Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 72

Context matters
This is a theme in several of the comments above, and I'd like to address is separately.

There is a question about whether reliability is "contextless". That is, if a verifiability is context-free, then a reliable source is reliable no matter what. If verifiability is context-dependent, then a source can only be reliable insofar as that source is reliable for the specific information it's being used for in the article.

It is my understanding that the concept of reliability, as used in the Verifiability policy, is inherently context-dependent. One of the reasons I believe that is the opening sentence of the policy:

"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."The key point is that other people aren't checking that something called a reliable source exists; they're checking that the information in the encyclopedia article actually came from a reliable source. The information in the encyclopedia article is the necessary context. If the information didn't come from a reliable source, then the very next lines apply:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors."Again, it's all about the information in the article. Either that information was published elsewhere, or the information is not verifiable. You cannot determine whether information is verifiable unless the information matches the sources. If it doesn't match, then no matter how awesome the source looks, that source cannot be used to verify that information. That source is therefore unreliable for that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about "verifiability" or "reliability"? Keep in mind that, whereas the policy name is "Verifiability", the discussion is not about that, but about reliability.
 * If we interpret "Verifiability" literally (This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.), "Verifiability" is totally contextless: it is ONLY about a direct correspondence between some Wikipedia text and some stable source, which is potentially accessible to any reader. However, after that, the policy's text switches to "reliability", which is defined very vaguely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still not understanding what Paul means by contextless, and think it is different to what Masem means and what WAID is arguing against.
 * I don't think it is helpful to suggest that a claimed source that doesn't actually support the article text is "unreliable". I think a more straightforward point is that a "publication" only becomes a "source" if it does support a statement in an article. Abstract contextless arguments about the reliability of publications do not directly interest our readers (who are not judging whether to take out a subscription to The Guardian or The Lancet). I think that the concern about whether nor not the claimed source really does support the article text is a separate matter than whether it is a reliable source for that kind of statement, but both are essential to WP:V. If the publication cited does not support the article text, it simply is not a source for it at all. The citation is a fraud. At an extreme example, one could imagine someone placing citations to paywalled journals or rare books in the hope that few readers/editors have access to check. Whether those journals or books are reliable for the kind of statement being made becomes entirely beside the point. The degree to which the published text does or does not support the article text is certainly a matter for WP:V, but I would argue that if we conclude it does not support the text then it simply is not a source for it. The citation claims it to be the source for this fact, but it turns out it is not. Often these things can occur through editing where a citation gets misplaced or appears to cover more text than it is really a source for. Or someone rewords the article text, changing the meaning in away that isn't supported by the source. To my mind, this just emphasises how important it is that something is only a source if it really is the source of information for a fact or claim we make. And WP:V requires reliable sources, not any old source.
 * Paul is focused on verfication being merely checking that the claimed source and article text correspond, and thinks reliability is a separate concept. Hmm. I know Wikipedia has a saying about verification not truth but it is worth a reminder that outside of our peculiar wiki world, the word verfiy means to establish if something is true, accurate, correct, fair. How does our reader establish if something they have read on wiki is true, accurate, correct and fair? Well they can look for what we claim is a source for that text, and read it. But if that source isn't reliable for such a claim, then we haven't really helped them in their mission and may even be leading them astray. So we all agree that the source does need to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, that we can rely that when we use it as a source to prop up some article text, that it is likely to be correct, accurate, true and fair about that. If the source is unreliable then we are wasting our readers time making them look it up and read it. If the source doesn't agree with the article text then it doesn't matter how reliable it would have been if it had done. It is a bit like having an expensive watch but expecting it to tell you the weather, not the time. But if the source is unreliable then that's like having a watch you keep forgetting to wind up. There's no point insisting you wear a watch, if you don't also insist that the watch is ticking. -- Colin°Talk 13:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you totally misunderstand what I am focused on. I am focused on modifying the policy to minimise a possibility of long and fruitless discussions such as this imaginary RSN discussion:
 * Editor A. "Yes. The source X is reliable, because it is a journal publication"
 * Editor B. "No. This publication is fringe, so the source is not reliable."
 * Editor C. "Yes. The author is a renown expert, and the journal is a mainstream journal, so the source is reliable."
 * Editor D. "No. The publication is just tangentially related to the subject, so the source is nit reliable."
 * (and so on and so forth)
 * Note, each user puts forward quite reasonable arguments, but each of them tells just a part of truth. How do you imagine closure of such a discussion?
 * Obviously, a discussion of that type would be much simpler when it is well organized. That is impossible when each participant sees "reliability" differently, or emphasised different aspects of that concepts. One possible way to avoid it would be: explicitly define all components of the "reliability" and specify that the decision about reliability of a source can be made only after each components of reliability have been analysed. That'' is what I am focused on. And, to achieve that goal, the first step is to stop vague speculations about "different vision of "reliability" by different people", but in explaining how reliability is defined by our policy. If a policy says that different people see some term differently, that means the policy says nothing about it.
 * The policy must define some terms (such as "reliability"), provide criteria of reliability, and provide rules that help us to check if those criteria are met in each concrete case. The problem is that some terms defined by the policy may have somewhat different meaning than the meaning of the same word outside of our peculiar wiki world. Many conflicts are the result of usage of mixed terminology.
 * With regard to "verifiability", I mention that term because the policy is called "Verifiability", not "reliability". And the meanings of those terms are somewhat different. "Verifiable" (and WP:V explains that quite clear) means a reader is supposed to be capable of verifying (by themselves) everything what Wikipedia says. That's it (and that differs from your explanation, which you took not from our policy). Obviously, that has no relation to reliability of that information: for example Wikipedia may say "The Moon is made of blue cheese (ref)", and if the reference says the same, a reader can go to a library, take that book and find the very same information. Does it means this information is reliable? No. That source is probably just some fairy tail. Does it mean this information is neutral? No. Majority of sources say otherwise. However, this information is verifiable. That example demonstrates that verifiability is separate from reliability. To that, I would add one thing that is totally overlooked in the policy. Verifiability implies stability: the source must be stable, it is not supposed to disappear in few days. If there is a risk that that source may disappear, it is not reliable (dependable), and should not be used. It does not matter how reliable is the information in this source, if it is volatile, it is not a good source for Wikipedia.
 * And, as soon as we agreed about verifiability, we can switch to the second aspect, reliability, which is, of course, by and large context dependent (although some its components are not, as I demonstrated above).
 * With regard to your "a "publication" only becomes a "source" if it does support a statement in an article", that directly contradicts to a standard practice. Usually, the questions users ask at RSN is "Does this source support the statement A?" They rarely ask "Does this publication is a source for A?" Since majority of users prefer the first approach, I see no reason to force them to change it. It also contradicts to guidelines, which define the term source without a link to any context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of text on this talk page, and having reviewed it, including this latest statement, I am still not clear what changes you're seeking to make. Perhaps it is time to put up a concrete proposal so people can see the precise changes that you desire. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you are probably right. Maybe, that will make my position more clear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, you say I don't understand but then repeat the thing I'm complaining about. Above you again say that 'verifiable' is only about source->text correspondence and is not interested in whether the source is reliable. And again I say that this definition is not only not supported by actual policy text (which literally says "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source") nor is it supported with any dictionary definition of "verify" which is concerned with establishing truth, accuracy, fair comment, etc. It is simply a non-starter to try to redefine verifiability to mean "is supported by any published document even a fairy tale written by a fool published by a vanity press". So, no, I don't in fact see anyone who agrees with your definition of verifiability.
 * Wrt your argument about sources and publications, I'm not actually asking anyone to change their definitions. You claim "Does this source support the statement A?" is a question asked at RSN. Really? I'm sure it happens sometimes, but I don't see that being the generally issue at RSN, which, as the name suggests, is more concerned with reliability. Generally the issue of whether the claimed source, the published document, actually agrees with the article text can be resolved on an article talk page and among wiki project members who understand the topic. But even assuming this question gets asked, the questioner is clearly referring to a published article that someone has already claimed to be a source for the statement. So while technically they could have said "Does this published article, cited as a source for this text, actually support that statement?", we all know what they mean. Paul, it isn't a radical redefinition of terminology to say that a document that does not actually support a statement is not a source for that statement. The word "source" means the source of something, and no amount of misreading of policy can change a basic English word. -- Colin°Talk 09:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, do you agree that the question "Is this information supported by a reliable source?" is a composite question, which can be split onto at least two questions:
 * 1. Is this information supported by some source?
 * 2. Is that source reliable (at least, in some concrete context)? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This really is what it is. While technically sometimes a question should have been written "Does this published article, cited as a source for this statement, actually support the article text?", do you actually find that is a common question at RSN?

Proposed changes (tentative)
The first change relates to the definition of the source. Actually, this part is mirrored by a similar text in guidelines, where it is called "definition of source". The text is supposed to define (clarify) something, but it makes a situation more confusing. The "Work - Author - Publisher" triad is by no means represents different meanings of the term "source". I don't know how can that be not obvious, because no user in clear mind can agree that Albert Einstein or Cambridge University Press can be considered as a source. Indeed, a source is a concrete document, for example, the article "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?", authored by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen and published in Physical Reviews by American Physical Society IS a source, but APS alone or Einstein alone are by no means a source.

Second, the discussion of the meaning of the word "source" should be placed into a separate section before a discussion of reliable sources (for the reason that I already explained in previous sections). Therefore, I propose:
 * First, change the text from the top of "What count as a reliable source" as follows:

