Wikipedia talk:Verifiability Information & Wikipedia talk:Verifiability Links at HealthHaven.com

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Shortcut: WT:V

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 10 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.

[edit] Unsourced list of books published.

Re: [1] An editor has put back books written by the LP in a BLP without supplying refs, saying wp:bop doesn't count because such lists are not subject to wp:v. If these things don't need refs, this policy should indicate that. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-27t14:16z

This policy, Verifiability, is as the name indicates, about verifiability, not citation style. If sufficient information to identify the work is present (such as author, title, year of publication, and publisher) then the information is verifiable. There is no rule against providing such information in running text, a table, or a list, rather than in a footnote or other inline citation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the link above: "Linked ISBNs don't always indicate different writers with the same name write them,[...] depending on what link's chosen at Special:BookSources - I've had to clean up an article where books were written by another author with the same name" -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-27t15:00z

Mistakes can be made when citing a book, and such mistakes should be corrected. That has nothing to do with the format of the citation. A statement that a living person wrote a certain book is subject to wp:v, and including sufficient information in running text to identify the book in question satisfies wp:v. A decision not to place the information about the book in a footnote is not a violation of wp:v. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So if someone challenges the books, or they are likely to be challenged, there's still no need to have a ref showing that the person with the BLP is the one who wrote it? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-27t16:42z

If there is a challenge, certainly the issue should be resolved. There might not be any need to cite a different source; the preface, forward, or dust jacket of the book in question might provide verification that the person who is the subject of the article wrote the book. As for "likely to be challenged", if there are reliable sources that the subject of the article is active in a certain field, the book in question is in that field, and the name of the author is the same, I would consider the authorship of the book unlikely to be challenged. If, on the other hand, the book seems to be unrelated to any area of interest of the article subject, or if there is a well-known author by the same name who seems equally likely to have written the book in question, I would consider the authorship likely to be challenged. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In most cases major library catalogues show birth dates in their authority records. It's very improbable that different notable authors with the same name are born in the same year. Excepting contrary evidence, this is a non-issue. I'd start at the Library of Congress index.LeadSongDog come howl 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free and non-online references

I've seen a trend with some editors who believe that, for a reference to be verifiable, it must be immediately available to them online for free. I wasn't able to find anything in the WP:V wording that specifically addresses this issue. From my short search through the archives, it seems that it may have at one point. Does anyone know where I can cite Wiki policy/guidelines for references that aren't free or immediately verifiable?

For instance, you can cite a book that isn't free and therefore not readable online but it can obviously still be used as a reference. Thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! OlYeller^Talktome 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an instance wherewhere verification of a historical figure is not available online. Verifiable info is available through a few rare historical booklets and local new articles. There is nothing that I can find in Wikipedia resources that advises on how to provide verifiability in this type of situation. May these print items be scanned and uploaded for editors to review? If so, what is the process? Pregina (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability means that someone, somewhere, can check the source... it does not mean that every Wikipedia editor can do so, right now, with no more effort than a click of their mouse. As long as the historical booklets and local news articles in question are available for public review (at a library for example) that is good enough. Thus, there is no need to scan and upload the items (in fact, doing so might violate copywrite laws). Just cite the material. (That said, in the case where a document is extremely rare... such as only being available at one particular library or museum... I would suggest adding something like: "available for public review at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England" to the citation. This lets others know that the document is rare, and where to find it. It also alerts them to the fact that more than typical effort will be needed to check the citation. Adding such a comment isn't required, but it is a helpful gesture). Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An clear and thorough answer. Greatly appreciated! Pregina (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What about information which is not likely to be available from any library, e.g. B-sides of singles in an editor's personal record collection? Such information is unlikely to be disputed, but an editor in another discussion has suggested that it would be impermissible on the grounds that it constitutes original research. While it's obviously not original research, it could be impossible for readers to verify although the evidence does exist somewhere. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright libraries / sound archives. These are usually accessible to the general public after some difficulty. If the pressing is unarchived, then cite the pressing. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Recorings, like printed fiction or film, can be cited to the primary source (the recording itself). As long as it is in some way possible for another editor to obtain a copy of the recording (by going to a sound archive/museum, by purchasing the record at an old fashioned vinal record shop, etc.) it is verifiable. The only exception would be a recording that an editor made himself (that would be OR). Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A clarification: I think the information on the cover, label, or booklet for a recording can be cited, but not the recording itself. So, for example, an editor could cite a songwriting credit using the label of a record, but couldn't say which person sang lead based on what the editor heard on the recording. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

True... there are limitations to what can be cited to aural sources. My point was that we can verify which song is on the B side of a record by simply listening to the record. And we can cite the record itself for that information. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

From what i am reading above i understand that the material wanted is primarily what is online, secondly what is written by a secure source and nothing else. If i can see a pine tree in my yard i cannot write that its got needle leaves unless someone else has written that it is so. Obviously someone has to write for the first time about things, but the written view here prefers that he is not in wikipedia. Does the community agree with this?

