesses of a "liberal" approach are complementary to those of the "rigorist" one: it allows writing articles about a wide range of subjects easily. However, it may lead to a dramatic decrease of the quality of Wikipedia articles. Thus, the policy does not prevent some school student to introduce a questionable statement from some local newspaper into the article about Black holes, and, if that will be supported by a group of poorly educated users, it will be hard to remove it per our policy.

The solution to this problem may be in more explicit linking WP:SOURCES with WP:REDFLAG. The latter says: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", however, WP:SOURCES provides no explanation of what does "high-quality source" mean. That section outlines the criteria for a reliable source, but it does not introduce the term "high(er)-quality and "low(er)-quality reliable source". That creates a false impression that as soon as some source is considered reliable, it is reliable without any reservations, which is obviously not the case.

Indeed, for many non-controversial and low importance topics, even ordinary newspapers, journals and magazines can be considered as "reliable but low-quality sources", and it should be quite OK to use them, because, otherwise, the articles like Radomsko or Eger would be virtually impossible to write. However, this approiach would be totally unacceptable for the article that are either of high importance or are dealing with controversial and/or sensitive subjects. How to discriminate these two cases? IMO, REDFLAG provides an answer, and as soon as some edit/source has been contested, that should immediately raise a REDFLAG, so all low-quality reliable sources sould be removed, until their re-introduction is clearlyt supported by consensus.

In connection to that, I propose to modify the WP:SOURCES section, and to explain that
 * the sources that are considered reliable may be of higher and lower quality, and describe, very briefly, what does it mean (with a link to relevant quidelines);
 * the WP:REDFLAG section describes the mosgt typical situations when only high quality reliable sources are acceptable;
 * for high importance articles and/or the articles dealing with controversial subjects, as well as the articles belonging to the areas of a conflict (per WP:DS), inclusion of low quality reliable sources is allowed only if it is clearly supported by a consensus.

In my opinion, this approach would allow us to reconcile the "rigorist" and "liberal" approaches and to avoid many content disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I overall agree with Paul's analysis. In general, REDFLAG and UNDUE should be sufficient. When sources are challenged, they can be removed to require more justificaiton, but uncontrovesial statements such as about about a minor historical building, not subject to any controversy, should not require high quality sources (of coruse, those are always preferred). Point is, we don't want to encourage battleground mentality. Consider, if you will, another example. In Battle of Hel I used a local tourism portal to reference the fact that some World War II fortifications survive in the area and are local tourist attractions. Again, is this a high quality source? Nope. But is this controversial, undue or otherwise? I think not. If anyone was to challenge it because they think its incorrect or undue, we should remove it and discuss it, but I doubt anyone would have issues with this. One thing to stress, to avoid trolling, is that an editor challenging a source needs to provide a counter source, outside of SKYISBLUE obvious cases. It's not enough to say 'this is controversial', a source is required to prove it indeed is. For example, is there is a casualty number referenced to a newspaper, and another editor wants to challenge it, it's not enough to say 'newspapers are not good enough', they should provide another source of at least similar quality to prove there is a discrepancy (through of course if the source is another newspaper, we should IMHO just attribute both with a clear note that 'sources vary'). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you for finding correct words for conveying this idea. Low quality reliable sources should be allowed, but a clear distinction should be made between low and high quality reliable sources, and the policy should stipulate the possibility of removal of low quality sources in situations that are covered by WP:REDFLAG.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree and think this discussion is waste of time. Non-scientific sources, like newspapers, journals and magazines, are fine for covering non-scientific subjects, and a lot of things in politics and history are simply not science. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I could definitely see how making a clearer distinction between higher and lower quality sources would be applicable to BLPs. It would help us avoid RECENTISM issues. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to suggest something new. I think these policy pages are pretty good already. But it is impossible to use any rigid rules here. One must know specific sources and specific subjects to make a qualified judgement. For example, some parts in memoirs by Pavel Sudoplatov are professionally cooked disinformation, but memoirs by Petro Grigorenko are as sincere as any memoirs can possibly be. Same with a lot of other sources that seemingly fall to the same category. A contributor must know specifics, and even memoirs by Sudoplatov can be used if placed to a proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC including "mandatory" citations

 * Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How about remaining by the facts?
I find it quite strange, that some sources are deprecated on the ground that they are under control (in most such cases under control of a government) and others not, although they actually are under the control (in most such cases under control of few economical interests). I think of the situation in the country of my origin (Greece), where actually two persons control almost all the media. This is the case with most (if not all) of the media of the world (at least for every separate country). So, maybe there is a solution avoiding this discussion (I mean the discussion about which news media is trustworthy and which not), namely sticking by the facts.

Example: (suppose) In some newspapers (under control or not is irrelevant) you may read, that a person shot with a gun at the heart of another person expressively wanting to kill this person and the second person died because of the shot. Suppose that there are no Media that contradict this incident. Suppose once more that no media calls it a murder. Is it because of this no murder? Of course not. So, if we don't mention it as a murder, only because no media mention it like this, we are quite away from our aims. Not writing (in the title) that it is a murder, reminds me of the situation with Galileo Galilei: just because the church didn't want to accept it (and write it somewhere), doesn't mean that the earth doesn't go around the sun.

So here is my concrete proposal with the use of another example of an actual dispute in Wiki. We can always create a tablet (see example) which contains facts that may be disputed or not in a main article or somewhere else and we can make decisions according to this tablet. We should totally avoid opinions or show opinions in a table that has both sides (like the spanish wikipedia tried to do in the same example). Staying though only by the sayings of media (which may be for some people reliable and some other not, and this from all sides) is not objective and doesn't have to do with "Verifiability" in the means of wiki. Staying only by the writings is what religions do... Do we really want to do this too? In the German wiki I read:

''A neutral point of view tries to present a theme in such a way, that both people against and for it can accept it. Not everyone should accept it, this happens only very rarely. One reason is, that there are ideologies (and people), that can only accept their one point of view. For this reason we should concentrate on the presentation of the theme in such a way, that every rational thinking person would tolerate it.''

I have no idea who wrote this, but I find it genial. The only rational way I can think of (and I hope that I'm not irrational in this) is to stay by the facts and use the common definitions of the notions. So, if we see in the facts (bringing back my example), that a murder is described, we should call it a murder, even if no media calls it like this. Media are unfortunately not always rational and they do represent different interests (economical, ideological or what so ever). I still must say (unfortunately): Even the solution, that I'm proposing here is not adequate, in a world that becomes more and more affected by fake news. On the other hand, it is a step to being more objective, in a world where maybe no media are not under control.

This proposal has to do of course only with issues that happening right now or happened recently or more generally with issues that are disputed. thanks Yomomo (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your wall of text is unwelcome. Please note that discussion here is meant to be about our universal policy regarding verifiability. If you propose to examine sources, please see WP:RSN. Also be advised that we don't care about the truth. As you are an inexperienced editor, I don't think you've taken the time to learn about Wikipedia before offering your opinion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Including primary and self-published sources once we have a secondary one
If a secondary source confirms or reproduces a claim made in a primary source (e.g. a social media post), should we include both sources in a citation or just the secondary source? Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The specific case here is Danielle Fishel where the secondary source explicitly refers to the primary source (one that is valid under WP:ABOUTSELF. So of course it makes sense to cite both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a secondary source glosses over details that are present in a secondary primary source, so the primary source needs to be cited to properly understand the secondary source. For example, a secondary source might say someone was born 1 January 1700 in Philadelphia. But is that counting the beginning of the year as March 25, as was the custom in that time and place, or does it follow the modern custom of starting the year on January 1? If a birth register (a primary source) for that area were cited, one could look through the list of dates and see if the year changed in January or March, and see what date was recorded at the time of the birth. The advantage of the secondary source would be it tells us that the person who was born in that time and place became famous and worth writing about in Wikipedia, rather than some obscure person who just happened to have the same name. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC) fixed 23:59 UTC
 * , So you would argue for including primary sources only in cases where some really germane or necessary information is present? By the way, you wrote, "Sometimes a secondary source glosses over details that are present in a secondary source". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too strict, but generally prefer secondary sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer is “it depends”... because context matters. Most of the time we would favor secondary sources, but there are situations where a citing a primary source is more appropriate.  And there is always the option to cite both. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , In this case, does it seem like the primary source provides some meaningful information that the secondary doesn't? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a good reason not to cite the primary source, such as if it is a website we should not be directing anyone to, it's hard to imagine a situation where it is inappropriate. Maybe if the primary source is literally recreated in its entirety in the secondary source? This is of course distinct from actually writing something that is only found in the primary and not the secondary. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's hard to follow the "not... inappropriate" language but to put a finer point on it: are we required to include this Instagram post in this article because a secondary source references it or not? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Required? No. Useful? Up to you. The usual context for this to come up is where a newspaper article is written about a tweet. If that tweet is available, it would be a good idea to reference it as well. Here, there's no necessity and certainly no greater understanding. The content is not about the instagram post, but rather the instagram post is how the marriage was originally announced. I think that becomes a matter of style. You might see a similar question of whether to cite a newspaper article about a wedding or the married couples' official wedding announcement also published in a newspaper. Given the nature of the claim being made, the secondary source is not "better" than the primary one. We don't need a journalist to interpret that post for us. Someguy1221 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything above. One can and should used a primary source, in addition to a secondary source, if it helps to clarify things and provide more detail, or just as an additional and more direct reference. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A birthdate seems solidly within WP:PRIMARYCARE; I mean, it's explicitly mentioned. HLHJ (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Where sciences are concerned, MEDPRIMARY would have you remove the primary source as expediently as possible. Medical editors will cite historical papers in a ==History== section, but otherwise, using primary sources is limited and replaced as soon as possible with secondary sources.  But I believe that among the "harder" sciences, citing original/primary sources is more common.  You couldn't really write an article about a mathematical puzzle that was solved without citing the solution's original publication.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC at TERF
The RfC at Talk:TERF needs more input from uninvolved editors who are have experience with sourcing issues. Most of the responses so far are from users who have already been involved with the article, myself included. Thank you, -Crossroads- (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:ABOUTSELF
I explained my proposed change at WP:Village_pump_(policy). Please dicsuss there. Xenagoras (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes, in their various forms
Why are infoboxes, and the need that the information they convey also be verifiable, not covered in this WP guideline? 2601:246:C700:19D:1C66:B776:33B0:EE87 (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are part of ledes which have a unique allowance that does not require citations as long as the material is clearly sourced in the body of the article, though still requiring them for direct quotations. Info in infoboxes should be replicated in the body, and if there's a field where it is not replicated that should be sourced. But not every line on an infobox needs to be sourced. --M asem  (t) 15:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of information in an infobox wouldn't need to sourced and verifiable somewhere in the article? (Apart from sky colour parameter = blue). Agree it usually doesn't need to be cited. Scribolt (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Some general thoughts inspired by NOENG and the Holocaust discussion
It seems I am starting to understand the core of the problem, and it seems that it is a part of a bigger problem: the proposed format of the solution is incorrect.

The core idea of WP:V, as I see it should be: "everything what Wikipedia says can be verified by a reader, who can go by a reference, read the source, and to verify if the source X really says "Y"". (Disclamer. The above description is not a summary of the current version of WP:V, it is a summary of my vision of the policy). In connection to that, the major criterion of a reliable source is its stability: it should not be, for example, a blog, which can be deleted or modified by an owner at any moment. In that sense, RS is any material that, once published, can be, potentially, available to everyone, and cannot be altered of removed from a public access. That should be a core of WP:V.

However, WP:V moves further, and it introduces some categories of sources that are considered reliable and sources that are not reliable. It implicitly introduces the term "quality of sources" (although that term is never explained), and the term "mainstream sources". I see two problems with that.


 * First, the idea that some formal category of sources is acceptable, whereas some other category is not is questionable. For example, a category "academic and peer-reviewed publications" includes such sources as Nature or American Historical Review and a vast number of predatory journals with impact factor of 0.5 or less (or even with no impact factor). Nominally, all of them are peer-reviewed, but a quality of peer-review is dramatically different. I myself authored scientific papers in journals with different impact factors, and I reviewed manuscripts for different journals, and I know that for a journal with impact factor of 30, 15, and 3, the acceptance criteria differ dramatically. I suspect journals with lower impact-factor may publish a total garbage. However, the current version of the policy makes no difference between them, and they all are RS.
 * Similarly, the category "Mainstream newspapers": what does this category include? A previous discussion demonstrated that user's opinia form a wide spectrum, from "any newspaper that has not been demonstrated to be fringe" to "newspapers of record". Such an ambiguity is a constant source of conflicts. Yes, we have guidelines that explain, at least partially, some details. However, guidelines are just recommendations, whereas the policy says "mainstream newspapers are allowed. Period." That de facto nullifies all what WP:NEWSORG says, because NEWSORG says that some materials in some newspapers are RS, but WP:V says "mainstrean newspapers are RS, AND "In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:RS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority. That makes everything NEWSORG says about newspapers null and void.
 * In contrast, so called self-published sources are considered non-reliable. However, a difference between self-published and non-self-published sources is vague: it is hard to determine if some publisher is "established", which is a core criterion that discriminates self- from non-self-published source. Meanwhile, some "self-publised" opinia of established experts (which are non-RS, per V) are more trustworthy than publications of obscure "scientists" in nominally peer-reviewed predatory journals (which are RS per V).


 * The term "quality of sources" is used twice in the policy, however, nowhere in the policy it is defined. That fact is a source of incessant contend disputes ("your source is garbage" - "no, YOUR source is garbage"), and that had already lead to an odd ArbCom decision to introduce sourcing restrictions to the Antisemitism in Poland topic. In my opinion, this decision is an attempt to compensate problems with that policy.

I propose to abandon the flawed (in my opinion) strategy, which consists in an attempt to allow/prohibit some category of sources based on purely formal criteria. I also propose to fix a problem with an obvious conflict between the policy and guidelines, which de facto cancels many good ideas described in guidelines.

Since this post was partially inspired by the Holocaust topic, let me give an example of how can the dispute between Buidhe and SarahSV be resolved within a paradigm proposed by me. To the best of my understanding, Buidhe says "Non-English sources are good, let's use them", whereas SarahSV says "Non-English sources are hardly better, and everything important about the Holocaust that deserves attention has already been translated to English, so there is no need to use non-English sources". (I apologize in advance if I summarized your view incorrectly, but the point is not to make a precise summary, but to show a difference in opinia). Meanwhile, if we abandon a strategy that is based of formal categories of sources, we can say: "Best possible sources should be used. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are preferable. For each category of sources, their quality should be determined before they are used in Wikipedia. The burden of proof that some source meets our quality standards rests with those who adds it. Our guidelines provide detailed description of the procedure of quality determination. Period".

That would resolve the NOENG issue quite easily: NOENG are quite acceptable, but, keeping in mind that it is much more difficult to determine its quality, some specific criteria must be applied to them, and these criteria should be described in relevant guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that you make some good points here. I would clarify my views slightly: There are plenty of garbage sources out there in any and all languages. If I cite a source, it's because I think it's reliable for the particular claim that it supports. I'm generally happy to explain why I think so to any editor who has a good-faith query. Although I agree with you that it's hard to define exactly what is a reliable source without context, I can't support this proposal. I think that rough outlines of what is likely to be a reliable source is really helpful to new editors who don't know how to determine quality of a source. Furthermore, not having much guidance at all leaves the high probability of false WP:LOCALCONSENSUS developing on some page to include/exclude sources when not merited. Having more centralized guidelines reduces that risk and also the time wasted on warring and rehashing disputes on lots of individual pages. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "everything that deserves attention has already been translated to English, so there is no need to use non-English sources". This is absolutely wrong. I am not even sure how anyone can claim it. A lot of important information has been reliably published in languages other than English and not translated to English. That's why we have WP:NOENG which tells we can use such sources. Moreover, we must use such sources to follow WP:NPOV in a number of cases. Even in terms of providing good content the cultural diversity is great. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see Paul added "everything important about the Holocaust" . Still wrong. There is no reason to blacklist any non-English sources that were published in Israel, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-English sources "preferred"
Prior noticeboard discussions have repeatedly rejected efforts to strengthen the guideline: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". But what exactly does "preferred" mean? Especially, I want to know if and when it is acceptable to use non-English sources when there are equally reliable English ones available, such as the following cases: I hope this can be clarified because I frequently cite non-English sources. My opinion is that it should be allowed in all the above cases; arguably, a free access non-English source is easier to verify than an out-of-print English book. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The non-English source has more detail and information, but the same quality, relevance, and reliability as a less in-depth English source.
 * 2) The English and non-English sources are of equal quality, relevance, and reliability but present different viewpoints. If the non-English source is excluded on the basis that English is preferred, I think this would be an issue with NPOV. (We would end up promoting the views of English-speakers.)
 * 3) The non-English source is more convenient (i.e. open access vs. paywall, online vs. print, or a source that the editor has on hand), but both have the same information.
 * I've always thought of this one as a tiebreaker. If you have two sources that both contain the same information, and are both from publishers of equal reliability, the English one wins out. But If there is information in the non-English source that's not in the English one there is no harm in including both. There's seldom harm in including two references, even when one is superfluous and not in English, except in extreme cases of excessive reference lists.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] If in doubt, include both. Of course, this assumes you are fluent enough in the language of the non-English source to be sure of not having misinterpreted it. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 03:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many cases where the non-English source covers detail that the English sources do not, at least in the realm of Venezuelan editing. Yes, excluding the non-English sources can result in POV.  For non-English and English sources to be truly of equal quality is rare, at least in Venezuelan topics. I cite the English where possible, for the reader, but add the Venezuelan when it provides detail that is not available in English sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe and I have been discussing sourcing in Holocaust articles. Articles are being written based on German and Polish sources found via snippet view. The English edition of the same book is available and cited elsewhere in the article. I've been asking Buidhe why she has used three language editions (and other non-English sources) and she opened this discussion. We need the Holocaust articles to reflect recent, mainstream Holocaust historiography, nothing else, and we need them to be checkable by other editors and readers. If people want to add non-English sources as well (by adding an extra source to a bundle), that's not an issue. But using them instead of English is an issue, especially for anything contentious. SarahSV (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I absolutely agree that it should be foreign language sources in addition to English ones, not instead of English ones. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 06:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * SV, it sounds like you are saying the exact same source (same book) is available in all three languages. Then English should be used, as they are equal.  Perhaps in the main description of the books in the References section, a general link to or description of the book in other languages can be used for the benefit of those native speakers.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been discussing Holocaust sources elsewhere with Buidhe, and I don't want to introduce those issues into a general policy discussion. Sandy, I may ping you elsewhere about it, because one of the affected articles is an FA.Generally, the problem is that this policy (WP:NOENG) has been interpreted to mean that non-English sources are fine in all circumstances, so that even when a book is available in English, other-language editions can be cited in the same article, depending on what's visible on Google snippet view. It seems it has also been interpreted (by several editors) to mean that any non-English source can be used if a particular perspective is wanted, even when it's a perspective not widely held (or held at all) in current Holocaust historiography. It has led to Holocaust articles that are in every practical sense unverifiable, with citations that are hard or impossible to decipher. In short, NOENG may as well not exist.I've consider proposing something to clarify the policy, but I'd want to take time to find words that don't introduce other problems. SarahSV (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, reading the rest of this discussion, I see it is well beyond the typical Venezuela situation (where there practically are no scholarly sources, and certainly not any that are decades old, and most of the best sources are in Spanish). When there is a body of scholarly research in English—potentially decades worth—there is possibly a weight issue with newer sources postulating different positions, regardless of the language.  I don't think I can offer any information from a FAC perspective, as all we can do in such cases is hope that each "side" argues their position logically and without resorting to personalization (which is what is typically seen at FAC in these cases).  Perhaps the Holocaust-article tension can be diffused by using an abbreviated section to discuss newer research, according due weight; I would hesitate to say we should completely exclude non-Eng positions being advanced.  (I say that based on knowing the nuance that Spanish-language sources provide on Venezuelan articles, and without having looked at these articles, as I am trying to get out the door for vacation.  You may decide my position does not apply here.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are several reason behind NOENG.
 * First, those people who knows what Wikipedia is never treat WP articles as reliable sources (even WP policy itself stipulates WP is reliable). Indeed, anybody can edit Wikipedia, there is absolutely no reason to believe that some concrete fact or figure is correct in the current version. That is not a big problem, however, because a reader can always read the source and verify the fact by themselves. However, we assume an ordinary reader of English Wikipedia is an Anglophone reader who does not know other languages. Therefore, our ordinary reader cannot verify what not English sources say.