The word "source" is defined as some work (the article, book, internet publication, etc) that was created by some author (the scholar, writer, journalist, organisation etc) and issued by some reputable publisher (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). A quality of the work, author's expertise and notability, and publisher's reputation are the three factors that define reliability of the source in a context of some concrete Wikipedia article.
 * Second, move that text up, right after the "Reliable sources" header (section 2), and before the start of the section 2.1. The reason is obvious: a definition of "source" is equally relevant to both reliable and not reliable sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, consider an editorial in a print newspaper… is “the source” the author (ie the editor who wrote the editorial), the publisher (ie the newspaper as an organization), or the work itself (ie the specific editorial)? Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it a piece of some text that was signed by someone? Then the work is the editorial itself, the author is the person who signed it, the publisher is a newspaper.
 * If this text is not signed, then the text expresses an opinion of an editorial board or an editor-in-chief. The rest is the same. What is a problem?
 * If I were a user who used such a source, I would write the reference as follows: Smith, A. "Is the moon made of blue cheese?", Daily Gerald, Jan. 21, 1999. All components (work-author-publisher) are here. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not answer my question. If I say “this source is unreliable”, am I talking about the author, the publisher or the specific editorial? Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you say that this source is reliable, that means:
 * the work itself passes some criteria of fact checking and accuracy, AND
 * the author's expertise and credentials meet some minimal requirements (in this concrete context), AND
 * the publisher of the work has a good reputation.
 * Obviously, if at least one of those criteria are not met, the source is not reliable. There are two exception to that rule in the policy text.
 * First, if the author is a renown expert, and the work is of a good quality and is relevant to the topic, then a publisher is not too important: that work may be even an SPS.
 * Second, when poor quality sources are used in a context of a critical analysis of their context, they are also acceptable.
 * However, in my opinion, it would be more correct to say that in the latter case the source is still unreliable, but the usage of that unreliable source is acceptable for the purpose of its critical analysis and/or discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is where we get into a mess by categorising the reliability of a source without considering the context of what article test is being drawn from it. As WAID notes above, these questionable or self-published sources may even be considered reliable (authoritative) on itself. Unless a source is such quicksand that the publisher changes the text from one day to the next, we can be confident and rely on it being a source for what words it contains. These questionable or self-published sources are generally unreliable for pretty much anything, but there are limited contexts when they are reliable. Anyway, you didn't answer Blueboar's question, and I think his question was a bit rhetorical. He's making the point that you don't actually know which aspect of the source he is referring to, and it could be any one of those. -- Colin°Talk 15:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction between what you and I say. You say there are limited contexts when questionable sources are reliable, and I agree with that, and I even specify that that context is their "critical analysis and/or discussion". Obviously, there may be no other context where they are acceptable: you cannot present a poor source as a fact, only as an opinion, which requires its placement into some context and supplementing of it with needed commentaries. That is exactly what I am saying.
 * With regard to Blueboar, let them decide by themselves if I answered the question. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "unless a source is such quicksand that the publisher changes the text from one day to the next..." is absolutely correct, that is what I myself was saying repeatedly. However, that refers to verifiability, not reliability.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with these changes, as I find the explanation of the changes, and the result, much much more confusing than the way the policy currently reads. I think it makes sense. Sources are contextual based upon all 3 aspects of their provenance. Makes sense to me. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide an example of a source that does not fit that definition. Sources that are generally seen as reliable by our policy are preferable.
 * And, correct me if I am wrong: is it correct that the current policy's text says that Oxford University Press is a source. Can you give me an example of a situation when you are ready to accept OUP (not some concrete article/book. but OUP itself) as a reliable source? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that the proposed replacement for the bullet points at the beginning of "What counts as a reliable source" is a big improvement (which is not to say that it couldn't be improved further). I have always thought that that part was poorly written and confusing. Instead of saying what a source is, it gives three different meanings for "source" and then continues as if there is only one meaning. Awful. To Shibboleth: I think you describe it incorrectly when you write "all 3 aspects of their provenance" — the policy does not describe 3 aspects but 3 "meanings". The difference between "aspect" and "meaning" is critical. Zerotalk 04:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Can we not vote please . This is a tentative proposal that is part of a discussion that is far far away from reaching consensus. There isn't even any agreement on what the problem is, never mind a proposed solution. So, if there is to be a poll, that is not now.
 * While I can see how Paul has got confused about this part of policy text, his proposal is to cement his incorrect interpretation of that view. I think the "meaning" part of the text has been wrongly interpreted to suggest this is a definition of source, and it really really is not. They way I read it, I take it more along these lines.. When someone talks about a "source" they may in fact be referring to the work, the creator or the publisher. For example, if you claimed that MMR causes Autism and someone asked you "And what's your source for that?". You might reply.
 * Andrew Wakefield, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and specialist in gastrointestinal disorders.
 * The paper "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" (catchy title eh?), which suggested that a group of children developed certain developmental disorders after their MMR vaccination.
 * The Lancet, which is a prestigious medical journal.
 * The policy text is not attempting to define source as being defined by those and only those components, nor to limit them as the only attributes that concern reliability. So the claim these "are the three factors that define reliability of the source" is simply wrong. These are attributes of a source that are significant to have become proxies for thinking about "the source" in conversational English. But they are not an exhaustive list of the features that make up a source, and the only ones to consider when thinking about reliability. For example, we have repeatedly noted that within a publication (a newspaper or a science journal, say) there can be a variety of types of articles (editorials, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, straightforward reporting, investigative reporting, research papers, literature reviews, product reviews, political commentary, humour, horoscopes, puzzles, questionnaires, listicles, cartoons). The difference between these kinds of articles is in fact, I would say, far far more important a determinant of reliability than the reputation of the journal or the author.
 * On Wikipedia, unlike conversational English, we do require a source to be quite specifically cited. So "Something I read in the Lancet" is not good enough. For big articles, we even request page numbers. So if we were to define "source", which I'm not convinced we need to, then it would be the cited published text that is used to support a statement on Wikipedia.
 * If, on the other hand, we wanted to list the attributes of a source that affect its reliability, then I would say this list of three is merely a good start but critically incomplete. -- Colin°Talk 10:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can see above I've confused "publisher" with "publication", when I gave The Lancet as an example. In this case, Elsevier is the publisher. I suspect I'm not the only person confusing this. Do we think "The Guardian" is the publisher? It is really Guardian Media Group. It can get messy as you go up the chain, with media groups having stakes in other groups. So, for the list of important reliability attributes, publication and publisher are both important considerations, and the former can even be more important and more likely to be considered as a proxy for a source. Nobody ever said "The Guardian Media Group" when asked what their source was. A publisher may have reliable and unreliable publications in their house. And I think the type of article is also significant enough to be thought of as a proxy when thinking about a source. Someone might reply "Some research paper" or "A systematic review" when asked about their source. -- Colin°Talk 10:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you are correct that "source" in informal conversation can have several different intentions. But that is the reason I don't like the wording. This is a formal policy, not a guide to English usage. What the policy should say is "on Wikipedia by source we mean X", and then it can continue by saying that the reliability of a source can depend on several aspects, including its author and its publisher. People can use the word "source" informally as much as they like, but when it comes to giving citations and deciding reliability they have to understand what the formal meaning is. Zerotalk 11:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well Blueboar has already explained, as the author of the original text, that their intention was not to define "source" but to highlight the multiple meanings already attributed to the word. Effectively, "When someone says 'source' on Wikipedia, they may be using that word to mean ... the author, the work, the publisher, etc". So I can say that Wakefield is a bad source for facts about MMR because he holds contrarian views and has been accused of fraud in his work. I can say that that MMR paper is a bad source because it has been retracted by the publisher. And I can say that the Lancet is often a good source because it has a high reputation. In these matters I'm using the word "source" but in a casual way. This should be obvious because an actual citation reference isn't just "Andrew Wakefield". Perhaps a more correct, formal language might be "Articles written by Wakefield are bad sources ..." and "Papers that have been retracted are bad sources" or "Articles in the journal The Lancet are often good sources" but we all know what people mean by the shorthand of just mentioning the author or the publication.
 * If people (it seems perhaps non-English speakers?) are being confused about the language here then we could consider changing the text. It seems Paul has inverted the "this is what people might use the word to mean" into "this is what the word means and only means". Maybe this commentary on how people use the word "source" isn't necessary or helpful, and we should stick to just listing a few non-exhaustive attributes that people should consider when thinking about sources. There is no consensus or practice that restricts our examination of reliability to just those three aspects.. -- Colin°Talk 13:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I perfectly understand Blueboar's rationale, and I find it unsatisfactory. Whereas it may be a potentially good idea to describe all meanings of the word source in, for example, some Wikipedia article, the goal of this policy is different. I believe, we all agree that the policy can be summarized as follows: 1. Everything is Wikipedia must be properly sourced. 2. "Properly sourced" means a reliable source must be provided.
 * With regard to your other arguments, I see no significant contradiction between what you and I say. Yes, you correctly say that "On Wikipedia, unlike conversational English, we do require a source to be quite specifically cited", but I say the same.
 * You correctly note that "within a publication (a newspaper or a science journal, say) there can be a variety of types of articles (....). The difference between these kinds of articles is in fact, I would say, far far more important a determinant of reliability than the reputation of the journal or the author.", and I say that the work's quality is the first critical determinant of reliability of the source.
 * I don't want to look rude, but, maybe, you should just re-read what I wrote: maybe, the difference between your and my vision are not as big as you think?
 * In addition, I may be wrong when I think that that text is a definition of the term source. However, that wrong understanding is shared by majority of the community: you may easily find the very same text in the guidelines, which reflect generally accepted standards, but that text presented there as a definition of a source. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrt re-reading what you wrote. Well, the bit about a work having an author and a publisher is not contentious but really isn't telling anyone anything important, other than a source needs to have been published (we say that elsewhere). But saying this is the definition of a source is just wrong. Like confusing "a home" with "a house". The thing that makes a house a home is that someone lives there. And the thing that makes a published document a source is that someone has cited it to support a statement on Wikipedia. And your conclusion that these three attributes of a source are "the three factors that define reliability" is also wrong, and you should re-read what WAID said about that further up. -- Colin°Talk 15:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, according to you "a source is some piece of information that was cited by some Wikipedian in some Wikipedia article", and, according to a policy, "any information published in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be taken from some source". Doesn't it look as a circular reasoning?
 * And, using your analogy, during a discussion about only those buildings where their owners are living, a difference between "a house" and "a home" becomes insignificant. Here, we are discussion only those pieces of text that are being used (or are supposed to be used) in Wikipedia, so your argument, although formally correct, is totally irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to WAID's opinion, I am not sure what exactly do you mean, but if you mean the 02:26 (6 October 2021) post, I see no serious contradiction between what WAID and I say. As I already demonstrated, some components of the definition of "source" must be analyzed in a concrete context, which makes the whole concept context-dependent. That does not mean, however, that there are no contextless components, which I persuasively demonstrated. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your "you can see above I've confused "publisher" with "publication"". We are reasonable people, and we all agree that that type "confusion" is quite acceptable during talk page discussion. But the policy means not talk page discussions, right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, where else is the reliability or source->text correspondence to be discussed other than on a talk page? Paul, when you write about things you agree with me, you misunderstand and misquote, and when you write about things you disagree with me, you misunderstand and misquote. It is a bit frustrating. Your supposed quote of mine (above, 16:47) isn't what I said and your supposed quote of policy isn't what it says, and the bits you miss out or change are important. I don't find it productive to have an argument where most of it involves "No, that's not what I said" and "No, that's not what policy says". Paul, I'm going to take another break from this discussion. Can I suggest please that you take the weekend off of this to get a fresh pair of eyes and a clear head. -- Colin°Talk 18:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if I misunderstand you, that is totally my fault, and the idea that your posts are unclear or ambiguous is totally unrealistic :)
 * With regards to your "where else is the reliability or source->text correspondence to be discussed other than on a talk page?", do you really believe this policy's goal is to set talk page discussion rules? I thought it is quite clear from the policy text that it tells about the article space, and only about it. Accordingly, it must say not what people may mean under "source", but what should be considered as a source per policy. A policy, by definition, must introduce some, imperative concepts, and "source" is one of the core concepts of WP:V. If a clear and unequivocal definition of this term is absent, that is not a policy, but a piece of ... (some unspecified, totally useless substance).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I were going to try to define the word sources, I think I'd probably re-write it along these lines:
 * On Wikipedia, a source is any person, place, or thing that a Wikipedia editor gets article content from.  Some sources, such as unpublished documents and private e-mail messages and your own personal experiences, are banned.  Note:  Sometimes, when editors talk about "a source", they are referring to a document or similar work; other times they are referring to the work's creator or to the publisher.  If you are uncertain which meaning the other editors are using, you may need to ask whether they're referring to the specific document, anything written by that author, everything published by that publisher, etc.
 * Paul, the "reputable publisher" dooms your proposal above, even if there weren't any other problems. That proposal defines Twitter as not being "a source".  Donald Trump's tweets are cited in dozens of articles.  Neither Trump nor Twitter is considered a reputable publisher. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, if that definition is supposed to cover all categories of sources, the word "reputable" should be removed. With regard to the rest, I believe it is obvious that Trump's Twitter posts are SPS, so everything depends on Trump's own expertise in each concrete context. A situation when some top ranked state official is using Twitter as a primary communication channel is very unusual, so this SPS may be probably considered as reliable, and Trump's expertise (as an author) and his reputation (as a publisher) may range from very low to very high, depending on context. However, I see absolutely no problem with that definition if we remove the word "reputable". Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And, with regard to your text, I disagree with it.
 * - "a person" is not a source, because two other components are lacking: "what exactly that person said?", and "where this information can be found?". Instead of "a person", we should say "a statement X made by a person Y and published in Z" (where XYZ is the triad: "work-author-publisher"). If at least one of those components is missing, this source does not meet verifiability criteria (which literally means anyone can potentially find this information and check it).
 * - "a place" is not a source for the same reason: how can I (as a reader) verify anything if I know "where" but I don't know "what" and "who"?
 * - "a thing" is too colloquial, but if that "thing" has an author, a title, and a publisher, then it is ok, but that is the same what I wrote (although, again, the style is too colloquial to be a part of a policy).
 * And, the most important problem is that we do not need to define (or describe) what different people see under "source", we need to define how the word "source" is defined from the point of view of the policy.
 * Imagine if we defined used the same approach in other policies for example Sometimes, when editors talk about "a non-free content", they mean the content you must pay for, other people think that is any content that was not issued under CC, other people think etc.. That is not what the policy is needed for. The policy must say:
 * Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable.
 * "Verifiable" means some source must be provided for any statement.
 * "Source" means .... ( and this part is currently missing, for the policy says people usually mean under "source", but it doesn't say what the source is per policy itself).
 * - Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "A source" does not imply that the source is good, reliable, usable, etc.
 * For the rest:
 * If "a person" is not a source, then please remove the line in SOURCES about "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)". Also, if "a person" is not a source, then we should never see any editor say "But Paul Politician said this last night" or "He is not a reliable source about medicine" or "When I took chemistry class, the prof said...", and we certainly wouldn't have bothered to write something like WP:You are not a reliable source, because if a person can't be a source, that title would be nonsensical.  But we do see these things, and therefore a person can be a source.  (Remember:  "a source" isn't "a source that you can use in a Wikipedia article".  We're just defining "a source" here.)
 * If "a place" is not a source, then we need to delete half of Category:United States highway citation templates and probably Template:Cite sign, too.
 * "A thing" is the most common source (and what I recommend for >99% of situations), but we do not require authors (see the FAQ at the top of this page, or titles ("Untitled" is the most common title for artwork – yes, you can cite artwork directly), and we don't need to know who the publisher is. These are all useful things if you're trying to determine whether (and if yes, how) the source should be used in an article, but they are not fundamental to the definition of "a source".  An anonymous letter left on your doorstep is "a source" if you get information out of it.  It does not stop being "a source" of information just because I tell you that you aren't allowed to cite it in support of a statement in a Wikipedia article.
 * Also, "verifiable" doesn't mean that some source must be provided for any statement. Verifi able means that it must be poss ible to provide a source.  It doesn't mean that a source must already have been cited.
 * Are you instead hoping to define "a reliable source"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: ""A source" does not imply that the source is good,.." - absolutely correct.
 * "A source" is something that can be used for independent verification of Wikipedia content.
 * "Independent" means "by a random person (not by a user who added that information)".
 * "Verification" means "comparison of the some concrete fact found in Wikipedia with the content of the source this information was taken from". "Verification" does not mean checking if the information in that source is correct.
 * And, finally, "reliability" is a property of the source: it is measure of relevance, fact checking and accuracy of some concrete source.
 * From that, the difference between verifiability and reliability follows.
 * Some information is verifiable if a source (a reference) is provided.
 * Some verifiable information can be taken from a source that is not reliable.
 * "A person" in not a source, it is a component of most sources. If I say "According to Einstein", I always mean not Albert Einstein as a human being, but some concrete piece of information produced by him. The statement "according to Einstein, two quantum objects may be entangled" is NOT verifiable (although acceptable in talk page discussions). However, the statement "according to Einstein two quantum objects may be entangled" IS verifiable. The difference between these two statements is obvious: in the first case, the statement cannot be independently verified, because it is unclear where original information can be found (unless you imply one has to read everything what Einstein wrote); in the second case, the information is easily verifiable. That means a person is not a source, but it is an essential component of most sources. I can imagine just few exceptions to that rule: one exception is the information produced by some organizations (WHO, UNO, etc), another exception is old historical documents (chronicles, etc). There are probably some other exceptions, but that is not common.
 * "A place", similarly, is a component (trait) of any source. Literally, it means where this information can be found. Usually, "a place" and "a publisher" means essentially the same.
 * I can say it in another way: every description of a piece of information that makes verification technically feasible can be considered a source. And vise versa if it is not clear from your description how can I independently verify some information, I can claim that no source has been provided.
 * With regard to "we do not require authors", usually any information is produced by some person. Sometimes, by some organisation (see above). There may be some anonymous information, but that is more an exception rather than a rule.
 * "Verifiable" means a source can be provided for any statement. It also means that anyone can put a cn tag to any statement (except totally obvious ones), and if a source is not provided, that information can be removed. I am not sure we have much disagreement about the last point. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider the classic "personal communication" citation: "I saw Karp in the elevator, and he said it was probably NP-complete."  Is Karp not a person?  Is Karp not being cited as the source of my information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is just an abstract question that has no relationship to Wikipedia. You cannot write in Wikipedia: "According to Karp, it was probably NP-complete", and the reason is: it is not verifiable. If, for example, I want to verify that statement, I cannot do that: your conversation with Karp has not been published, and even if it was accidentally recorded, no information is provided on where that record could be found. However, if you write: "According to Karp , it was probably NP-complete", that becomes a source. Because everybody can see who said what, and where that information can be found. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The policy's language is ambiguous
Thanks to, I've re-read the policy, and I found that the policy language is somewhat ambiguous.

The policy separates sources on "Reliable sources" and the "Sources that are usually not reliable". Note, the policy doesn't say there are sources that are usually reliable, and there are sources that usually don't. According to the policy, some source can be either reliable (period) or "usually not reliable". And, in both cases, separation is done based on formal criteria (contextless).

Next, the policy says that some "usually not reliable sources" may be used for some concrete purposes (e.g. for information about themselves). Note, the policy doesn't say those sources are "reliable for information about themselves", it says those "non reliable" sources can be used for this concrete purpose. The only exception is made for self-published expert sources by an established subject-matter expert. According to the policy, they may be considered reliable. With regard to all other "usually non reliable sources", the policy says they are "acceptable" in some concrete cases, but it doesn't say they are "reliable" in some concrete context.

This inconsistency leads to ambiguity. Thus, what does this statement mean: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". How do we interpret it? That SPS are reliable as a sources of information about themselves, or that they are non reliable, but can be used as sources of information about themselves? The current language allows both interpretations.

This situation can be resolved in two ways.


 * First. We can clearly write that sources are either reliable or non-reliable (currently, we have a different classification: "reliable" vs "usually not reliable"). After that, we can explain that not reliable sources may be used in some specific cases (e.g. for information about themselves).


 * Second. We can write that some sources that are "usually reliable" may be unreliable is some context (and explain the rule that define that context). Similarly, we can write that some "usually not reliable sources" may be reliable for some concrete purposes (for example, for information about themselves), and explain how to determine when they are reliable.

Currently, the policy uses a mixed language, which, in my opinion, leads to a significant confusion.

Finally, I think, since the section "Sources that are usually not reliable" applies the term "reliable" only to the SPS authored by experts, it would be logical to move this part to the "Reliable sources" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the community, or at least a significant part of the part who has thought about this, thinks that pretty much all sources are reliable for something, and also unreliable for something. I think one potential source of confusion for newcomers to these discussions though, is that "reliable source" has become a sort of jargon shorthand for the kind of source which is strong enough in a specific field that there is no real common sense doubt about its general status for most statements in that field. We used to always say that we want to keep it a bit fuzzy and remind editors to look at the context of each case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability ITSELF is a somewhat ambiguous concept. There is no such thing as a 100% “reliable source”, nor such a thing as a 100% “unreliable source”. As Andrew has said, context matters.
 * For example, while the news reporting in the New York Times is generally considered quite reliable, there have been specific NYT articles that contain factual inaccuracies. Those specific NYT articles can be (and are) challenged on a case-by-case basis, and can be deemed unreliable for that specific inaccurate fact… yet these rare instances of unreliability do not change the overall reliability of the outlet.
 * Meanwhile, the Daily Mail may report accurately on a specific fact (say a sports score), but because it has a history of containing SO MANY inaccuracies and fabrications, it’s overall unreliability has reached the point where we have depreciated it, and only accept it as a reliable source on very rare case-by-case determinations. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems you are inventing a wheel. When we speak about a "context", what context do we mean? Obviously, that can be only the context of the whole body of sources written on that subject. If the source X says something that is in agreement with the rest of human knowledge (i.e. majority of other mainstream sources), and it passes verifiability criteria, this source is 100% reliable. However, the relationship of this particular source with other sources is not a WP:V domain, it is a WP:NPOV domain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok… When I talk about “context”, I am referring to the specific WP article and the specific sentence in that WP article that we are attempting to verifying by citing the source. The same source may be reliable for verifying one sentence, but not reliable at all for another sentence ( (the attributed: “According to Joe Pundit, X is Y”, for example, is reliably verified by citing Joe Pundit saying this in an OpEd… while the unattributed “X is Y” is probably NOT reliably verified by citing Joe’s OpEd). Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think there is no need to continue the discussion in this section, because the next section addresses this issue. If we define the term "source" as I defined it in the next section (something like "a piece of text that describes some topic, is authored by some author(s), and published by some publisher"), that naturally leads to a triad: "relevance and quality of the source - author's expertise and credentials - publisher's reputation". Their combination is a measure of reliability, and some of those parameters are contextless (example: work's quality or publisher's reputation) others must be analyzed in context (examples: relevance of the work, author's expertise). The problem is that we need to make policy's language more clear to explicitly explain that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The definition of the term “source” is simple: “Something you can read, view or listen to that supports what you write.” Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be a colloquial definition, but that definition cannot be compatible with WP:V. The core idea of the policy is: "Do not use the information that can not be reliably obtained by others to verify your claims." If you have read something that others wouldn't read, you have seen something that others wouldn't see, etc that is not a source per policy. For example, you've seen Ball lightning. Is that a source? No, and I event don't need to explain why.
 * A "source" of information (in a colloquial meaning of that word) and a "source" per WP:V are totally different things. Otherwise I see no need in this policy at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would organise in in two levels. First, the information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means everybody can make sure it has some external source, and it was not just made up. That means a piece of information can be called a source only if it can be used for verification of some Wikipedia claim.
 * Second, a source is reliable (in some concrete context) if it meets some formal criteria described in the second part of the policy.
 * In other words, the set of objects called "a piece of information" can be subdivided on "sources" and "others", and the set of sources is subdivided on "reliable sources (in some concrete context)" and "not reliable sources". Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that the way to organize knowledge, and the exact words to describe them, has been a primary subject of philosophers for centuries, and we are unlikely to resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction on this page. That said, "sources" are 'where all the pieces of information come from', which includes:
 * personal experience (e.g., sunlight is bright),
 * personal communication (e.g., Mom said not to stare at the Sun),
 * documents (e.g., the book said it's dangerous to stare at the Sun),
 * tools (e.g., the light meter on my phone says it's 45,000 lux on the sidewalk today),
 * etc.
 * I'm not sure what would fall into your category of "others". All information comes from somewhere.  All information came from "a source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we going to discuss the "source of information" concept in general or in a context of WP:V? In my opinion, the former is more appropriate to some Wikipedia article, and it is NOT relevant to the policy. What IS relevant is the following: what types of information sources are acceptable for making Wikipedia context verifiable?
 * Yes, all information come from some source, but
 * if that information is obtained from your personal experience, it is NOT verifiable: other people may have a totally different experience, so they cannot verify your claim;
 * if that information was obtained from on someone's personal communication, it is verifiable ONLY if that communication was made public (i.e., it was published), which means that piece of information must have at least three characteristics ("who-what-where") as I already described below;
 * if that information was obtained from some document, it can be verifiable if that document was published (similar to what I wrote above);
 * if the information was obtained by you using some tools, that is your original research, and you are explicitly prohibited to publish it per another policy;
 * In summary, all examples provided by you are either covered by my definition or are explicitly prohibited by this or other policies. Since this page is not a forum for a general discussion, we should not talk about some vague and general definition of the work "source" if that does not lead to improvement of the policy. Clearly, the policy text is supposed to define not a "source" in general, but what is considered a source from the point of view of WP:V. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This page should mention intereviews
Preferably with a link to Interviews. I think it should clarify if interviews are "questionable sources" or not, among others. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021 I WROTE THE DAMN BOOK.
In 1998 I published "The Quest for the Orbital Jet about the X-30 scramjet powered National Aero-Space Plane Program on which I was the PROJECT HISTORIAN. This is volume three of the USAF sponsored history of hypersaonics with the first two volumes written by the head of the USAF history office, Richard Hallion who ISN"T EVEN CITED HERE ONCE!! And he wrote the histories of scramjets and hypersonics. Don't know what you guys want here. LarrySchweikart2 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This page is for requesting changes to the page on Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you want to discuss sources for the Scramjet article, please comment on that article's talk page. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Larry, you need to write as if you were just some random guy, and not an expert. Don’t add material based on your own knowledge (see WP:No original research). Cite published sources to support what you add, even if you wrote those sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I can not acess my phone it has been frp locked
Sadly Someone stole myphone Removed my accounts. And reset them Under some other account. Because my creditials Do not work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F4A0:57A0:1849:6936:496D:E5A2 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are having trouble with your Wikipedia account, have a look at Resetting your password or Compromised accounts. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021  Camp Kishauwau held a scouting summercamp program in 1980...I was there...sp your 1976 date is def wrong!
50.237.191.107 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Meaning?
English is not my mother tongue, so my question may be stupid. However, I would like to make sure if this paragraph is logically and grammaticaly correct:


 * ''The word "source" has three related meanings:
 * ''The work itself (the article, book)
 * ''The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * ''The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
 * ''All three can affect reliability.