I do not. Every word we use it is personal, the outcome of the synthesis is also personal. So we can be completely accurate, even if we have a "reliable source", unless we copy. Therefore the above view is absurd, cannot be applied to a common edited work, and should be removed as a common rule - or at least it has to be agreed by the community.

The only rule that can be applied, is "we highly recommend the use of references in the greatest extent that you can" and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.141.211 (talk • contribs)

this last topic appears to be discussed in #what is unsourced? below. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on self-published sources

Could I ask that the section on self-published sources be clarified as to whether an organization's website would be considered a self-published source, not just an individual's website? I've been involved in editing disputes with a mind-control cult which says that my website (where former members tell their stories about being in the group) is self-published and therefore invalid, and they prefer to cite their own sites. However, their own sites seem self-published to me, the only difference being that the site owner happens in their case to be an organization rather than an individual person. For if indeed the way to avoid being labeled as "self-published" is for the site to be owned by an organization, I will simply promptly register for status as a not-for-profit org. Thank you for your help. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All organizational websites are self-published (by the organization itself). Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with that interpretation, and it's not what the definition of self-published was intended to mean. The White House does not self-publish its material. The White House is a primary source for its material, and therefore has to be used with caution. But it is not a self-published source. There is a big difference in terms of how we can use self-published versus primary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the regular participants on this talk page and that of WP:Reliable sources are concerned, publications by large organizations with a reputation for good editorial control are not self-published. For example, the National Electrical Code is not self-published despite the fact that the publisher is not just a neutral publisher, but an advocate for safety.

If all material on an organization's web site were considered self-published, the Verifiability policy and the Reliable Sources guideline would have to be revised to encompass this new interpretation, but the regular talk page participants will not allow any changes or clarifications in this area. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... the National Electrical Code is self-published (by the National Fire Protection Association). People need to remember that we allow self-published sources to be used in Wikipedia. Yes there are limitations as to how we can use them, but the important thing is that we do allow them. In fact, there are situations where a self-published primary source can be the most reliable source possible (for example, a self-published statement from a person as to his or her sexual preference is the most reliable source for that preference). In the case of the National Elecrical Code, the fact that it is self-published does not really matter... I can not think of a situation where we would discuss and cite the code that would not be within the provisions set out in WP:SELFPUB. So there is no bar to citing it. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Government websites, according to Blueboar's interpretation, are self-published. The policy provides that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Thus, we can't cite court decisions from an official court web site in a biography of a living person. The claim in the article Eric Holder that he assumed the office of United States Attorney General on February 3, 2009, is improperly sourced because the source, the United States Department of Justice website is not only self-published, but it is officially under the control of Eric Holder. So either the interpretation that websites of large organizations with good editorial control are self-published is incompatible with the existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or the Eric Holder article (and probably the articles on most government office-holders) must be rewritten. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, according to my interpretation Government websites are not self-published. I do not consider a government (or a governmental body) to be an organization in the same way that the NFPA is. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well, then, the biography on the living person Tim Berners-Lee is improperly sourced (see footnote 28) when it relies upon the website of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers to support the statement that Mr. Berners-Lee receive the IEEE/RSE Wolfson James Clerk Maxwell Award because the IEEE website is self-published. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, While the IEEE website is a self-published source, because the IEEE gives this award, the statement about who won it is not a claim about a third party, but about themselves. Statements about oneself are allowable under WP:SELFPUB. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. For one thing, claims by self-published sources about the publisher are only acceptable if "it does not involve claims about third parties". It is absurd to claim that an award to Berners-Lee does not involve Berners-Lee. Furthermore, the introduction to the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" section mentions "without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". This indicates that the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" section is a waiver of the expertise requirement. But the "Self-published sources (online and paper)" section indicates self-published sources may never be used in biographies of living persons, no matter the expertise of the publisher. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is some disagreement about whether a large, respected organization's website counts as self-published. But there seems to be no dispute that a small, not widely respected org's website would indeed be self-published. Can I ask an editor with more experience than me to clarify in the article/project page that "self-published" doesn't refer soley to an *individual's* self-published effort? MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published" refers to situations where there is no editorial or legal oversight. It's where an individual can decide to publish something, and just do it, as with me and this post. Mostly, "self-published" will refer to material published by one person—a blog or similar. When multiple people get together to form small publishing groups that take on none of the trappings of a professional organization, their material counts as "self-published" too. It's not size that matters here though, but professionalism, and there is no bright line that you can cross to suddenly stop being "self-published." When a case is ambiguous, we have to use our judgment as to whether we feel the source is professional enough to be trusted.