In my opinion, that does not mean non-English sources should be completely banned. They are quite acceptable for non-controversial and/or low importance subjects. But as soon as some user expressed a legitimate concern about such a source, it should be replaced with similar English source or removed altogether. Let me give an example to demonstrate my thought. Let's take an extreme case, Arab-Israel topic. Would it be acceptable to use an Palestinian newspaper as a source about a small Arab town to describe some non-controversial facts of its history? I don't see who we cannot do it. However, imagine the Gaza Strip article written based on mostly Arab or Hebrew sources? Clearly, it would have opened a can of worms, so it is always better to use sources that (i) can be independently verified by a larger number of Wikipedians, and (ii) are less connected to this sensitive topic.
 * Second, we have more or less adequate tool to estimate relative reliability of English sources. Thus, we know which scientific journals are good, which are less reliable (such as predatory journals), and which are a total garbage. We cannot say the same about non-English sources without going in details of national specifics. For example, can you say which Egyptian newspapers should be considered mainstream, and which are marginal? Which materials are editorials, and which are op-ed? Can you say which Kazakh publisher house is respectable, and which is not?
 * Third, usage of non-English sources sharply restricts the number of participants of NOR/NPOW/V discussions in relevant noticeboards, because majority of users who are commenting there do not possess needed skills to join that discussion. As a result, the risk of achieving a local consensus that may be very far from what one might expect in a discussion about similar English source becomes very high, and that by no means improves a quality of WP content.

That is why, and to avoid future discussions about blanket allowance/banning of some category of sources (I frequently see this type discussion on this and related talk page), I propose to return to a discussion of my version of WP:SOURCES (see above), which stipulates that all sources, except articles in peer-reviewed journals and university books, should be treated as conditionally reliable, and their reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis as explained in relevant guidelines and in WP:REDFLAG.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your comment. I would support your WP:SOURCES proposal, although I disagree that we know which scientific journals are good, which are less reliable (such as predatory journals), and which are total garbage. Regardless of what language it's in, individual assessment often has to be done in order to find that out. Foreign language journals are not necessarily less reliable than English ones. Furthermore, I worry that any effort to reduce the use of non-English sources would have the effect of worsening systemic bias on Wikipedia - already a serious problem. If there's a tradeoff between comprehensiveness or bias versus pitfalls of non-English sources, I'm inclined to favor the former.
 * I agree that in cases of ethnic conflict, writers from non-involved countries are often more reliable. (Nevertheless, in the case above, I would argue for including sources by both Israelis and Palestinians to achieve NPOV, because Anglo perspective is not neutral by itself). However, for the same reason you wouldn't want to write the Mexican-American war based only on US sources. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there are some formal criteria that allow rough estimation of journal's reliability. These criteria include, (i) impact factor (the higher, the better, although a comparison should be done only between journals about the same topic) (ii) journal's presence is some databases (Thompson-Reuter, Jstor, google scholar, Scopus, etc). For non-English journals, it is much harder to obtain similar information, and it is much less reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ? I haven't found that to be the case. Many foreign language sources are indexed on Google Scholar, jstor, CEEOL and similar databases. You can easily count holdings in university libraries, and check who is the publisher and author. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ? I haven't found that to be the case. Many foreign language sources are indexed on Google Scholar, jstor, CEEOL and similar databases. You can easily count holdings in university libraries, and check who is the publisher and author. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of foreign sources is fragmentary and incomplete. And it is hard to estimate its reliability. Usually, when I find some English source, I can check how many times it was cited, and in which context (support, criticism, etc), and everybody who disagrees with my opinion can check that independently. That does not work with foreign sources: even if I can read, for example, Polish or Ukrainian, my opponents probably cannot, so they should trust to my analysis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think current policy explains it well enough. "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". So, (1) under no circumstances the non-English RS should be forbidden just because they are non-English (they may be less preferred, but they can be used), (2) the non-English RS should be used in a number of cases, for example, if they are freely available, provide additional details, or simply serve to corroborate claims made in other sources, English or not. This policy (essentially WP:RS) is fully applicable to Holocaust or coverage of any ethnic conflicts. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with Mvbw. Regarding the OP's three specific questions: this seems all too evident for words,
 * If the non-English source has more detail,
 * Either, some of that detail is germane as content for Wikipedia's article, in which case, for referencing that detail, the English and non-English sources are *not* of "equal quality and relevance", and thus, for that detail, the non-English source should be used.
 * Or, what often will be the case, because a tertiary source like Wikipedia is rather "summary" than "full detail", the detail is interesting but not of a level to make it to article content. In that case it can be a good idea to add the foreign-language document to a "Further reading" section.
 * If the English and non-English source have a different viewpoint, then they are, of course, not interchangeable, per WP:NPOV: they are each relevant to their viewpoint, which makes that the relevance of both sources is at least different, not equal. Anyhow, WP:V can not be used to supersede WP:NPOV – if viewpoints are different we can't discriminate against one source because it wasn't written in English: a normal implementation of WP:NPOV applies, and the viewpoints need to be weighed according to that core content policy.
 * If the foreign-language source is more accessible, it would probably be best to use both sources for broad verifiability.
 * This also hardly touches upon actual difficulties that might arise in practice: how do a group of editors working on an article compare a source they maybe don't really understand with one they do understand (e.g. in order to determine whether a viewpoint has enough weight to be treated on equal footing or not)? But there again, the policy is clear enough that quotations can be asked for, which, of course, might need to be translated to make a joint assessment possible.
 * Re. SV's "... In short, NOENG may as well not exist. ... I've consider proposing something to clarify the policy ..." I've yet to come across a case where a rather straightforward policy which is not followed very well, is better followed once its wording is expanded by clarifications etc. Instead, I'd ask straightforward implementation of the policy (quotes, translation of these quotes, etc), and insist on the point until policy is followed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, I agree about insisting on quotations, and that's something I will do going forward. But it doesn't solve the whole problem. Is the source part of mainstream Holocaust studies; is it up to date; is the editor who added it fluent enough in the language to understand scholarly sources so that they will spot something else in the article that may contradict the point; is it being cited correctly to allow other editors to find it; can it be accessed at all, even via inter-library loan?What we're supposed to do on Wikipedia is present readers with mainstream, up-to-date Holocaust history. Issues that the international scholarly community wants to discuss are invariably translated into English, although it may take a few years. So when an editor goes off-piste with unusual sources, or sources that no one on enwiki can evaluate, it can be a red flag. We also have to think about the long-term health of the article. Who in future is going to maintain it if no one can find the sources? SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If we apply the same criteria to non-English sources, that we must conclude that WP:SOURCES is equally applicable to them. That means "mainstream newspapers" or "books published by respected publisher houses" are RS. However, let's take such an author as Volodymyr Viatrovych as an example. He published a number of monographs in respectable Ukrainian publisher houses, including the one of the oldest Ukrainial university. He is considered a mainstream author in Ukraine by a part of Ukrainian society. And one of his major ideas, which he is vehemently advocating, is that UPA was not responsible for the Holocaust, and they had never been engaged in mass killings of Jews. Can we add this information into the Holocaust related articles as a statement of fact (or even as an attributed opinion)? Currently, the policy makes no difference between, e.g. Oxford Univ. press and Києво-Могилян. акад: both publishers are affiliated with their universities, and these universities are among the oldest (and the most respectable) in their countries. That means, formally speaking, the books published by Viatrovich are equally reliable as the books of his Anglophone critics (there is no supporters, btw). Are we ready to include the opinion that is de facto a denial of important aspects of the Holocaust into the article about the Holocaust? If we treat non-English sources as Francis propose, we should.


 * Second. Viatrovich is being criticized not only abroad, but in Ukraine too. How can we decide if his views are mainstream in Ukraine? Actually we cannot do that just based on google translation of quotes, we must possess some knowledge about a broader context. In English speaking worlds, we all implicitly have that knowledge (thus, everybody knows who David Irving is). In foreign cultural media, a situation is different: we don't know which national authors are broadly considered marginal, which are broadly recognized as mainstream, and if some user who speaks, e.g. Ukrainian, provided a handful of sources, we even cannot say if these sources are a representative sample, and not a cherry-picked set of mutually supporting marginal writings. That is a reason why we should not have any blanket allowance/bans of some categories of sources, and everything should be analyzed in context, as I proposed above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "... If we treat non-English sources as Francis propose, we should." – nonsense, don't put words in my mouth: that is neither supported by policy, nor by WP:V, nor by WP:NPOV, nor what I said, nor directly, nor indirectly. So, if this is the level you're trying to have a discussion, please go elsewhere.
 * Re. "He is considered a mainstream author in Ukraine by a part of Ukrainian society." – I don't believe you, you just posit that, as if it is TRUTH, no, that's not how it works in Wikipedia.
 * Re. "How can we decide if his views are mainstream in Ukraine?" – QED, you're just saying things. Either he is, and then you need references to reliable sources to support that (not vaguely "he published..." without a single reference), either he isn't, and then don't start on him in a policy discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) The policy says that English-language sources are "preferred". I'm not sure why people want to ignore that word. Paul is exactly right about the problems ignoring it leads to. In Holocaust studies, there has been a shift from viewing it as something imposed only by Germany on the rest of Europe, and a move to seeing it as a "series of holocausts" carried out by Germans and groups other than Germans. Allowing non-English-language sources to be of equal validity takes us down the road of inadvertently using perpetrator/collaborator sources as mainstream sources, based on texts most readers and editors can't read or even find. The international scholarly community of Holocaust historians publishes in English; even if they first publish in another language, anything that matters is likely to make its way into English. By ignoring WP:NOENG, we are saying we know better. SarahSV (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OUP is a respected publisher not just in the UK, but in the entire world, including non English speaking countries. I doubt that the Ukrainian publisher has anything like that level of international recognition, which has to be considered alongside national reputation. Furthermore, for such an extreme claim more than one source is certainly required. But there are other ways to assess quality and mainstream-ness of foreign language sources. For example, journals published by the national academy in their country can be assumed to represent mainstream opinions in their countries. I agree with case by case assessment but that should be applied fairly to sources but this cannot be used to selectively exclude non-Anglo perspectives that certain editors just don't like. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b>


 * No one is excluding non-Anglo perspectives. The argument is that Holocaust sources that scholars want to read are translated and published in English. It's like MEDRS. We have to wait for the review articles. In Holocaust studies, it's better to wait for the English-language editions. German is perhaps an exception for obvious reasons. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Re 1. That is how I understood your words starting with "If the English and non-English source have a different viewpoint,... etc" You de facto propose to abstain from estimating relative reliability of these sources, so, if I understand you correct, according to you, problem of that kind belongs to the realm of NPOV, not V. That is exactly what I say.


 * Re 2. You are just confirming my point: neither you nor I live in Ukraine, and you cannot trust me, because you have no reason to believe I have sufficient knowledge for making such a statement. However, I also can ignore your criticism, because I have serious reasons to suspect you are also not knowledgeable in realities of modern Ukraine. If that dispute were about some English writer, we could easily resolve it by using objective criteria. However, we cannot do that in that case, which is a demonstration of my thesis that usage of non-English sources creates additional risks for Wikipedia reliability.


 * Re "not vaguely "he published..." without a single reference" Usually, my posts are redundantly long, so I am trying not to include non-essential information there. I provided a link to the article about that author, all needed references are there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that doesn not follow from WP:SOURCES letter. That is why it should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Break
Re. "You de facto propose to abstain from estimating relative reliability of these sources" – no, I don't: please go elsewhere if that is the level you want to have this discussion: I'm no game for this kind of nonsense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, that is an absolutely normal discussion: I am just explaining how I understood your words. If you disagree with my interpretation (and you have a right to do so, for you know better what did you propose in reality), then the next step would be to explain my mistake to me. That would be a normal continuation of the discussion. In contrast, your proposal "to go elsewhere" is by no means normal. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, my reply was regarding the OP's second case (as I clearly stated), which starts "The English and non-English sources are of equal quality, relevance, and reliability but present different viewpoints ..." – if the "equal reliability" is part of the premise, then my answer was correct. That's why I said that all three of the cases presented in the OP seem "all too evident for words", and that they "also hardly touch[es] upon actual difficulties that might arise in practice" – so don't distort my words which is an unhelpful way leading to non-discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not sure I distorted your words, I just put an emphasis differently. The roots of the problem is exactly in the words shown in bold: "are of equal quality". Your write ""equal reliability" is part of the premise", and that is a problem, because the word "equal" in your phrase implies some non-binary criterion of reliability. However, WP:SOURCES sets a binary criterion ("reliable - non reliable"), so, following WP:SOURCES's letter, an English book published by OUP is of an equal quality as a Ukrainian book published by Києво-Могилян. акад., which immediately moves the dispute about a conflict between these two sources to the NPOV area. Meanwhile, WP:V could do its job better by explicitly explaining that "reliability" is a non-binary term that must be understood in a proper context: some sources are more reliable that others, and some reliable sources are acceptable in some context and unacceptable in another.  --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:SOURCES does it say that Києво-Могилян. акад. and OUP are of equal quality? I did a find in page for "quality" and it doesn't seem to say anything of the sort. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Other reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses


 * That is a binary criterion that allows no nuances: both Oxford University and Kиєво-Могиляньска академiя are their nation's top universities, and, per out policy's letter, the books published by them are equally reliable sources.


 * Of course, by saying that, I am acting as devil's advocate. However, that argumentation can be used by some POV pushers, and, formally speaking, they would be right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Books by Oxford University Press are better not because they are published in English. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go elsewhere, you're still distorting my words. Hence, your contributions to this discussion are still very unhelpful. I don't read you apologising for your error, instead you're doubling down on self-righteousness without recognising an error. So, please go elsewhere. If that's your attitude in discussions regarding sensitive topics like holocaust etc., I think it would be better you don't edit in such sensitive areas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I could not distort your words in my last post, because I just quoted them and supplemented with my commentaries. If you disagree with my comments, feel free to explain me what you disagree with, but keep in mind that that is my opinion about your words. You may agree with that or disagree, and this my opinion may be right or wrong, but I see no reason why should I apologize for expressing my opinion. With regards to my apologies, I think by saying that that was just my understanding of your words, I made a good faith attempt to resolve a situation. In connection to that, your responses are redundantly aggressive, which is not a problem per se. A real problem is that you are not trying to explain me what is wrong with my interpretation of your words. You say "you misinterpreted me, apologize", but you are not giving me even a single clue on what that misinterpretation consisted in. Let's assume we both are honest Bayesians, who, according to Aumann agreement theorem cannot agree to disagree if they are discussing something that belongs to the domain of their common knowledge. In other words, if you explain me properly what was wrong with my interpretation of your words, the problem will disappear (maybe in few iterations).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you distorted my words. And again. Please go away, you bring no useful insights to this discussion, as the first step in a useful discussion is to read attentively what someone else says, and not distort their words. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe problem is not on my side? Maybe it is not me who read not attentively? However, since I respect my opponents, I am explaining my 21:27, 30 January 2020 post in different words. Yes, assuming that English and not English sources are of equal quality, your words are almost correct. I say "almost" because there is one small technical objection, which I explain elsewhere. However, although you are right, the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality": the word "quality" is found only twice in the policy text, one time in NOENG, another time in REDFLAG. That means we are de facto advised to operate with the criterion that is not defined in a policy, so everybody interprets "quality" based on their own criteria. That is a root of many conflicts, which are a central part of many arbitration cases. Moreover, it is that omission which forced ArbCom to make a decision that only peer-reviewed English sources are allowed in the Holocaust in Poland area. Had WP:V explained the term "quality" in even very general form (something similar to what I propose), many of those conflicts could be possible to avoid.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go away, you misrepresented my words, and continue to do so. Unless you have the intention to change your approach (for clarity: nothing of that is apparent in what you write)? Then please say so, and strike all your misrepresentations of my words. Thanks. Again, based on misrepresentations of what someone else says, and that is what you have been doing thus far, it seems nothing good will come from this discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * How can you speak about misinterpretation of your words in my recent posts when I provided no interpretation at all? I just said that your words could be correct had the term "quality of sources" been explained in the policy. However, I found no such explanation in WP:V. If you believe this term is explained in the policy, please demonstrate that. What you are saying is not the focus of my recent posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "... you are right, the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"" – I said no such thing, so you're still misrepresenting my words.
 * Re. "... I provided no interpretation at all" – even if that were correct (which it isn't), how would you parroting my words be in any way helpful in this discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A full quote is "However, although you are right, the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"". English is not my mother tongue, so a possibility cannot be ruled out that this sentence is not completely grammatically correct. Nevertheless, the words "although you are right, lorem ipsum dolor" usually mean: "what you say is correct, but lorem ipsum dolor". In other words I never said, and never wanted to say that the words "the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"" belong to you: that was my own thought, and I never ascribed it to you. Therefore, it looks like you owe me apology for misinterpreting my words. However, I am not insisting on that because it could be quite possible that I was just not clear enough. In future, I will try to be more careful in citing your thought.
 * Can we consider the incident resolved now?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "Can we consider the incident resolved now?" – no, you didn't retract any of your misrepresentations, and you're still trying to hijack the discussion: "please go away" is still my advice to you. It is extremely difficult to have a sensible discussion with the excess of distraction you throw into it. So, please go away. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that I have quite some experience with articles using multi-language sources: that experience may (or may not) be helpful to address the issues raised here. Problem is that talking about such experience is futile when all of it is translated, by a single contributor to the discussion, in a single-purpose vision that excludes all other approaches outside the prejudiced one. For now, I'd just oppose rewriting the policy to suit the needs of a limited set of articles, if that would mess up sound verifiability in other sets of articles. Maybe in Holocaust-related articles English-language sources may, in a practical way, generally be superior to those in other languages (except German). I can't judge that. In the area in which I'm most active, foreign-language sources are often more reliable than English-language derivatives. So, I'd reject any attempt to have, at policy level, a principle inscribed that language, in general, is an indicator of the quality of a source. If anything needs to be said about language and reliability of a source it should be (1) nuanced, and (2) in subsidiary guidance, not in policy-level guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the first part, although the conclusion should be somewhat different. It would be incorrect and arrogant to claim non-English sources are of poorer quality. However, as you correctly pointed out, much smaller number of editors are capable of making a judgement about non-English sources. That means, we have much less opportunity for proper quality control. Therefore, it would be correct to say in the policy, that, "whereas the language, in general, is by no means an indicator of the quality of a source, usage of non-English sources is more risky, because standard tools that are used for quality control of English sources are less applicable to non-English ones, and a smaller number of users are capable to make authoritative judgement about such sources during discussion in relevant noticeboards."--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources (history)
The page linked above is currently an essay, but by looking at it, I feel that it may be an option to discuss as part of this thread. Would there be an interest in exploring if it's feasible for WP:HISTRS being adopted in the Holocaust topic area as a guideline? That would require an RFC of course, but want to float the idea here, to begin with. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The essay looks very reasonable, why cannot it be upgraded to the guidelines level? Does anybody know what is a procedure to convert an essay to guidelines?, can you please advise us how can we do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman and Paul, I think this is a good idea in theory, but that page would need a lot of work. Parts of it don't really mean anything. I'd suggest first fixing it as an essay, then writing a section on the Holocaust, and only after that consider what it would need to get it to guideline status. SarahSV (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Paul Siebert, that page is an essay because it's impossible. The objections raised when it was written have been largely ignored.  I see, for example, that the critique I posted in 2013 still applies.  According to that page's definition, things like pop culture awards in 2018 are "history" and only scholarly sources can be used.  And it says that the minute a historian starts writing a book about any current politician, their entire BLP articles are now "history articles" and every non-scholarly, non-historian source needs to be removed.  It is proof that WP:Policy writing is hard.  You can find some good advice there on how to identify the best possible sources, but you need a lot of experience with Wikipedia and a good deal of common sense to avoid getting in trouble.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Elaborated example
Not so long ago I wrote the BWV Anh. 167 article. Here are some sources that write about that composition: If only plain English published sources would be used, that is #2 and #3, then 50% of the sources write that Bach wrote the first 12 pages of the manuscript and 50% of the sources say he wrote nothing before the middle of the 13th page, in terms of the WP:BALANCE policy. Then one would have to write, in the BWV Anh. 167 article, something like:"According to the Bach Digital website, Bach wrote everything after the middle of the 13th page of the P 659 manuscript, while according to Philipp Spitta Bach only wrote the first 12 pages of that manuscript." Instead, the BWV Anh. 167 article has (Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167):"The first part of that manuscript was written by one of Bach's scribes, ..., while Bach himself completed the handwritten score ..." The reason is clear: according to WP:RSUE, other-language sources can only be suppressed if the English-language source (or: sources) is/are "... of equal quality and relevance". Since that is not the case, while one of the English translations does not match its German original, no source can be missed. Then the picture becomes completely different: the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation becomes, on this point, a negligible minority vision (in WP:WEIGHT terms), in fact a simple error – the overwhelming majority of relevant reliable sources say it differently. The primary source (#1) is available, and if one has seen a few Bach manuscripts even that confirms, without that being useable directly in Wikipedia, that all secondary sources except the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation have it right. That is saying nothing about the general quality of that translation: anyone can make an error.
 * 1) Mus.ms. Bach P 659 at Berlin State Library website. (that is the primary source discussed in all quotes below)
 * 2)  Containing:"..., of which Bach ... wrote out the whole of the first twelve pages ..."
 * 3)  Containing:"Scribe (in detail): H. W. Ludewig (...); from p. 13 (middle): J. S. Bach"
 * 4) The so-called "English" version (click "EN" top right of page) of  (Mus.ms. Bach P 659). Containing:"Notes: ... Schreiber: bis p. 13 (Mitte): H. W. Ludewig (...); der Rest ist von J. S. Bachs Hand (mittel/spät)."
 * 5) (German original of #2 above)  Containing:"..., welche Bach ausschließlich der ersten zwölf seiten, ..., ... abgeschrieben hat."
 * 6)  Containing:"... 1–13 paginirt, so weit der Copist geschrieben hat; von Seite 13 der zehnten Linie an, also noch 14 Linien von der Seite bis zum Ende hat Bach Alles selbst geschrieben: Seite 13 die grössere untere Hälfte, Seite 14–39."
 * 7) D-B Mus.ms. Bach P 659 at Bach Digital website (German version of #3 above):"Schreiber, detailliert: H. W. Ludewig (...); ab S. 13 (Mitte): J. S. Bach"
 * 8) Plain German version of #4 above,  (Mus.ms. Bach P 659), containing:"Bemerkungen: ... Schreiber: bis p. 13 (Mitte): H. W. Ludewig (...); der Rest ist von J. S. Bachs Hand (mittel/spät)."
 * 9) (My) literal translation of #4 = #8 above:"Notes: ... Scribe: up to p. 13 (middle): H. W. Ludewig (...); the rest is in J. S. Bach's (middle to late) handwriting."
 * 10) (My) literal translation of #5 (highlighting difference with published translation #2):"..., which Bach copied, apart from the first twelve pages, ..."
 * 11) (My) literal translation of #6:"... pages numbered 1 to 13, as far as written by the copyist; Bach has written everything from the tenth line of page 13, which is another 14 lines on that page, until the end: [that is] the larger lower half of page 13, [and] pages 14 to 39."