In this text, the subject is "meaning", and it says "meaning affects reliability". Does it means that reliability is affected by just a meaning of some term? To me, it is nonsense. I suggest to think about better wording. I have some ideas how to improve it, but I would like to have a feedback from you first. Do you agree that the text looks awkward?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It reads fine to me as is, but I suppose we could change 'meanings' to 'definitions'. - MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty reading the text the way you appear to be reading it. Another way to word it is The word source when citing sources on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, its creator, or its publisher, all of which can affect reliability. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we omit auxiliary words, we get "a work ... affects reliability (of itself)".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Reputable publishers and authors sometimes produce works that are less reliable by their nature - works of satire, for example. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is NOT fine. The text that we are discussing is not some essay. That is a policy, which is supposed to explain how to determine reliability of sources. If it says: "Some sources may be reliable, others may be not reliable, and it is up to you to decide", that is not a policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is only a problem if viewed in isolation. The policy goes on to explain that peer-reviewed articles are superior, which is an example of this. The same author and publisher might produce both a letter to the editor and a peer-reviewed article. That one is more reliable than the other is a feature, not a bug. Also, policies are not algorithms to be applied mechanically. There is always going to be room for consensus decision making, so it will always be up to the involved editors to decide. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the policy is intuitively clear. And that is a problem: rules may be intuitively clear when they are written for people with similar background. That is not the case for Wikipedia. Some users are experts in real life, whereas others may be unfamiliar even with such a concept as peer-review. For example, I know some users who claim that peer-reviewed publications are "yellow journalism".
 * In that situation, we need clear and formal rules. Thus, when we provide a definition, it should be a real definition, preferably an intensional definition. For example: "In a context of the verifiability policy, the term "source" is defined as some work that has a concrete author(s) and that was reputably published by some publisher. A quality of the work and its relevance to the Wikipedia content, author's background and expertise, and publisher's reputation are the three factors that affect reliability of the source". That wording is far from perfect, but, in my opinion, it is much better than the current one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As the editor who originally added this text to the policy (although it has been slightly tweaked in the years since I originally added it)… the intent was NOT to define the term “source”. We were merely trying to alert editors to the fact that the term already has multiple definitions (definitions that pre-existed Wikipedia). The goal was merely to say that all three pre-existing definitions should be considered when assessing a source for reliability. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with that. From my experience, discussions between Wikipedians about sources (at RSN and elsewhere) take into account the work AND the author AND the publisher as three components of source, not three different meanings.
 * In addition, the structure of V is supposed to be as follows:
 * You shalt provide a source
 * "Source" means (....). There are good sources and there are bad sources
 * Good sources are (...)
 * Bad sources are (...)
 * As you can see, the current policy's structure follows this scheme pretty well (and only the description of the meaning of the word "source" is poor), so the deliberately vague claim that "different people may mean different things under "source"" is not helpful but harmful. Moreover, the actual understanding of the term "source" by experienced users is stricter (see above).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition, that text is against the policy's spirit. Thus, if I provide just a title of some work, or the author's name only, or a publisher only, that would not be considered as providing a source. Adequate sourcing always means to cite a work, author's name and a publisher, so these three components are inseparable. That is a standard practice in Wikipedia, and our users expect to see that in the policy (and I have a feeling all experienced users interpret this statement in that way).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah… but before we added the alert about all three needing to be part of the discussion, editors DIDN’T always consider all three.
 * As for your “flow”… it is way too simplistic. It does not account for the fact that a source may be “good” in one context and yet “bad” in another context… Reliability is not always a black and white, on/off thing.  It is a muddy mishmash of factors that all need to be sifted through to determine whether a specific source reliably verifies a specific statement, and whether it is the best source for doing so. What we require are sources which reliably verify the statements that appear in our articles. Whether a specific source does so often depends on what specifically we write. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A policy is not a philosophic essay on what the term "source" means in various circumstances. It is a set of rules that users are expected to observe. And, it seems there is an unspoken consensus among experienced editors that any source (as it is seen by the Wikipedia community) has three components (as defined above). Therefore, instead of philosophical handvawing, we have just to reflect that consensus in the policy.
 * My "flow" is not simplistic. It is simple (which is not the same). And it allows further detailisation, which can take into account many nuances, including those mentioned by you. Thus, it takes into account context, but it separates contextless aspects from those where context matters. For example, I doubt anybody can disagree that Oxford University Press is a highly reputable publisher, and that is contextless. Furthermore, everybody agree that Kip Thorn is a highly reputable expert, and his book Black Holes and Time Warps is a high quality book published by a reputable publisher, so all contextless criteria are met. However, in his book, Thorn mentions, among other things, some facts about the Great Purge and kollectivization in Stalin's USSR. Those facts in some aspects contradict to recent historical scholarship, probably because Thorn, being not an expert in Soviet history, took some outdated figures and old publications for his book. That means that that book meets all contextless criteria (a high quality work, authored by a top expert and published by a reputable publisher), but it is not a reliable source in this context. Since not all reliability criteria are not met, it cannot be considered a reliable source for that particular purpose.
 * Similarly, I can imagine a symmetrical (complementary) example: some blog post that contains more recent facts and figures about the same events, which may make it more reliable (in the context of Soviet history). However, if that source is just a blog post by not notable author, some important contextless criteria are not met, so that source must be considered unreliable, despite the fact that it is quite relevant to the topic and even may (potentially) contain a high quality information.
 * In summary, I don't see why my approach is incapable of taking into account all nuances mentioned by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A policy might not typically be a philosophic essay on what the term "source" means in various circumstances (although we do have some rather philosophical policies), but in this case, telling people that there are multiple meanings for that word is necessary before we can really get into what the rules are that the users are expected to observe about sources.
 * You have several times made a leap from "The word source has three meanings..." to a belief that these "three aspects must be taken into account to make a decision about reliability". This is not true.  These three things can be taken into account to make a decision about reliability, but (a) that is not required, and (b) they are not the only three things that matter for that decision.  For example, it is not uncommon to make a decision about reliability without even knowing who the creator of the work is.  Other factors, such as whether the source (in "the work itself" meaning) is directly about the subject and whether academic peer review was involved, also matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I called Thorn "top expert", although it would be more correct to say "top expert in Physics". Actually, expertise may have two components, contextless and context related. The opinion of a Nobel prize winner on any subject is more notable than that of a layman (a contextless component), but an opinion of a Nobel Prize winner in Physics is such topics as history may be less notable than the opinion of a assistant professor in history. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, in terms of grammar, your first problem is that you have quoted two sentences. It looks like we forgot to add the terminal punctuation for the second.
 * I might expand it for you like this:
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * the work itself (the article, book),
 * the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and
 * the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
 * All three can affect reliability. For example:
 * If the work itself has been praised, that suggests that it is more likely to be a reliable source for factual claims (or whatever other typical uses a good Wikipedia editor would cite such a work for). On the other hand, if the work is a retracted article, then it is an unreliable source for almost all possible uses, no matter who wrote it or who published it.
 * If the creator of the work is a respected journalist or a subject-matter expert, then the source is more likely to be reliable for factual claims the typical uses a good Wikipedia editor would cite it for. On the other hand, if the creator of the work is especially disreputable, then it is likely to be an unreliable source for factual claims and other typical uses, no matter how convincing the source sounds to you or how good the publisher is.
 * If the publisher of the source is reputable, then the source is more likely to be reliable for factual claims the typical uses a good Wikipedia editor would cite it for. On the other hand, if the publisher of the source is disreputable, then it is likely (but not guaranteed) to be an unreliable source for factual claims and other typical uses, even if the article sounds convincing to you and the author has a decent repuation.
 * In other words, SOURCES tells you that the word "source" is ambiguous in English. It does not tell you what the word "reliable" means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you want to know how to determine whether a given source (including: a particular publication, anything published by a particular author, and anything published by a specific publisher) is "reliable", then WP:NOTGOODSOURCE is my favorite summary.
 * NB that it's not giving you an actual definition of what a reliable source is . It's only giving you a list of the basic rules of thumb for deciding whether a source is WP:LIKELY to be accepted as a reliable source for factual claims and other statements that a good Wikipedia editor would support with such a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * NB that it's not giving you an actual definition of what a reliable source is . It's only giving you a list of the basic rules of thumb for deciding whether a source is WP:LIKELY to be accepted as a reliable source for factual claims and other statements that a good Wikipedia editor would support with such a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * NB that it's not giving you an actual definition of what a reliable source is . It's only giving you a list of the basic rules of thumb for deciding whether a source is WP:LIKELY to be accepted as a reliable source for factual claims and other statements that a good Wikipedia editor would support with such a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that does not solve the problem. The policy is not a correct place to discuss what "source" mean. The policy is supposed to define source (similar to "verifiability", which has some specific meaning in Wikipedia).
 * That "source" has three different meanings is blatantly wrong: you cannot provide just, e.g. Oxford University Press as a source, you must provide something like John Smith, "On Plenipotentiaryness of Omnipresence" (1982) Journal of Sensationalism, v 12, p 1984, Cambridge University Press. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah… you are talking about the citation… in talk page conversation, if you ask me what my source is, I might well say “I read it in the Journal of Sensationalism.” Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is the policy expected to tell us what words should we use during talk page conversations? AFAIK, only WP:BLP and WP:NFCC are applicable to talk pages.
 * Maybe, we should focus on the real purpose of WP:V? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the purposes of this page is to educate new users, and part of that is explaining how words we have chosen to use in our local jargon match with the usages the rest of the world knows. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not imply "general education". We need to inform new users about the requirement of this concrete policy, not about various colloquial meanings of some word.
 * However, if we write something like: "Whereas different people apply the term "source" to (...), this policy defines "a source" as (...).", that may be much more informative and useful for new users. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were writing a code of laws, maybe, but that's not what we should be doing here. This policy isn't ever going to be some legalistic thing with formal requirements that are applied by a mechanistic process. Too many users (myself included) would oppose that. There's always going to be room for consensus decision making, so the policies will never be as prescriptive as it seems you would like them to be. MrOllie (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, policies document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. And that is exactly what we are doing here, during that discussion.
 * In general, the spirit of WP:BURO is: "do not follow policy's letter, follow policy's spirit", and that is not what you say.
 * And, whereas to follow policy's spirit may be a good idea, that doe not mean we should stop improving policy's letter. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, while I have a personally different idea how this should be done, I agree on the idea that while we still want WP:V and other policies to reflect practice, their language (eg being clear on the difference between a publication and a source) should be formalized within policy to make the discussions on sourcing/reliability/etc. easier for all editors to follow. A lot of the mess at RS/N as a board is that it conflates issues with a overall publication (eg the Daily Mail) and individual sources that may belie the reliability of the overall publication, and those latter discussions shouldn't be had at RS/N - that's a talk page issue for the specific topic. Part of that is this implicit confusion we've created on what a "source" means, which could be resolved without changing practice or policy by just being a bit more formal in definitions. --M asem (t) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand you. How can we convince people to be more formal in definitions without changing practice or policy?
 * And, by the way, if we become more formal in definitions, that automatically means that our practice has changed.
 * Furthermore, leaving these considerations beyond the scope, another problem is still unresolved: the wording of the policy contradicts to normal logic: it says "meaning affect reliability". That discredits Wikipedia: how can readers trust Wikipedia if its editors cannot fix an obvious nonsense in their core content policy? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, it says “Author, Work and Publisher affect reliability”. This is accurate. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It says "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: a), b), and c). All three affect reliability" "Three different meaning" - what does it mean? Let's take the word "element" as an example.
 * According to Merriam-Webster, this word has three essential meanings and additional meanings. It may mean "a chemical element", or just a "a constituent part of something", or even "weather conditions" (in a plural form). However, what is important, one cannot use the word "element" in different meanings simultaneously. When I say "they were killed by exposing to elements", I mean weather conditions, and ONLY that. I do not mean chemical elements. And when I say "compounds are the substances that are composed of several elements", I mean chemical elements, but not weather conditions.
 * Similarly, if the word "source" has different meanings, that means it may mean either a work, or an author, or a publisher, BUT NOT all three simultaneously. And the policy claims that if under "a source" I mean "a work", the reliability (of what, by the way? That is not specified either.) may be different than if I mean "an author". All of that is a blatant nonsense, how cannot you understand that? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's the way policy is "practiced" (how its implemented, etc.) and then there's the language of how we describe that practice. Changing how the practice should be done is the type of thing that requires a great degree of consensus, but changing how its described without changing the actual practice should be less strenuous (the wordsmithing and the like). Formalizing definitions should be a act that falls into the latter. --M asem (t) 16:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The way this policy is practiced is as follows. The statement "according to Einstein..." is deemed unsourced until a reference is provided, and the reference cannot be just "Einstein". It should be something like "Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical reviews, 1935, 47, 777"
 * Similarly, the statement "According to the "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" article..." also needs a reference to be considered a sourced statement, and the proper reference should have the format as shown above.
 * Finally, you cannot say "According to APS...", because that statement is also unsourced until a correct reference (see above) is provided.
 * Therefore, the triad "Work - Author - Publisher" reflects a standard Wikipedia practice, and it is a shame that the policy (i) says something totally different, and (ii) says an obvious semantic nonsense. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying, which is in alignment with what you are proposing in part, is that we should be explicit on terms, and avoid the way "source" is used nebulous in multiple placed for different context related to "work", "author" and "publisher", and instead use those terms (or equivalent) where appropriate in context on the policy pages, making sure they are well-defined, such that we remove the ambiguity of what "source" means .--M asem (t) 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems the new version proposed by me in the "Proposed changes (tentative)" sub-section meets these requirement. Do you have any specific comments on it? Is there anything that needs to be fixed/amended/removed? If not, I think it may be a good time to implement the proposed changes. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "According to Einstein" is not unreferenced. The source is incompletely specified (to the point of being almost useless), but "According to Einstein" is technically an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021
Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare to State Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotions and Market Diversification www.mfe.gov.lk Webmfe (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

NEWSBLOG reference to opinion piece
In WP:NEWSBLOG there is a link from opinion piece to WP:PRIMARY. It has been brought to my attention that once one attributes an opinion in a reliable source like it says there that none of the requirements of WP:PRIMARY hold. See WP:RSN. So wouldn't it be better to remove the link or somehow otherwise say this as what's there can give the impression that PRIMARY applies even though an attribution is given. Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think you're misunderstanding what people said in that discussion, but I do agree it would probably make more sense to reference WP:RSOPINION with that link rather than WP:PRIMARY, since that is probably the more relevant reference with regard to how newsblog opinion ought to be used - opinion pieces are technically primary sources for what the author thinks, says, or believes, but they can be used with an in-line citation to cite the fact that someone believes something that involves interpretation and analysis on their part, provided their opinion in that regard is noteworthy (which usually requires that they be an established expert or someone obviously relevant to the topic.) Why are we linking "opinion piece" to primary rather than RSOPINION anyway? --Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable change.
 * Also, in-text attribution might fulfill PRIMARY, but it doesn't mean that mentioning the opinion is WP:DUE. Content has to comply with all the policies, not just WP:V and PRIMARY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical Sources
I've seen editors source historical 'facts' from tourism, sociology and linguistic papers. I'm against this because the authors aren't historians and the papers haven't been published in history journals and therefore haven't been peer reviewed by historians. The text on this page: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science." could offer them wiggle room since they could say that it's OK to include these papers because they are "academic and peer-reviewed". Perhaps we need a specific page describing where to find the best sources for history? Is there already one? Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think these sources are unreliable, or just not the most reliable? Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An actual example I have seen is: A tourism paper published in a tourism journal exploring the posibilites of ethnic tourism in a country which gives a potted history of the country. The potted history was used as a source for a historic claim in the wikipedia article. The potted history part was wrong. I would class them as unreliable because even though articles like these were written by intelligent people they were masquerading as "academic and peer-reviewed" which they are not from a history standpoint. So worse than a tweet from an unknown user on Twitter. Cheezypeaz (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you claiming that historiography provides "facts" while linguistics and other disciplines don't? Science, like physics and chemistry, provides facts that are not dependent on political ideology. History and how it is written very often changes according to the political ideology of the historian and the political sensitivities of the society it is written in. It is very important that we don't confuse the concept of "facts" with scholarly POVs, opinions and interpretations. I am not saying that history books and articles don't contain some "facts", only that views provided in history books aren't automatically to be considered "facts".--Berig (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also find it a bit odd to throw sociology and linguistics in the same category as works written with a tourism-related purpose. Very often the different disciplines which study mankind are covering closely inter-twined topics, and so it is normal that debates arise about whether we should cite, let's say, a population genetics article in a WP article about an ethnic group. (Often these properly come down to discussions about what aspects of a topic that a source is best for. For example, geneticists are not good with historical detail as far as I have seen!) I do have concerns about how these often play out, but OTOH I'm not sure that such cases can easily be handled with a simple general rule. Concerning tourism-based sources, I think indeed that type of background is not likely to provide a strong source, but OTOH does that mean we need to treat all of them as unreliable? I think in a case like the one you describe the WP guidelines are already pretty clear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the main point Cheezypeaz is making is as follows. We should always discriminate between reliable sources authored by experts in this concrete field and equally reliable sources authored by non-experts. I can continue the analogy with chemistry or physics to demonstrate that. The article authored by some expert in inorganic chemistry is less likely to be a high quality reliable source for some organic chemistry topic, especially if it just mentions some organic chemistry fact in passing.
 * Another example. Recently, we had a very long discussion at RSN about some peer-reviewed article that discussed a possibility of artificial origin of COVID-19 pandemic. That article was published in a very respectable Bioessays, and it was authored by experts in biology. According to our formal standards (and even taking into account additional standards described in MEDRS), that source is absolutely reliable. However, majority of users rejected that source, and among the reasons were (i) Bioessays does not focus on virology, and it has no experts in that field in its editorial board, and (ii) the authors are not experts in this concrete field.
 * Similarly, linguists, similar to the authors writing about tourism, are not experts in history, and, whereas they may reproduce some facts or opinia in their works, their expertise is hardly sufficient for providing independent and authoritative analysis, and, therefore, it may contain errors, omissions or distortions.
 * Currently, we are discussing a better wording of the policy, and I maintain that the author (their expertise and reputation) is an important criterion that affects reliability of a source in some concrete context. IMO, a situation with usage of non-history works as sources for history article is a good example of possible benefits from amendment of the policy's language. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to all you have said. Thank you. Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Things aren't always that clear-cut. When you write about topics at the borders of history, as I do, there are few clear lines between history, linguistics, literature, archaeology and religion studies. It can become interesting when a historian states something categorical and ideological about a linguistic (toponymic issue) and an archaeologist has a completely divergent opinion. If the policy is rewritten I hope it takes into account the fact that some topics are cross-disciplinary.--Berig (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that is correct, and some facts from tourism, sociology and linguistic papers may shed an additional light on the history related subjects. However, that is acceptable if, and only if they add some information that does not contradict to what mainstream historians say (and mostly is specialised peer-reviewed publications). However, it sometimes happens that whole sections in some articles, or whole history articles are written from a perspective of some non-historical sources. What is worse, some articles are based on non-specialist writings, and some additional facts are cherry-picked from good quality history publications to create a false impression of a broad support of those views by scholarly community. If you want an example, I can provide a link to some concrete articles. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you.--Berig (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally I agree with Berig that there are not always clear lines between history and other branches of the humanities. And thank you for the link to the Battle of Fýrisvellir article. TSventon (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, what User:Cheezypeaz is concerned about is the sources used in a particular article (Welsh Not) which s/he believes he has identified as problematic. S/he does not feel that an academic work about language teaching is a suitable source for a statement in an article about a historic tool for language teaching, and has lumped this in with other sources, such as tourist guides, which s/he rightly thinks are transient and superficial. I don't personally believe this is a relevant comparison. Deb (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The linguistic example is a good one. It strongly implies that X occurred more than 150 years ago and therefore Y also occurred 150 years ago. Historians specialising in that area explicitly state that neither X nor Y occurred. Cheezypeaz (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who looks at Talk:Welsh Not will see that this is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Deb (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand the frustration of. Non-academic publications (such as the ones mentioned) not only are full of biases, they also create a series of problems. Biases, sensationalism, nationalistic pov, naive explanations of complex issues. We can do better. As in the case of medicine, we should elevate the level of RS in other scientific fields as well. History is a scientific field and we should treat it as such. Would you take advice on covid vaccine from a tourist site? Would you teach mathematics to your kid using a medical site mentioning some equations? Or would you prefer an establish author on teaching maths? We should stick to experts. Cinadon36 10:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked up the definition of potted in this context, and it seems to be a statement that it is a brief summary, rather than a biased or otherwise problematic one.
 * Also, history is generally understood to be a Non-science, primarily because it is not "progressive" (i.e., each generation does not know more than the last. We might, in the 21st century, know more about the 1750 fire that nearly leveled Halifax than the people who lived in the 20th century, but we do not know more than the people who lived through it).  And if you want a historical note, in the 19th century, the discipline of history was understood to be primarily a literary genre. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We keep nibbling at the edges of a 2 part fundamental change needed. Neither is something totally new, both already receive minor toothless mentions in policies and guidelines, and they are already concepts that are sometimes followed, such as at RS noticeboard, and in normal editing except when wikilawyering takes over:


 * 1) Recognize that there there is an important in-context measure of strength of sourcing. More specifically:  The strength of a source is it's expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it
 * 2) Contested text requires stronger sourcing, uncontested text less so

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of this can be resolved by noting who says what - if linguists say X occurred and historians say X did not occur, we should not state either view as fact, but note the existence of the disagreement, and state that linguists say it occurred while historians say it didn’t. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that is in agreement with NPOV, which clearly says to avoid presenting facts as opinia.
 * If a scholarly community achieved consensus about some fact, and some linguist says otherwise, implementation of your proposal may create a false balance. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when one scholarly community (e.g., linguists) generally agree that X is true and another scholarly community (e.g., historians) generally agree the opposite, then the facts Wikipedia can accurately report is that different fields have different views. We can't (usually) pick which field is right and which is wrong. This is not an unusual situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. I myself am a proponent of uniformity of the quality of sources in each article. Thus, if some physics article is written based on such sources as PRL, Nature or Science publications, there should be a very serious reason for adding popular web site or youtube video as an additional source.
 * Similarly, if some history article is written based on peer-reviewed publications in American Historical Review, OUP publications, etc., some additional content that is supported by a publication in a local newspaper should be treated with a great suspect, unless a very serious arguments have been provided in support of it. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert's post seems consistent with an approach of finding some high quality sources about a topic, and then writing an article that is confined to the information in the sources. But another approach is to discern what readers are interested in reading about, and then finding the best available sources (without accepting any junk) that cover the topic of interest. There are many topics people are interested in that scholars fighting for tenure aren't interested in writing about. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you didn't understand me. I never claimed we should use only peer-reviewed or similar sources. If someone wants to write an article about some film, computer game or small town, it would be senseless to expect such an article to be based on scholarly publications. However, if some serious subject is extensively covered by top quality publications, and the article about it is written based on those sources, any attempt to add some new information using some kids magazine or youtube video should be seen as very suspicious. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are topics where some aspects are covered by peer-reviewed academic sources and other aspects are covered by sources addressed to a popular audience. For example, an article about an obscure old building might use popular local sources to establish the exact location and that the building played a role in important historical events, while using high quality academic sources to provide details about the historical events that occurred in or near the building.
 * Similarly, an article about Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game) might use popular sources to describe how the game is played, or how well-received it has been, while using academic sources to provide information about aviation-related physics which the game simulates, or historical aircraft that are modeled in the game. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In short and in general, go by: expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One problem with limiting an article's sources to a "uniform" standard is that it limits readers to a single type of source. I might want to write an article about a disease primarily from medical school textbooks or paywalled review articles, but that doesn't mean that I want readers in search of additional information to be unable to access every source that I cite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of what WhatamIdoing has written. Historians do not write in a vacuum, they write with a whole train of preducies such as nationalism and in the Zeitgeist at the time they publish their paper. Most historians like other displines also write within a paradigm, and usually all they are doing is filling in more details about an historic event. Occasionally there will a paradigm shift (usuall described as historical revisionism). However until the dust settles paradigm shifts are tricky things for Wikipedia articles to handle.

This stability means that usually a history text book written for undergraduates is more than adiquate as the basis for an article, and only some details need peer reviewed articles. Whether "historical 'facts' from tourism, sociology and linguistic paper" are acceptable depends on a number of issues including how stable the historical paradigm is. It may also be that cross disciplinary research may contribute information that historians are illequipped to provide. For example consider the contribution that linguistics, archaeology and genetics have contributed to the modern understanding of Dark Ages in England (for which there is a paucity of written historical sources), or the contributions that other diciplines made in finding and identifying the remains of Richard III. I would be against having rules that are more prescriptive than they currently are.

Besides historical facts that historians use are not always clear cut. More has probably been written about the Battle of Waterloo than any other battle in history and historians still argue about what happend when (for example even the time at which the battle started!). One of the problems is best summed up by the Duke of Wellington "The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance". -- PBS (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Footnote 7: publicly accessible archives
Currently footnote 7 starts:

The second step in histography (after crearing an archive) is cateloging an archive. Until that is done the act of sifting through bundles of documents and publishing a nugget is original research (profesional historians get lots of brownie points for finding new relevant primary sources about the object of their studies this way). I propose to add "catalogued" to the first clause of the foot note, as the catalogue implies that the sifting has already been done by archivists.

-- PBS (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we would want to be careful about using that particular word. For example, if a particular archive catalogues at the level of the fonds, is something in that fonds considered a catalogued document, or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought at first of "fond" and was confused, but now I understand you meant "fonds" (a term with which I was not familiar). Fonds are not mentioned in the Wkipedia articles Archival processing or Cataloging (library science). I am not wedded to "catalogued," but it is the word mentioned in Archival processing and I think the current wording contains a hole for OR. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the interests of considering alternative wording, could you clarify your position - would the case I described be covered by your intended reword, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen a dispute that would be settled by this proposed change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How to treat 'unreleased' sources
I have just ran across a page that uses "unreleased" sources. Should this be treated like the sources don't exist? HelixxUnderscore (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * HelixxUnderscore, could you provide a link to the page you mention so we can get a better idea of what this source looks like? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page I am talking about is Draft:DARGIE Jr. In the page, all the references are "DARGIE Jr: Unreleased Biograph book." HelixxUnderscore (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears in that case that the user is essentially citing their own unpublished work in an article about themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources absolutely must be Published. There are no exceptions to this rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Low importance?
I apologise in advance if somebody else already asked this question, but what does "Low importance" mean in this case? How can a page that is a core Wikipedia policy be of "low importance"? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, importance is a measure of how likely an average reader is to want to read a particular article. says that low importance should be used for articles "mainly of specialist interest", which seems appropriate here; I suspect the average person is not all that interested in Wikipedia's internal policies. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Wikipedia essays assigned "importance" (really, priority) ratings based on page views. That approach might or might not make sense for WikiProject Wikipedia; it would depend on what the group wanted to accomplish.  WP:MED, for example, always rates biographies as being low-importance for the group, no matter how famous the subject or how popular the page.  The same logic apples to the C-class rating: Project-class would be more typical, but it isn't the only "correct" approach.  Dthomsen8 added the tag about a month ago and could explain what standards he was using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In short, the "low importance" tagging is of low importance. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Self Published Sources and their claims about third parties
WP:SPS 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 are published experts in the field, so long as: (..) it does not involve claims about third parties;. Does that mean that in the article Project Veritas I can't add the statement If not, then why? Thanks. -- Barecode (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have third party sources brought this up or is Project Veritas the only ones that are covering this? If it’s only them I wouldn’t included mainly due to it being a WP:BLP issue regarding Rick Saleeby since their past news coverage has been controversial to say the least.--65.93.193.134 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about so I don't understand why this information is not allowed in the Project Veritas article. If QAnon claims that George W. Bush is eating newborns, it is wrong to add that claim in the article George W. Bush but what is wrong in adding that claim in the QAnon article? I don't understand why the claims should not involve third parties, in articles about SPS. What is wrong with that? I would like some examples why is that wrong. Any policy should be justified - as opposed to being dictated. Why this policy? What kind of possible negative effects it prevents? -- Barecode (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because airing a claim about anybody on Wikipedia from a SPS is a direct violation of WP:BLPSPS, and trying to argue it's somehow not a claim about a person by re-framing it at a remove is just game playing. If any such "claim" is worthy of inclusion it would be mentioned in a decent source. Alexbrn (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * - What are you talking about? Where did I argue that "it's somehow not a claim"? You can reframe something as something but can't re-frame something at something. The former is false and the later is a complete unintelligible nonsense. I didn't even mention any remove. It is not the first time when you jump into a discussion by trying to create outrage. How is asking a question about a policy "game playing"??
 * The articles about SPS can contain statements which are not mentioned in any decent source and those statements are worthy of inclusion. Please read the policy: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Therefore in such articles you can use questionable sources and decent sources are not necessary - when you describe their activity. You are not trying to make a conversation, you are extremely aggressive, you dictate the truth and you are bullying. -- Barecode (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For everyone else: Why the QAnon article can mention this claim "A February 16, 2018, false claim that U.S. representative and former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired Salvadoran gang MS-13 to murder DNC staffer Seth Rich"
 * While in the same time Project Veritas article can't mention the statement I don't understand how this policy applies, why it was created and what kind of negative effects it tries to prevent. -- Barecode (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Qanon claim about Wasserman is clearly marked as 'false' and is not cited to self published sources, which are both important differences. - MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * - Thank you. Is there any policy or manual or guide or essay that mentions those requirements? I mean you can't expect an editor to figure it all out by themselves. As the answers above show, the people who answered before you did not figure such things eiter. -- Barecode (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Because if you're wanting to say somebody stands accused of a specific crime, and the only source for that is an SPS, it's a claim about a living person sourced to an SPS. It might be a libel, it might be wrong, it might end up with you and/or the WMF in court. Doing that kind of thing is a sure-fire way to get a block or ban. (And that's just the BLP aspect before we even get to the NPOV problems). Alexbrn (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

- Making an error about a BLP can make you get a ban? What the heck are you talking about? Can you provide any example of an editor who got blocked or banned for that? And how exactly you break NPOV by adding such a claim? It's not my claim, it's their (PV claim). The claim already exists, quoting it is perfectly neutral and since it's not in an article about, but instead in the very article about the source, mentioning that claim is not bad faith. You mean any news outlet who dares to properly quote Project Veritas can get sued? I can understand that caution is advised in such cases and what I am asking is how much caution exactly an editor has to use. That's why I'm asking if such requirements as those mentioned by MrOllie are mentioned in any policy/guide/essay - so the editors can understand how to apply this policy. As you can see you didn't figure that by yourself and you came with some unsupported claims in your previous message. -- 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barecode (talk • contribs)
 * I'm confused at how you can be using the 'BLP' acronym without having read WP:BLP, which is the policy that covers this. No claims about third parties from self published sources. It doesn't matter if the claim is in some other article. It doesn't matter if you phrase it as 'Project Veritas says'. No claims about third parties from self published sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * - I'll skip the rude part - which somehow implied that you have to obey the policy and you are not supposed to ask questions about it. My question was: In the articles about SPS you can make an exception from RS and therefore why you can't make an exception about BLP. The QAnon article contains QAnon claims about third parties. I was asking why the same can't applied for the Project Veritas. You explained why. And it makes sense indeed: combining combined effect of WP:SLS and WP:BLP which seem to be justified by extra caution, it makes sense. Yet I am asking why the extra caution because it doesn't look necessary in such cases. Also I am suggesting explaining such details with such examples in a guide because as you can see not everyone can figure this by themselves. While your observations about QAnon article are correct, the requirements are not listed anywhere and also it's not even clear if there are more requirements. Say for example PV tomorrow removes that claim. Having a screenshot and archiving the link somewhere can help to actually add in the PV article the information about false claim they made. I'm not sure that's a bad after all. But anyways, I prefer to close this discussion before having a chance to be accused of creating a time sink, wasting people time or trolling. -- Barecode (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I wrote on your talk page:


 * Your addition of content sourced to Project Veritas is a serious BLP violation and has been reverted. No RS have commented on this matter, and the source you used did not say what you wrote in your edit. Be more careful. Project Veritas is not a RS.


 * The name of that CNN person is mentioned on Fox News (we generally try to avoid using Fox News) from a story in 2019 where he revealed and commented on the unseemly behavior of another CNN producer who stepped down. These are two very different stories.

Unsourced or poorly sourced negative information about any living or recently dead person is not allowed at Wikipedia. Negative information that is due will be found in multiple high quality sources. Negative content may (or may not) be added when using such sources. Local consensus will determine if the content has due weight for mention. The WP:3rr rule does not apply to anyone removing a BLP violation. It must be removed immediately.