It's worth bearing in mind why we need to use reliable, non-self-published sources. It's because we as a project can't afford to have each claim examined by editors and lawyers to ensure accuracy, fairness, and compliance with the law. Therefore, we have to rely on sources who have done that. If you see a very small group of people producing material, ask yourself how likely it is that they have libel insurance, editors, and other professional publishing staff making sure they don't produce nonsense. That's how you determine where the line should be drawn. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: some editors are saying above that any publication from an organization about itself counts as self-published. That is not how we use the term. When the New York Times publishes editorials, they are not self-published. When it publishes material explaining that it made a mistake, that is not self-published. "Self-published" means someone sitting in his basement typing into his blog, and other situations similar in terms of the ease and immediacy of publication and the lack of professionalism. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

SV, I do understand what you are saying, but you don't address the issue. We all know that some organizational webpages are created, maintained and hosted by a volunteer member of the organization. Some organizational webpages are created, maintained and hosted by paid employees of the organization. And some organizational webpages are created, maintained and hosted by professional webhosting services (who will put whatever the client wants on the website). How are we to know which is which? If we are not to call all organizational webpages "self-published", then where and how do we draw the line between those that are and those that are not? Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw a line. We have to use our own editorial judgement. Any attempt to draw a line without looking at context is going to lead to organizations being included or excluded that shouldn't be. In terms of how to judge, it's usually obvious if an organization has employees, and it's not so much the webpage that's the issue as the organization itself (though some organizations consist of nothing but a webpage). Do we have some concrete examples we could use to discuss this? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Propose rule to define self-published

Items written and published by individuals themselves are obviously self-published, however, it's less clear with items published by organizations (non-profits, companies, associations, etc.) I would like to suggest the following rule for organizations:

Does the publishing body have a direct conflict of interest (WP:COI) with what is being reported on? Is the report essentially about some aspect of themselves?

If there is a conflict of interest, then the item is self-published. So, a report from mind cult XXX that their devices work is self-published, a report debunking the claims from Consumer Reports is not. An article on the website of a noted psychic organization claiming to have predicted YYY crisis is self-published, a refutation of this claim from James Randi's organization is not. In general, government reports are not self published (since the government presumably has the interest of the public first). However, they may be deemed to be so if there is a direct conflict of interest. For example, a report from the police department of ZZZ, exonerating one of their police officers of a 'wrongful death' claim is self-published, but a court judgment, or a FBI report, is not. LK (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This rule is not acceptable, because it implies that when it comes to organizations, "self-published" is equivalent to "unreliable" or "biased". Judging that something is self-pubished is not about reliability per se, it is about whether there are a substantial number of people controlling what is published, vs. a few people controlling the publication. If a large committee of the American Bar Association were to issue a white paper on the ABA website supporting legislation that would probably create more employment for lawyers, there would be a conflict of interest, but it wouldn't be self-published. Now it's true the reason WP pays attention to self-publication status is that self-published material might be unreliable, but there is a difference between restricting self-published material because it might be unreliable, and saying that material is self-published because WP editors have made a judgement that particular material by a particular organizaiton is unreliable.

Alternatively, one could define publishers as organizations which exist primarily to publish, and not to promote any particular cause or point of view, and say that everything published by non-publishers is self-published. However, such a broader definition would require rewriting WP:V and WP:Reliable sources. --Jc3s5h (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose Lawrence's suggestion. We can't define "self-published." We give examples on the policy page; the rest is left to editors' common sense. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I think SV is correct... we simply can not define "self-published". Yes, this will lead to the occasional argument... but those can be dealt with either by consensus at the article talk page or by RfC and raising the specific source and situation on policy talk pages like this one. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, to clarify, only things published by an individual himself/herself is undeniably self-published? An association of two that publishes material from a third person is not? (Or at least we have to discuss it first?) How about an essay by the sole editor of an established journal published in his own journal, would that be self-published? LK (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Even the sole editor of an established journal is subject to controls, such as being fired by the owners, fired by the president of the society that runs the journal, or loss of advertising revenue. So it probably isn't self-published. --Jc3s5h (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example. My website accusing Aesthetic Realism of being a cult has been criticized as a source for being self-published, but what of the cult's website where they say they're not? Also, I'm realizing that there's no good distinction in the guideline between self-published and self-written. While my site is certainly self-published, I'm hardly the only author. The site also includes the stories by about a dozen former members of their cult experiences, as well as original source documents from the group (scans of newspaper ads, verbatim transcripts of meetings), and reprints of articles from the mainstream media. I think there's a big difference between a self-published site where the publisher is the only author, and a self-published site with several different contributors, original source docs, and MSM reprints. I don't know exactly how or even whether the guideline could be clarified though.... MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, your website is self-published, even though you quote others. What you call "the cult's website" is less obvious. It is run by a group known as "Friends of Aesthetic Realism". I lean towards calling it self-published as well... but to say this definitively I would need to know more about "Friends of Aethetic Realism". Are they speaking for themselves or for Aethetic Realism in some official capacity? Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you form an association or a group (not neccesarily a formal group, can be a loose partnership) with some other people (or at least one other person), and have the group publish the site, and then have other people contribute articles to the site as well, I think that would make articles on your site not prima facie self-published. IMO, both your site and the cult site are self-published, or at the least they are 'unreliable sources', but this is something that should be resolved on WP:RS/N. LK (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Under current rules, which I think are appropriate, you couldn't make the claim they're a cult either in your article or theirs, but in your article you could be noted as an opponent/critic of Aesthetic Realism. One could also note in the Aesthetic Realism page that they claim not to be a cult. Fine proposal as to COI. As an Organizations Wikiproject member, I had always treated this so as implicit.