So, no for the wording proposed above, containing "... usage of non-English sources is more risky ..." (etc): in the given example using the published English translation is "more risky" – no such dismissive thing can be said about foreign-language sources at policy level. There is no "quick and dirty" way to get rid (or even subtly undermine the value) of foreign-language sources in this way, and certainly not at policy level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that Francis has given a great example of where applying this guideline makes no sense. Although I'm not sure if, in this context, very many editors would insist on applying the letter of the rule. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly misunderstood: I followed policy (& guidelines). Why would you say I didn't? I followed them to the letter, I followed them generally, and according to current detail. So please, make clear in what sense I wouldn't have followed policy and guidelines in general and to the letter, instead of offering vague accusations, not supported by facts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, I doubt you followed policy's letter, for the policy does not define the terms "quality" and "relevance". Although your evidences are quite adequate (from the common sense point of view), non-English sources cited by you are not better that the sources #2&3, according to WP:V's letter. Therefore, formally, there was no need to use them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What a nonsense. Please go away. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Buidhe: I still wanted to add that I find the WP:V policy (& related policies, & subsidiary guidelines) quite enough to handle these issues (i.e. those of the elaborate example): for the above example the guidance fits as a glove, i.e. no unnecessary detail or attempt at micromanagement, clear principles that can be applied in a wide variety of circumstances, enough support to address the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for writing out that example. Just one point: I don't think anyone has suggested that non-English-language sources are inherently problematic. The difficulty in Holocaust articles is that non-English sources are cited where English sources exist and are at least as good or better. The Polish edition of a book is cited when there is a more recent English edition. Sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them. One source is cited when in fact the text came from another source. And sources are cited that do not exist as described. So it is a very big problem, and trying to find and understand those sources has absorbed significant volunteer time.The current situation means that those articles, for all practical purposes, are not verifiable, often on sensitive issues. Therefore, it would be good to find a solution. Your suggestion above, that we get stricter about enforcing the part of WP:NONENG that requests quotations, will help. There is a template for that—Request quotation—that should probably be used more often. SarahSV (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "I don't think anyone has suggested that non-English-language sources are inherently problematic" – incorrect, someone suggested the wording "... usage of non-English sources is more risky ..." above ("more risky" is of course one form of "inherently problematic").
 * Re. "The difficulty in Holocaust articles is that non-English sources are cited where English sources exist and are at least as good or better. The [other-language] edition of a book is cited when there is a more recent English edition." – well, that's exactly the way things stand with the (original) Spitta 1880 source (#5 in the elaborate example) and its "more recent English" translation (1899, #2 in the elaborate example). So, in general, I don't think it is correct to say that such issues are only to be resolved in Holocaust-related articles: they are encountered in other topic areas too. For clarity, in general, the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation is considered superior to Spitta's original: the translators consulted Spitta on some inconsistencies in his original, leading, generally (apart from the occasional mistake, of which I highlighted one), to a translation that was superior to the original first edition (leading to an errata list in subsequent editions of Spitta's German version).
 * That was just a general remark, I mean, I do think there are specificities, but, in general, comparable issues can be encountered accross quite different topic areas. Similarly, I recognise what you write about "Sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them. One source is cited when in fact the text came from another source. And sources are cited that do not exist as described. So it is a very big problem, and trying to find and understand those sources has absorbed significant volunteer time." etc. As it happens, I could give examples of any of these things you describe, and, if it is any consolation to you, I recently turned down a GAC of a classical composition article for *exactly* these problems (after having invested considerable time trying to disentangle the cause of the issues that article exhibited). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Francis Schonken's example fully demonstrated my point: if a user sustains a burden of proof, and it is clear from the evidences presented that the non-English source has a high quality, then that source can and should be used. Obviously, it should take more efforts to prove that non-English source is good (just because other users are not familiar with some national specifics, and more explanations are needed), but that should not prevent us from usage of that source.


 * However, what I cannot understand is the following: what is a reason for discussing non-English sources separately? If we explicitly introduce and explain the term "quality of source" (which is not defined in the policy yet), and stipulate that the burden of proof is always on those who adds a source, the problem with non-English as well as with many other types of sources will be resolved automatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * SarahSV, what you are saying is correct, but it is hardly relevant to the NOENG issue. If a snippet view is presented as a source (English or non-English, doesn't matter) then there is a risk that the statement was taken out of context. If some source is cited because it is easily available, than may be an indication of a not sufficiently serious approach of a user to editing. The Holocaust article has 20,000 readers daily, and we should do our best to use the best quality sources for it. However how can we expect editors to use best quality sources if the very category "quality of sources" is not defined in the policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth nothing that I'm not discussing the Holocaust article. I'm discussing lots of other articles about the Holocaust and related issues. I haven't given examples because this is a policy discussion, and it wouldn't be appropriate to highlight particular edits. SarahSV (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That hardly change anything. I gave the statistics for the Holocaust article just to demonstrate that the topic is important, and "cheep editing" using snippet views, or advocating some sources just because they are more easily available is hardly a good style. My major point was different: do you agree that by defining the concept "reliable source's quality" we may resolve a large number of problems, including the problems related to the Holocaust topic?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "risky", Francis Schonken, I was probably not clear enough. Under "risky" I meant the following: imagine a similar situation with, e.g. Sibelius, when one Finnish user is advocating some edit based on a Finnish source about that composer. That user provides evidences of the same kind as you did above. All other user feel uncomfortable, because the proposed edits contradict to what English sources say. It may be quite possible that Finnish sources are more reliable about a Finnish composer, but a possibility cannot be ruled out that that Finnish user just incorrectly uses them, or even took some sources that are considered fringe by Finns themselves. Can we check that independently? theoretically, yes, but in reality it is very hard to do. I believe now you understand what I wanted to say: as soon as it has been demonstrated that some foreign source is a high quality source, it is quite ok to use it, but the procedure that determine its quality should be somewhat more strict (more evidences should be presented). By the way, you provided a good example of how should it be done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Elaborated example II (relating to accessibility and non-accesibility of sources)
When I started to edit the Pietro Torri article somewhat over a month ago it contained the grand total of one single source :"" One of several problems with this source is what has been written above: "... sources are cited that do not exist as described": according to Google Books the publication only has 118 pages, while the reference, as found in the Wikipedia article, cites "p. 120" of the edition..., so also "sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them" seems to apply. As a whole, the backbone of the English Wikipedia article on Torri seems to be a (partial) translation of it:Pietro Torri by someone who never saw another source for the article than a Wikipedia article in another language (which may, or may not, have had far laxer rules on sourcing than current English Wikipedia standards).

So, at that point, I could have pasted some tags in the article, like Refimprove etc, and move on, leaving it to someone else to clear out the apparent mess (like I had done here). I tried to do better for the article on Torri (... which was going to "absorb[ed] significant volunteer time", using the words written above). One of the first things I did was to update and expand the content of the cite book template used for the Groote reference:"" But that was still dancing around the main issue regarding this source: it is virtually inaccessible, i.e. probably only found in specialist libraries (not even a summary or the shortest of quotes to be found on the internet), and in Italian, which I don't understand very much. I do think it is not a crucial distinction whether the source is inaccessible for language or for difficulty to get hold of a copy: for practical purposes I could not use the Groote source in a WP:V logic when I wanted to improve & expand the Torri article. So I "demoted" the Groote publication from reference to "Further reading" (Pietro Torri). There was not a single footnote referring to this publication in the article, so, as such, my decision to not use this publication as reference (while still keeping it available if someone who has access to it in the future can still pick it up and rejoin it with the sources used as reference) did not deteriorate the (at that point virtually non-existing) sourcing of the article. This is not an appreciation of the reliability of the Groote source: without having access to it a reliability discernement is not really possible (but more about that later). I found 14 useable sources (Pietro Torri): one in Latin [sic], one in French, one in Italian, five in German, and the remaining six at least partially in English. And another inaccessible source, this one in German, which I added to the "Further reading" section. Plus several dozens of sources only mentioned in the (currently) 270 footnotes (Pietro Torri). And, checking these sources, I saw several of them using the Groote publication as source (so, yes, that kind of confirms that the Groote publication would normally be a "reliable source" in Wikipedia's WP:V logic).

Again, I had no problem applying core content policies such as WP:V, and their subsidiary guidance such as WP:RS, in the form they currently are – but none of these can, of course, be applied without using sound jugdgement (Wikipedia is not written by trained monkeys using guidance that can be interpreted without exerting sound judgement): whether my judgement regarding the content of the Torri article was sound enough is of course open to further appreciation & improvement of the article (that's a basic premise of any wiki system). The point I'm trying to illustrate is that despite problems described above as "Sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them. ... And sources are cited that do not exist as described. ... trying to find and understand those sources has absorbed significant volunteer time.", that despite problems of this nature, WP:V (and related guidance) seems to work fine when trying to address the difficulties. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually all this discussion is essentially senseless taking into account this. I haven't noticed that you de facto supported my core idea. In that context, your extremely rude tone is quite forgivable. Good job, and let's hope this change will stay.
 * Several comments to your above post.
 * I still think that Verifiability's core idea is that everybody should have an opportunity, at least, theoretically, to find the cited source and to see that Wikipedia correctly transmits what it says. In connection to that, if a source is really hard to find, that is a problem. Although that does not mean it is bad, but, since just a few people may have access to that source and make an independent judgement, the risk is greater that that judgement may be incorrect, and it is virtually impossible to check. In that sense, yes, non-English sources are more problematic, although that does not automatically imply their poorer quality.
 * When we discuss quality, there are two aspects: a real quality, and a possibility to assess the source's quality. If the quality of some type of source is easy to check (for example, everybody knows how to check quality of scientific publication: if a journal is good and/or the article is widely cited, the article is a good quality source), the usage of this type source poses a low risk. In contrast, in the example provided by you, your rationale looks quite convincing, however, imagine a situation when you have a dispute with some POV pusher who rejects your arguments, ans says that all your sources are garbage. How many other user will be capable of making an independent conclusion on that matter during, for example, an RSN discussion? I doubt you will get more than 1-2 comments from uninvolved users. That makes a situation very shaky: your rationale (which looks convincing to me) may be rejected, and a totally wrong view of that POV pusher may prevail. That is why I think foreign sources, for which no obvious procedure of quality assessment exists, may be very risky to use.
 * In connection to that, it may be reasonable to think about guidelines that explain how non-English sources should be used.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "... imagine a situation when you have a dispute with some POV pusher who rejects your arguments, ans says that all your sources are garbage. How many other user will be capable of making an independent conclusion on that matter during, for example, an RSN discussion? I doubt you will get more than 1-2 comments from uninvolved users. ..." — well, I don't have to "imagine" such situation, I've encountered such situation more than once. Apart that it's not necessarily a "POV pusher" who uses the tactics: e.g. an example that comes clear to my mind was rather an editor who tried to take WP:OWNership of a set of articles. In a RSN discussion they attacked a series of standard reliable sources on the topic, only accepting more exotic, nevertheless no less reliable, sources, but "by coincidence" they had access to a specialist university library that held these more exotic sources. As it happens, as I afterwards found out, the more exotic sources said the same as the standard reliable sources, but by that time they had closed themselves (as an involved party!) the RSN section, rejecting the standard sources. Some other editors followed the RSN discussion, commented, but stood by "disinterested" when the involved editor closed the discussion in their own self-serving favour.
 * Well, the first thing that has to be said about such situations is that they in part touch upon "core content policies" (and their subsidiary guidance), but also, in part, upon behavioural policies and guidance ("POV pushing" and "WP:OWNership" issues are largely behavioural problems) and that, in Wikipedia context, mixed "content" and "behavioural" issues are sometimes difficult to address. The tactics used to evade scrutiny (& sanction) are very easy: when brought to a behavioural forum (like ANI), editors who exhibit this problem start to talk, in great detail, about their content achievements ("look what a valuable content contributor I am" – thus diverting attention from the behavioural problem); when, conversely, the problem is brought to a content forum, like RSN, their dialogue switches immediately to "look how good I behave", etc, again explained in endless walls of text, thus diverting attention from the content issue that needs resolving.
 * Nonetheless I think Wikipedia's principles which try to separate content issues from behavioural issues, each with their own set of noticeboards to handle them, is fundamentally sound – if every discussion would devolve into a mixed content/behaviour discussion things would definitely be worse. So, on this point, I don't think an update or rewrite of the WP:V policy is needed, and for updates to behavioural guidance this is not the right place (nor do I think that, as such, behavioural policies are currently in need of updating/rewriting). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, unfortunately, RSN may be totally unhelpful, because it frequently happens that the same persons comment on RSN and on the article's talk page. When a dispute requires special knowledge, uninvolved editors frequently prefer not to participate. I can give you some recent examples if you want.
 * To resolve such situation by presenting it as a behavioral issue is not a universal solution. That is an "admin-specific" approach. Sometimes, active admins abstain from diving into that type issues, and suggest DR, because, in their opinion, that is just a content dispute.
 * In general, I noticed that many users who have obvious content disputes are trying to convert them into behavioral ones, because admins prefer to deal with the latter type problems. That is an additional indicator of problems with content policies, which do not provide us with adequate tools for resolving content disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay, first off I think it's rather sneaky of Francis to be discussing, however indirectly, the Talk:Mottainai issue here without having left any notification on the talk page. a source they maybe don't really understand with one they do understand is a pretty clear reference to this. a single contributor to the discussion, in a single-purpose vision that excludes all other approaches outside the prejudiced one is also quite obviously a reference to "version C" on the relevant page, the "single contributor" being me (even though Nishidani and Ryk72 were both involved as well). In the case in question, Francis was (still is?) trying to cite an unreliable English source that very obviously gets the relevant point wrong, apparently because it got its information from Wikipedia, based on the claim that English sources are inherently better than non-English ones, even when there is talk page consensus that the non-English ones are more reliable under the circumstances. The fact that the comments made on this page are fairly direct mirrors of the personal attacks he was recently called out over on ANI just makes it all the worse... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Side note: The "p. 120" thing is probably the number of pages, which the Italian Amazon reports as being 120 in number.  It is incorrect, but it's not an unheard-of mistake.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES revisited
There is no agreement to include the changes you did. Most especially on a policy page, but on any page, please do not make changes while discussion on this issue is ongoing. If I have missed a clear, agreed-upon, community-wide consensus please provide a link. A discussion is not a consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion ongoing?
 * What is your stance in that discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reverted myself since I don't like to edit war. But I am concerned by claims of consensus when I don't see any, and by moving around content while discussion is on going.


 * You linked to a discussion that has been on and off for a while in which no formal consensus was agreed upon yet you claimed consensus. I don't like to see experienced editors claiming consensus when there isn't one and adjusting policy page content when a discussion, even a sporadic one, is ongoing is not great. This is a foundational policy one I and others have spent years watching and sometimes working on so that it is as clear, as it can be, and single editors should, in my opinion, such as it is, get agreement for changes. I won't discuss this further, but the page is watch listed, as it has been for years.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no clear answer to my quite simple questions:
 * Where is the discussion ongoing?
 * What is your stance in that discussion?
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * By way of context, here is the diff where the "mainstream newspapers" content was first added, and here is the related discussion from 2007. That history shows some excellent work in building consensus, but it doesn't seem to me that the "mainstream newspapers" language was ever subject to much specific discussion -- or indeed, that the section as a whole was ever reflective of a consensus any broader than the community of talkpage participants.  I personally have no strong opinions on the matter -- but FWIW, given that the policy landscape has stabilized since 2007, I see little added benefit from addressing this particular issue here rather than at WP:RS; incorporating implementation details into a core policy seems suboptimal generally, and as noted in the recent discussion, "mainstream" is problematic in many contexts.  -- Visviva (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "high-quality" (suggested version) is significantly worse than "mainstream" (old version) because the meaning of "high-quality" is poorly defined. But should it be "mainstream", i.e. should the sources reflect the prevalent current thought in society? Not necessarily, because something could be a small but notable minority view. Therefore, I would suggest to completely exclude this "particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". But things like that should indeed be discussed on an RfC since there is obviously a disagreement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see that several users (including myself) expressed a justified criticism of the current version of the policy, and several others reverted proposed changes, but the only clearly articulated reason is that this change has not been properly discussed. To facilitate a discussion, let me summarize again the problems with current version. The current version, where I took liberty to restore the "under discussion" template says:

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Identifying reliable sources and Search engine test.

I see several problems with that version.
 * The sentence ""Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources" is a pure tautology. Indeed, taking into account that the section's title is "What counts as a reliable source", this sentence de facto says "if sources are reliable, they are reliable". This nonsense discredits the policy, for it is supposed to be at least logically non-controversible.


 * "...particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications" As the previous talk page discussion demonstrated, the work "mainstream" is a source of big problems, because some users believe that refers only to top sources in each category, whereas others believe that everything that is not considered completely discredited is mainstream. Therefore, this word either should be properly defined or removed.

Clearly, a literal interpretation of the above list is a source of big problems, which means it is supposed serve just as an example of what may be (under some circumstances) reliable. In other words, it is more like a soft recommendation. However, that is hardly an appropriate style for a policy. Examples of that type are more appropriate for guidelines.
 * The list starting from "University-level textbooks..." This list is a source of constant conflicts, for it makes guidelines essentially senseless. Indeed, the policy says that the sources belonging to the "mainstream newspapers" category are reliable. In contrast, WP:NEWSORG (a part of guidelines) says that only a fraction of newspapers content is reliable  for statements of fact (although frequently contains errors), whereas other materials are not reliable for statements of fact (reliable only for opinion of the author). In a situation when policy says that newspapers are reliable, and NEWSORG says that a significant part of newspapers materials are not, the this policy has priority. That means that everything what NEWSORG say can be ignored.
 * The last important problem is that each category in this list (University level textbooks, etc.) are very unhomogeneous. For example, "Magazines" include such sources as "Scientific American", "Playboy", and "Hustler". Do we really imply all of them may be reliable? Furthermore, we already had a discussion about the term "mainstream newspapers", and that discussion hadn't come to any logical end. The same can be said about "Books published by respected publishing houses": what does "respected" mean? Who can say that? "University-level textbook": which university? A level of Harvard university and, e.g. Samarkand university differ dramatically, but each of them publish books (it is sad, but low rank universities publish a lot of garbage).