Project Veritas is a horribly unreliable source. No RS have even mentioned this matter, if it really is a matter. Time will tell. Whenever you encounter such negative matters, make sure that multiple RS mention it. In such cases, BLP has further guidance at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Public figures are more vulnerable than private persons. They enjoy more protection here at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * - Thanks. I wasn't asking for a revert. I was asking why the policy should be applied like that. As for the article: it is the continuation of another article that I've seen on PV's Twitter feed one day before that. The next day . After that, Twitter suspended the account Project Veritas used to post their video exposing . I didn't even know the story was also published by Fox News. I'm not convinced that such statements should not be included in the articles about the SPS. I mean I'm not convinced the policy should be designed this way. But I'm not going to ask for changing the policy since I'm not interested to do that and I don't believe it would be productive anyways. Every person is entitled to have an opinion. As long as you respect the rule it doesn't matter if you agree or you disagree with that rule. -- [[User:Barecode|Barecode] (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The story was not published by Fox News, and even if it had been, I'd be cautious about using it for such an allegation. I'd want to use much better sources. -- Valjean (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Barecode, what part of "claims about third parties" do you not understand? What you're doing is very serious. We do not use SPS and/or unreliable sources for claims about others ("third party"), only "about themselves".
 * 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 are published experts in the field, so long as: (..) it does not involve claims about third parties;. (bold in original)
 * The SPS is Project Veritas (PV), and the third party is the named CNN producer. This isn't about PV making a comment about PV ("about themselves...in articles about themselves or their activities". That means (1) not about others than themselves or (2) anywhere at Wikipedia other than the article about the SPS (PV). PV can only comment about PV at the PV article. They cannot comment about others anywhere at Wikipedia. (I know I'm repeating myself in different ways, but hopefully one of these ways will be understood by you.)
 * Will this story make it into multiple RS? If it's true, it will. Until then, we remain silent, even on talk pages, as BLP also applies to them. We are not the National Enquirer, New York Post, Project Veritas, or Breitbart. A simple Google search of his name doesn't turn up a single RS for this time period. How can you fail to do this simplest of steps in due diligence? If multiple RS do cover the story, we then have to determine whether he is a public person or not. He isn't notable enough to even have an article here, so that tells me he's likely not even covered by WP:Public figure which might allow some mention. A private person enjoys much more protection here.
 * Project Veritas is infamous for making secret recordings and videos of left-wingers and other ideological opponents and then editing them so they often misrepresent what actually happened. They have been exposed many times for doing this. You have chosen a horrible source, looked at WP:SPS, and then done exactly what is forbidden. Didn't you read what you wrote in the heading above? What NOT to do is written right there. -- Valjean (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, we've reached the point where it seems that, for whatever reason, the OP is just not getting it, and in the meantime has created a lot of content in this thread which is problematic per WP:BLP and which likely needs a revdel. Is there an admin in the house who can do that, and put this editor on a better path? Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , apologies for any repetition in my response but the following policies are applicable WP:PAGs: WP:BLPSPS - Never use self-published sources —including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material  about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
 * 1) The first red flag is that a living person is the subject of the article which was neither written by nor published by that person.
 * 2) Second red flag is the clickbait headlines, and the fact that not even one responsible media outlet has published anything about this case which makes it WP:BLPGOSSIP.
 * 3) It is always better to err on the side of caution when people's lives are involved, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPCRIME.
 * Following is an example of allegations/arrests involving CNN staff and what we could but should not include at this point in time:CNN article about a different CNN producer who was actually charged and arrested which can be cited to and added to the CNN article, and/or possibly included in the BLP (if one existed) using inline text attribution; however, it is not advisable even though the story is corroborated by this NBC article. There are probably other RS in the echo chamber that can be cited, but to find them may require using duckduckgo in lieu of Google. I'm of the mind that such additions to our encyclopedia are neither advisable nor beneficial to our readers at this point in time per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BREAKING; WP:BNS is another good read. I invite you to consider WP:New pages patrol/School and at the very least, feel free to review the material at our site which may prove beneficial. Happy editing!  Atsme 💬 📧 20:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Reliably published" and web archives
Many Wikipedia references are the combination of a link to some web site and to its copy in some web archive. It frequently happens that the main link is already dead, and only a web archive is available. Do we really think that the content that is available only from such archives may be considered "reliably published"? Can it be possible that the information that has been withdrawn from main sites cannot be considered verifiable? That may create a dangerous situation when Wikipedia becomes a collection of web archive data. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Links often die for reasons other than a deliberate retraction - sites get reorganized or go offline regularly. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is not even required than any source even be available online. Print-only sources are perfectly legitimate.  Sources need not be instantly verifiable in order to be used, merely that a person can verify the information.  Going to a library and finding a copy of a book qualifies as verifiable just as much as finding a website does.  As long as we believe that the archive system reliably reproduces what the online information said at the time, it's perfectly usable.  Now, if we have evidence that the source later printed a retraction or we have more recent sources that contradict it, we should take that into account.  As always, however, all discussions of reliability of sources should happen in the specific and not in the general.  Unless we know the context of the locus of your dispute, we can't meaningfully comment on it.  -- Jayron 32 13:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with references to offline sources, provided that these references exist. However, if the only information about the source is a dead link and a link to some web archive, this situation is hardly acceptable. IMO, per BURDEN, we need to make good faith efforts to make sure this source still exists (for example, in a form of an offline version), and it still supports this statement, that it was not retracted, altered etc. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When something goes off-line, it does not mean it was retracted and that seems an odd assumption, also yes, Wikipedia accepts sources that are in archives, electronic and physical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When something goes off-line, that may mean that (i) it was retracted, (ii) it just went off-line, but the source still available in a form of a hard copy, (iii) the source is not available neither in a hard copy nor in any digital form, and a web archive record is the only copy that currently exist. In connection, my question is: can a link to some web archive be considered a reliable source if no other information is available? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. We treat electronic archives, like any other archive. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider the following example. Some journal articles contain supplementary information. Sometimes, this information is provided as a link, e.g, to the lab's website. In many old articles, these links are dead. It may be possible to find this information at some web archive, but, obviously, that archive is the only publicly available source. Whereas this information can exist somewhere else (for example, on the author's private computer), I doubt that information can be considered a "reliably published". That makes web archives the only source. In connection to that, I repeat my question: if a web archive is the only source of information, can it be considered as a RS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I repeat my only answer: yes. -- Jayron 32 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is the main reason we use links to web archives in this project. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the URL was live to the public at some point, it was published. If the site was reliable at that point, assuming it hasn't been superseded or retracted, then the archived copy is also reliable. It's the same as a book that is now out of print but available at a library. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, where are you getting this wording about "reliably published"? I don't remember seeing that phrase anywhere in WP:V.  We care whether a given source is reliable for a given bit of information.  One common (but not mandatory) method of determining whether a source should be relied on is to consider the publication process (e.g., peer review).  But I don't think that the sourcing policies have any concept of  a source being "reliably published".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The current wording of the policy is "reliable, published". I am not sure, but I recall some time ago it said "reliably published". Actually, yes, the exact text is "reliable, published". Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The meaning of "a reliable, published source" is "a source that is both reliable and published".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with most everyone else above that a dead link but with an archived copy from Wayback or similar source is still a reliable source. But I would add that we should be very selective of what are these archive sites, ones that we know only mirror a page and do not alter content (eg that they reliably archive). Wayback is good, archive.today is good, and I'm sure there's a few others. As a counter example, a copy of an article posted in a forum being used as the archiveurl source would not be appropriate as we have no idea on the reliability of that forum. --M asem (t) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, it makes sense to make a list of trustworthy and reliable archives? It will hardly be long. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does List of web archives on Wikipedia not meet your needs in this regard? It's only existed on Wikipedia for four and a half years... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that this list does not "meet my needs". However, this list does not seem to be directly linked to our policy. If the content of that page was approved by the community, why cannot we include the link to WP:SOURCES? For example:
 * Materials that were published online, but that are currently available only from reliable archives can be used if they meet other reliable source criteria.
 * -- Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Our policy is that a reliability is not tied intrinsically to the way that the source is published. The reliability of the original source doesn't change when the website that hosted that source changes; the original citation is still valid even if the source is now only available in an archive.  WP:RS states "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. (bold mine) Let me head you off as well: No, you aren't going to get a canonical and complete list of "reputable" archives, and you never will.  Just like we don't maintain a full list of reliable sources for people to refer to, and only list the criteria for people to assess on their own in good faith, archives are treated similarly.  The archive services noted above are under no suspicion of falsifying their archives, and are as reputable can be, AFAIK.  That's good enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The full list of reliable sources is intrinsically long and constantly grows. In contrast, the number of web archives cannot be big by definition. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such list on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you think there is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A web archive is not a source… it is a repository where the source can be located (like a library for hard copy paper books).
 * We should not actually CITE the archive… we should CITE the original web page, and NOTE that it is hosted on the archive (and provide a courtesy link). This would be like including a note that a rare paper book can be found in a specific library’s collection. Blueboar (talk)
 * That returns us to my original point: what if the online source was archived, but the original link is dead? And how can we make sure that that dead link is not a fake?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever had any serious reason to be suspicious of this, or is this hypothetical so far? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be incorrect to say that my initial post was inspired by this, but that RSN discussion was one of examples.
 * Of course, removal of some content from the publisher's web site does not automatically mean that the source is not reliable any more, however, that is usually not a good sign either. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your main idea is that a published source stops being reliable if the publisher doesn't continually say the same thing. This runs into the Argument ad absurdum problem very quickly:  "The newspaper says ____ today, but tomorrow, it says something different!  Therefore, the newspaper isn't reliable!"  Or "The book is out of print!  The publisher probably just didn't think it worthwhile to re-print it, but the publisher might have secretly meant to repudiate the contents.  Therefore, the book isn't reliable!"
 * There are real concerns with "discontinued" content, but it's not a question of the source being unusable. You'd just need to be careful about how you use it:  "In 2016, Organization said..." or "Three weeks before the election, the survey said..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that an article has been retracted, or see that the source is not reputable, archived or not, the citation should be dropped. If the source was updated with errata, it's also a good idea to update it.  Otherwise, the archive is usually useful, especially if it's stored on a main archive that does not have a reputation for forged entries and that can also delete them for legal reasons (i.e. archive.org).  If the source is simply outdated (i.e. too old) and can easily be replaced, that's also a good idea, of course (making sure the text reflects the new source).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB and the definition of a subject-matter expert.
WP:SELFPUB currently links to our article space definition of "subject-matter expert." Should we have a supplemental page giving general guidance about what a subject-matter expert is in Wikipedia terms, in the same way we have one for non-public figures and the like? --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Aquillion, what prompted you to ask this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I ask, partly because you might get a more relevant answer, but also because the other half of the sentence defines SME for WP:V's purposes. An author is a subject-matter expert if, and only if, their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A subject matter expert is someone whose opinion can be safely ignored unless published in a preferably green RS. This applies to my opinion as well:) Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, December 23, 2021‎ (UTC)
 * SMEs aren't necessarily being cited for "opinions". They are frequently being cited for "facts".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * SMEs sometimes have differences of opinion as to what the “facts” actually are. A good rule of thumb when this occurs is: phrase the “facts” as an opinion and attribute. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with any definition is that even “experts” can occasionally have wacky fringe opinions. If an “expert’s” opinions are usually published in reliable sources, but a specific opinion isn’t… we probably need to pause, and ask “why not?”. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in keeping with the idea that the source is reliable, not necessarily the author, the source is vouching for that particular article by the author, not everything written by that author. A reputable source may publish a sensible article by an author but refuse to publish their fringe ideas. If an author gets too fringe, they may find that all reasonable sources freeze them out, so they retreat to Substack, like Greenwald has done. -- Valjean (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This contradicts the meaning of "source" as given in the policy. It also appears to rely on the wiki-myth that publishers "fact-check" articles they publish. Except in very limited circumstances, such as mathematics journals, it simply isn't true. Zerotalk 13:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Under our policy, even if a reliable source doesn't chase down every fact in a non op-ed piece, they are vouching for the integrity of the work when it is published and should they later discover there was a major incorrect fact, key for us is that they will not hesitate to issue a redaction of the wrong information (if not the whole work). Eg: it is still why Lancet is considered a reliable journal despite being involved in some cases like Lancet MMR autism fraud, because they take those types of steps.
 * I would tend to agree that for self-pub writings of SMEs that are not considered opinion, we really want those to be highlighted by a primary or secondary RS that 1) given weight to why that SEM themselves is important and 2) that give reasonable weight of trust to the truth/validity of their factual statements. Opinions are different, though that's where UNDUE factors come into play, as some topics have tons of "SMEs" that we may have to figure out how to pick out the most relevant, but that's a separate problem. --M asem (t) 13:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that Valjean meant "the publisher is vouching for that particular article by the author", not that the source (e.g., the article itself) is vouching for itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for wording it better. -- Valjean (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how I took it, and it is why I disagree. It is almost always the case that the author is more expert on the article topic than the publisher. Giving the publisher the right to assign reliability even when the author is an acknowledged expert is contrary to what we should be doing, namely making Wikipedia as accurate as possible within the bounds of WP:NOR. Zerotalk 04:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If a RS republishes a work written by an SME as a non-op-ed piece, that's lending greater weight to 1) that the author is likely an SME and 2) that the publisher generally respects that what is written is likely factually correct. Whereas the second point still means the SME is the more expert source than the publisher, the first point for us is critical as it shows evidence the person is a SME (due to the RS's selection) and that using that work would likely be appropriate per WP:DUE. To contrast, an SME publishing on Medium or their personal blog likely doesn't change too much related to the factual correctness, but unless we have previously come to agreement that the person is an SME, that type of self-publishing doesn't necessarily help in a UNDUE/DUE discussion. Or more simply: today more than ever there are lots of "armchair SMEs" that write in blogs about stuff they know, and while some are likely true experts and reliable, the lack of a separate RS given their blessing by publishing these works should cause us to have some doubt to the weight of their work compare to what's actually covered in RSes. --M asem (t) 13:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO Wp:reliable source is about having certain trappings, not about actual reliability. You can't override it by arguing that a source has actual reliability. I say this flippantly (and in a bid to someday tweak policy), but in this case it means that the rules clearly are the rules, especially a core rule of a core policy. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this new-fangled "GUNREL" idea is about having certain trappings, but I don't think that's true for WP:RS. The Time Cube website has none of those trappings, and it was accepted being reliable for certain statements (about itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The 'Experts Blog' is probably where this arises most and it depends on (you guessed it, CONTEXT) what wiki text it is being used for (no we are probably not going to use it in medical, say), and the circumstances of the blog. An experts blog is not necessarily "fringe", sometimes it just explicates an idea, an event, or connection that is within the mainstream but goes into detail in a particularly clear and accessible way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * +1 to Alan's comment. See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (if you understood the expert's blog instead of the expert's jargon-filled academic paper, then cite the blog), and note the laysummary options in some CS1 templates.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I linked this discussion at Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some background history… and a question: when we created the “Expert exemption”, we were really thinking of academics who had previously published in reliable journals, text books and other academic sources. Perhaps the root of the current problem is that the concept been extended beyond academia… (for example, to journalism). Is this the case? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar, I'm not sure that we ever intended to include "professional content creators" (e.g., journalists) in this category. Separately I am not sure that we should include content creators in this category.  Consider:
 * We know that Alice Expert is an expert about her academic field because she published peer-reviewed journal articles and a university-press book. Therefore, she's an "expert" for SPS.
 * We know that Tommy Train is an expert about trains because he published a series of articles in Trains Today. He's also been quoted as a subject-matter expert in multiple other publications.  Therefore, he's an "expert" for SPS.
 * Nova News, on the other hand, has written about a wide variety of subjects. All the news that fits, they print.  Nova is normally quoted in their capacity as a journalist, not as a non-journalistic source of expertise.  Therefore, I'd say that Nova is *not* an expert.
 * The line could certainly blur, and WP:NEWSBLOGS complicate matters. But I'd say that "official" news blogs (not those written by freelancers) also un-complicate matters, by letting us use the news blogs published by the newspaper without referring to SPS at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-English sources
Recently I read about an editor's rejected edits because the sources used were not in English. This article under "Accessibility->Non-English sources" states where to get translators. What is needs to say unequivocally is that non-English sources are totally acceptable. It should also suggest scanning the non-English source, running it through OCR, and then copying the passages into Google translate which, although not perfect, gives a good idea of what the non-English source is saying. - kosboot (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Not that I would advocate any change in policy, but to note, in reality, non-English sources do do partially insulate the content from the gaze for wp:verifiability and wp:notability. On the former, it's much harder to "prove a negative" when it is not in English. Two factors of this are that the translation loses something,  making it much harder to be sure of a "not in source" assessment. Second, when the cite is not specific (e.g. no page number etc.) then trying to review e.g. many pages of so-translated text is difficult to make such an assessment.    Even more challenging, those same factors make reviewing it overall to see if it fails wp:GNG requirements very difficult.   I'm not advocating for any change in policy, but in the nuances of real-life Wikipedia decisions, a source that somewhat insulates itself from wp:verifiability  and wp:GNG scrutiny will be not treated as being as strong.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that North8000 is wide of the mark here. WP:SOURCE is quite clear on what is, or is not, acceptable: I won't quote it here, anyone can go there and look. It does not say that the source has to be in English. And rightly so, because there may be important sources which do not have English translations. These sources do not, as North8000 suggests, "insulate themselves from wp:verifiability", implying, quite unnecessarily, that they wil be invoked because they deliberately obscure: they will often be encyclopedias, newspaper articles or academic papers that just happen to be written on German, French, Russian or whatever. If we took North8000's criteria to a logical extreme, we would have to exclude, for example, many technical scientific academic papers in English as sources because they were difficult for the layman to construe or assess. Or perhaps we should scrap en.wikipedia and only work with simple.wikipedia...........--Smerus (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Smerus, you mis-stated what I said.  Reiterating the key point: "Not that I would advocate any change in policy".  After that I made a few observations. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Smerus has said all that needs saying on this matter, I think. Using non-English sources is wholly OK within Wikipedia's rules. And it's a bit silly in these days of Google Translate and other estimable online translation sites to pretend that texts in foreign languages are inaccessible. As Smerus says, highly technical articles written in English can be pretty abstruse even to English speakers – more so than many an article in French or whatever run through an online translator.  Tim riley  talk   16:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me add that not all WP contributors have English as their mother language. They should be able to quote sources in their own language in full confidence, whenever possible with a translation as explained in Verifiability. Otherwise, which English should one use? British? American? Canadian? Australian? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * North8000, whereas it is correct that non-English sources, theoretically, should be Ok, there are some parctical considerations that make their usage more risky. The major problem is that standard mechanisms of RS assessment are hard to use for non-English sources. Thus, a significant component of reliability is context: who is the author? what is a reputation of the publisher? does the work meet minimal criteria of fact checking and accuracy? For English sources, all this information can be discussed at RSN or similar places, where several users with different background can make well informed comments, which will allow them to come to some reasonable verdict. In contrast, for non-English sources, it is usually impossible to obtain outside comments from many users. According to this, local Wikipedia topics may become a field of activity of "geopolitically and nationally inclined individuals rather than disinterested enthusiasts", which may lead to a situation when non-English sources may be cherry-picked, selectively cited, manipulated, and the community has no tool to independently evaluate this process and, if needed, to interfere in it.
 * I personally am trying to avoid non-English sources for the above described reason. The only exceptions are: when the source is cited by English publications (and there is no obvious criticism), when the author is a reasonably high h-factor, or if the source has a good reputation in English media.
 * I think that it makes sense to discuss possible amendment of the policy, or, at least, guidelines. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This came up in the context of classical music, and I find it hard to believe that anyone with a glimmering of understanding of the subject could struggle with the status of WP:RS of Yon, Jean-Claude (2000). Jacques Offenbach, Paris: Gallimard. ISBN 978-2-07-074775-7; Barraqué, Jean (1977). Debussy. Paris: Editions du Seuil. ISBN 978-2-02-000242-4; Prod'homme, Jacques-Gabriel; Alfred Dandelot (1911). Gounod: sa vie et ses oeuvres d'apres des documents inédits, Paris: Delagrave, Gallois, Jean (2004); Charles-Camille Saint-Saëns. Sprimont, Belgium: Éditions Mardaga. ISBN 978-2-87009-851-6 et hoc genus omne. I think the same will plainly apply to other disciplines: it will be pretty clear to anyone interested in a subject which works about it written in foreign languages are authoritative.  Tim riley  talk   19:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This applies to numerous disciplines, in which the best sources can often be hard to understand by most readers. Yes, fewer editors read non-English languages - but is it not the same for advanced Physics or Mathematics texts? Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. --GRuban (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reference to Physics or Mathematics is not a good argument. In these disciplines, as well as in most other scientific and scholarly disciplines, we have such a tool as citations, h-index, and publisher's reputation. I am not a top expert in, e.g. thermodynamcs, but I can easily see if some concrete source is of high quality or it is a garbage. Number of citations, author's h-index, or publisher's reputation allows non-experts to screen out obviously bad sources.
 * Nothing of that works for non-English sources that are beyond the scope of main scientific search engine, and for which the mechanism of a neutral assessment of publisher's/author's reputation is not available. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite. Except for the minor difficulty that you still can't actually understand what the high quality source says, and so whether or not it actually supports the point being made in the article. I think this was the theory used by the March Hare in putting butter into the Mad Hatter's watch, because "It was the best butter" --GRuban (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kosboot, I have usually found that, in such instances, the necessary conversation sounds like "Hey, did you know about NONENG?" followed by "Oh, sorry, nobody ever told me that before. I just assumed it would be better if English sources were used".  Is that approximately how this dispute went? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:V is clear there's no issue with foreign-language sources, though if we can use an English source for the same information, we should do that. I think the only issue is that it becomes harder to judge reliability of foreign sources, particularly those outside of first world countries (eg we can easily judge Japanese or German sources, but not ones from South Africa or Brazil, for example). But once reliability is set, then use is not an issue beyond the cautions of translation. --M asem (t) 02:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details of the communication that I relayed, but to me, reverting an editor's edits because the source is a foreign language totally contradicts what Wikipedia is about. In today's world, where English Wikipedia is trying exceptionally hard to broaden its focus away from centering too strongly on Western (or even United States) culture, the idea of giving greater scrutiny to non-English sources - to the point of excluding them - appears to be exactly the opposite of the stated goal.of Wikimedia 2030 strategy.  I deal in fields that have centuries worth of history, primarily in foreign languages.  While plenty has been translated into English, there is still plenty of information that is not.  Asides from that, what about current issues that are in non-English speaking parts ot the world?  By that argument, it shouldn't be covered unless it's in the English-language press, which I find as offensive as a bunch of ostriches burying their heads in the sand.  As I stated at the outset, I believe at least a sentence has to be inserted indicating that foreign language source that are verifiable are totally acceptable.  - kosboot (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kosboot, we already have an official policy that says "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia." Do you think that you need more than that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it is needed in the section "Accessibility->Non-English sources. That section simply gives links to translations tools.  It does not say that it is allowed.  To forestall the event I described at the outset, it has to be clearly stated (perhaps multiple times) and easy to find. - kosboot (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Er - it does say that. "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia." That's the first sentence of that section. --GRuban (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence in that section has said that citations to non-English sources are allowed since about 2013. Before then, it was still the policy, but we used other words, and we decided that we needed something a little more direct and wikilawyer-proof.  We could put it in bold-faced, blinking text, but I don't think it would help, because the primary problem is that Nobody reads the directions.  This type of dispute is usually solved by gently pointing out the existence of WP:NONENG to whoever objected to non-English sources.  In my experience, the result is usually them saying "Oops, I didn't know that" rather than them doubling down on their belief.
 * It sounds like you have heard, secondhand, about an editor who didn't read the directions. But I've got the impression that you don't actually know which article or which editor(s) were involved, which makes it difficult to solve the specific problem.  Is my impression correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Masem Just a little BTW... If anyone has doubts about a South African source (in English or any other language) a brief note dropped at WikiProject South Africa will usually result in a fairly quick resolution.
 * However, your point does raise a related isuue - the general apathy (and even antipathy) of various WikiProjects towards helping to review at AFC and NPP. The vast majority of reviewers are not topic specialists so they do occasionally need help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Do magazines need to be mainstream?
I'm asking this in reply to 's recent update here. The short version is they changed the list of normally reliable sources from "magazines" to "mainstream magazines". I think that generally makes sense as it follows the same for "mainstream newspapers". However, my concern/comment/question is will people read this to mean "non-mainstream" is generally considered not reliable? Consider magazines such as Sport Aviation or Racecar Engineering. I wouldn't consider either to be a mainstream magazine yet both are very good sources within their respective fields. Also, compared to many of our normal reliable sources these magazines are likely more authoritative within their narrow fields of expertise. I'm sure the same could be said about various trade/interest specific magazines. Is the change to "mainstream magazine" going to result sources like these being treated as unreliable? Should "mainstream" be read as "mainstream within the subject area in question"? Is this much ado about nothing? Springee (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the policy ("magazines and mainstream newspapers") implies that magazines by default are more reliable than newspapers, which, imo, is illogical. In that sense, the updated policy is more consistent.
 * However, the word "mainstream" is somewhat ambiguous. We already tried to come to some common understanding of what "mainstream newspapers" is supposed to mean, and that discussion lead to no clear result. I am afraid, the same story will repeat here: everybody understand the word "mainstream" differently. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My first inclination is to agree with you: for one thing "mainstream" is too fuzzy for the uses to which this rule is put. But there are a lot of weird magazines out there. Perhaps we need to expand how WP:RS/N & WP:RS/PS operate, if there's a need to evaluate the vast universe of magazines? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point about hobbyist magazines. Maybe "quality magazines" or "reputable magazines" would be better phrasing? We want to be cautious of mags devoted to gossip, titillation, or pseudoscience, while still approving of reliable, specialist publications. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gossip magazines can be very useful sources for information, especially if you're writing articles about celebrities.  People, Entertainment Weekly, Vanity Fair, even Us Weekly – they're all gossip magazines, and editors use them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that "mainstream" is not good. It can be taken as excluding "specialist" magazines, which is contrary to reliability. Zerotalk 08:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While "mainstream newspapers" generally can be taken to mean papers with strong editorial practices, "mainstream magazines" to me would include things like Us, People, and other magazines you can find at the supermarket checkout, and while these aren't unreliable, they tend to lend more to gossip and the like. Whereas clear reliable magazines, such as Time, Wired, and US News + World Report are less "mainstream". --M asem (t) 14:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Mainstream” on Wikipedia usually means “non-fringe”. My guess is that this was added at a time when we had a spate of citations to fringe magazines. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a less "obvious" addition if newspapers weren't described that way. I wonder whether we could usefully change "mainstream newspapers" to "daily newspapers".  Weekly newspapers aren't unreliable or necessarily disreputable, but that might give people the right general idea:  the thing printed with ink on paper that you and all your neighbors get every morning (or "got", in previous decades), with information about what your own city government is doing, is the thing we're talking about.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "established"? Meaning, regularly-published for sufficient time to establish a reputation that can be evaluated? Schazjmd   (talk)  00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reputable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * then why we don't replace "mainstream newspapers" with "newspapers with strong editorial practices", and, accordingly, "non-fringe magazines"? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you start get into circular definitions then - "reliable sources are this..." "Some examples of reliable sources are newspapers + magazines that have this..." I think the idea is that "mainstream newspaper" generally refers to those with national to international distribution as at that scale, you better be reliable for day-to-day, whereas with magazines, those with the highest distribution tend to be sub-tier reliability (but not unreliable), while leaving the niche magazines with national circulation as the most reliable ones. --M asem (t) 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense if what we are citing it for is current events, but otherwise the opposite is usually true. For example, a typical science magazine is more reliable for science than a mainstream newspaper, and a specialised academic journal even more so. The moral is that I don't think we should ordain sources as "reliable" without qualification but always try to specify what they are reliable for. Zerotalk 05:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be best (both from the practical and theoretical standpoints) to fix the "These are reliable sources" part. It's not really possible for something to be a reliable source without considering what it is reliable for.  Even the most reputable, mainstream newspaper is not really a reliable source for certain things (e.g., causes of cancer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are all beating around the same issue, we want to discourage low quality magazines and encourage quality ones regardless of circulation, even circulation in the subject area (RC Engineering Magazine is quite expensive so it's circulation in minimal). Does it work to say "quality/respected magazines" or is that just trying to avoid stating the obviously circular "reliable magazines"?  Springee (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very much against using the word 'mainstream' for anything about requirements for sources. Well established and reliable is quite a different thing from mainstream. We should definitely not be excluding newspapers or magazines because they aren't run by huge conglomerates reproducing what Reuters or governments say and read by millions of people. Being read by millions or being run by a big company is not a defence against fringe and being fairly small is not a strong indicator of fringe. If people want to discuss sources there's WP:RSN andthere's WP:RSP for where the same thing keeps coming up. Media bias describes enough problems with mainstream sources without us baking it into policy. NadVolum (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Blueboar is correct and 'mainstream' was put in as meaning 'non-fringe'. However I have had problems with people who think t means publications with millions of readers and that ones with only some tens of thousands should be ignored. It is too confusing a word. 'Non-fringe' is pretty clear and unambiguous, if that is what is meant then that should be there instead of mainstream everywhere except perhaps where fringe is being discussed where the meaning as non-fringe is pretty apparent. I'm not sure it really covers what people want though, just saying newspapers and magazines conforming to WP:NEWSORG would be fine I think. WP:POLICY has 'be clear' as its first advice for policies and guidelines. 'Mainstream' is definitely not clear in this context. NadVolum (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think of "mainstream" with respect to NPOV and WEIGHT, but not to individual sources where the criteria would be difficult to define and test. At best, the addition of "mainstream" would add no useful guidance.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that more specification is needed. "Mainstream" does sound exclusive of specialization. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many sources in academic areas for example that are reliable for those areas and may even be the most reliable sources for the information. However, I'm not even sure what mainstream might mean in this and many instances. We have to be careful of tossing around terms that generalize, that are appropriate in one situation but not another,  and as in this example may have nothing to do with the reliable sources we might need.Littleolive oil (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WP: V has an RFC
WP: V has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.--Kyohyi (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This originally had an additional section heading: ==RFC Concerning WP: SPS and WP: BLPSPS==  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