By the way, what happened to the clause that said that a self-pub had to be attributable to its source??? Now all our female article subjects ARE 29 instead of merely claiming to be so. Wheeee! ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We should have that in our guidelines, too often people's qualifications, descriptions, etc are sourced to SPS stuff and that needs to be easy to distinguish from a RS source. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Burden of proving a source as reliable/unreliable

I've tried digging through all the relevant policies and guidelines and found nothing - sorry if I missed something. If there is a dispute about whether a specific source is reliable and usable or should be removed, where does the burden of proving the source's reliability lie? If there is no clear-cut policy on whether a very specific source is reliable, and one side is saying "It's reliable, show me where it says it isn't reliable", and the other side is saying "It isn't reliable, in what way is it reliable?" is there more of a burden on one of those two sides? I would expect the side arguing for the source's inclusion would bear the burden, but I thought I'd ask. Some guy (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We very rarely have other sources that say that a particular source is reliable or unreliable. We have to make that determination ourselves, on the talk page, taking into account all the relevant factors in each situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:FRINGE. If it's not renowned pseudo-science, I don't think the reliability of a source is clear cut. WP:NPOV comes into play when there are multiple, conflicting sources. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no burden on proving reliability either way... each side must make the best argument they can for reliability/unreliability. If no consensus can be reached on the article talk page, the issue can be raised at the reliable sources Noticeboard for third party opinions. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As CBM and Blueboar said, we have to discuss it case by case, for a host of reasons. Sometimes we find that a source that was good has been superseded. Some sources that had a reputation for fact-checking etc. can lose it. Some sources are good on only some aspects of a topic, for example top chess-players are usually good commentators and play and players but poor on chess history - and in physics, Stephen Hawking is a top authority on theoretical physics but not on e.g. fluid dynamics. Some popular science mags carry both press releases of discoveries, which tend to hype them (unreliable), and articles by top authorities in a field about well-established and uncontroversial aspects of the field (reliable). And in some political and religious controversies no source is adequate on its own because all have clear POVs. Etc., etc. --Philcha (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Further reading" on verifiability

Too many emphases, both as tags and in their layouts, at the top of the article: I did not observe "Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first" but I suppose that the suggested further reading is not controversial. I perceived in Talk about Bernard Madoff (July 26-30) that it would be fruitful to expose a deeper and wider conception of verifiability that the one which seems to rely upon a (probably unconscious) problematic doctrine of so called logical positivism. In particular, the interpretation of Wikipedia policy seems to me to trust excessively the supposed reliability of the source and the number of sources while downplaying the importance of diversity in pluralism, and dialectics as conceived since Plato. This is aggravated by the perceived danger of lawsuits against Wikipedia, especially in WP:BLP which may results in the deletion of any controversial data, going for "the majority". It would be interesting, for instance, to check how the page on Bernard Madoff developed up to December 9, 2008 in face of available data from reliable sources on (failed) SEC inquiries up to that date. I claim that the events like Madoff investment scandal may be facilitated by superficial conceptions of verifiability divorced from the quest for truth as seemingly supported by many if not all Wikipedia administrators. To further a possible discussion I adduce a selection from Talk on Bernard Madoff related to verifiability which I think are not always considered:

From Qualifying sources

From Qualifying sources

For statements about which reliable sources are in conflict or that are matters of differing opinion, the text should include sufficient context to qualify the statement or attribute its source. For example (from Super-recursive algorithm): Martin Davis has described some of Burgin's claims as "misleading". In a case like this, it is important for the text to attribute this opinion to its source, so it does not appear that Wikipedia is making this criticism of Burgin's claims. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.