Literally every item in that list is poorly defined, and that is a source of constant conflict disputes. I already cited the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case. ArbCom introduced specific sourcing restrictions to stop incessant edit war in that topic, and I am sure the problem with the above quoted segment of the policy is one of the reason for that step. I think this part of the policy should be fixed, and if there will be no rationally explained objections to that, I am ready to propose the way to fix it (actually, what Francis Schonken has done was a step in a right direction, but that version can be further improved).

One more point. Currently, the policy refers to the "Search engine test" essay. Whereas I agree with many ideas of that essay, I think it is not completely correct that the reference to an essay is included in a policy. Maybe, we should take some steps to convert that essay into guidelines first? --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A possible quick fix is to change "Other reliable sources include:" to "Other reliable sources may includes works from the following types of sources, subject to consensus:" which means editors should not just assume that for example any magazine will work, and there is no need to be more explicit on any of these definitions. If there are specific cases of existing guidance on classes of work (eg MEDRS/SCIRS for journals), they can be linked. And of course, linking the WP:RS/N as a "if you have any questions about a source..." guidance. --M asem  (t) 01:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , yes, although I would say " may include some works". However, there is still a space for misinterpretations, which may be used by civil POV-pushers. I already proposed this version:


 * I would like to know what is wrong with that version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, please don't continue with this. This is happening because of the dispute at Soviet gas van. That can't be allowed to cause a change to a core content policy. As for what's wrong with your version, it literally doesn't say anything: something may or may not be something else, and may or may not be used for this or that. The section is fine as it is. SarahSV (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * SarahSV, that is not correct. In reality, whereas I had a content dispute with another user about some poor quality source, that source has already been removed from the article, and that removal was supported by other users. The content dispute has already been resolved, which means the changes I am proposing are not dictated by my desire to win a content dispute.
 * By the way, if I am not wrong, you yourself are here because of your content dispute about some Holocaust related topics, and that is perfectly ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding "something may or may not be ", in my opinion, that is better than a falsely concrete version that we currently have: it looks concrete, but its concretness turns all good ideas described on NEWSORG into a garbage, because all of that can be ignored per policy.


 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, I think you've misunderstood the policy. It includes "mainstream newspapers" as one of the types of source that counts as an RS. Whether a particular newspaper article is an RS depends on the context. You learn how to use sources by gaining editing experience and knowledge of the sourcing guidelines and best practice. SarahSV (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in the policy that its advice is easily superseded by what experienced users will tell you, and by sourcing guidelines? On the contrary (and saying this I assume that WP:RS was not written by "inexperienced" users), the policy says, in the WP:V section: "In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:RS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority."
 * So what you propose is unworkable:
 * Either, in the the WP:V policy the above "WP:V-supersedes-WP:RS-and-similar-guidance-in-case-of-inconsistency" quote is replaced by something like "The advice in this policy is only a broad direction, with exceptions documented in guidelines and overviews such as WP:RS and WP:RSP, and further restricted by the outcome of RfCs such as WP:DAILYMAIL." Then whatever nonsense (like that whatever "mainstream newspaper" may or can be considered a "reliable source") can be kept in the policy, but this is really a very unhelpful solution for newcomers, who generally should be directed ASAP to core content policies such as WP:V, and when they arrive here should not be getting a serving of "well, this is policy, but only in name, while any practical advice it contains has to be taken with a grain of salt."
 * Or, WP:V indeed supersedes other related guidance, but then its wording should (as much as possible) be fool-proof, consistent with consensus (as e.g. the consensus at the end of the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC), and no longer send newcomers in the wrong direction by questionable advice like that whatever mainstream newspaper "may" be used as a reliable source.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Francis, I can give you a real example of a content dispute between me and another experiences editor. This dispute had already been resolved, so I can discus the policy change without a risk to be accused of an attempt to modify policy to win a content dispute.


 * The user attempted to add some very obscure newspaper as a source supporting some fact, and that was not in accordance with guidelines. When I objected to that, the user argued that mainstream newspapers are RS per V, and, as you correctly noted, the policy has priority. It required more than a month of disputes to fix the problem, and the problem was resolved just because majority of participants of the dispute supported me. Ii could not be able to implement what the guidelines say without a support by other users. That means WP:V makes guidelines non-workable, and it allows incorporation of garbge sources.


 * I understand that my proposal is far from perfect, but it still better than the current version.Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No policy, not even WP:BLP, exists in an absolute superseding state that has no wiggle room; all polices have grey areas that the policy language should be helping to set up for consensus-based discussions - or more specifically, P&G are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive, nor are meant to be read as if they were bureaucratic rules and nitpicking on the language. Policies should have far less grey area than guidelines, but they are not absent of such undefined areas. To me, that's where this present language is at (at least, with my additional wording): it is not saying that we absolutely allow, for example, all mainstream newspapers are RSes, but that they are a common source of RS, which 100% accurately describes practice. --M asem (t) 14:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Masem, I am not saying that mainstream newspapers should not be allowed. Moreover, I myself am using them occasionally. However, in my opinion, the policy should stress that usage of mainstream newspapers should be strongly content specific, and different articles in the same newspaper may be reliable or not. Actually, guidelines perfectly explain that. However, the current text of the policy contradicts to the guidelines, thereby allowing some tendentious editors to use it as a pretext for using poor quality newspaper publications in contentious areas.
 * The current version of the policy works fine when all users who participate in editing are good faith users prone to consensus. The problem is that I am working in areas where content disputes are frequent, and I am seeing that the policy does not allow us to resolve content disputes as easily as it is supposed to. Im majority cases, the dispute is resolved de facto by majority users vote, which is not good. A good policy should not work in that way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And, remember, I came here first with the question "what should be considered as mainstream newspapers?", and we still have no answer, for different users see it totally differently (from "only newspapers of records" to "any non-discredited newspaper").--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'm still in agreement from a far earlier discussion (not just here) that "mainstream" is a term of art, and poorly defined to use here. At least for purposes of WP:V, I would replace that with "national and regional newspapers" with the implicit "that meet the basics of RS, with editorial oversight". I mean that's not perfect but its better defined that "mainstream". If anything, we should have sections at WP:RS that goes into detail of how to identify a reliable type of each of these sources, where we have given more specific information (eg like for journals: peer-review, non-predatory ones, and with deference to MEDRS and SCIRS for certain topics).
 * But I feel a lot of what's being talked about here is wiki-laywering over the exact language by other users, which should not be done. --M asem (t) 16:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I have an idea. What if we expand the policy a little bit to make more direct and clear reference to guidelines? For example, if instead to the current version we write something like that:

and do the same for each item in the list, that would resolve a situation. By doing that, we demonstrate that the policy provides just general principles, and the decision about reliability should be made on case by case basis as described in guidelines. BTW, similar idea was expressed by Blueboar below.

Regarding wikilawyering, I would love to avoid that, but in that case I am working as "devil's advocate" in attempt to eliminate a possibility of usage of possible gaps in the policy by POV pushers. I also find a situation with Antisemitism in Poland case a worrying sign. I think, by fixing the policy, we could create a situation when these sanctions could be made redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Francis, you referred above to "what you propose", and the indenting made it look like a reply to me. Just noting here that I don't have a proposal. Paul, there was a long-term dispute between you and My very best wishes about Soviet gas vans and now you're both on this page. I think you've misunderstood this policy and what a policy is. We do, as a matter of fact, accept "mainstream newspapers" as RS. The policy has stated that for many years, and it reflects what actually happens on WP. Policies must be descriptive as well as prescriptive; a policy that is no longer descriptive is not a policy, no matter what it calls itself. Your dispute was caused by someone wanting to use, as you put it above, a "very obscure newspaper" for what you regarded as an important point. So there's your answer. SarahSV (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood – this was indeed a direct reply to your comment above that comment by me. Re. "... descriptive ..." – the correct description of the current situation (after WP:DAILYMAIL, similar consensuses, and site–wide removal of a selection of such "mainstream newspapers" as sources from Wikipedia, etc.) is that there is no blanket approval of "mainstream newspapers" any more (some are accepted, others are not, and for some of them the rejection to ever still use them as a reliable source is site-wide); see alsoWP:RSP. So, "reliable sources include: ... Mainstream newspapers", as it is currently in the policy, is a remnant of a distant past that is no longer descriptive of the current situation, and thus misleading (especially as it claims to be so that "this policy has priority" as it is in WP:V) – it sends newcomers in the wrong direction, and as I have come to realise through your point-missing reply: it is especially dangerous for experienced editors who continue to have discussions in terms that no longer correspond to current reality of adequate guidance, which out of justified necessity ignores WP:V on this point.
 * So, indeed, whatever way you turn it, you "propose" to continue an "unworkable", unstable and untenable situation, that causes more trouble than it solves because it is no longer "descriptive" of the current situation.
 * So either the policy-level blanket approval of "mainstream newspapers" is removed, or a new wording qualifying the statement thus that it can no longer be misunderstood as a blanket approval of "all" mainstream newspapers, but only of those mainstream newspapers which are, as a correct *description* of the current situation, still widely accepted. As the second is unlikely to find agreement on short term, the first solution seems best until an appropriate updated wording is approved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is || this close to wikilawyering on language. I read the section, and I do not see any absolute allowance for any "mainstream newspaper", just that mainstream newspapers may be considered reliable sources, subject to the implicit IAR/concensus-based discussions all policies have. Daily Mail may be "mainstream" but we've clearly deprecated it; does this policy need to spell that out? No. There's a tiny tweak of wording I've suggested to otherwise keep this descriptive without losing any other intent. --M asem  (t) 19:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, you are not right. The content dispute that I used to have had already been resolved, and I am pretty satisfied with its outcome. In contrast to another participant of that dispute, I openly declared the fact that I was a party of the dispute (see above on this talk page). I am not aware of any policy, giudelines, or other rules that prevent users who were a party of a content dispute to discuss the policy. In addition, I am here primarily because I see some general problems with the policy, and I think that the ArbCom decision about Antisemitism in Poland case (a conflict I was not a party of) is an indication of problems with WP:V.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think that mainstream newspapers should be allowed, but it is subject to some additional limitations and restriction described in NEWSORG. It should not be a blanket approval, and I agree with Francis in that. In addition, if we allow "mainstream" newspapers, we should define (in policy or in guidelines) what does that term mean. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) Francis, thank you for the reply, which perhaps points to the source of the misunderstanding. The policy states: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks; books published by respected publishing houses; magazines; journals; mainstream newspapers". That does not imply "a blanket approval of 'all' mainstream newspapers". Note: "may" also use, "particularly if it appears in". What counts as an acceptable use of a "mainstream newspaper" depends on context and whether primary or secondary. Some mainstream newspapers are disliked and distrusted on WP; none are banned that I know of. Everything depends on the particular case. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sarah, that does not sound as blanket approval to you and majority of reasonable good faith users. However, I faced a situation when some obscure newspaper was declared "mainstream" (actually, the policy gives not a single clue on how to determine mainstreamness), and an oo-ed material was used to support a controversial statement. Formally, that was in accordance with our policy, although contradicted to guidelines.


 * In addition, if Francis needs your explanations on what the policy says, that means the policy allows double interpretation. I believe you are not going to claim that Francis Schonken or I are not experienced users, and if we interpret policy in that way, there is no reason to conclude our interpretation is wrong, and your interpretation is correct. A good policy does not allow double interpretation, otherwise it is not a policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, what you're doing here is a good example of why isolated experiences should not be allowed to inform policy. That dispute went on for months because of your failure to find secondary academic sources, follow them, then ask the community to support that version. The newspaper in question was not in any sense "mainstream". SarahSV (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * SarahSV, your description of the dispute is obviously wrong. During that dispute, I and a couple of other editors found ALL good reliable sources on that subject, and performed a careful analysis of those soures. We did our job quite well, but another user attempted to add two unrelated primary sources and one junk newspaper, and that was definitely not our fault. And, please, do not return to that issue again: that content dispute had been successfully resolved.
 * And, my experience is by no means isolated. Besides that dispute, I was involved in other disputes (or was a witness thereof), and, based on that combined experience I conclude there are some problems with WP:V. Thus, I was closely watching the development of a conflict between several users over the Holocaust in Poland topic, and I even attempted mediation. That was very informative, because I came to a conclusion that the whole conflict (which led to ban of one user and topic ban of another) could have been avoided had the policy been written better.


 * In addition, in my editing, I am using, almost exclusively, only top quality sources, and I accumilated a very significant experience in identification of reliable sources. I am, arguably, among just few Wikipedians who can claim that my skills have been independently confirmed, see this peer-reviewed publication that says about me. I have a long history of editing, and long hisotry of conflict disputes, and that my proposal is a result of that my experience/--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "... none [i.e., mainstream newspapers] are banned that I know of ..." – I don't know how many more times I have to link to WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RSP. The Daily Mail is a mainstream newspaper and it is, according to the WP:RSP terminology, deprecated as a source for Wikipedia content (except, like any source, where it passes WP:ABOUTSELF). The site-wide consensus about that can be found at WP:DAILYMAIL, confirmed by Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255. Other similarly deprecated mainstream newspapers are listed at WP:RSP. Not only are they listed thus, and does the consensus exist, also edit filters usually prevent further use of such mainstream sources, and further, some editors have taken it upon themselves to remove these mainstream newspapers as sources from Wikipedia where they had been used before they were deprecated. Every once and awhile when such removal encounters resistance, it pops up at WP:RSN where rarely ever (in fact not a single case as far as I can remember) an exception is granted. Further *you knew this*, you tried to "fight" the WP:DAILYMAIL decision after the discussion had closed on consensus, triggering a second close. Instead of generously implementing that consensus in guidance, you now try to make us believe you didn't know.
 * Sorry to point out this disconnect between policy and the reality it should describe. Whatever way it is turned, this disconnect is unhelpful. It is unhelpful for newcomers. It is unhelpful for experienced users. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Deprecated" doesn't mean it can't be used, and not only ABOUTSELF. If someone we're writing about has a byline or an interview, we can use that, although make sure it's not the kind of interview that might have been altered significantly. Again, that we can use mainstream newspapers doesn't mean they can all be used for anything. SarahSV (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're just wikilawyering – several mainstream newspapers are deprecated, and can no longer be considered as reliable sources in Wikipedia (with edit filters preventing their use installed), that is a reality about which the current state of denial in the WP:V policy is an unhelpful & counterproductive disgrace. So stop wikilawyering about some minimal exceptions to that general thrust of consensus decisions: seems rather you're still resisting a generous implementation of consensus on this point. I think you've chosen the wrong battle there, per what you write above about "descriptive": the consensus on these deprecated sources is broadly implemented, and a few editors, however experienced, should not try to keep the correct description of the current situation out of the policy, clinging to guidance that is no longer descriptive of consensus & practical site-wide implementation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A point: evidence was raised during the DM deprecation discussions that shows that the DM falsified interviews and byline-written articles. (not simply taking things out of context, such as Lawrence Lessig had recently with the NYTimes). This is why the deprecation case on the DM is so strong (Brietbart's closely behind it due to similar falsification), and why it really only should be used when the DM is part of the news story itself. However, this is a side point to this discussion. --M asem (t) 22:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of the personal attacks, so I think I'll leave this to the rest of you, but meanwhile I offer you a counter-example in Kingsley Amis (permalink), note 38, interview with Hilly Amis in the Daily Mail. It could certainly be replaced by a better source for the points it supports. But is that article ("Here, in a rare interview") always and necessarily a bad source because of the publisher? What about Martin Amis's tribute to Elizabeth Jane Howard, published in the Daily Mail with his byline? In my view, just about anything could be an RS in WP if appropriate; the word "appropriate" is important. SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed. "Appropriate" is a key word. That means that word should be explained in the policy in very details, not just mentioned in passing. We should devote a paragraph or so to describe how appropriateness should be determined.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES, one more attempt
SarahSV, in my opinion, even if some editor is rude, that is quite forgivable if their contribution to Wikipedia is generally positive. Therefore, I beg you to ignore personal attacks (or something that you see as a personal attack), and continue our discussion. I came to a conclusion that I should have to explain my position better, and here I am trying to explain my major ideas, which had been inspired by the Holocaust in Poland topic and a discussion that involved several editors, including Piotrus. First of all, I myself prefer to use only top quality English sources for editing, mostly peer-reviewed publications. As I already explained, my approach to source selection was described as good in this peer-reviewed publication, so I have a right to claim that I know how to find good sources, and that fact is based on what a reliable source says. However, I fully realize that my approach to source selection is not universally applicable. Indeed, Wikipedia is a very non-homogeneous collection of articles, it includes diverse topics starting from quantum mechanics, gene editing, or the Holocaust to baseball teams, recent Trump's activity, or local high schools in the middle of nowhere. Obviously, lion's share of Wikipedia articles couldn't be possible to write using the sources selected according to my approach. And I fully realize that that is absolutely ok.

What is not ok is the following. The current policy does not explicitly prohibit to use different quality sources in the same article. Formally, it is quite possible to add an article from a popular kid's magazine to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox article. Removal of such a source is a matter of editorial consensus, which makes a situation shaky. I think you yourself would object adding a claim to some Holocaust related article that Ukrainian nationalists had never been engaged in killing Jews during WWII. Meanwhile, such claims can be found in nominally scholarly peer-reviewed articles that are being published in modern Ukraine, for example, by Volodymyr Viatrovych. Obviously, for important topics and important articles, for which top quality sources are available, the level of sources should be as high as possible, and the sources should be of comparable quality. However, for less important topics, for which no good sources are available, lower quality sources can be used, unless that causes no justified objections from some editor(s).

Unfortunately, our policy does not allow us to implement that approach easily. Sometimes, enormous efforts are needed to get rid of garbage sources that are being advocated by some POV pusher. In my opinion, good faith users should be provided with better tools for comfortable editing, and our policy does not serve this goal as efficiently as it could. Thus, during a recent content dispute, one admin (a good admin, by the way) seriously proposed me to start an RfC to remove some recently added questionable source despite that fact that it was added in violation of WP:REDFLAG, and no clear support of that addition was obtained during the RSN discussion. That means even experienced admins sometimes do not interpret the policy in the way it is supposed to be interpreted according to you. That means, it must be made more clear.

If you believe I am not right, please explain me why. Otherwise, let's discuss possible ways to improve it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, for what it's worth, I do approve stressing that tabloid newspapers are lower on the totem pole. But since you mention the recent problematic Arbcom ruling, the issue which I raised (and which did not get any clear ruling) was that sometimes newspapers are fine for non-REDFLAG issues; in either case what really irked me back then was than an editor who restored a low quality source was summarily blocked for few days with next to no warning - but that's really was (is) an issue of battleground mentality and admin abuse of powers, not something that is that relevant here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * in my opinion, it was not only a battleground mentality issue. Currently, a user who adds some source of questionable quality, and a user who removes it are in more or less equal position. They are considered parties of a content dispute. The policy should allow a user who wants to improve quality of Wikipedia to remove questionable sources if that user feels the source is not completely relevant. The burden of proof should be on those who adds such a source, and if the party that adds that source fails to demonstrate the proposed source had an adequate quality and is relevant, its re-adding should be not allowed. If that norm existed in the policy, there would be no need in AE in the case you are referring to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There are no excuses for rudeness on Wikipedia; we have a civility policy, a behavioral policy, as important as any of our editing policies. This is a collaborative project and collaborative behaviors matter. While people do make mistakes, I certainly have, either deliberately or otherwise, in terms of behavior, we cannot and do not excuse that behavior because someone is a good contributor, otherwise Wikipedia would be a mad house of people venting freely whenever it suited them. There are nuances to policy which not everyone understands. It behooves all to listen carefully especially when editors "speaking" are those who wrote or helped write the original policies. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
My very best wishes, I reverted your recent edit because you're part of a long-term dispute that hinges precisely on the wording you removed. Please wait for consensus to form; if it has already formed and you disagree, you can try to change it here on talk. Or if it's a key issue, open an RfC, but please first seek advice and consensus labout how to word it. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC); edited 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are very welcome to revert my edit. That's why I indicated in my edit summary that I agree with previous (consensus) version (now restored by EEng). I think this old wording is fine, no RfC required. I did not suggest any changes on any policy pages and not sure what dispute you are talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Could this be resolved by including a more prominent pointer to WP:NEWSORGS in the text? Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, Blueboar, I already proposed how can it be done in the above section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Changing a policy page with out consensus and while under discussion
In all of the years I have been on Wikipedia I have never seen an agreement that allows for a policy to be changed without consensus-BOLD does not apply here. And it is controversial to make any kind of substantive edits to aspects of an article, especially a policy page, while that aspect is under discussion. If that has changed please link to it. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This section in bold (mine) is not acceptable. If there is community wide consensus for this please link to it. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This section is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this section, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first.