CryptoGodfatherVA2
IS:Vedarius A. Russell 11/24/199# The Owner of Youtac RS/UTAC/UtacK/ and creator. Business entrepreneur, Sagittarius. lover and Novembers Very own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoutacrsVARs (talk • contribs) 04:28 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks like a case of WP:WRONGVENUE. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed sources that use Wikipedia as a source of raw data
Sometimes, I see peer-reviewed publications that cite Wikipedia as a source of raw data. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, so the source that just reproduce some fact from Wikipedia is definitely not acceptable. But what should we do with peer-reviewed publications that take some data from Wikipedia (along with other sources), perform their analysis and come to some conclusion? I have an impression that the number of this type sources is increasing. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC) I think that My very best wishes has the right answer from a policy perspective; policy/guidelines do not forbid using it. . But I agree with Nug that for the case given, (and the specific case is what really matters in Wikipedia because many factors are taken into consideration)  the source should not be used. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A reliable, even a scholarly source like this, for example, can make references to any number of unreliable sources like WP, even Kavkaz Center, etc. That does not make any source less reliable. Actually, it does not matter at all if any RS mentioned something in WP. The criteria for deciding how good was the source are completely different. The policy does not say "Do not use any academic book that made a reference to Wikipedia", and rigthly so. That would be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For context I guess Paul may be referring to the Engel-Di Mauro paper where the author states that "Capitalism's war-related death toll so far exceeds 150 million," citing Wikipedia. "The data are mainly from Wikipedia," the author explains, specifically our List of wars by death toll. I don't think that is acceptable. That said, citing Wikipedia like is done in the paper Measuring article quality in wikipedia: models and evaluation is totally fine. --Nug (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sure that the question was intended as a general question (it was not about any specific source). And it is an important question. It is very common that contributors are trying to discredit RS they do not like just because these RS use "unreliable sources" (from WP perspective) or even WP itself in the list of references. Saying that such RS are not RS just because they use "unreliable sources" as references is wrong and contrary to the policy. This is because authors of such RS do not trust anything that blatantly unreliable sources (like WP) say, but only use them to illustrate certain points whatever they might be. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with My very best wishes. Whether any specific source is reliable for any specific statement (and the Engel-Di Mauro paper would not be reliable for a statement like "Capitalism caused X million deaths") is a separate problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this source should not used for such statement, but this is not just because it uses WP for referencing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is is a good example of why we should always ask “is source X reliable for verifying statement Y in article Z” and not just “is source X reliable”. It is quite possible for an otherwise reliable source to be deemed unreliable for a specific fact or conclusion. Context is important. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * states it properly. Beyond that, the entire concept of 'reliable source' is a misdirection that would be better framed and presented as 'reliable sourcing' for a specific fact or conclusion. Can someone point to a discussion about the naming of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and related pages that considered naming as 'Wikipedia:Reliable sourcing'? I don't see this discussed in WT:V or WT:RS archives. Humanengr (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Humanengr, from 2010 to early 2019, the guideline was named WP:Identifying reliable sources. This was partly due to people looking at the Reliable sources title and thinking that it meant that the page was supposed to provide a list of reliable sources.  In what I believe was not a coincidence, but rather a move indicative of a trend away from editors caring about whether the source supports a specific fact or conclusion in a Wikipedia article and instead focusing primarily on the overall reputation of the periodical/publisher, the guideline was moved back to the original/potentially misleading name a couple of months after Reliable sources/Perennial sources was established. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Robert Molone
Could you provide sources for calling this highly mrna creditable Doctors opinion misinformation 2601:680:C301:3200:3086:A41D:BD33:32C8 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're talking about Robert W. Malone, it appears the article is very well sourced, if you object to any of the specific sources you shouls probably bring that up at Talk:Robert W. Malone. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

INDEPENDENT vs. ABOUTSELF regarding megachurch attendance figures
I'm looking at List of megachurches in the United States where this article has a lot of church attendance figures, not infrequently sourced to Church websites themselves. I've just reverted some changes in figures at the article, because they are from the church website, thus not WP:INDEPENDENTly sourced. On the other hand, there's WP:ABOUTSELF; although bullet #1 ("unduly self-serving") might be an issue. What would you advise in this case, and similar ones: allow sourcing of Church attendance figures for "mega-churches" to the church's own website and data, or not? (Same question applies for any similar institution where bragging rights for list-toppers might be advantageous, financially or otherwise.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Listed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard
 * Listed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion &mdash; Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Connected editor's comment: I have been a wiki gnome on the article for about a year and I'm ashamed to admit it. I have had to deal with degrees in the article as some had no references at all and self-published sources are a step up from them. I would prefer to see strong sourcing, but the question is, where can RSes be found for church attendance figures? They are not required to be submitted by law and so no governmental source exists. Many smaller congregations will fudge numbers since support from the denomination level usually continues until membership and attendance reach some specific level (or amount of time) but I do not know if this fudging of numbers ends at some point. There's no general section is local newspapers with a WP:SECONDARY source that actually reports on audited attendance numbers, so assistance would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would accept this, because the size of an organization is basic information. Treat it like you would treat a company self-reporting how many employees they have.  Also, unless you expect some intrepid reporter to stand by the entrance and count heads over the weekend, there is no other way to get this information; any independent source is only repeating the information the church gave them.  While that's still an "independent" source (if nothing else, the independent source could refuse to repeat a suspicious number, or could say something like "Preacher Parker says that millions attend, but the traffic on Sunday morning doesn't suggest that's accurate"), it doesn't change the reported facts, and it's the facts that ultimately matter.
 * I like the explanation about reported attendance at the end of the lead in List of megachurches in the United States. Aymatth2 and Orlady did a good job of explaining how to (not) interpret the given numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Can be reported as what the church claims. Absolutely must not be reported as fact. Church attendance figures, like some similar things such as activist group membership, are inherently self-serving and unreliable. Zerotalk 11:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a note at the top of the list saying "Note that the attendance numbers are often provided by the church itself, so should be treated with caution." I think it is valid to include the numbers, even if they may be inaccurate, as long as the reader is aware of that. I would also be comfortable citing the churches themselves, for the same reason. Maybe there is some tag template that can be added to the citation saying "self-published"? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We could add Self-published source to give citations like:
 * But it may not be visible enough, buried in the reflist at the foot of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can one add a parenthetical note "self-reported" or something like that to the figures? Attribution is the key to solving problems like this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the figures in the entire list are self-reported, so you don't need individual labels on each number. The column is currently labeled "Av. weekly attendance" with an extra footnote, and it could just as easily be labeled "Self-reported average weekly attendance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should attach a disclaimer in parentheses to every number that we don't have a reliable source for that the organisation has reason to distort: this is too important a distinction to relegate to a footnote. I suggest "(unattested)". I believe this is possible to do even in the case of infoboxes that pull in data from Wikidata: we have to provide sources for numbers. If the source exists, it can be linked to in a footnote. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should attach a disclaimer in parentheses to every number that we don't have a reliable source for that the organisation has reason to distort: this is too important a distinction to relegate to a footnote. I suggest "(unattested)". I believe this is possible to do even in the case of infoboxes that pull in data from Wikidata: we have to provide sources for numbers. If the source exists, it can be linked to in a footnote. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggest putting in as an attributed statement e.g. "According to xyz church, their weekly attendance averages xx,xxxx" Or as a statement about a statement "xyz church indicates that their average weekly attendance is xxx,xxx". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a column in a table, not prose. There's not really a place to put such a thing, other than in footnotes most won't read. Maybe the table column just needs to be removed. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that if a format (e.g. info box, table etc) does not allow the necessary explanation or attribution, that it is not a suitable place for that info and it shouldn't be there. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with North8000 on this. Zerotalk 10:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? The apparent purpose of this list is to name all the churches with an average weekly attendance of 2,000 people or more.  From what I've read (i.e., from the lead of Megachurch, which I've assumed is correct), the "official" definition of a megachurch is any church with an average weekly attendance of 2,000 people or more.  Leaving out the information that justifies their inclusion in this list would kind of miss the point.  It would also make other editors wonder whether any given item in the list actually meets the List selection criteria for that list.  That's not helping anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should divide the list into two parts, the first for which we have indepdendent reliable sources, the second where the figures are self-asserted and we don't have positive reasons to doubt. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that all of the numbers come from the churches. It's just a question of whether Wikipedia editors got the number from a church's website and stuck it in our article, or whether journalists got the number from a church's website and stuck it in their article.  While the latter suggests that some independent source thought this fact was newsworthy (whereas a Wikipedia editor making the same choice does not imply newsworthiness), it's still the number claimed by the church.  It's not like there are companies going around and auditing the weekly attendance numbers to make sure that they're honest about it.  These kinds of numbers (like sales figures, claimed profits, numbers of employees, etc.) are always going to come from an insider. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are probably right that the numbers ultimately come from the church. However we still prefer information that comes via a "reliable" third party. It is how Wikipedia operates and I don't think there is an exception due here. Zerotalk 07:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zero0000, this is interesting to me, because I tend to agree with you (the local newspaper saying that n people showed up at an event is better than than the event organizers saying it themselves, even if the local newspaper explicitly writes "Event organizers claimed n people attended the event"), but at the same time, there are editors who reject exactly such independent sources because they are (in their view) hopelessly non-independent and far too close to the subject because they interviewed subject or read the subject's website.
 * We shouldn't try to have this both ways. Either you're right and a newspaper is still an independent source when it repeats what the church said, or some WP:SIRS hardliners are right, and sources that acquire any information from the subject are hopelessly entangled in the subject and cannot be considered independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From a Wiki-process standpoint, an independent secondary source is stronger than a primary non-independent source; that's just how wiki rolls.  But also a independent secondary source probably vetts for at least plausibility of the number, and possibly by the credibility of the source.  That said, here's my opinion on the OP.  If there is a challenge that includes a stated concern about the veracity of the number then the bar gets raised and it needs a secondary source to stay in. (This is mostly policy, plus me interpreting/inventing  "challenged" in wp:ver as being a stated concern about the info.)    If not, that the primary non-independent source is enough to stay in.  And either way put a footnote for the column that says that most figures are as determined by the church itself.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Secondary does not mean independent. A secondary source is usually stronger than a primary source; an independent source is usually stronger than a non-independent source.  When we talk about an independent primary source (e.g., breaking news) vs a non-independent secondary source (e.g., a meta-analysis by a pharmaceutical company about their new product), nobody knows what to do.
 * I don't think anyone has contested the eligibility of any church in the list. Instead, the talk page seems to be filled with objections to excluding eligible churches (usually due to lack of Published sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition of source-code hosting places
Hello! I'm from WP:FOSS and active in the IT space. I had several discussions about Github as a source for software projects. As a result I added a change here on Verifiability.