From Neutral point of view

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular...Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves...

From Burden of evidence

The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.

From Quotations Fringe-Quotations:

While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article...

Because of other duties I am not sure that I will be able to follow a further possible discussion on this: it should not be interpreted as a lack of interest and commitment. I will be happy if this can contribute to some reflections and possible improvements of this project article. Stefanson (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the links, Stefanson, because I can't see what most of them have to do with the policy. Logical positivism, for example, or audit, seem unrelated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, some of them, especially if one does not follow up their references. It could be a matter of discussion which deserves more than a few minutes of availability to reach several users. Nevertheless: you affirm that it does not matter how you define verifiability, the title word of this article in question. If you look for verifiability in the Ecyclopaedia Britannica you will be directed to Verifiability principle. What happens here is what I meant by unconscious commitment to logical positivism: a denial of the relevance of logical positivism despite its import for the definition of verifiability itself. As I wrote: sorry if I cannot follow up as I would liked. Stefanson (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Logical positivism was a philosophical doctrine holding that for a statement to be meaningful it must either be empirically verifiable or a tautology i.e. it must be possible to determine whether it is true or false; statements like "saving lives is a good thing" are meaningless. That's not related to the way we use the word here. Here we mean simply that material in WP must have been published in reliable sources so that our readers can check it for themselves. That's not the normal use of the term "verifiable"; indeed, our use of it is false, but it has caught on and could only be changed now with great difficulty. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, for your valuable acknowledgment that Wikipedia's use of the word Verifiability is false. I just gave a "last" glance at what was coming on this page-section and cannot refrain from expressing my satisfaction for your bluntly honest and valuable acknowledgment. It prompts me to add some "last" words while hoping that others will pick up on this. I do so because I think that there are extremely serious potential consequences decurring from this falseness in one main policy of Wikipedia. When some editor claims that an article assumes a misunderstood "verifiability" divorced from (the quest for) truth, another (neglecting the qualifying word "threshold" in "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" of WP:V) may feel authorized by those false verifiability-premises to rebutt that

The great thing about Wikipedia is that we do not need to know - because we are not about truth but rather about verifiability, or:
If anyone here is editing any article with the idea of arriving at The Truth,™ now would be a good time to re-read WP:V.

Such an interpretation of policy, based on falseness and divorced from THE QUEST FOR truth (not the alleged The Truth,™), risks to turn its editors into second-rate journalists and media folks who feel satisfied with referring to secondary "reliable sources", as a loudspeaker for authorities and reliable, often politicized world press. And disregarding, for instance, my four selected qualifications above from WP:NPOV , WP:FRINGE, WP:CITE , and WP:VERIFY, or others, like about the legitimate use of the word "Say", as problematized in WP:AVOID.

There is the risk, in principle, of a Wikipedia scandal if this free encyclopedia of ours, at the basis of its main policy, uses a concept which paradoxically does not respect this very same main policy (reference to an external reliable source for its definition). If there would be a public debate claiming that Wikipedia is designed as a participatory effort gathering the wisdom of crowds but neglecting the verifiability, accuracy, precision, and trustworthiness or quality of its information, it would be in trouble. Its only defense would be the number of its articles, and its page-view statistics. Or it would claim verifiability only according to its own private definition of the term, which is possibly akin to the tertiary or quaternary dictionary definitions of some branch among disagreeing logical positivists who equate empirical facts to factual statements (Encyclopaedia Britannica on verifiability). And it would try to dissuade these same critics from consulting Wikipedia's own definitions of, say, accuracy and precision or information quality since they use a public, social and scientific language, not Wikipedia-private definition of verifiability, and therefore cannot be included among the "See also" section of WP:V. Stefanson (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words... you don't like the policy. You have a right to think the Policy is flawed... but given that it has strong consensus in this regard, I can assure you that it isn't going to change anytime soon. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another rule, WP:IAR. I think it's a great idea for someone who's obviously put as much thought into it as you have. I do however disagree that crowdthink risks a Wikiscandal. The rules are there, for the most part, so as to minimize liability. Far greater is the possibility that someone will read and do something stupid based on inaccurate information that was edited in unimpeachable good faith. The process is key. Those of us who are here searching for some Truth amid all the facts will at least learn to think for ourselves. The friction in the consensus process is every bit as valuable as accord. Is there a specific proposal you wish to advance, Stefanson? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

There discussion on Israel and the apartheid analogy as to whether this is a usable source, given its promotional nature. Any thoughts?93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed CAMERA many times at WP:RSN... it is considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia

The section currently starts off:

Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources.