 * Policy pages are not immune to the wiki process; see WP:PGBOLD for more on this "older but still valid method". -- Visviva (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PGBOLD, which is policy, has: "... you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views."
 * , and : you've all reverted "solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made" – without giving "substantive reason"s why one version or the other would make the best policy-level guidance on the WP:V page. Just giving you the opportunity to participate in this debate on content of the matter, because as long as you don't you're in breach of policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should not is not must not and anyway I reverted on the grounds that the discussion showed not only lack of consensus but substantial opposition. As for your lectures about breaches of policy, you really need to cool your jets. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 08:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I indicated when I reverted, the policy change is disputed and I suggested why it is disputed. Moreover, as far as can be seen two users are proposing different changes. If those two users ever come to agreement, it can be put to the community and the usual way to do that is RfC. This is a policy that has had multiple widely advertised and participated in requests for comment to change it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, you sort of picked one phrase out of context to give an impression contrary to what WP:PGBOLD actually says, which is that any significant change in policy is going to require a lot of support and discussion. The phrase that you picked was basically urging people to give a bit more of a rationale when reverting a bold change. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify what is inappropriate here. Content on a Wikipedia policy is under discussion. Oddly, an editor who is part of the discussion has added a tag that allows editors to make changes to the policy while these discussions are ongoing. This is ludicrous and disingenuous. Bold means make an edit but if that edit is contested back away. Bold does not give us permission to add content while that content is under discussion; bold does not mean I am going to give myself and others permission to add or change content while that content is under discussion. Doing so is a recipe for non-neutrality. Any substantial changes in content on a policy need community wide agreement. We as a community have to live with changes in everyday editing and we as editors must decide as a group what works and what doesn't. Policy is complex and has a basis in the history of the encyclopedia and the editors who over time thought deeply about what a specific policy meant. No single editor can give permission to add content to a policy page while that content is under discussion, and changes in the policy itself needs community wide consensus which honors our editors and history. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:WPEDIT Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. '''The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages...'''


 * I support the interpretation that policy pages, even core policy pages like this one, may be boldly edited without prior discussion. But I also support the idea that those changes may also be reverted for lack of discussion and, specifically, I agree with EEng that "should not" does not mean "must not". Bold changes need to be allowed so that minor and/or uncontroversial changes can be made without a full-blown talk page discussion every time. But if those or other changes are major, controversial, or controverted, then people need to be able to rely on the policy's existing status quo while they're being discussed, especially since discussions of changes to policies, particularly core policies, can often drag on for weeks (and are more often unsuccessful than successful in making a change). Requiring that a bold change be kept in the policy text (even with an "under discussion" tag) is just asking for misapplication of the temporary language while the discussion is taking place and, frankly, could easily be used to game a discussion at an article. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BOLD policy changes can be made, but they can also be reverted, which at that point, if it is a serious idea (eg not nonsense by drive-by IPs) it should be discussed on the talk page and not re-reverted or edit warred. If you know the addition you are going to make will likely be controversial, then you should start at the talk page first. --M asem (t) 18:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem just said it succinctly & perfectly. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk)

Moving on
Taking up part of an idea of Paul Siebert, and some of my own suggestions above, I've: . --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * added the qualifier (exceptions include tabloid journalism; see also WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSP) to the "Mainstream newspapers" entry in the little list of "other" reliable sources
 * removed In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:RS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority. — WP:V should not claim supremacy if everyone in the discussion above agrees that subsequent reliable sources-related guidance can modify what are only broad principles in the WP:V policy.
 * You're now starting to get WP:POINTy. By this stage of the proceedings it should be clear to you that a large number of editors feel that much hangs on even superficially minor changes to this particular page, and that your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is unhelpful. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 08:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * EEng, I am not sure that you are right. My impression is that majority of participants of that discussion agree that there are some problems with that policy.


 * Francis, I think the words "In the case of inconsistency... etc" should stay, because they set a hierarchy between the policy and guidelines. Instead, the wording of the policy should not contain too many details that are more pertinent to guidelines: the policy sets general principles (and may contain examples), whereas all details are specified in the guidelines. Thus, the good policy language should be (that is not an exact wording, I am just giving a general idea) " academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually (or as a rule) the most reliable sources, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:MEDRES for further details". Accordingly, the guidelines are explaining details, including the examples of nominally peer-reviewed publications that are NOT good sources. In that case, there should be no ground for a conflict between a policy and guidelines: the policy does not claim ALL peer-reviewed publications are good, and quidelines do not question the general principle that peer-reviewed publications are, in general, the best sources, although they explain in details possible exceptions to that general rule.
 * In connection to that, let me try to summarize what is really important in the policy.
 * First, a good policy should explain what does "Reliably published" mean, and the current version is doing that reasonably well: "published" means "made available to the public in some form". However, that is still not an optimal wording. A really reliable source is supposed to be available on a permanent basis, in other words, any posts in some blog are unreliable not only because they may contain false information, but because they may be removed or altered at any moment. In connection to that, one goal of WP:V is to minimize a risk of dead links: the source that is likely to disappear from a public access should not be considered a RS. I propose to add the words on a permanent basis to the policy, and to further explain that principle.


 * Second, and a totally different point is as follows. Among the sources that are deemed permanently available to public (a.k.a. "reliably published") we should select the sources that (i) are relevant to some concrete article (per User:SlimVirgin), and (ii) contain reasonably correct and reasonably non-fringe information. The latter may be considered as a preliminary screening of sources before they pass through a more stringent NPOV screen. Accordingly, the policy should explain general principles of relevance determination, and general ideas of what should be considered as a reasonably good source. The current problem with the policy is that the principles of relevance determination are not described at all (and I even don't know if we have any guidelines on that account). Another problem is that, whereas the policy is explaining the criteria that allow us to discriminate between good and bad sources, the list of categories of reliable sources ("Journals, newspapers, etc") de facto cancels what the previous sentence (" The best sources have a professional structure ...etc") says: who cares about "professional structure" when the policy says that "Journals are reliable"? (Again, here I am acting as devil's advocate). That may be fixed if each item from that list will be presented just as examples of what a RS could be, and all further explanations are moved to guidelines.
 * Thus, if we say something like that (if you proposed better wording it would be great): "peer-reviewed publications are, as a rule, best quality sources. See guidelines for further details", that would be fine.
 * If we say "mainstream newspapers are usually reliable sources; see guidelines for further information on how to determine if a newspaper is mainstream, and how newspaper materials should be used" (if I understand it correct, something of that kind was proposed by User:Blueboar), that also will be fine.
 * If these (or similar) reservations will be added to the policy, the contradiction between the policy and guidelines will be resolved. The policy will not contain too much details, but it will affirm important principles that are further specified in guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * majority of participants of that discussion agree that there are some problems with that policy is not the same as "there was consensus that Change X should be made to fix it". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Moreover, I believe BOLD edits of policy texts should be avoided. However, the fact that many users provide different interpretations of what WP:SOURCES say, and many of them agree that the policy should be improved is an indication that the discussion about policy improvement should be continued. In connection to that, I would like to obtain your constructive comments on the above text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m on my way to a Brazilian wedding, Ecuador, and maybe the Galapagos, so I’m afraid y’all will have to work this out on your lonesomes. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Procedural (or not)
Thanks for all the procedural advice, which is, however, partially lost on me: not as if this is the first time I initiate some guidance, or contribute significantly to policy pages. I even wrote the basis of the how-to essay on "How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance". So all the lecturing on procedural issues largely diverts from the topic at hand. For instance, I'd really like to know how you think on whether or not it is is time to implement recent consensuses (i.e. last two years or so) on broadly barring tabloid journalism as reliable sources from Wikipedia on this policy page. And if so, how?, and if not why not? – yeah, it's really interesting to read that this is not a "must" but only a "should", but that leaves the more interesting part of the question unanswered. Same question, of course, for, , , , : you've all reverted for procedural reasons and/or commented on procedures on this talk page (so that the whole topic is now drenched in procedural comments). All that is now exceedingly clear, ie how you think on procedure, for me, and for anyone reading this section. I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines (and to a lesser extent Wikipedia talk:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance) if you want to change policies and other guidance on how Wikipedia's policies are written. This is not the place to hash that out. But let's move on regarding the topic at hand: to me it is exceedingly clear that some form of updating is recommended regarding all too easily recognising all sorts of mainstream newspapers as reliable sources in this policy. All thoughts and suggestions on that topic are welcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, you seem to be lecturing us as if we were doing what you've been doing here! :-).  The best to you either way. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your refusing to listen to others when they demonstrate your accusations are wrong and what you are doing is being disruptive is unfortunate -- if you have an actual question you are free to ask. Mainstream news is not tabloid, see  --  mainstream with respect to news is, inter alia, demonstrating the practice of the recognized and established mainstream standards for news reporting. Tabloids practice sensationalism, and worse, not mainstream news reporting.  --  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the term “Mainstream” was introduced into WP policy as an opposite to the term “Fringe”. In that context, many tabloids are “Mainstream”.  Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's rather common sense that tabloids would be on the fringe of news-journalism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As long as any editor appears to misapply procedure, policy, or guidelines or attempts to adjust policy pages with out community wide input, push-back should be expected. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First, the "fringe - mainstream" issue seems belongs to NPOV, not V.
 * maybe, we will better return to the discussion about improvements of the policy?


 * I am probably repeating myself, by let me remind you that, on that talk page, I already asked what does "mainstream" mean, and an opinia spectrum was surptisingly wide: some users argued that only respectable newspapers similar to newspapers of records should be considered mainstream, other believe that any newspaper that is not widely recognized as fringe should be considered mainstream; also, some people seem to believe that that term is intuitively clear. In my opinion, that ambiguity is a permanent cause of edit wars, and the sooner we fix that, the better.


 * I also believe that the attempts to formalize it, for example as "mainstream newspapers except tabloids" is not a solution. Thus, what should we do with non-English mainstream newspapers? Add "mainstream newspapers except tabloid and Chinese/Russian newspapers"? If someone will find some other exception, will we add it too? And so on, and so forth.


 * In reality, WP:NEWSORG gives us a good example of a thoughtful and well nuanced approach to newspapers. That is the rare case when guidelines are much better written than the policy. In that situation, the policy should be changed to summarize general principles of WP:NEWSORG, without going into details, and provide a link to the guidelines for other details. Instead, it says "Mainstream newspapers may be used as reliable sources". This primitive approach de facto cancels all reasonable nuances explained in NEWSORG, and excluding/adding some category of newspapers cannot fix that situation. I think, the situation may be fixed if we do the following:


 * (i) make a stress on NEWSORG as follows:


 * "Mainstream newspapers may be used as reliable sources as described in WP:NEWSORG.


 * (ii) Furthermore, it is not clear why journals, magazines and newspapers should be separated. It is also unclear why newspapers are acceptable only when they are "mainstream", but no such reservation is added for journals or magazines. Obviously, the same type criteria are applicable to journals, newspapers and magazines. It makes sense to combine "Journals, magazines, and newspapers" into a single category, and instead of three separate items, write:


 * "Mainstream newspapers, journals and magazines may be used as reliable sources as described in WP:NEWSORG.
 * (iii) Since the usage of sources is content dependent, it makes sense to stipulate that newspapers cannot be used as a single source of sensational claims per WP:REDFLAG.


 * "Mainstream newspapers, journals and magazines may be used as reliable sourcesas described in WP:NEWSORG. Isolated publications of that type cannot be used as a source for controversial or sensational claims, per WP:REDFLAG.
 * These are incremental improvements of the current text, and even the first proposal seems to much more clear than the current wording.


 * If Francis believes tabloids should be mentioned explicitly (I would probably agree with that), my proposal allows doing that in the guidelines text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the three, I could support something like two, but just put as described in WP:Reliable sources. Many RfC's provide alternatives.  As for your initial premise that policy erases guideline, that is a crude approach, guidelines elucidate and explicate policy, and reading them together is good faith construction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)  Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The link to WP:Reliable sources is already present in the policy text, the link to NEWSORG specifies which concrete part of guidelines is relevant to newspapers.


 * Regarding "premise that policy erases guideline", that is a crude interpretation of my words. I meant that this concrete sentence in the policy is written poorly, and, as a result, it de facto nullifies all correct and useful ideas described in some concrete section of guidelines (WP:NEWSORG). Therefore, in contrast to a normal practice, when guidelines mush be brought in accordance with policy, this particular phrase in the policy should be brought into accordance with guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When policy and guidance conflict, they need to be brought into sync with each other. That may mean changing the policy, it may mean changing the guideline, it may mean changing BOTH.  A centralized discussion needs to be held, and consensus will determine what needs to change, and how. Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is too obvious to be incorrect, and too general to be useful. Sorry.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF
The section on self-published sources could do with tightening given recent fights at, e.g.,. I suggest adding the following below the list of exceptions:


 * Self-sourcing should be used only to add a level of detail to content otherwise drawn from reliable independent secondary sources. Content along the lines of "$SUBJECT states $OPINION (source, $SUBJECT stating $OPINION)" should be avoided, especially if they are predictable reactions to criticism.

This will help forestall arguments about exactly how much of an article has to be self-sourced before it's "based primarily on such sources". Self-sourcing is supposed to be a qualified exception, not a default allowing a subject to be framed primarily according to their own self-image or that of their fans. Guy (help!) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To combat US-centrism I propose your example be changed to “€SUBJECT states €OPINION (source, €SUBJECT stating €OPINION)”. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an area I've been interested in for a while. I think I agree with what you are saying but I wanted to ask how you think it would apply to some examples I brought up here in the past [].  One example is an article subject has been described as left/right wing by sources.  In an interview the source disagrees with those terms and describes themselves as centrist.  Would you consider that adding a level of detail even though that level was to contradict third party claims rather than support them?


 * My other example related specifically to something I think is wrong with the NRA page but probably applies to may articles about organizations that engage in advocacy in controversial areas. The NRA's opposition to, as an example, universal background checks, gets lots of RS coverage.  But that RS coverage rarely says why the NRA opposes UBCs, or only says it with minimal detail.  It's my feeling ABOUTSELF should allow inclusion of the NRA's stated stance on the issue even if that means the content is solely sourced to the NRA.  Like the previous example I think what makes this an allowable ABOUTSELF case is that other sources have raised the issue/controversy to prominence but haven't offered a full telling of the article subject's POV.  Do you think your proposed change would make it harder, easier, no different to include such material in an article per ABOUTSELF?  My feeling is your interpretation of ABOUTSELF would make these inclusions harder rather than easier.  Springee (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It would seem to make sense to bring the idea of "unduly self-serving" that is used for BLP-released SPS here too. In other words, we are only pulling from a group's own sources as either to have content expected compared to other articles (uncontestable details like date of founding for example), or in response to directed commentary about them, and otherwise not to pull things that are simply to promote the group or its cause. I don't like the term "predictable" because that could be used to block reasonable counter-statements to a criticism against it. For example, a group gets put onto the SPLC's hate group list; their response to state they are not a hate group would be "predictable" (no one wants to be on SPLC's hate group list) but would be wholly appropriate to include if the SPLC's hate group listing is also included; that's needed for neutral coverage. --M asem  (t) 15:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The issue there is WP:MANDY. Example: very few racists self-identify as such. We only care about what reliable independent secondary sources say. If they note that the person says they are a centrist, while describing them otherwise, then we can say that, but if the RS say they are left or right, the person disagrees, but no independent source finds that worthy of note, then neither should we. Guy (help!) 09:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the problem when editors take labels said by RSes as fact and thus try to remove the subjective nature of the for current groups and living people. On the MANDY point, if all we have in counterpoint is a "no I am not", yeah we don't need that, but if instead they have a long winded explanation to differentiate what they consider themselves, then a super brief summary seems reasonable. But this is very much context specufic depending on if there's a chronological events in play, etc. I am absolutely against disallowing these as there are appropriate times they are needed for impartial coverage. --M asem (t) 12:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO there are a lot of appropriate uses for "self-sourced". The type discussed by Springee is one of them.  Also there is a lot a basic objective information about an organization of the type that secondary sources usually do not cover.  For example, the classes offered by a university or programs offered by an organization, or locations of their facilities.   Another is the official published policies or mission statements of an organization which authoritatively direct their people.  Finally, as we move into larger and more decentralized entities, more self-published material becomes appropriate. To illustrate with an extreme example, you can't say that any material written by a human should be excluded from the human race article because it is self-sourced. :-)   More typically is info from a Wikipedia Signpost article about the WMF to be excluded as "self-sourcing" by/ within  Wikipedia?   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You probably mean articles about, for example, some college, which are based predominantly on the information from the college's web site? I would agree with that, but it seems Guy meant something else. As far as I understand that, his proposal was more about a controversial information. In connection to that, I would propose a small modification:
 * "Self-sourcing should be used only for adding a non-controversial content. Otherwise, SPS should be used only to add some detail to the content obtained from independent reliable secondary sources. Content along the lines of "$SUBJECT states $OPINION (source, $SUBJECT stating $OPINION)" should be avoided, especially if they are predictable reactions to criticism."
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this... neutrality says we should give ALL significant viewpoints... and when there is controversy about a person or group, The opinion of that person or group as relates to that controversy is de facto significant. The key is to provide in text attribution.  Let the reader know not just what the various opinions are, but who holds them.  Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how Wikipedia works. We include that which is verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources. Going to the subject's self-published materials and finding all the places where they dispute the independent view of what they do is WP:OR and, if reliable sources say one thing about them and they say another, WP:UNDUE. Newspapers give the last word to the subject ("X denies being a racist"), so we can cite that from the third party source. But if the third-party sources don't bother with the denial for whatever reason? We shouldn't either. We're not arbiters of fact, we don't know whether it's excluded because it's obvious bullshit, for example. Guy (help!) 09:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * that is not original research, because the material was published (SPS). However, that is definitely WP:UNDUE, because an SPS writing about self is, by definition, a single source, and, if the same information cannot be found elsewhere, that view is by definition fringe. However, if the same information is reproduced elsewhere, that information is not a fringe view anymore, but that immediately changes a situation to the one described by you: the same content may be drawn from reliable independent secondary sources. That makes usage of SPS redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems you mix "significance" and "importance". Obviously, under "significant", NPOV means not any important claim, but the majority or significant minority views. If just a single source claims that some asteroid will hit the Earth tomorrow, that information is important, but is it significant per NPOV? No, if other sources do not support that claim. A viewpoint expresses by an SPS about themselves is by definition an opinion expressed by a SINGLE source, so it can hardly be considered even a significant minority. Therefore, there is no contradiction with NPOV here. However, if the same information is confirmed by some reliable secondary source, it may be considered at least a significant minority view, but in that case, IgZ's inclusion criterion is met. Actually, what I am proposing is a softer version of what JzG proposed: he proposes to allow SPS only as a source of supplementary information about themselves, whereas I propose to allow usage of SPS as sources about themselves if the topic is not controversial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The section already states, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources."


 * And WP:Primary is clear about the types of sources articles should usually be based on (as in generally consist of).