Since then I heard very different opinions on this topic with the biggest divide from people between people working in tech and non-technical Wikipedia editors.

I would like to announce this change and discuss if this change is generally accepted. GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 09:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks but it at least needs to go to talk here. IMO too specialized and not germane to the section that it was placed in.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an active noticeboard discussion about GitHub at . GitHub and other code forges are self-published sources consisting of user-generated content, so WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF do apply. I think the phrasing could be improved, such as by changing "...the original source of source code for..." to "...the official source code repository of...", and by changing "...other places where original development happens" to "...other code forges". —  Newslinger  talk   15:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also a structural question. That section is about use of material written by and published about themselves.  It notes those examples (e.g. Twitter, Linked-in) as venues that contain such material. It's not about evaluating those platforms as sources. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Adding "code forges" to the "self-published material such as..." list in WP:SPS is probably the easiest way to address this type of source. WP:ABOUTSELF already states that it applies to everything in that list. —  Newslinger  talk   17:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability of animal habitat maps


At the FAC for red panda, the question has come up as to whether the habitat range map should have a citation in the caption or not. LittleJerry has argued that the map being sourced on Commons is sufficient, and that other articles commonly adopt this approach. I would prefer that a citation be included here, too, for two main reasons: I do not believe that exempting habitat range images would fall within the spirit of, as that proviso does not apply where images illustrate or introduce new ideas or arguments. Since this issue applies to many situations with map images, I wanted to bring it here for broader input. What are folks' thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is easier for readers to check out a source if they don't have to open an image or leave Wikipedia to get to it.
 * 2) Commons does not have the high-quality citation templates that Wikipedia does, so sourcing only at Commons introduces the risk of link rot and similar concerns.


 * I agree it's quite important that the data is cited somewhere. I am careful to check for this during image review, however, I always accept maps as long as there is a suitable source in the image description. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:OR, WT:FAC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk 00:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I changed the citing to lessen link rot. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that all details of an image should be on the Commons page. Including whatever is necessary for covering "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" and "compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy". I do not believe that there is any current requirement in the FAC criteria for the RS sources of maps to be cited on the article page and believe that if they were to be changed to require this it would generate unnecessary clutter. In passing I note File:Black Prince's campaign 1356.svg, the most recent of many maps on my various FAs which require citing - and so are similar to the map on red panda - and which is not so cited in the article, only on Commons. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks like you used cite book there; I didn't know that existed on Commons! In that case, I'm less concerned, although I'd definitely support an initiative to convert bare URLs on Commons into proper citations. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that it wasn't me who used cite book in this case, but the creator of the map, and this seems to be standard best practice. I have used cite book on Commons' images myself when the referencing has been, umm, more informal. As you suggest, to be appropriate for FAC, citations on Commons would need to be as thorough and "proper" as any other cite.Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb and @LittleJerry, you don't need to worry about WP:Link rot in citations that contain no URLs. Link rot is impossible when there is no link present.  Plain old text has always been a perfectly fine way to describe a book or academic journal article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Silence and ONUS
I see that we have had a brief back and forth on ONUS, and how it interacts with WP:Silent consensus… we are not close to an edit war yet, but let’s discuss.

As I see it, the problem is that there are two ways to view the policy interaction: 1) that a removal is a de-facto challenge, thus negating silence and shifting the onus onto those who wish to keep to justify their stance… or 2) that time grants consensus to silence, thus shifting the onus onto those who wish to remove to justify the removal. Comments please. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Levivich's reversion. I also agree with the point in their reversion although it is not a complete description of the norm.   Wiki decisions are mostly weighing multiple factors.   A weak consensus  weighs in a bit on the side of retention, merely raising the bar a bit on what it takes to remove it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's true my edit summary was not a complete description of the norm, which is complicated, though I think it's pretty well explained at WP:SILENCE. Explanations about the interaction between consensus-by-silence and WP:ONUS are better off being written at the explanatory supplement WP:SILENCE than the core policy WP:V, IMO. Levivich 02:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago, Hemiauchenia added this sentence: "Content being present in an article for a substantial period of time without removal does not mean that there is an implicit consensus for its inclusion."
 * Today, SPECIFICO clarified it ("does not necessarily mean that"), and then Levivich removed the whole sentence.
 * I think the clarified version is better than the original. I don't think that the sentence conflicts with SILENCE.  In fact, the WP:WEAKSILENCE section lists multiple reasons why editors might have reacted with silence even when that silence does not indicate consensus if favor at all (e.g., "The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out").
 * I think @Levivich is wrong to say that "silence *is* consensus"; silence is only silence, according to SILENCE itself. It is one of our practices (NB:  not principles or core policies) to assume that a lack of objections is usually a weak indication of acquiescence, but Our social policies are not a suicide pact, and editors should not be quick to mistake Shunning or a refusal to Feed the trolls – both situations that produce silence – for any form of consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say this: If unsourced content was added a long time ago, and someone removes it, the onus is on those wishing to restore the content, since it was never "really" in the article if it was unsourced. However, if sourced content was added a long time ago (and the source is not unambiguously unreliable), then the onus is on those wishing to remove the content, regardless of whether they are disputing the reliability of the source or they think the content is irrelevant or undue. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 05:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. If the unsourced content isn't a BLP violation and is plausibly true, then tag it rather than delete it. If it's otherwise dubious or frivolous, delete it. -- Valjean (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great point. Of the many explanations, #3 at WEAKSILENCE ("No one read the post, for whatever reason") to me indicates a vast number of situations where silence does not shift WP:ONUS to those attempting to remove. For example, an article with low foot traffic in which major contributors took a long time to circle back and notice the change, or a frequently-viewed article in which the content addition occurred in the midst of a flurry of edits and went unnoticed for a lengthy period of time.With that said, is any additional clarification really needed at WP:ONUS, or would that need (if deemed valid) be better served by expanding WP:SILENCE? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Conincidentally, I ran across this old discussion just now, in which an editor said that he was socking because nobody would reply to him if they knew that it was him.
 * @GoneIn60, I think we need both of those pages clarified, but there isn't, and never has been, any ONUS on the person seeking to remove anything. It says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion ", not "consensus for making any kind of change ".  ONUS permits wholesale removal of anything you want, sourced or not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I've always applied ONUS, but I've also run into some resistance over the years when editors invoke NPOV or SILENCE in defense. The line of reasoning in regard to SILENCE is that longstanding content has presumed consensus, is akin to a weak status quo, and should count for something (especially in a one-on-one disagreement that has reached an impasse). If an editor waltzed into a weak status quo and undid a change on the sole basis of "I don't like it", that wouldn't likely hold on ONUS alone. So I can see that side of the coin too, since a core component of WP:EDITCON encourages "explanations" for "all edits" where the reason for them is not obvious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I too agree with Levivich's reversion. -- Valjean (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned about low foot traffic articles and the assumption of silence. Compare the following two scenarios:
 * 1) material is added to a high traffic article, and removed an hour later - as the next edit.
 * 2) material is added to a low traffic article, and removed five months later - as the next edit.
 * I don’t see how these two scenarios should be considered different in terms of ONUS… we have an edit followed by a challenge in both cases… but some will argue that those five months grant a silent consensus. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO in the 5 month case, it's a very very weak consensus and only influences the keep/remove discussion slightly. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see two different factors at work here, as the "long-standing content" argument comes into play. The length of time means the content is "long-standing" content, and we may not know if that is because of lack of notice or because of silent consensus. If the content isn't clearly dubious, I would AGF and treat it as the latter. I might start a thread where I propose deletion and wait a couple days. If no one responds, I assume it can safely (no resistance) be removed. If another editor reverts my BOLD deletion with the edit summary "keep long-standing content", I would respect that as a legitimate argument, ping the editor, and proceed to discussion IF I really feel strongly about the matter. Maybe they know more about the history of that content and can explain how it really is a consensus version (maybe there were long discussions found in the archives). In fact, in both cases, BRD should be followed, as it's a great way to avoid edit warring by collaborating. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like North is arguing for WP:QUO (restricting any change) rather than for WP:ONUS (restricting any addition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was only to give the status quo some consideration in the discussion, not to restrict anything. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Giving the status quo any "consideration" is the same thing as imposing some restrictions on changes to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I wouldn't call being one of several things that influences a decision a "restriction". Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If something "influences" a decision to restrict changes, then that something is causing the decision to restrict changes. A cause never needs to be necessary or sufficient on its own to remain a cause.  Being one of several things that cause an outcome is still being a cause of the outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the exchange. I think it boils down to the meaning (in this context) of a word ("restrict") which I don't think is important here. I only brought it up because you chose the word to characterize my intentions, which I felt was not an accurate description of my intentions. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever the community decides regarding the initial ONUS for removal, change, or addition, we should make it clear that the burden remains on all involved editors to actively discuss the substance of the issue (until the conversation reaches a WP:NOTSILENCE situation). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Any discussion of WP:ONUS, needs to take account and read it in conjunction with WP:BURDEN (which is why BURDEN and ONUS are in the same policy). V begins with suggesting a wide latitude for addition: anything with RS cited in the article or not which directly supports the addition (it does not even explicitly require basic relevance to the article, although perhaps that is implicit). BURDEN then narrows it only a bit: basically, a source cited that the person "reasonably believes" is reliable and directly supports the addition (because V's focus, that leaves out other policy NPOV, BLP, OR, CVIO, etc, --indeed, it leaves out explicitly at least, the simple question of 'what do other sources say?'). So, ONUS comes along to clarify to say, hey, V is not the end the the inclusion decision, it is rather, the beginning. On top of that, with SILENCE it is very difficult to know whether any and all policy issues with the addition have been considered by anyone (including the editor who added), let alone addressed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I like that explanation, Alan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with the change as it's not restricting anything, but as far as I'm aware, there's no existing policy language mirroring it that could give it a leg up here. If there was a well crafted addition to it referencing the concept of WP:CONLEVEL, I don't see any reason to be opposed to a little extra guidance.

There's really two main scenarios where there is tension, both involving wiki-lawyering:
 * An old edit is challenged that hadn't been examined heavily yet, but an RS or other issue was found. Edit is restored saying it has been "long-standing" without adequately addressing the RS issue.
 * Editor is engaging in WP:STONEWALLING removing an edit saying no consensus citing WP:ONUS while not being able to significantly substantiate an actual policy-based issue.

In both, it's a situation others mention above about WP:SILENCE (which is not policy if we're going to be consistent on applying supplements to policy discussions) being one of the weakest forms of consensus. North8000 mentions it a bit where there is a little bit higher of a bar for removal if it's been in the article for awhile, has a policy requirement, etc., so there needs to be a decent substantiated issue with it where not all the ONUS burden is on the person restoring. If the latter isn't happening either through superficial reasoning, stonewalling, etc., and it's a decent good-faith improvement, then the restorer has done their due diligence in terms of ONUS and has consensus for inclusion.