I think everyone agrees that articles and posts on Wikipedia and mirrors should not be used as sources (I absolutely do)... but the first sentence: "Wikipedia itself is self-published" is not a valid reason for the prohibition. According to WP:SELFPUB, We allow self-published sources (albeit, under limited circumstances). The problem with citing another Wikipedia article has little to do with the fact that Wikipedia is self-published... the problem with doing so has a lot to do with a host of other reasons, most notibly: a) Wikipeida a Wiki, and Wikis are not reliable sources; b) The cited article can change easily and without warning, and may not support the statment it is being cited for. c) citing another article in the same encyclopedia is a self-reference, which is poor scholarship.

I propose that the easiest solution is to simply cut the first sentence, and start the section with "Articles and posts on Wikipedia...." This leaves the restriction in place, but omits the non-sensical reason for it. Alternatively, we could list any of the other reasons I have discussed. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this - it would be a sensible clarification. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except that I'm not sure self references are always poor scholarship. They certainly are in the case of Wikipedia, but I don't know that it would always apply to other encyclopedias. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. We all agree that wikipedia articles are not reliable source to use in our own articles. But describing the whole wiki process as self-published is probably inaccurate. LK (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a valid objection to the existing text here, but I'd really like to have some explanation of what, exactly, is wrong with internal references so that people reading the policy page can absorb some of the wisdom that informs the policy as well. I reverted this [2] because it seemed to remove from the policy any explanation for why we don't use Wikipedia as a reference. This results in a policy page that reads more like a list of commandments to be followed than like an explanation of best practices and the why of what we do, rather than merely the what. How about something like this (borrowing from Blueboar)?

Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it is not a reliable source. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not suitable for use as references in other Wikipedia articles, as this would result in circular referencing.

Seems to cover all the bases (and with less verbiage than the current version!). ⟳ausa کui × 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I agree that Guidelines should be focused on "best practice" and take a more advisory tone, but I prefer our Policy pages to read more like a clear list of commandments. I don't mind a short explanation of why we have a policy statement... but we should start with the statement and then (if needed) explain it.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (ie Wikipedia citing itself). Exceptions to this may occur in articles about Wikipedia. In addition, sources that present material known to have originated in Wikipedia should not subsequently be used to support that material in articles in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing (ie Wikipedia citing something that in turn cites Wikipedia for the same information.)

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can think of policy as a set of commandments; that's a debate for another day. What I don't like is having a list of commandments that are to be memorized that do nothing to educate people about the philosophy and experience that informs the policy. I don't want people who blindly obey the policy just because it's policy -- I want people who follow the policy because they understand that it's the best practice and the best way to build an encyclopedia. Keeping it simple and giving the rationale behind the policy as we deliver its tenets is the best way I know to accomplish this, and so I think it's essential to delivering the message. We want people who read the policy to understand the ideas behind it and to benefit from the experience that justifies it so that they can go forward and think on their own. That doesn't mean you can't have firm lines in the sand and a prescriptive policy. I happen to think that that is also wrong, but it's not related, and you could have any position on that without being bound to have another position on this.

That said, I think your version is very close. I'm going to post a somewhat revised version and I think we can work with that. ⟳ausa کui × 22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree... we are close... but not quite there yet. I think it is much clearer and to the point to have the policy statement come first, followed by explanation of why that statement is part of the policy. So in this instance, we should start with (to put it in its most simple form): "Don't cite to Wikipedia," then explain: "because this results in a self-reference". And "Don't cite sources that took their informaion from Wikipedia" followed by "because this results in a circular reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

I don't really view it as a big deal, but usually when policy wording is under discussion or dispute, it's expected that the status quo version will remain until consensus is reached. Again, I don't think of it as a policy "violation" or whatever, but merely good manners; I'm suggesting that it would make this process go more smoothly if you could show good faith by not reverting all my edits back to your preferred version every time. ⟳ausa کui × 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It would also make the process go more smoothly if you could do the same with my edits... It isn't just my preferred version that I am reverting to... three other editors expressed approval of my change and my reasoning for it. While I would agree that four people expressing agreement is not "community consensus", it does indicate that there is some support for the change. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If we put back the existing text, I think we would both be well motivated to get this hammered out. Please understand that I'm also in favor of the change you're proposing-- what I'm trying to fix is only some collateral damage. Thanks. causa sui × 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What collateral damage do you see? Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Blueboar Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, I wanted to get some information in there about the rationale behind the policy. causa sui × 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I had a chance to sleep on it, I think the existing version satisfies my complaints. Thanks! causa sui × 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I never had a problem with this policy. While other Wikipedia articles are off-limits as a Wikipedia source, any and all RS they use are not of course. :) (Be sure to re-read anything before you cite it though!) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC about policy template

Fresh eyes would be appreciated at Template talk:Policy#RfC: Changes made should reflect consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo quote removed

Why was the following Jimbo quote removed?