 * I don't see what more needs to be stated in the WP:About self section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I myself don't see a really urgent need to add anything, but this:


 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of non-controversial information about themselves"


 * could be an improvement. I agree that "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" means essentially the same, but from my experience I know that many people do not read policy carefully, and they prefer just to take some sentence out of context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it needs to be included because of the endless shit fights we get in articles like where it took months of argument and an eventual topic ban to get an editor to stop sourcing endless self-serving trivia from affiliated websites. Consider a controversial university, for example. Should a third of the article be drawn from its own website's lists of sporting achievements, course lists and the like? You can (and people have) interpreted ABOUTSELF as permitting exactly that.
 * , I think your proposed wording leaves a gap you can drive a coach and horses through. You could turn it round, though: Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources of neutral and non-controversial information about themselves. Otherwise we'll end up arguing on Talk whether marketing claims are "controversial" or not, for example. Alternatively:
 * Self-sourcing should be de minimis and should not be used for any claim likely to be controversial or challenged
 * That gets to the heart of it, which is that an article where most of the sources are the subject's own or affiliated websites, is doing something badly wrong, and this would be equally true if it were 25% or 15% of the sources and content. The default must be independent sourcing, and the qualified exception for self-sourcing is not designed to allow a subject's self-image to dominate over that of independent views. Guy (help!) 09:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To illustrate one point, if the President of XYZ organization says "our board of directors has determined that our official position is that the moon is made of green cheese" is that uncontroversial information on what their position is? I think yes, and that that is important information about the XYZ organization, and that that is an important distinction. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I read "controversial" to apply not to the content of the claim but how reliably we can say the claim really reflects the views/opinions/etc of the subject.  Springee (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me give a wholly hypothetical example: say a business comes under fire as being a front for prostitution, the bulk of the sources talk about it like that, and don't cover the fact that the business, in its claims and validated through, say, business license documents, that it is a modeling agency and refutes the prostitution front, but no one is covering that. The current trend on WP, which is to make any entity or person that is seen in a poor light to have their article become a checklist of every negative thing that can be said about that entity/company, would completely ignore the "modeling agency" side and outright state, in WP's voice, the business is a prostitution ring. There is zero harm, in a case like this, to say "Business XYZ purports to be a modeling agency,(source) but it is considered to be a front for prostitution.(source list)" Now, in reality, I would be really surprised for legit journalism to not note the modeling agency facet, but modern journalism, particularly the writers often involved with the entities and people within the scope here, often omit basic tenets of traditional journalism , and those base claims/facts often get lost so that the writers can get to finger pointing. WP is absolutely not in that same business, which is why we have some common sense allowances for ABOUTSELF, or YESPOV, or similar. But, as I mentioned above, this is a very context-depend situation where ABOUTSELF should be considered. --M asem  (t) 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that example is where the accusation is of an objective fact. In the modern post-journalism era, ( :-) ) the topic can be a creation of the writer.  E.G. "some say that the XYZ organization is dog haters because they failed to sponsor a float in the dog parade". In short, the newspaper is acting as a participant, not a coverer. I would think that  an official response by the XYZ organization should be include-able. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me explain my point again. My major idea is that sourcing criteria cannot be absolutely uniform for such articles as, e.g, The Holocaust or Uncertainty principle and, such articles as, e.g., Cheerleading or Troy High School. Obviously, for lower importance and/or less controversial topics, sourcing criteria may be loose (of course, they are still should be minimally allowable by the policy). Otherwise, some articles could be impossible to write.

It is impossible to define in advance if some topic is controversial or important. However, that still can be done. If some users object to some text, and their objections are logical and based on good quality reliable sources, then we can speak about a controversy. In other words, a properly sourced edit is deemed non-controversial until no properly sourced objections have been presented. If some statement has been contested, and the criticism is well sourced, best available sources should be used to resolve a dispute, and, accordingly, usage of SPS should be reduced to the lowest possible level. The advantage of that approach is obvious: we do not need to write a separate rule for every case or every type of sources. Instead, it literally says: "you guys can do whatever you want until there is no content disputes, however, in a case of a serious content dispute, sourcing criteria automatically become stricter." That my proposal fully addresses Guy's concern, for his major idea seems not to limit SPS usage in all cases, but to limit their usage in controversial cases. However, my proposal also addresses a broad spectrum of problems, for, from my experience, lion's sgare of content disputes or edit wars develops according to a standard scenario: each party is pushing their own lousy source and rejects lousy sources that is being advocated by their opponent. In a situation when any edit war immediately makes sourcing criteria more stringent, majority of edit wars could be avoided.

"Business XYZ purports to be a modeling agency,(source)" is by no means a controversial claim. Only a claim "Business XYZ is a modeling agency" is controversial. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In an article about a person or group, that person’s or group’s view of themselves is hardly UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, again, this depends on context. There's a recent BLP case of a running candidate for office who some editors felt was being shunned by the press such that her views in certain political areas were not being reported at all, and editors wanted to turn to her social media and campaign pages to include. This is where "self-unduly" comes in, as its not WP's job to speak where sources haven't spoken at all. But the cases I see where SELFPUB is fine is where the media has commented in the same area of material (the purported intent of an organization, the political beliefs of a person) and we're using SELFPUB to put what the entity/person counters or asserts instead. There is a huge grey line here, some cases where MANDY applies, others where it might not, but my caution is trying to wholly disallow SELFPUB. --M asem (t) 18:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's think logically. What is considered a fringe view? It is an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. When some SPS says something about itself, three scenarios are possible:


 * 1. What this SPS says is in accordance with mainstream or significant minority views. That happens when some good secondary sources are available that say essentially the same;


 * 2. The information presented in the SPS is not supported by other sources, but it is some non-controversial claim, and it is unlikely that it will be challenged;


 * 3. The information presented in the SPS is some exceptional claim that contradicts to what other sources say.


 * The scenario #1 is exactly what JgZ's amendment describes, this SPS may be used per JgZ as an optional source.


 * The scenario #2 is an example of a non-controversial usage of an SPS, which is allowed per my proposal (which is more liberal than JgZ's one). However, if some user expresses a concern about that content and presents some sources, this case immediately becomes a scenario #3.


 * The scenario #3 describes the case when the SPS may contain a really important information, but, since it is, by definition, a single source, that automatically makes it fringe. (It is fringe, because it contradicts to what all other sources say, otherwise that would be a scenario #1).


 * you continue not to understand. The person's opinion about themselves is obviously important, however, in a situation when that opinion directly contradicts to what all other sources say, that opinion is, by definition, a fringe opinion, so that SPS cannot be used. In a situation when what the SPS says is supported by other sources (better secondary sources), that SPS cannot be considered a fringe source, but it is redundant, and it can be used just as an auxiliary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When it comes to FRINGE, it should be when the media and a person are talking a wholly separate topic not related to that person, outside of criticism of that person's stance on that topic. That is: if some person has a wacky diet ("Eat only Twinkies! The sugar will help metabolize your fat cells!") and the media is critical of this diet and no one else supports that, that's clearly FRINGE.  But as soon as the discussion is about the person themselves, it is wholly inappropriate to toss out statements made only by the person that are not reflected by the media covering it as FRINGE in that sense. If we are to be impartial, it may be necessary to include those statements briefly. Per UNDUE we don't need to give that more than a phrase or sentence if only SELFPUB is being used, but inclusion should be there for the person to "defend" themselves, depend in context like the MANDY issue. --M asem  (t) 19:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That looks like a straw man argument. Obviously, when some person says in their own SPS, that they are eating only Twinkies, and no other sources say otherwise (about t hat person), that SPS can hardly be considered fringe: if this topic is not important, it would be ridiculous to expect that other sources will deserve even a minimal attention to that. That case falls under a scenario #2. However, if, so some reason, that topic is important, and secondary source agree that that person has a normal diet, but the person themselves says in their SPS that they are eating only Twinkies, this view should be considered fringe. And that is a scenario #3.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Paul, where is your proposal that you were referring to under #2? Whatever it is, I think "more liberal than JgZ's one"  is an understatement because IMO JgZ's is pretty extreme in that it would flatly preclude inclusion in that case. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was, probably, not clear enough. I propose a general principle, according to which the WP:V rules are interpreted liberally until some concrete user presents a justified criticism of some statement/sources. It other words, SPS may be used about themselves, until the content has not been contested by some user. If some SPS says "Mr X (an author) is eating only Twinkles" (let's continue using Masem's example), and other sources say nothing about that (for example, because that fact is some minor aspect of Mr X's life), that is perfectly ok. However if Mr X's diet is a subject of controversy, and secondary sources do not support Mr X's claim, that material becomes controversial. Per my proposal, anybody who finds a secondary source that contradicts what SPS says can remove that SPS, for it cannot be used to support controversial claims.


 * In other words, "Self-sourcing should be used only for adding a non-controversial content" discriminates between controversial (scenario #3) and non-controversial (scenario #2) cases.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that it is good proposal. I think it needs bit more emphasis/clarification that "controversial" means with respect to veracity of the material itself.  So "I doubt that he eats only twinkies" is grounds for a sourcing-based removal, "I don't want his stated twinkee preference to be covered" is not grounds for a sourcing-based removal.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. In reality, when some not-really-good-faith user does not want twinkee preference to be covered, that user may say "I doubt that he eats only twinkies". Therefore, that argument is hardly acceptable. However, an argument "I doubt that he eats only twinkies, because that contradicts to what the source X says about him", or "I doubt that he eats only twinkies, because the sources X, Y, and Z says it is impossible" are quite acceptable arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, I've not seen not-really-good-faith users do that. But you broke with the analogy.  They'd need to say "I doubt that he said that he eats only twinkies" in which case they would sound silly.    Much easier to deliberately mis-read your policy (if not clarified) & say "it's controversial because it's self-sourced. So out it goes."  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if a policy says that SPS are acceptable for that purpose, the argument "it is controversial because it is PSP" is not working.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , that largely already happens. The issue at the moment is more about the de minimis part. We say that the majority of an article shouldn't be self-sourced, but people argue over whether that means 40% or 30% can be self-sourced. In practice, self-sourcing should only be used for simple things like adding an exact date where RS only have the year. We should not be listing all the things a person or organisation does, sourced to their pages promoting those things. Any statement of the form "X says " sourced to X saying Y on their own website is placing Wikipedia editors in the position of arbiters of both fact and significance. Guy (help!) 22:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Not arbiters of fact. Assuming that the statement “X says Y” is verifiable by a Self published source where X actually does say Y, that source (where X actually does say Y) is the MOST RELIABLE source possible for that statement. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * this and that are both SPS. Do you really think they are equally reliable. The question is not in 40% or 60%, that approach is intrinsically flawed. All of that is content dependent, and the criterion should be other user's objections. If, for example, you see that some article is using too many materials from SPS, you may request to replace them with secondary sources, or to remove that content at all. In the latter case, that can be done if you explain why there is a reason to expect that that material is not trustworthy. If our policy will allow us to do that, that is all what we need.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * MOST RELIABLE is the source with the greatest degree of scrutiny given to the issues, and with the most "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments". Unless that has been proven, we cannot say anything. And, you totally ignore a possibility that some obscure SPS may just lie about itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not for attributed statements about what X said. For that, the most reliable source is the Primary source where X actually said it.  The fact being verified is “X said Y”... not “Y” itself.  To more clearly illustrate: suppose X writes “the moon is made of green cheese” on his website. Now, we can not cite X’s website to say “The moon is made of green cheese”... X is not reliable for this (unless X is a noted lunar expert)... BUT, if we say “X claims that the moon is made of green cheese”, then X’s website is 100% reliable.  We are not stating that the moon is made of green cheers (as a fact), we are stating that X makes this claim (as an opinion).  What we have to verify is that X actually made the claim, and to verify that X made the claim, the website where he states it (the primary source) is the single most reliable source we can find.
 * Now, the fact that X said this may or may not be significant. That determination depends on context and which article we are working on.  In an article on the moon, what X thinks is probably not worth mentioning (again, unless X is some sort of lunar expert).  However, in the Bio article on X, his views on the moon might well be highly significant. Especially so if others criticize his views.  Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, arbiters of fact and significance. We decide what is true and should be self-sourced and what is bogus or trivial. Whereas, per policy, we should be leaving that to third parties. Look at Liberty University. Roughly a fifth of the sources are the university's own website or the student newspaper, which is entirely controlled by Falwell's office. Pretty much everything about Liberty is inherently controversial. We're using it as a source for things like Melania Trump getting a standing ovation - why? That makes no sense. They'd cheer a hatstand if it was associated with the Trump family. We're using it for marketing claims like the number of countries represented among the student body. Why? We should not be including marketing claims. Guy (help!) 07:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Witness that Melanoma Trump is, after all, a walking, talking coatrack. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me of WP:MISSION that is not policy but is about addressing a very common problem (another recently fixed instance). We see that type of promotion everywhere...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that we're down to asserting coverage by secondary sources to be the final arbiter of whether it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia, I think we bumped into a bigger more fundamental problem.  If we ignore that concept, we'd get articles full of crap, PR department work and bias-by-overpresence. If we went with that concept 100% we'd delete an immense amount of encyclopedic information and articles, and the balance of articles would be determined by wiki-lawyering. The operative core wp:weight part/answer to that  of the core policy wp:npov is unusable with respect to "two sides" issues ("in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources") and non-existent for mere-inclusion issues. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Liberty University is a good example, let me continue with it. If my proposal is implemented, any materials taken from university's web site or university controlled newspapers are allowed, but thay can be removed if someone provides serious arguments demonstrating that that material is controversial. Thus, in this particular case, if you can support you words "pretty much everything about Liberty is inherently controversial" (I believe, you have all needed evidences), the modified policy would allow you to remove that content, and noone would be able to restore it. However, that would be done not based on some purely formal criteria, but because that SPS is controversial. Why that is important? Because materials from university's web sites are usually not inherently controversial. Thus, I doubt materials from Harvard University web site are controversial. Actually, I can imagine a situation when that could be controversial: for example, in the article about some scandalous event in Harvard. However, that is more an exception. The idea you are advocating is not good because it is based on formal criteria that are equally applicable to a wide range of sources, each of which may be of totally different quality and reliability. And that is a fundamental flaw of the policy, which makes no difference between, for example, Nature and Indian Journal of Pharmacology. According to our policy, both of them are peer-reviewed publications, but in reality, a difference in the level of publications in these two journals is greater than the difference between Harvard and Liberty universities.

However, due to unhomogeneity of Wikipedia, we have to use all types of formally reliable sources (otherwise, some articles will be impossible to write). To do that efficiently, we need a flexible mechanism that would allow us to remove some formally acceptable sources in cases similar to the one provided by you. And we will never achieve this goal by inventing additional ad hoc formal criteria. The approach should be totally different, similar to what I propose: lower quality sources (which minimally fit our RS criteria) should be allowed until some user provided serious counter-arguments. The counter arguments may be either that the source is too controversial (with proofs), or that the quality of that source is significantly lower than the quality of other sources in that concrete article. Again, as I already explain, that approach may allow us to quickly finish lion's share of all edit wars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed brilliantly explained the same problem in somewhat different words. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m still fundamentally opposed to this. It is when a subject is controversial that we MOST need to present what the subject says about themselves.  That is basic NPOV. We don’t present what they say as being accurate... but we do need to present what they say.  The way we do this is through in-text attribution.  We don’t give it UNDUE weight, but we DO give it SOME (minimal) weight.
 * of course there are limits to this... First and foremost, Outlining the subject’s opinions about themselves is often limited to the article about the subject (Bio article when the subject is a person, or the equivalent when the subject is a company/entity). That’s fine (we don’t put Alex Jones’s 9/11 conspiracy theories in the article on 9/11... but we do summarize them in the article on Alex Jones.
 * And... when outlining what someone says about themselves, the best way to verify that they said it is to cite the primary source... their own self published source. This is WHY we created WP:SPS in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are opposing not to my idea, but to your own interpretation of it. I already wrote that, despite the fact that this policy is called "verifiability", it combines two separate concepts, "verifiability" sensu stricto and "reliability" (i.e. quality of the source). These two things are totally independent. In my opinion, anything that have been made publicly available on a permanent basis meets the "verifiability" criterion. In that sense, any SPS is verifiable if it cannot be easily removed from a public access, or easily altered. Therefore, any university web site can be used as a verifiable source about itself, but, in some cases, this information is not reliable for the statement of fact. In controversial cases, it can be used not as a statement of fact, but as an opinion (if I understand it correct, that is exactly what you say). In other words, it should be perfectly ok to use such sources for statements like "a university X claims that Y". However, and I believe you agree with that, a really neutral article about a university Y cannot be based mostly on claims taken from its own web site. To prevent that, we should not write a separate policy and stipulate that not more that X% of information can be taken from SPS. Even an attempt to stipulate reduction of such materials to a reasonable minimum will not work, for every user has their own vision of reasonability. Instead, we should stipulate that such materials are considered as RS, but any user has a right to remove them if some adequate rationale (explanations + sources) for removal is provided.
 * In other words, using programmer's slang, instead of setting some "static" criteria, they should be made "dynamic".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * North8000's argument makes perfect sense if we think we're a directory that is supposed to cover the list of courses that Liberty runs. We're not. We're supposed to cover a subject entirely by reference to reliable independent secondary sources. ABOUTSELF is a qualified exception, but has morphed over time into a default for4 self-serving content that RS don't bother to cover, leading to arguments over a wide range of subjects centring on how much of an article can be self-sourced. Right now we imply up to half. That's crazy.
 * I think you are wrong. When a subject is controversial we absolutely must stick with what reliable independent sources say. Should we defer to the Catholic Church's view of its handling of sex abuse cases? Of course not. Should we defer to homeopaths when describing CEASE therapy? That would be insane. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The subject has no right to the last word. We adhere to what reliable independent sources say, and if they all say the subject is wrong, we don't "balance" that by quoting the subject saying they are right, because of course they say that. Do you think we should be using David Duke's websites to represent his point of view? Why would we send people to a neo-Nazi website when we already have secondary sources for what he says? He may be the most reliable source for how he wishes to be represented but he is the least reliable source for any facts, because everything he says is self-serving. And that applies to every controversial subject. Scam journals, promoters of quackery, degree mills, pyramid schemes, all present themselves as legitimate businesses unfairly discriminated against by The Man. And by deferring to that self-image, we violate WP:NPOV.
 * Go back to WP:V: "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". What's being argued here is that the word "independent" should be ignored, and that self-published should be allowed as an alternative to published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's a pretty fundamental repudiation of canonical policy. It means essentially discarding WP:RS, which says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." In other words, we defer to independent sources rather than quote-mining the primary source in order to reflect a subject's views on anything.
 * That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do. What's being argued here is that the qualified exception for ABOUTSELF should be interpreted so broadly as to make RS effectively meaningless. Guy (help!) 09:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, you seem to be blending covering their views vs considering them as a source for the "facts" which they claim. If you include self-sourced "John Smith said that the moon is made of green cheese", the statement is about what John Smith said, not a statement about the contents of the moon. John Smith is reliable about the former and not the latter. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly - for “Smith said” or “according to Smith” type statements, what needs to be verified is the fact that Smith said it ... and THAT is best done by citing the self-published primary source.
 * There are LOTS of restrictions on when it is appropriate to mention what Smith said... but when we do mention it, it is appropriate to cite the primary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And to this end, when it is appropriate to use, is case-by-case. "Unduly self-serving" applies - we're not going to include material sourced this way just because we can, but only when it relevant to what context has been established through other reliable sources, including criticism directed towards that person. MANDY would still apply to certain basic accusations but not universally. When to include is a consensus-discussion that needs to happen, but it is important that the self-pub sources are not immediately thrown out, else that give no discussion. And I'll go back to that when SELFPUB is used, UNDUE must be also weighted closely; the Twinkie diet example would be reasonably to include a one sentence summary of the gist of it, but not a multi-paragraph "scientific" explanation of it, presuming no RS otherwise has covered it.
 * A lot of this comes down to that the bolded statement above in Guy's reply is that based word. It does not mean we exclusively use independent sources, but that I should the majority (like, 90% or more) to use independent sources, so that the article is based on them. That allows excursions to dependent sources when necessary to provide the comprehensiveness that is required from NOR and NPOV for those few details that tend to get ignored in the more common media. For example, we frequently dip into SEC filings to estimate the number of employees a publicly traded business has when that business is already readily covered in independent sources. SELFPUB has limitations and definitely when self-promotion is a concern, but SELFPUB is like spot-patching a paint job, filling in the spaces not already covered by the independent reliable sources when appropriate. --M asem (t) 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure... but Guy’s proposal is to not allow self published sources when the subject has said something controversial. That is wrong.  I agree that we need independent sources to establish that the controversy exist, and rises to the level of significance that we mention it in the first place... but once that is done, we can (and should) rely on primary self-published sources to present the subject’s own views on that controversial topic. We don’t say (or even imply) that the subjects views are accurate, but we should present their views. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, and think that your posts describe good practice that is within the letter and intent of current policy. I think that Guy's proposal would reduce or eliminate that, and I'm not in favor of such a proposal. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am definitely in agreement with Blueboar and N3k and think better effort can be had by creating a guideline or essay of when it is and isn't appropriate to include SELFPUB, and when included, to what degree. --M asem (t) 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with BB, N8K and Masem and think the essay idea makes a lot of sense. I do get Guy's concern regarding articles that seem to draw too much from SPS even if the specific claims aren't controversial but I would rather err on that side of inclusion vs excluding SPS responses to controversies etc.  Springee (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been threatening to talking about creating Based upon for years, and now is apparently the time. I have followed the idea behind WP:LIKELY, under the belief that we benefit from having a shared understanding of what these common words, used across multiple policies, mean on wiki. In this case, I think we need to have a shared understanding of what it means for an article to be based upon something. For example, if most of the article's content comes from self-published sources, then it's "based upon" self-published sources. Or whatever. Breast cancer awareness cites more scholarly books than anything else, so it is "based upon" scholarly books. Schizophrenia cites mostly medical journal articles, so it is "based upon" medical journal articles (and its structure is "based upon" WP:MEDMOS's suggested order). It's really not as complicated as some people might make it out to be. If people are basically satisfied with this explanation, then please feel free to link it wherever it might be helpful.