That's albeit a weaker level than if editors were simply all agreeing to include it. Consensus policy specifically outlines the need for Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns (my bold), so there is an aspect buried within policy of needing to weigh what the actual concerns are too, which is not always apparent if someone is skimming or straight up cherry-picking in ONUS while ignoring the rest of policy. We can't dictate what those consensus levels may be, but it could be helpful to have some mention of that part of policy to help curtail wiki-lawyering. KoA (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussion
I would have reverted the entire addition, except that I didn't want to get involved in another discussion like this one. See here for one such discussion. My view is that ONUS should only concern "verification is not sufficient for inclusion" and it should be made clear that it's not about implicit consensus. In practice, it's often cited to an editor who advocates this or that content with no other reason than "well-sourced". Silent consensus is case by case. It depends on how many editors are active at the article, which we can observe, and on how many are watching, about which we know much less. It's an important issue, but it should not be tied to ONUS. The substance of ONUS should be on both the V and NPOV pages, because that is where editors will look when there's a dispute. We need a second shortcut for the NPOV page version. The important issue of longstanding content, silent consensus, and what's bold vs. a revert should be dealt with separately and in a distinct location.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic posts on this page
Do you think it would help if we added this/something like it to the top of this page?Some weeks, it seems like the primary activity on this page is new editors posting requests about specific articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflict between WP:BLP and WP:V
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons BilledMammal (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreferenced pictures from Commons
Whilst the text of Wikipedia is relatively well policed by the editor community for adequate supporting references, pictures from commons appear to be generally accepted without challenge. (I note the discussion above on the distribution of the Red Panda, but this seems to be a rare case where the reader can find where information in an image originates.) I do some editing on maritime articles and there are many pictures that have no reference to them at all. An example is (see picture) which appears in Anchor windlass. Looking on commons, this is "own work", particularly the labelling. It happens to be at variance with this, which may well be the manufacturer's information on the machinery shown in the commons picture. (Watch the animation of operation if you want to look at this point in detail.) It certainly gives some parts different names. The detail of this one instance (and it is one of many) is not of importance here. The issue is that commons pictures are largely unreferenced. Surely the Wikipedia editor community should be policing this. How would such a change in standards be initiated? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've thought about this many times and the points are valid. Images do often contain information just as text does. And then I arrive at the conclusion that trying to police it would create a monster with impacts that would be far worse than any small problems that it dealt with. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The URL provided isn't making clear your complaint. I assume your issue is not the "own work" statement on Commons, because that would obviously be an issue for you to raise on Commons. If your complaint is that we only know the image portrays an anchor windlass because the image author says it is, then how would we, the dilettantes, know it isn't? Perhaps your argument is regarding the person who uploaded the image or do you think editors working on that article should know better? Why didn't you raise this on that article's talk page? I can only imagine that you posted here because you think our policy on Verifiability needs to be changed, but how? WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind regarding your windlass problem. I don't see a policy fix here.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) The issue here is the labelling - the names of the individual parts of the machinery shown. There is no reference with which one can check that the names given are correct. (2) This is just an illustration of a problem that is very common. Sometimes the issue is just the title of a picture - how has the photographer accurately identified what they have photographed? In the example subject area, you get many photographs of types of boats which have been misidentified. That is like taking a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge and labelling it as the Øresund Bridge (different types of bridges in different countries). (3) I don't think the policy on verifiability needs to be changed, I think it needs to be enforced. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis, but it would create a gigantic mess and do a lot of damage to try to "enforce" as you suggest. For example, the image itself could contain the statement. And the monster it would create would be to analyze every image for every explicit or implicit statement that it contains, and then apply wp:ver rules to all of those. For example, looking at the picture at today's main page (File:Denis Villeneuve Cannes 2018.jpg)  would you require that one must one find a wp:RS that has published something that says that that particular picture is a picture of Denis Villeneuve? And if there was no caption but the body of the image gave his name?  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The possible out could be that it is only required if challenged. But since wikipedia doesn't require giving even a perfunctory statement of concern in order to be a "challenge", a wikilawyer who doesn't like Denis Villeneuve could simply delete the image and say "unsourced". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an intermediate step would be to consider the purpose of the picture. With any sort of technical subject, especially diagrams or labelled pictures, there is a lot of information conveyed. The picture of Denis Villeneuve is, with all respect to him, not absolutely integral to an article about what he has done.
 * Another principle is that you do not need to have an RS determine that the exact picture in an article is what you say it is. With diagrams, an RS might have similar diagram that allows an editor to label up a photograph of the same thing. For instance I could label up this photo of a clinker built dinghy Clinker built dinghy awaiting restoration.jpg its component parts based on an RS like . Any editor working in the field should be able to verify the labelling of the photo from the RS. Considering again the picture of Denis Villeneuve, there must be similar pictures of him in potential RSs which could verify that Wikipedia's picture is correctly identified - possibly even a news photo on the same day.
 * I get the problem, but the price of being too worried about opening a can of worms on the subject is having stuff in Wikipedia that is just plain wrong because it is not properly referenced. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in the WP:OI policy.
 * The result is one of those "nobody's satisfied" compromises. Some editors can't use all the images they want to; other editors don't get to remove images for being unsourced.
 * Note also that for most purposes, the point of the image is to have something that looks like the thing it is meant to be. If you have a clinker-built dinghy that doesn't look like what it is, then don't use it.  If you have an image that looks like a clinker-built dinghy, but it's actually one of those Trompe-l'œil cake decorating projects – use it.  We're not using images to prove that clinker-built dinghies are True™; we're using them to show readers what they look like.  Anything that looks like them is okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure that WP:OI actually addresses the problem of verifiability. It is written to address the issue of original research. The image of the clinker dinghy above is there because an editor needed some photos and went out to take them. That is original research, but permitted because Wikipedia needs illustrations. But it can, if necessary, be verified that it is an image of a clinker dinghy (whether as a photo or a sugar icing creation!!) by citing an RS with a clearly similar image. WP:OI mentions captions being subject to the same rules as article content - so amplifying the point I am trying to make. As it happens, identifying a clinker dinghy is WP:BLUE to most maritime article editors. The issue is with more complex stuff. Consider this diagram of various types of sailing rig.Ship Rigging differences in schematic view.png It is completely unreferenced. It would not be difficult for the image creator to add a reference, but it just hasn't happened. Anything that looks like them is okay. Well, this one isn't okay because labelling some of these rigs is a complex and potentially error-prone matter. Look at how the image on commons has been corrected by other editors - but still without a reference. It seems that the way to get bad information into Wikipedia is to put it in a diagram and it goes completely unchallenged. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree, but its a very small rare abstract problem, where the solution would be many gigantic problems. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you see an image (diagram, photo – anything) that you believe is mislabeled, incorrect, etc., then you can switch to an image that you think is better, talk to other editors, research the subject to find out whether the image is correct, etc., just like you would do if there was a concern about article text.
 * Mis-identified species are pretty common (editors are pretty good about "it's some kind of waterfowl" but less good with "this is an atypical juvenile male Goldeneye duck"), and Commons hosts some intentional/known hoax photos. If the image is materially wrong, then it doesn't really look like the right thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, WhatamIdoing, all good sensible stuff. The problem is that I don't think I have encountered an editor challenge a badly captioned picture or a badly labelled diagram (apart from me - and one of the challenges was wrong). Perhaps I haven't been paying attention. How does a single editor persuade others that there needs to be a more critical approach to images from Commons? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (As a preface, you are talking about the simpler case where the caption is in question, the more complex one is when info is a a part of the image itself) My response to that would be to turn the question around. Have you ever seen one that needs challenging?  And if so, did you challenge it?  After all, it is TEXT that is in the article.   Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, most recent challenge and edit is probably []. Also followed this back into Commons and corrected the English language caption there. The image of the anchor handling gear (above) is next on the list. A further part of the problem is the rich source of erroneous captions/annotations on Commons, where there is no clearly stated wiki-ambition of verifiability. There is not even a field to complete with sources, or citation templates to make citing easier. My point remains - how commonly do other editors do this? I suggest: not often enough. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Commons disclaims any requirement of verifiability; see c:Commons:Verifiability and c:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. However, they have copies of various citation templates, including c:Template:Cite web.  Whether these templates make anything easier is a matter about which reasonable people could disagree, but they exist, and they are used (e.g., 140K instances of cite book).  Depending on the circumstance, people primarily use citation templates (or write manually formatted citations) either in the free-form description or in the source sections of the information template.  (The latter case is when you are using the citation to say where you copied the image from; the former is for when you created the image on the basis of a source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanted to clarify a distinction which is important to my post. You didn't specifically challenge the article text, the caption (a criteria and process well covered by the rules), which was my point. You removed the image. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the exact point from User:North8000. The picture was captioned to say the image was of a catboat (the subject of the article). The caption was incorrect - the image is not of a catboat - and the caption is text in the article. If the image is of something unrelated to the article, it has no place there. So it was deleted. If any other editor felt I was wrong, a revert and their reasoning would be the next step. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My main point in the post you're talking about that that the general theme of your post here is bringing up something that largely not covered by policy. But then your example brought up something that IS well-covered by policy.....text in article space. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, got it now (been a long day). But a subsidiary message to editors is surely that captions in Commons are not necessarily right and that the process of putting that picture in an article must include verifying all information that goes into the article, both as part of the picture and any caption. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That probably depends on what you mean by "verifying". If you mean "posting a bibliographic citation to a reliable source somewhere on wiki", then probably not.  If you mean "trying to avoid posting bad information, e.g., by not blindly accepting whatever you find on Commons", then I think everyone would agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In trying to work out what I mean by "verifying", I considered a frequent type of editing activity (for me). You're working with a few good sources. They have illustrations, or even on-line videos, which would be great to have in the article - but are copyright. If a look on Commons finds an image of the same thing, all you need to do is verify that it really is the same thing - and that's what brought me to halt with the image of the anchor handling equipment shown above, with questionable labelling of some components. On giving this narrative, I am left wondering how the editor would indicate to the reader that the content/appropriateness of a picture had been verified. You cannot cite the RS with the copyright picture that shows the same thing - because that would imply you had used the actual copyrighted image. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your example seems very specialized. But my short answer would be that if you think or suspect that the in-image captions are wrong to not use the image. And if if the image at commons really is the "same thing" as a copyrighted one, then either the copyright has essentially been waived, or the image at commons should be deleted because it doesn't have a wiki-valid license. So if you see neither issue with the image at commons, use it. If you see an issue, don't. If you use it, you have no obligation to provide sourcing for the in-image text, but if you want to, add it to the caption.  If the image at commons is OK, then so is the "copyrighted" one and so you would be doubly safe in merely referring to it.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The judging that a picture is of the "same thing" is demonstrated by a current image problem for me. Pelican hook really needs an illustration (and a bit of general editing work). I need something like this . I am satisfied that the externally linked image is what it says it is as this is a specialist vendor of rigging equipment (so, not just something on e-bay) and numerous other respectable sellers have similar or the same image.(Even better, a major inter-governmental organisation, but with a copyright statement.) The closest I can find on Commons is (photo of life raft cylinder)Life raft cylinder, Royal Daffodil - DSC00554.JPG in which you will find a pelican hook where the straps holding the liferaft in its stowage are fastened (lower left). Some mariners would call that a Senhouse slip, so I am working on whether that is a synonym or something different. If it is the same, we have the "same thing" in two different images, one of which is copyright and one which is already in Commons and so is usable in an article. This seems to be a closely related practice to the accounts of dealing with animal identification discussed here by others. But, as previously, there is no real way to document this effort - so another editor would have to replicate my work to verify the overall article content. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In my post I mistakenly thought that by "same thing" you meant "same image". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As has been said, English Wikipedia is not the place to challenge Commons images, vast numbers of which are misidentified and so on, but Commons. But you can put the image up for deletion there, or just add text to the file pointing out the issues/mistakes - in my experience this is rarely challenged. Captions within images are of course difficult, if (like me) you can't do these. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Although problems with images on Commons should be handled on Commons, editors on en.wiki have the right to not use images if there is reason to believe it does not show what is claimed. We don't have the same sourcing requirements for images, but we are not obliged to accept what someone else wrote on Commons either. Nor are we obliged to use the caption that Commons uses. Commons is not a special case, the same goes for images found out there somewhere. Zerotalk 08:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are various ways to deal with incorrect images. Many images on Commons are not taken by a Wikipedian trying to illustrate an article, and often are uploaded by someone other than the photographer. But if there is a Commoner who took the photo, contact them with your query and they may be happy to fix things. Anyone can propose an image with an incorrect filename be renamed to be correct. If you can supply evidence for why it might be wrong, that helps. An admin will then rename the file. Deletion would only really be suitable for an image that was irretrievably of no educational use. There are some problem tags you can add to the image, such as Inaccurate.
 * It is impractical to require Wikipedians or photographers corroborate their images by supplying a similar "reliable source" one. There are quite a lot of images on Commons that are the only such image on the internet and possibly in publication anywhere. For example this stained-glass window, which I photographed in 2013 and illustrates St Matthew's Church, Paisley. How would that be verified? Sadly the church is now structurally unsafe, so you can't even visit it to confirm. Oh, wait a second. I just googled. Alamy are illegally selling my image, with caption "St Matthew's Church Paisley Window 1" and a note that "Captions are provided by our contributors." So a major stock library captions its images by trusting... thieves.
 * I know an insect photographer who take great care to get their butterflies labelled correctly, consulting with experts and having their images used in reference works, and well lepidoptera genitalia can be the the only reliably way to identify them, which isn't something you can do with a JPG. I think we rely adequately on good-faith efforts of people just as professionals do. A wildlife photographer is primarily an expert photographer, not an expert biologist.
 * Do you think stock photo agencies (which supply many of the images in books) are any better? Authenticity Matters — The Truth Behind Terrible Stock Military Photos. Bad Stock Photos of My Job reminds me of a photo in my local newspaper advertising electricians -- the lad in the photo is holding a screwdriver in a way that shows he's never held a screwdriver before in his life, like he plans to stab someone with it backhanded. -- Colin°Talk 16:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * stock photo agencies....any better?. No. That is why the authors of factual books, once they have finished the text, have a whole new load of work to do finding pictures whose provenance matches the hard work already put in when writing the text. A Wikpipedia editor should do the same - convince themselves that the picture is what they think it is. The extra limitation here is that it should meet copyright constraints. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia editors need only convince themselves that it looks like what they think it is. We are not actually trying to prove that, e.g., this electronmicrograph of a virus actually is that particular virus.  We're only trying to decide that it looks like that particular virus.  This is not a hypothetical example.  Years ago, some guy demanded that the image of a virus be removed from an article.  He didn't think the virus existed, so the image was obviously a lie, and could we please prove to his satisfaction that this blob in the micrograph was really photographic proof that it was this exact thing?  That's not the point of an image.  The point of an image is to show people what it looks like.  All enveloped viruses look about the same.  The point of the photo is to show that an enveloped virus looks like a blob and not like a a more photogenic Bacteriophage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see problems with the arguments illustrated with the electronmicrograph of a virus. The "looks like" test relies, if I understand the argument put by WhatamIdoing correctly, on the editor's performance of the test. There are many ways in which an editor might carry out the test - some of them might fit with the principle of verifiability and some of them do not.
 * Scenario 1: At one end of the scale is an editor who solely uses their level of knowledge of the subject to perform the test. That editor may have a rudimentary level of knowledge, or may be a substantial expert. Either way, in editing the article, the assessment of the image is WP:OR. (We already know that OR is not an issue within Commons - but is it a problem when putting that picture in Wikipedia? - I suggest that sometimes it is.)
 * Scenario 2: An editor is working with RSs that have illustrations. The editor cannot use those because of copyright problems. However there are other images that look like the ones in the RSs. The "looks like" test is whether or not the copyright free images look like the ones in the sources. This is clearly a better situation as it is based on sources (like the rest of Wikipedia).
 * But: both scenarios rely on the ability of the editor to see all the relevant detail in a picture. I would expect an experienced virologist to see things in an electronmicrograph that us ordinary mortals would not. Similarly, in the area in which I edit, I would hope to spot things in images which others wouldn't. (Earlier today I sent a comment to the State Library of Queensland on the inaccurate caption of one of their pictures - but all I can say is that the caption is wrong, not definitively what the correct caption should be.)
 * That is why we need some method of recording the verification process that an editor has done to ensure the suitability of a picture for inclusion in an article. That allows Wikipedia's great strength – the ability to have several/many minds check the content of this encyclopaedia – to apply to the checking of pictures. To illustrate this, here is a failure (mine): a chart of each day's distance run in the Great Tea Race of 1866Ariel daily distance run 1866 tea race.jpg
 * The chart should say somewhere where each data point came from. These came from an RS, but it has not been recorded. Where calculation has been used to obtain a data point, the software used for that should be named. The introduction of a picture without verifiability has introduced a lack of verifiability to the article. It should be possible for any editor with access to the sources (that I have failed to cite) to check the chart. Even though I produced the chart, it would be a lot of work to discover which source had the information, check the information, etc. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think your Scenario 1 is the most common case. Imagine the case of an editor taking a photograph of an ordinary item or place in their hometown.  They write "This is the high school in Lake Woebegon" or "This is Main Street in Smallville" or "This is my Ford F-150 pickup truck.  This might be "solely using their level of knowledge of the subject" to identify the object in the photo, but I think editors would object to you saying that their is some sort of "test" being performed here, and they would never agree that this violates No original research.  I'm also not sure what kind of "verification process" you would trust someone to use in those common scenarios.  "I'm a student at this high school, and I triple-kabipple swear that this really is the school building"?
 * (For your Scenario 2, I would expect an experienced virologist to not use a micrograph as a primary tool for identifying any enveloped virus.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, responding only on Whatamidoing's post) ::::I had a perfect example of that as one of three images that I question at Harmful algal bloom (HAB) which is a dead whale. There's sourced material in the article that says that whales are killed by HAB's, and the authoritative source that the image came from made a similar statement in the caption, but nowhere said that the photo is of a whale killed by a HAB. I plan to dial back the caption but leave the image.  BTW there are two other images in the article which I suspect are wrong to the point of possibly being a detriment to the reader.  I asked for expert help on the talk page. If it's right or close enought to not be a detriment, I'll leave them in.  If not, not.  So, this means applying carefulness for the use of the image, and any explicit or implied statement withing the image, but not applying the full tough standard of WP:Ver. And applying WP:Ver to the caption in an article where it is used.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But, if the full tough standard of WP:Ver is applied to the image, how does any other editor know? For the caption, you can cite a source. How do you do this for an image - not only where would you put the cite, but how would you express this? It isn't verifiability if others cannot check that you have done it or follow your methods to check that your conclusion is correct.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, there are several IMHO faulty things in your post with respect to its analysis of my post and actions. First, regarding "if the full tough standard of WP:Ver is applied to the image, how does any other editor know?" is based on a false implied premise. I never said that the full tough wp:ver standard was applied to the image and I explicitly said that it wasn't.  Second the remainder of your post is based on trying to apply wp:ver criteria to the contents of an image or implicit statements by it's presence in an article. By policy, it does not, and also I explicitly said that it does not.   My statement is that the defacto standard is the less stringent one of decision by an editor or a group of editors. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The key word is if. If an editor goes the extra mile and does a lot of work on the suitability of a picture for any article, how does any other editor know? The subject of this is page "verifiability", not "verification". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I made and fixed an important error in my post. This probably misled ThoughtIdRetired's 21:06, 15 April 2022's post above, leading me to make a critique of it which I now struck. So I messed up the entire 4 post subthread.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have sources to cite for an image, you can cite them on the File: page or leave a note on the File_talk: page. Commons doesn't require people to add sources, but it also doesn't object to it.  You could also leave a note on the article's talk page.  I've done that even with ordinary article text, because sometimes even citing a source doesn't make something clear, or you need to remove text (and thus have no place to stick the citation).
 * North, I agree with you that the key with that situation is what you write in the caption. You want to write something like "HAB can kill whales" (a fully verifiable, easily sourced statement) and not "The specific dead whale in this photo was definitely killed by HAB". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have sources to cite for an image... The issue of verifiability may well apply solely to that picture in that article. The picture may be entirely suitable in another article, but misleading or wrong in the article one is working on. (For instance, a picture of a particular lake in an article about the lake, versus the same picture showing a named waterbird species in article about the named waterbird - entirely different verifiability requirements in each use of the same picture.) So the sources need to be in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are writing a caption that should be cited – perhaps "The Black-tailed Gnatcatcher is sometimes seen around lakes" or "The Black-tailed Gnatcatcher has been spotted at Lake Mead" – then you can cite the source in the caption.
 * It feels like you are seeing barriers where none exist. There are so many ways you could provide your sources or explain why you think an image illustrates a relevant detail in an article even if you don't have a reliable source that says "We are bird experts who hereby certify that exact 'File:Black-tailed Gnatcatcher seen at Lake Mead on 2021-09-23.jpg' uploaded to Commons on 2021-09-27 by User:BirdLover is definitely a Black-tailed Gnatcatcher named George".  Where's the real problem?  What's stopping you from improving the encyclopedia's images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen anyone provide sources that try to prove a picture of a particular lake is actually of that lake, or an image of a particular bird is actually that particular bird. While anyone can dispute the accuracy of an image and remove it and discuss it, I'm not aware of any policy that requires documented evidence from reliable sources.
 * Here's an example from Commons. Look at this revision of File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg. I had originally identified the ravens from their coloured bands using a key on a website. It turned out that was out-of-date. You can see someone posted a Fact disputed with information about why it would be wrong. But there wasn't any way, using material we could reference, to confirm what the names should be. So I asked the Ravenmaster on Facebook. I then changed the description, an admin changed the filename, and the person who spotted the error fixed a translation. I then added some background information on the two birds, with sources.
 * I don't see that there is a problem here. We have a system that is as good as we can achieve. I dispute your claim that authors of books verify the images they use from stock photo libraries any more than editors here might. For many images, we have to trust the photographers. -- Colin°Talk 11:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have raised the point if I had not found it to be a problem. The first picture on this thread (above) illustrates it very well. The labelling on the picture (not in the caption, but in the actual image) appears to be wrong. The creator of that image would need a high degree of self-discipline to explain where all the information in that labelling came from. We are told (above) that Commons allows OR. That's fine - I get why that is. But when a picture is incorporated in an article, the editor who does that has to convince themselves that the picture accurately represents what they say it is. Then, if that has been done, that work needs to be recorded. Or another example, in Cable-stayed bridge there is a picture of the Øresund Bridge, saying it is a cable-stayed bridge. Where is the citation that supports that? (There is not one in the text either.) (Nor has the bridge been identified correctly in the photograph or is it another bridge of similar design? - but this is a secondary point.) As it happens, the part of the article Øresund Bridge that discusses its cable-stated design is tagged with citation needed. So, overall, Wikipedia has not verified that the Øresund Bridge is a cable-stayed bridge. We might all know that this is right, but that does not count. seems a good source. If the only instance of the Øresund Bridge in the article was the photo, then the ref would have to be associated with the picture.
 * Just because something has been wrong in Wikipedia for some while is not a reason not to try and fix the problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You said "if that has been done, that work needs to be recorded". This belief is not supported by any policy or by community practice.  Did you perhaps mean something closer to "It would be convenient for me if people did this work and documented it in a consistent place so I would know where to find it"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ThoughtIdRetired, you've made some good points, including areas where editors need to be careful. I also think that you've made some incorrect points if you imply that those areas of your concern are policy violations. You've also made some arguments for changes in policy which you've received  no support on and some opposition to, and this mini-trial balloon that it didn't pass was 100 times easier than getting the major policy changes that you advocate.   Perhaps it's time to leave it at that because we're starting to discuss in circles. Either way, thanks for your efforts, points and vigilance. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, argued to exhaustion. I'll get on with some other stuff. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Donald Trump
A request for comment that may interest editors of this policy has been opened at. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)