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons

The edit summary says 'see talk', but I see no discussion of it here. I really like having that quote there. I strongly argue for it's reinstatement. What say you? LK (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree... put it back. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I intended to post my reasoning on talk, but I forgot. My thinking on this is that it's inappropriate to quote any single Wikipedian on a policy page nowadays. We used to quote Jimbo when the policies were still forming, partly to clarify, partly to give them authority. Neither of these things is needed now. The policies are clear and widely accepted, and the project in general is maturing to the point where Jimbo is much less involved. I therefore felt it more appropriate to put his quote in a footnote. It's not something I'll try to revert, so if someone wants to restore it, that's fine, but perhaps you could wait a little to see what others think? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To restate my opinion... I think the quote should be returned. Not only is this a central concept that should not be removed without discussion, but Jimbo isn't just any old Wikipedian. His opinion can make or break policy (as an example of his influence... remember how a few brief words of disfavor from him upset months of colaborative work at WP:ATT). Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it did then, but I don't think it would happen now. In fact, I'm certain that it wouldn't. Quite a bit has changed in the last couple of years, which is why I feel the quote's not appropriate, except perhaps in a footnote. Also, it was always more appropriate in BLP, because it's not true that non-BLP uncited material should be removed aggressively. The policy in fact says that it should not be, so we're actually contradicting ourselves. Posting the quote below to save people having to look it up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. — Jimbo

I don't mind it included as a foot note... as long as it is included. It goes to clarifying the intent of our policies. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove it entirely. I just moved it to a footnote. Diff here, though I had to tweak it a bit after that, because I messed up the ref tags. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it back until wording can be agreed that says the same thing. I think there needs to be a lot more than one or two people to agree before it is removed. --PBS (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have SV's replacement did not in include part of the essence of this sentence. "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." what was distilled afaict was only for information about living persons. --PBS (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... if you check the footnote, the line you say was missing... is not actually missing. It's there. SV simply moved the qoute, she didn't edit it. I have moved it back to being a footnote. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it is in the footnote, but the footnote is being used to emphasise a point in the main text that does not include "all information" but information on biographies of living people. --PBS (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at now. Question, do you think the quote needs to be in the main text, or would you agree to moving it back to a footnote if we came up with alternative language for the main text that does include "all information"? Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the difs ... Is the issue the addition of the phrase: "see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." (that seems to be the only substantive difference between the two versions.) Or is it that you simply disagree with moving the quote to a foot note in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Television shows as sources

When adding material to articles about television shows and their characters, is the television show itself a reliable source? For example, if I wanted to add something to the Peter Griffin article, would an episode of Family Guy be a legitimate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.75.61 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you want to add... a simple plot discription is fine, character analysis is not (for that you would need a secondary source). Also, please note that trivia is discouraged in Wikipedia, even if it can be sourced (see WP:TRIVIA). Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant info from WP:LINK

Someone suggested (at WT:EL) that WP:LINK#External links might contain information relevant for this page. As we're currently discussing a reduction or cut of that section, please help make sure that anything that fits into this page is covered here. — Sebastian 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can you link to sources in Wikisource?

I have seen people remove citations that link to Wikisource on the grounds that it is a wiki and wikis are never good sources. I believe that it is acceptable to cite something that is posted on Wikisource, since that isn't a creation of Wikisource itself (for instance, an essay or book present there), but I can see how people would think otherwise, so I thought I'd ask to make sure. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and No... you can include a link to materials on Wikisource (what is called a convenience link in Wiki jargon), but you should cite the original (see: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for more on this).

That said... the version of a text on Wikisource can be an issue... Wikisource allows for users to create annotated versions of documents, so long as there is a "clean" version provided... when linking it is important to link to the version that does not have user created annotations ... ie link to the "clean" version with just the original text. Also... remember that being on Wikisource does not in any way change the reliability of the original. An unreliable source does not suddenly become reliable because someone copied it into Wikisource. In fact, there may be many valid reasons to exclude a specific Wikisource link. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can material be challenged not for being wrong or inaccurate, but simply for not being sourced?