User:JzG, I have not adopted your suggestion that an article can't be "based upon" independent sources until 90% or more of the content comes from them. This is probably a desirable goal for articles about large businesses or major politicians, but I don't think that it is practical for short articles (e.g., most notable academics). So I have proposed a simple "majority" as the bare minimum for calling something "based upon" a particular source type. If you want to propose a higher standard for articles (e.g., "nearly all of their content is taken from"), then that means RFCs at the core policies, to change the core policies.

I predict that most editors will think that this is all perfectly fine, until their favorite oxen get gored. If we're serious about basing articles upon independent sources, then that limits our ability to create articles about "neglected" subjects (such as academics). Again, the place to relax (or to raise) that requirement wouldn't be at WP:Based upon; it would be at WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. This page reflects and explains the requirements that have been in the core policies for years. It does not create any new ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of press
I made a possibly over-bold edit to insert a sentence (and footnote) on freedom of the press; please revert and discuss here as needed. HLHJ (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Chris troutman. Can you suggest any useful guidance for situations in which domestic media under government control are reporting on a subject of strong interest to the government? Is it needed here? We don't seem to get as many editors from countries without fairly high freedom of the press; certainly we get fewer political ones. Perhaps the info should go in the Reliable sources guideline? HLHJ (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think local consensus makes more sense than a sweeping change to this policy. While I might claim that Xinhua is state-run media and therefore unreliable in all matters regarding geo-politics, there are others that would make the same claim about Stars & Stripes. I think article by article, local consensus can determine if a cited source is reliable for the content it supports. (I was also against the WP:DAILYMAIL decision for this reason.) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliability of sources in countries with low press freedom is a very controversial topic, since it involves judging not only the source, but also the country that it is based in. Perhaps you can start by editing the independent sources supplement, since it's quite clear to me that these sources are non-independent (though not necessarily unreliable) for government-related topics. If that goes over well, consider discussing it on WT:RS, as the guideline can afford to be more specific than this policy. —  Newslinger  talk   22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, that discussion is an additional argument in favour of modification on the WP:SOURCES section. Indeed, a current version says that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable source, but
 * the term "mainstream" is not defined, so some users believe that any newspapers, including the newspapers under control of non-democratic governments, are mainstream unless the opposite has not been demonstrated; in contrast, other users believe only a limited number of top rank newspapers are mainstream.
 * the blanket statement "mainstream newspapers are reliable sources" contradict to what WP:NEWSORG say: the guidelines explain that reliability of newspapers varies broadly: only some newspaper materials are reliable secondary sources, whereas others are of lower quality, and, being primary sources they should be used with attribution only, because they are reliable only for the author's opinion.
 * this section clearly ignores the fact that reliable sources may be of higher and lower quality, and, depending on a context, per WP:REDFLAG the same source may be acceptable or unacceptable.
 * Therefore, a solution to the problem described by HLHJ, and to many other problem would be to add the following explanations to the WP:SOURCES:
 * that the sources listed as reliable in that section may be of higher or lower quality, and they may be considered primary or secondary, as explained in the guidelines, depending on a context;
 * that the threshold of acceptability may vary, as described in WP:REDFLAG, and the sources that are acceptable for some non-controversial statement are not acceptable for some extraordinary statement.
 * In my opinion, that will resolve the problems with newspapers controlled by non-democratic governments, for these newspapers will continue to be considered reliable for, e.g. the results of a recent football game, but they will be considered unreliable for a description of some controversial political event in that country.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Makes sense. I was advocating a case-by-case statement-by-statement approach. For instance, I'd say Stars & Stripes would not be an independent source for controversial statements about, say, the conduct of US soldiers, and Xinhua should probably not be used as a source for controversial statements about the conduct of the Chinese government; either would be fine for some statements. I'd consider the Daily Mail decision quite a separate issue; as I recall, the objection raised by ban supporters was not that the Daily Mail was too closely tied to some issues that it was reporting on, but that it was too loosely tied to reality to be relied upon to be accurate upon any topic at all, ever. This is a much more sweeping claim, and not one that could reasonably be made of most state-controlled media.


 * I can see how this could open a can or worms, and the policy does mention the idea of independence: "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest" (emphasis added). "Independent" is linked to IS, to which I previously made an edit on this topic (in Identifying and using independent sources); revisions welcome. HLHJ (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For the case that brought me here: Template talk:Third-party. HLHJ (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice your addition to WP:IS until now. Thanks for that. —  Newslinger  talk   15:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What, you didn't notice every tiny paragraph in that long page? No worries. I'm not sure there are any real policy differences being discussed in this section; we don't have any examples where one person says it's reliable and another says that it isn't. It's just the structure and ordering of the content, and the phrasing of principles we all seem to agree on. "Mainstream media" is a perennial logomachy subject even off-wiki; if we were to create a Wikipedia-specific definition of the term de novo, we'd probably find it easier to agree. HLHJ (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not an improvement. It is not clear what "government-controlled" means. One could say that the Voice of America, for example, is controlled by US government. But it is still an RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, I think the phrasing in Special:Diff/931590746 is too harsh and too broad, but a milder and more restrictive version of the wording would reflect the controversial nature of sources like TASS . If TASS were based in a country with higher press freedom, the RfC wouldn't have been nearly as divisive. Anyway, changes to WP:IS should probably be discussed at WT:IS. —  Newslinger  talk   18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It tells: In countries without freedom of the press [all] domestic media are under the control of the government. There are very few countries like North Korea where all media can be summarily dismissed.My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this?


 * First phrase is much better. Looks good to me (I would only say "News sources" since we are taling about freedom of press). Second phrase, it is also OK, however we would probably would like to avoid using such sources at all, especially if better sources on the subject exist... My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I was actually proposing this for WP:IS, so I'm not sure how applicable this would be for WP:V. I do think that "Self-published and dependent sources" is not the ideal way to organize this kind of information on WP:V. 's bottom two bullet points are cautiously and concisely worded summaries of existing policies and guidelines (WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:REDFLAG), and they look good to me. —  Newslinger  talk   20:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is out of place here. You are talking about ACTUALLY reliable sources. Wp:RS is not about actual reliability. Otherwise you would see things like "objectivity"  and "knowledge in the subject area" in this policy. Or to put it less flippantly, the discussion is dancing around the gorilla in the living room which has never gotten fixed. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * alas, you are not right, and your post reflects a common confusion that should be fixed. The confusion is as follows. Many people believe WP:V separates sources according to just one criterion: "reliable - non-reliable". However, in reality, it also says: The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. That means it implicitly introduces another criterion: "high quality sources - low quality sources". These two type criteria are, by and large, independent. Thus, some articles published in top rank peer-reviewed journals are of very poor quality, whereas some blogs may be excellent in terms of fact checking and accuracy. Of course, that does not mean that we should allow usage of some SPS because it looks good. That is obvious. What is not obvious is the following:
 * Sometimes, some sources that meet formal criteria applied to RS are of poor quality, and they cannot be used in Wikipedia to support certain statements.
 * Consider this hypothetical example. NYT, which is a mainstream newspaper, and, hence, an RS, published an editorial that contained some opinion about Heisenberg's principle. Does it make it a RS for the Uncertainty principle article? Of course, a reasonable, good faith user will argue that, per WP:NEWSORG, this editorial is just a primary source about the author's opinion, or about NYT editorial board's opinion, and, taking into account that the editorial board is hardly composed of notable physicists, this article is not an RS for the Uncertainty principle WP article. However, NEWSORG are just guidelines, whereas the policy says "Mainstream newspapers are RS (period)". That creates an opportunity for bad faith or poorly educated users to argue that that NYT article is an RS, and to add some potentially poor quality material to Wikipedia. Of course, that would violate the WP:V's spirit, but it would be in accordance with the current WP:V's letter.
 * To fix that, I propose the following version of WP:SOURCE (its second part, which currently starts from "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications":


 * In my opinion, that modification resolves the press freedom problem, as well as many others. Indeed, the proposed version is not a blanket approval of "mainstream newspapers", but it is not wholesale ban of newspapers published in non-democratic countries: according to the proposed version, a publication in, e.g. Pravda may be an acceptable RS for the report about Brezhnev's death, but not acceptable for Korean Boeing story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul, I know all of that and still stand by what I said. But I also agree with most of what you said.  Also, your proposal is a good tweak to resolve the current issue without fixing the big problem.  The big fix would be to weigh "objectivity and knowledge with respect to the items which cited it" in all evaluations of to what extent a source is reliable / how strong the sourcing is. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * North8000 I cannot understand how your last post follows from your previous post. In your previous post, you write that actual reliability has no relation to verifiability. Yes, I agree with that. Strictly speaking, the very name of the policy implies that it deals mostly with verifiability, and "reliable source" actually means "reliably published source", so everybody can take a reference, go to a library and see that the source X really says "Y", and Wikipedia transmits this information correctly. However, if we leave actual reliability beyond the scope, then which policy is supposed to define which sources are trustworthy and which are not? I don't see how NOR or NPOV can do that. To create some additional policy dealing with actual reliability is hardly a good solution, which means WP:V should focus on both verifiability and actual reliability.
 * If you think the text proposed by me solves just minor problems, feel free to propose a more global solution. However, I think my approach is strategically correct: to define just the most basic principles in the policy, and to move all details (including "objectivity and knowledge with respect to the items which cited it" etc) to relevant guidelines. Currently, there is a contradiction between the policy, which contains blanket approval of some broad categories of sources, and guidelines, which are more restrictive. Obviously, that makes guidelines toothless, because policy takes precedence over guidelines. In contrast, in my version, all blanket approvals are removed, which gives more weight to guidelines, where all issues described by you can be explained in more details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that my edit is too harsh and broad. The text linked in the first link in this discussion might be better; not really fashed what form it takes. The COI section might also be improved by mention of sponsored supplements. I'm lost in this discussion, and may well have overlooked things. HLHJ (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say, your edit is too narrow: it focuses just at some category of newspapers, whereas other newspapers may also be problematic. On the other hand, even government controlled newspapers may be reliable sources in some cases, as I explained above. Therefore, the solution is not to label some category of newspapers as unreliable, but to explain that every newspaper may be reliable or non-reliable depending on a context (which is explained elsewhere). That would be sufficient for the policy, so all what you say should be added to the guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would oppose to changes as suggested by Paul. According to current version, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.". Note word "usually". This is because in some cases "non-academic" publications (like books by known experts addressed to general public) can be much better than articles in peer-reviewed journals by PhD students, and especially in non-scientific areas, such as politics and history. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Answering Paul, the big issues are that in the core of policies:
 * wp:rs defines reliable sources as merely having some trappings that tend to increase reliability. (e.g. layer of editorial review, published) These are not enough metrics.
 * 1) It doesn't recognize that there are degrees of reliability, nor have a way to utilize that. Everything is "binary"
 * 2) It refuses to recognize that biased sources makes them less reliable. E.G that they are more likely to present a distorted (= inaccurate) view
 * 3) It refuses to recognize that reliability is context-specific, as you explained.

The 3 part big fix would be: Unfortunately, I think that due to it's processes, en.Wikipedia is no longer capable of big fixes. But we can still try. :-) Sincerely <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduce the concept that there is strength of sourcing (i.e. a matter of degree), and that it is context sensitive.
 * 2) "Strength of sourcing" would be determined by the existing wp:rs criteria plus these 2 new criteria: #1 Objectivity and knowledge regarding the item which cited it
 * 3) Say that more controversial (regarding it's accuracy or veracity) content requires stronger sourcing, and vice versa.
 * Re issues.
 * I probably was not clear enough, bit that is exactly what I say.
 * Yes, and I proposed the solution.
 * I think that is more relevant to NPOV. I assume each source should be treated as biased, and the purpose of NPOV (not V) to find a balance between various biases. I don't think bringing this issue here is helpful, because even without that the discussion's subject is too complicated.
 * Yes.
 * Re big fix:
 * That is exactly what I have proposed (Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements). I do not think the policy should be more specific, the goal is to remove what some people see as blanket approval of some types of sources. Instead, the policy should redirect a user to WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Identifying reliable sources, and Search engine test, which explain reliability criteria in more details. In addition to that, I propose to make a stress on WP:BURDEN, to emphasize that the user who adds some source is expected to be ready to provide evidences that that source is reliable and can be used in this particular context. Currently, the policy implies that, but it does not say that explicitly. It should be clear that the user who wants to remove some source should not prove that the source is unreliable. In contrast, if adequate evidences of reliability and relevance are not presented in response to a justified criticism, that should be a sufficient criterion for removal.
 * "Objectivity criteria" are too subjective. In addition, what is the problem with the current wording ("The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source")?
 * Sorry, but WP:REDFLAG already says that. In my version, I already provided an additional reference ro REDFLAGG to emphasize that.
 * In addition, we must keep in mind that many, if not majority of Wikipedia articles describe low importance subjects (small and remote towns, local schools, etc), for which sourcing criteria should be loose, otherwise these articles will be deleted. I personally don't see why we shouldn't allow them to exist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we 90% agree. The 10% is: Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to lean towards objective sources, not an inevitably subjective process of combining biased sources.
 * IMO my "big fix" #3 isn't already happening. Wikilawyers routinely knock out "sky is blue" statements by nitpicking source details (this would fall under my "vice versa" ....a lower sourcing bar when the statement itself is not challenged/ controversial) And Wikilawyers are keeping in really controversial stuff because  the biased (=unrelaible) source has the qualifying wp:rs trappings.
 * sorry, I haven't noticed your responce.
 * Re objectivity. That is good in theory, but in theory, there is not difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. Who will decide which source is "objective"? Can you propose non-biased criteria for objectivity? I think, for entia non sunt multiplicando we should return to "better quality/lower quality reliable sources": as a rule, good quality sources, e.g. scholarly articles, are less biased.
 * Re #3, nitpicking source details is irrelevant, because as soon as "sky is blue" is not an extraordinary claim, any nitpicking is senseless REDFLAG refers to the content, not to sources. Only after the evidences have been provided that "sky is blue" is an extraordinary/controversial statement can we request using stricter sourcing criteria. And, to make REDFLAG workable, we should explain (as I am doing in my version) that there is no blanket approval of certain types of sources, and each of them may be, or may be not appropriate in some concrete context, as explained in guidelines. I think it would be good if you proposed some concrete wording that can make this idea working.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:IS. User:Newslinger, the difficulty with saying "Sources based in countries with low press freedom may be non-independent" is that you need to specify what they're non-independent of. Even the most oppressively state-controlled media outlet would still an independent source for some content. If The Official Ruritanian Press Organ, in a country that produces neither coffee nor cacao, declares that coffee is a better drink than hot chocolate, then they're still independent for that claim. Being thoroughly biased (or even, as in my example, obviously and greviously wrong ) does not make a source any less independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, and if something gets added to any of these pages, the wording should take that into account. —  Newslinger  talk   15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Entirely agree with WhatamIdoing (here). State-controlled media would probably also be RS for the official opinions expressed by the controlling government. For domestic production stats, not so much. Different sources are independent of different things; to me, this implies that the reliability of sources can depend on the topic. HLHJ (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Relevant discussion from Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

{{talkquote|text=

Saudi sourcing problems
I ask editors to please be wary of some sources on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects. This has been raised here before, at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5, but that was 2007.

The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed.

The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country (Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.

The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists.

}}

How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to New Pages Patrol) HLHJ (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , in principle I agree but this needs a carefully worded RfC identifying specific sources and the areas for which they should be considered unreliable. Guy (help!) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , agree. Add to the list, Al-Arabiya and CNN Arabic, they are all propaganda machines for the Saudi regime.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this need an RfC? I genuinely don't know, I haven't spent much time here. Agreed on the need for specificity. I think that "media produced inside Saudi Arabia, under Saudi media law" and "anything on a .sa domain" are clearly-defined categories, and would avoid having to re-RfC for each new publication. Media published abroad, with anonymous correspondents in KSA, exist and can be quite independent. Complete Saudi ownership of overseas media could in theory occur without Saudi control, but I don't know of an instance. Al-Arabiya is a Saudi-controlled domestic outlet, and in my limited experience not at all reliable on these topics; CNN Arabic I have not come across. It is based in Dubai, which might come under "beholden"; my (again limited) experience is that these are sometimes a bit better. HLHJ (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, per my comment above. We don't deprecate without an RfC. Guy (help!) 10:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it took me a moment to understand your comment. I was thinking that general policy, deprecating non-independent sources, seems to apply here; the only problem is that it may not be immediately obvious to an editor that, say, Arab News isn't independent. You are talking about an explicit "do-not-use" rule. While one could define categories of media, one could not produce a definitive list of media outlets (new ones keep coming out) or topics.


 * "Subjects of interest to the Saudi government" vary. People and policies win and lose government favour rapidly and unpredictably. The Saudi government changes the URLs of many webpages frequently, so it's often hard to go back and find out what they said a few months ago. Older media articles are also often only available through the Wayback Machine.


 * I'm trying to think of topics on which the Saudi government would probably be a reliable source. Generally, I'd take them as reliable sources on themselves; indications of the positions of the government, sources for self-fulfilling statements like official appointments, and sources for what Saudi media said about X. I would not use them to establish notability, any more than I would a press release. I'm not sure what other topics they'd be reliable for. Maybe I'd take them as a source on the location of Saudi cities, for instance, unless it becomes politically advantageous to claim they are further south or whatever (but not their size; they often seem to inflate statistics). Can you think of a better example?


 * The thing is, to know if Saudi media are an independent source on X, you have to understand all of the relevant current positions of the government, and that requires independent sources, who probably have better coverage. Any formal rule will need to take this into account. RfC phrasing suggestions? As an informal rule; if it's Saudi-controlled, don't use it for anything except WP:SELFSOURCE. HLHJ (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would vote support for your RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you want to start a RfC for this? All of the Saudi newspapers are controlled by the Saudi regime either directly or indirectly since there is absolutely no freedom of speech let alone freedom of journalism in Saudi Barbaria whatsoever unlike many other "Muslim" states.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SharʿabSalam, I think this is part of a broader discussion. The problem is not specific to Saudi Arabia (though there are obviously specific reasons for editors to be particularly aware of Saudi COIs at the moment, which is why I posted here). The media in North Korea, for instance, are not independent sources for statements that serve the North Korean government. I am continuing this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. HLHJ (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: "to the extent that media are not independent of the government, they are not independent sources on topics of government interest, and they should be treated as sources self-published by the government."
 * This seems inline with the TASS consensus, and deals correctly with the The Official Ruritanian Press Organ example. Does anyone have any examples where this rule would produce an obvious injustice or absurdity? HLHJ (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "treat" these as self-published sources. A self-published source can be an excellent source.  Just say that, exactly like any other non-independent source, they need to be handled with careful attention to due weight.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal on *Disinformation*
I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

Meta:Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia%27s_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience

Cheers! -Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 20:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes
This revert was presented as a restoration of an old consensus version. However, as far as I understand, the reverted change was made year ago, and I am not aware of any objections. That means the reverted version can be considered a long standing consensus version too.

I am not going to revert for two reasons. First, I think, BOLD should not be applied to policy page: if a possibility of revert cannot be ruled out, it is always better to discuss the change on the talk page. The policy is something that is supposed to be stable, so the less changes, the better.

Second, what Visviva is saying is correct: the version reverted by Visviva "would justify deleting >90% of the encyclopedia". However, that is only a part of truth. The second truth is that these 90% of Wikipedia content is not the most precious part of it. In reality, it is remaining 10% (i.e. articles like World War II 30,000 views per day, Global warming 14,000 views daily, or United States 45,000 views daily), which make Wikipedia a respectable and trustworthy resource.

In other words, Loose sourcing criteria allow Wikipedia to grow rapidly, to cover a broad range of subjects, and to recruit myriads of amateur editors. However, the very same liberal sourcing rules make creation of a top quality content much more difficult, and I suspect that is a reason why many professional experts are not too enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia.

We have a dilemma:


 * We cannot apply too stringent sourcing criteria to all Wikipedia articles, because that will lead to deletion of a significant part of the content. Moreover, almost every article starts as a poor quality stub article, and only after some time it may (or may not) become a good article. By deleting poorly sourced content, we may eliminate a possibility of a future growth of Wikipedia.
 * However, the very same loose sourcing criteria that make Wikipedia growth possible may have a very negative impact on good articles. Indeed, the sourcing rules applied uniformly allow anybody to add some material from a local newspaper to some good article that is bases upon good scholarly articles of university textbooks. It may take enormous time and efforts to purge good articles from poorly sourced content (thus, one admin seriously proposed me to start RfC to remove a garbage source from an article that was based on monographs and scholarly articles).

All of that means that the policy should set floating criteria for sources. These criteria should allow us to use marginally acceptable sources (local newspapers, magazines, movies, etc) for low importance or stab articles, and to prohibit usage of questionable sources in high importance/good/featured articles, or in the articles that are based upon, for example, scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Any thoughts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, outside of select case of policies with legal implications (BLP, COPYVIO, NFC), P&G are to be descriptive and not prescriptive. To that end, neither version before after said diff are good as both are "hard" instructions. I am terrible at wordsmiting these but something along the lines of "Articles should be based primarily on reliable, independent sources." would be the proper descriptive wording of practice. --M asem (t) 20:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 67 and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 68; the change was contested at the time. Also, if you check WP:Based upon, you'll find that multiple policies say something like this, and whatever we end up with, we should have a solid shared understanding of what we actually mean, and that understanding should be consistent across all of the pages.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's certainly true that various pages like WP:IS that are prominently marked as not-policy have used "must" language in this context, I don't see what bearing that has on WP:V. Any reader will understand that those pages do not serve as authority, and cannot substitute for an actual argument for deleting content (or entire articles). In contrast, Verifiability is generally considered to apply to all content without meaningful exceptions (and is often cited even as an exception to the mother of all rules). Essays and supplements can do their own thing, but major substantive changes to WP:V should not be made without substantial and widespread community input. -- Visviva (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Visviva, I believe you will find that the "must" language is also present in WP:NOT, which has been a policy for a very long time. It's all very well to say that you don't care about non-policies, but this language exists in other core policies, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can tell I've been spending too much time with the shouty-acronyms crowd on AFD lately, because I was deeply tempted to respond with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is an interesting point; indeed WP:NOT is fairly awash in "must" statements, which nobody seems to take very seriously. But I would say that there's still a big difference between a policy like V that has always been understood to lay down a single inviolable rule that all content must follow, and a policy like NOT that is basically a laundry list of more-or-less-negotiable boundaries. -- Visviva (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it seems to me that hortatory language is exactly right here; the "Base articles on" language makes clear that it is describing preferred user conduct. In contrast, language of obligation, especially "must," is dangerously prone to misinterpretation. (If anyone doesn't believe that people turning policy upside-down to create rationales for deleting encyclopedic content is already a problem, check out how many AfD participants think the GNG is a biconditional.) TBH, I don't understand what actual problem the change was intended to solve; assuming good faith, it appears to have originated from a couple of editors attempting to make a stylistic tweak and accidentally making a massive change to the substance of WP:V, which is absolutely not how such an important page should be modified. -- Visviva (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I find your use of the word “hortatory” quaint. Most people would say ”bordello” or ”house of ill repute”. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * hortatory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Think about it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would strenuously dispute the second point. Wikipedia's high-traffic articles are IMO the weakest argument for the project's importance, because they mostly just cover material that could be perfectly well handled by a latter-day World Book Encyclopedia. Lots of people look at those articles because lots of people search for those terms, but if we disappeared tomorrow there would be plenty of other resources to take our place.  Wikipedia's real value proposition is in the long tail. The unfortunate tendency of policy discussions to focus on a handful of unrepresentative high-profile or controversial articles is IMO a classic example of how hard cases make bad law. -- Visviva (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The common sense version that is used in reality (except when there is wiki-lawyering) is that when the material is more questionable or questioned, stronger and more "by the book/ideal" sourcing is required, and when the material is less questionable or questioned, weaker or less "by the book/ideal" sourcing is OK. Since 100% "by-the-book / ideal" sources are maybe about 10% of the sourcing in Wikipedia, this practice is very important, and IMO any wording that would tend to preclude it is not a good idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Visviva, I think what would be most helpful is if you explained what you think would be appropriate. This sentence is about using sources with two qualities:  (1) independence from the subject, and (2) a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * It says that articles should be WP:Based upon (at which link you will find my interpretation of what it means for any article to be 'based upon' anything) sources with those two qualities. For example, an article based upon sources with these two qualities would include any article about a business whose content is mostly cited to newspapers.  An example of an article that is not based upon sources with these two qualifies would be any article about a business whose content is mostly cited to that business's own website.
 * There are basically three options available:
 * We have an article on a subject, and the article is based on what the subject says about itself;
 * We have an article on a subject, and the article is not based on what the subject says about itself; or
 * We don't have a separate article on that subject (see WP:FAILN for options on how to include it "in Wikipedia" without being "a separate article").
 * What do you think Wikipedia should do? Can you think of any subject for which you think the best possible approach is to base our article on what the subject says about itself?  Is there any situation in which you think it would be best to base a whole article on sources without a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I would agree (and I think nearly all Wikipedians would) that articles should move iteratively from worse to better sourcing. I'd also agree that ideal sourcing comes from independent secondary or tertiary sources with a reputation for accuracy, and so forth. But I think the pre-existing language makes this expectation clear. The "must" language concerns/alarms me because instead of merely setting an expectation for user conduct, it significantly raises WP:V's minimum threshold. Specifically, by its plain meaning, the "must" language requires all articles to have gold-standard sourcing for at least the bulk of their content at all times. If enforced, this new requirement would dramatically raise the minimal criteria for article sourcing, and put all manner of perfectly good and useful articles in jeopardy. (I'm setting aside the problem that there tends to be considerable disagreement on which sources actually have the required reputation, so nobody could ever really be sure if a particular article would be safe from a WP:V-based deletion under this new standard.)
 * Wikipedia has succeeded -- to the extent it has -- precisely because the threshold criteria for contributing content have been low. People submitted whatever they could manage to put together, other people made whatever improvements they could, and the wiki process worked its magic. And for nearly the whole lifetime of the project, WP:V has stood for a consistent minimum standard that allows this process of iterative improvement to function: other users must be able to verify the contributed information somehow. The simple and low nature of that standard has been responsible for a good part of Wikipedia's success, so it shouldn't be altered without very good reasons, in addition to wide and deep discussion. Here, in contrast, there don't seem to have been any stated reasons for the change at all. And as you've noted, when discussion finally did occur, it didn't show much support for the change (I'd actually say it showed pretty strong and well-reasoned opposition).
 * Of course this new language has been relatively harmless for the relatively brief time it's been there, but I think that's mostly because hardly anybody reads policy pages beyond the first screen anyway. ;-) If somebody ever did read this passage and decide to take it seriously, they could do a lot of damage, since WP:V is after all non-negotiable. -- Visviva (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been my experience in the past that it takes two years for a change in a written policy to get noticed by enough editors for the change to be useful, so probably nobody noticed.
 * I think that the lack of vehement reactions is partly because the meaning is the same (or at least very similar). Nobody would read "Pay your income taxes by the deadline" and think that was optional advice, and that only "You must pay your income taxes by the deadline" meant that the action was required.
 * Visviva, it sounds like you don't actually think that following this should exactly be optional. It sounds like your main concern is that someone might try to WP:DEMOLISH an article that was WP:NOTFINISHED before the WP:DEADLINE, if the early revisions weren't WP:BEEFy enough to show that it was Based upon independent sources.  That is, all articles must Eventually be based upon independent sources.  Is that a fair description of your view?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Question - what happens in the (admittedly rare) cases when use of a deprecated source has been manually reviewed, and deemed acceptable? Can we turn your script off, so it is no longer highlighted? Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It'll remain highlighted. Best practice is to simply put a comment next to the source explaining the consensus about it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And hope that the next editor will see the hidden HTML comment. Highlighting reliable sources is unfortunately not so rare, either, as it's detecting most academic sources purely on the basis of the publisher, and some academic publishers have quite a range in their quality, from perfectly decent to undesirable.  The script treats all journals by the publisher the same, so the highly ranked journals get highlighted right along with the publisher's worst.  And, no, it is not my experience that the users of this script necessarily bother to look beyond the fact that The Script Said So.  See Talk:Fragile X syndrome for one example:  a journal in the top quartile of its field, but an editor blanked it and refuses to explain why, beyond "lots of concerns" about the publisher.   Also, reputable authors sometimes publish uncontroversial content in bad journals (tenure committees treated them all the same until recently), so then what?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since user scripts are optional add-ons that Wikipedia editors must manually install to activate, I think the banner at the top of User:Headbomb/unreliable sufficiently advises editors on how the script should be used. Specifically, the script "does not answer whether a source should be used or not" and "does not understand context", and provides good advice. —  Newslinger   talk   06:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that they've been warned. However, they're disregarding the advice that they've been given.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Members-only sections of websites
Are members-only sections of websites considered WP:V? On the one hand, any member can verify the source. On the other, membership may be difficult to obtain and if only one or a handful of editors have access, how can we know for certain? Thoughts? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in passing by a couple of editors at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 65 but fully discussed, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Standard practice (as noted at Published) is to interpret "published" as "made publicly available on a reproducible medium" in some quantity. It is not necessary that a publication be free, available from any location, or produced in unlimited number. It simply has to be possible for almost any editor, given reasonable time/money (and if it's on physical medium only, travel), to access a copy. "Members' only" publications of any kind would be considered "publicly available" if membership itself is publicly available. If I can visit the website, sign up, pay a fee, and boom, I'm a member, that's fine. If I have to be friends with a particular person, or an employee of a particular company, or a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon, then it's not. Also factored in here would be whether there is any kind of secrecy requirement to being a member. If access to the publication requires signing an agreement not to share it outside the group, then that is clearly a private communication and not something meant to be public. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. In this case, it requires passing one of a set of tests with a certain minimum score, so I would not consider membership publicly available. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Two questions about application of WP:NONENG
Hiya I have two questions provoked by a current Good Article review in which I am the nominator. Bilorv is the reviewer and we are in amicable disagreement about these things, so I suggested asking here for feedback on two specific issues:

Firstly, the article in question (We Are Here (collective)) is about a Dutch collective, so a fair few of the citations are in Dutch. In using a foreign language citation, I am aware that I am translating the information and I could be challenged to provide a quotation by another editor (as set out in the Citation subsection), so I have been including (in Dutch) the relevant sentences in the citation under the quote parameter. I feel that this is best practice, since it would be wrong to expect people reading English wikipedia to speak Dutch and/or to expect them to trawl through an entire article to find a reference, but in the age of machine translation it isn’t too much for anyone to translate a few sentences, and I am providing the relevant ones so they don’t have to ask. If they did ask, I would then add the same text.

To give an example of what I am talking about: The city council argues that its actions are limited by the policy of the Dutch Government. is backed by a citation from Karman writing in Parool newspaper and I provided a quote from the article, namely “Dat tot frustratie van de burgemeester en de gemeenteraad, die allebei graag meer wilden doen, maar moesten blijven herhalen dat niet Amsterdam, maar Den Haag over het asielbeleid gaat en dat de stad geen asielzoekers mág opvangen” which shows the council was clashing with the Government in Den Haag (which thus backs up the English sentence in the article).

Bilorv is quite rightly raising concerns about copyright and so I wondered what the best practice is here. Would it best to delete the Dutch which is currently held in the references as a quote or does this serve as a useful way for others to factcheck? The relevant bit of WP:NONENG is As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

Secondly, regarding the the Quoting subsection, I am wondering how best to deal with a direct quote in the article. So to again take an example from the text:Acting mayor Jozias van Aartsen remarked that ”You must be very careful with the mayor's office and not go down the route of politicizing the mayor's role." Having written this translation of what Aartsen said in the article text, I added the Dutch original in the quote parameter of the citation - "U moet heel voorzichtig zijn met het ambtburgemeester en niet de route op gaan om de burgemeester te politiseren." Having done that, do I then need to add the English translation again in the citation in square brackets?

The relevant sentence of WP:NONENG here is If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. And I suppose also In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians. Bilorv suggests I do add the English translation which is in the text again in the citation, so it is then right next to the Dutch, but I feel it's unnecessary to do that. Obviously in this case, it isn’t a major problem either way since it’s no work at all to add the English quote from the article text into the citation as well, I am just again interested what people think the best practice is.

Since this is something that I have been considering with other articles, including other GA noms, I’d really appreciate some feedback to set me on the right path. Bilorv I hope I haven't misrepresented your position. Thanks for any help! Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding item 1, there are some quotes that are a little lengthy which come from a single web source, which you should consider shortening, but overall reasonable.
 * I would not add the English translation a second time in the citation if it is directly in the article. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there Izno reason to give the translation twice. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the comments. What about the main issue here, of whether it's mandatory to give the translation once? Take a look at We Are Here (collective)'s current use of quotations—are they NONENG compliant? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, guidelines call for a translation if you quote a foreign-language source. This says, kind of, that if you give the Dutch you should always give an English translation, but when you think about you wouldn't give the Dutch (or whatever) in the article proper unless there's something about the original wording that's itself under the microscope. So that leaves the case where the article simply gives the facts, in paraphrase (and in English, of course); in that case neither the original Dutch, nor a literal translation of that Dutch, is required. However, since a third party wanting to verify something faces additional challenges when the source isn't English, it's a welcome courtesy to provide both -- in the notes/sourcing, not the article proper. The copyright question is an interesting one, but I think it's fair use as long as you keep the text taken from the original (and therefore the translation) as short as necessary to support the facts offered in the article; I could be wrong though.I'm going to drag in here because of the Dutch gobbledygook involved. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful comments, if people want to continue to discuss I'm still interested because I find it an issue where the MoS could perhaps be a bit clearer, but this already helped with the current GA review. Mujinga (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification
When your write "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable", does "verifiable" mean that all material should be verifiable in the text (i.e. not just as external links, but with inline-citations or similar) or that a source much exist, but not given in the text? Looking forward to your answer. Tøndemageren (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It means that someone, possibly with money, can go and check the source for themselves. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source a paragraph up? --Izno (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to your question can be found in the WP:BURDEN section of this policy. Wherever the material is located in mainspace, a source must be provided via an inline citation if the material has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. I would argue that in today's Wikipedia-world anything other than the most utterly obvious things are is likely to be challenged. Note that later in that section, this policy expressly says that uncited material may be removed, particularly (but not only) if anyone has any doubt that a citation for it may not exist, so presuming that something may not be likely to be challenged is never a safe assumption. Moreover, also note that once uncited material is removed it cannot be restored without a reliable source. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC) PS: And just one other practical thing: Removals for being unsourced don't necessarily happen right after you add something. Sometimes it may be months or years before the unsourced material is removed for being unsourced. If insertion of that material is important to you or to the article why would you want to risk having it removed at a time that you may not even be aware that the removal has happened? Add sources for everything when you first insert them. — TM PPS: At EEng's suggestion I'm strinking the "utterly obvious" bit. Why? Because there really not anything that is so capable of not being disputed that someone won't dispute it here. — TM 21:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest striking other than the most utterly obvious things -- see User:EEng. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your response. We are currently discussing this very topic on da.wiki's corresponding talk page. It was claimed that en.wiki used "verifable" in the sense that a source must only exist, not necessarily be used in the text. This claim was made on the grounds of the first note in WP:OR. From what I understand from you guys, and this quote "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", verifiable means the inlince citations are needed to verify. Is that correct? Tøndemageren (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the question is whether an inline citation is needed to satisfy that burden, the answer is yes. Let me provide a theoretical underpinning. Verifiability replaces the need to have a paid board of editors or fact-checkers for the encyclopedia. Instead of someone behind the scenes vouching for the truth and accuracy of the encyclopedia, we provide for readers to check for themselves - to verify - that the things said here are reliable by virtue of having been said in a reliable source. In order for readers to have that ability (a) a reliable source must be cited and (b) the reader must be able to associate the bit of information that they want to verify with the citation. Thus, there must be a reliable source cited and that citation must be placed in the text in a manner such that a reader can tell which particular text to which that citation applies. Thus, we have a requirement for inline citations. (A historical note: In the early years of the encyclopedia it was common for there not to be inline citations or footnotes, but merely a list of citations at the end of the article. It was, obviously, very difficult to link any one citation to any particular bit of information, so that method of citing was eventually deprecated and inline citations required. There are a few old articles which still have a remnant of such "endnoting" but all new citations, even in those articles, should be inline.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your answer. We agree it seems, and a misrepresentation of your policies was made on da.wiki. Tøndemageren (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I'm replying late,, but I wanted to emphasize that what TransporterMan said in his explanation was completely correct. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer is no, for what the five pillars care, the existence of the source is enough. Sharing it is not mandatory. As TransporterMan said, this applies most in new articles where .. every.. single.. piece.. of ... information.. must.. not ... be cited. This is specially true when it clash with other pillars. You cannot write non-neutral texts just because you don't want to provide the inline source you know exists. Bullying other editors to source every words just to get rid of their POV is POV-pushing. This being said, WP:V is a very important policy that quickly helps each other to work together and working together is a pillar as well. So the answer is yes. Iluvalar (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tøndemageren, the Danish Wikipedia is free to write its own rules. I would recommend that you read WP:MINREF and Citation overkill, and that you don't write rules that require editors to provide an inline citation things like "Paris is the capital of France".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

An interesting question
Over at Talk:Simon of Trent  an interesting debate is going on.

I added material I thought I saw in an RS (but a google preview). When it was challenged I could no longer find it (I had also checked one or two other sources, and it may be I read it in one of those). I stated I could not verify the text I added and a third user took "Umbrage" to this and has argued that the user who challenged the text should have AGF about my claim to have seen it (in essence I said I had read it and that should have been enough to keep it). I argued that I could not find it anymore and thus could not give (for example) even a page number and (in effect) I was told that I should AGF about having seen the text and it had been verified.

Now another user has fetched up and said I do not understand verifiability.

So my question is this, is it correct to say that if I can remember seeing something that is enough and the text has been verified (I know the answer, I want someone else to say it), or am I in fact correct and I still have to be able to "prove" (verify) the text with a cite?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * First, I agree that this should start with an assumption of good faith. As for this case, what was the original source (book, long internet article, etc)?  If the issue is you cited say an article that was free but is now behind a paywall, in a returned library book etc, and the content is reasonably locatable in that source then I don't see a problem with V.  This is a common issue when citing almost anything that isn't via the web or our own bookshelves.  There is an issue if the source is very long or the specific fact is hard to find (a single sentence in a long book).  In that case it's reasonable to say it fails V.  This is especially true if the material is paraphrased or otherwise not an obvious tie between the Wiki content and the source.  For this reason I've always been wary of pulling references from things like google books unless I can cite specific page numbers.  If you are uncertain which source you referenced (book A vs B) then I would say it fails V.  We can't say "cite: A or perhaps it was B" and even if you are 100% correct that it was in one of those two sources, if it's not in the one you recalled it does fail V.  Of course if the material or it's use in this citation is contentious then I would say if you can't provide the exact citation it's probably best to remove it.  I've been 100% certain even in a few cases where reality was changed history between when I said it and when I checked it.    Springee (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, information need not be verifiable on the Internet; plenty of history articles are sourced to books that only exist in printed form. It's a question of how much you trust your own memory. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 15:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember that our articles are never “finished”... If there is a question about the sources that support material in an article, it is best to (temporarily) remove the material, double check the sources in question, and then add the material back again once you can cite it properly. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the source I thought it was [], this is the edit in question [] which I was sure was in the book, but I am now unable to find any such passage. Oddly I have now found the source, which is typical, and I was not right, its not the book. Which is in a way my point, I was not sure where I had seen it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After I read your question here's the answer I was going to write before your final post: AGF is about assuming good vs. bad motives for what someone wrote. In this case they were probably thinking about AGF meaning that they trust that you honestly believe that you saw it there, but "honestly believe" isn't enough because people misremember things, mis-remember what was and wasn't explicitly stated  or remember their interpretation which may be wrong. So I was going to say that despite good faith in all directions, it still does not meet WP:V. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Once it has been challenged for any reason, it can be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a RS. The policy states (in BURDEN), "please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source". Note the words "please" (which makes this an optional best practice) and "concern" (which is different from suspicion or belief and, most important, requires no evidence). Let's not loose sight of the fact that citations are needed so that readers can verify the accuracy of what's stated here. If material can stay in simply because an editor can claim "I'm sure I saw it somewhere" and everyone else has to AGF that assertion, the requirement of verifiability goes out the door. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to mention that Simon of Trent is an historic figure, you cannot verify anything at all. The attribution is implied by the topic itself and should be what most historical records agree upon. If they do not, then the particular historian or source used should be mentioned, in line. I might be a bit hardcore on this topic but unless you are a vampire, the sentence you wrote is unverifiable. Iluvalar (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, so far yes I think my interpretation seems to be correct, I still have to be able to provide a citation if it is challenged, and AGF does not trump that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this about Talk:Simon of Trent? In which someone else has already provided relevant quotations from the source, right there on the talk page?  You obviously don't have to edit that (or any) article yourself, but when another editor has read the book and has found this information in it, then your inability to access the source yourself does not mean that the editor who did read the source is not allowed to cite it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)