I have a question about this policy. My understanding is that WP:V does NOT state that all content must be cited to WP:RS. Instead, it says that material challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable sources. If material is factually accurate but not sourced, that does that mean it should automatically be removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors who make a habit of removing material that is generally known to be factually accurate, with no claim the material is inaccurate, just because there is no citation, should be banned. Editors who habitually make absurd challenges just to be a pain in the ass should be banned. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that you must remove something you believe is accurate. On the other hand, if anyone else questions it, the statement will need to be sourced. So best practice says that if you find something that could be sourced, try to find a source for it, if only to protect it from being challenged. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I'm encountering is an editor is questioning material for no other reason than it not being sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If a statement is obviously (to someone familiar with the subject) factually accurate, it ought to be fairly easy to source. But often what may be clear to one person is less clear to another. It might seem somewhat dubious, in which case a source is needed. Or it might be an opinion, which should be properly attributed (and hence a source is essential). In any event, supplying a source can only improve the article. Jakew (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But it's not just one sentence. We have an editor who is gutting an entire article and removing everything that doesn't specifically have a source. Granted some of it is crap, but some of it is good, and they're not distinguishing between the two. The article to which I refer is List of common misconceptions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I have removed material which I believe is false, not just because it is unsourced. I have left badly sourced material which I belive is true. WP:V unambiguously says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." and "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed..."

Quest is obviously an intelligent person, and has done a lot of good work on the article in question. I honestly can't understand why he is trying to protect unsourced material from being removed. This stuff has all been moved to the talk page - all he has to do is find reliable sources, if they exist, which unambiguously support the material. --hippo43 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One contributor believing/supposing that material added in good faith is false is not sufficient to meet the "likely to be challenged" standard established. Further, for the "[actually] challenged" part, it's silly to think that removing significant amounts of text constitutes a "challenge". That's why fact tags exist. It's very easy to add in tags to encourage material to be sourced without making sweeping regressions to the content of an article. StealthCopyEditor (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course one editor can challenge material. To suggest otherwise is to stand the policy (that the burdon of proof is on the person adding the material) on its head. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that, first, you should Assume Good Faith unless someone is really going mad across multiple articles repeatedly deleting stuff that is obvious to everyone. What is obvious to you, after all, might not be obvious to everyone. In general, though, if you're going to gut an article by removing everything uncited, it's best to use fact tags and the like first, giving people warning and a chance to cite them -- then, if there's still no sources after a few days, go ahead and remove them. But that's more a matter of personal preference, and editors are perfectly entitled to be WP:BOLD and remove things they feel are false (it's easy enough for you to revert; then you can talk things out.) If you have a dispute with someone who is removing a huge amount of stuff that you feel could be easily sourced... well, source it and put it back in. That's not a hard dispute to resolve. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-one items were deleted in the last mass deletion.[3]. Only 1 out of the 21 even contained a {fact} tag. Some of these items are a few paragraphs long and I'm not the one who originally added the content. Unfortunately, I'm pretty much the only editor who is actively working to find reliable sources, so for me to go back and find sources for all this content will take more than a few days. I'm attempting to reach a compromise. In any case, there's a larger issue that I would like some clarification on. Is challenging for the sake of challenging legit or not? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenging for the sake of challenging is not legit... but Hippo has just stated that he removed the material because he believes it is false. That is a legit reason to challenge it. Could he have done so differently (such as addressing each item one at a time, before moving on to the next)? Of cource. But having stated a reasoning, he is within his rights. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar is right, I could, perhaps should, have handled this more diplomatically, by addressing these a few at a time. Two reasons why I didn't - first, I don't have that much time to commit to Wikipedia, and often I'm not able to do much for weeks at a time, so that would be a really slow process. Second, this has been going on for months, if not years, already. The same discussions have been played out in the past, and many of the same entries I removed in April have not been improved since then. --hippo43 (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should have discussed such massive, sweeping changes to the article with your fellow editors before hand. I repeat - out of the 21 items of the most recent mass deletion, only 1 even had a {fact} tag. I am attempting to reach some sort of compromise with you, but unfortunately, you don't seem willing to even discuss a compromise.

In any case, I would like to get clarification on WP:V: Can material be challenged not for being wrong or inaccurate, but simply for not being sourced? So far, I don't think that we've had a single editor has said yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest, I think you can take it that your question has been asked and answered. No one is going to say "Yes" to your question, because everyone agrees that material should not be challenged simply for not being sourced. But then we must move on to the next question (the question you have left unspoken): Is this what occured with Hippo's edit at List of common misconceptions. The answer to that question appears to be "No." because Hippo has stated that he removed the material for reasons other than simply not being sourced. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason why it's gone unsaid is because I'm trying to be polite and I'm trying not to make any unpleasant accusations. But I guess at this point, it's unavoidable. So, I'll be a little more blunt: Hippo is being disingenious. As you can see from this discussion on the article talk page[4], the sole reason for many of these deletions is "No source for common misconception." Sorry, Hippo, I know that you're a good editor and a value to Wikipedia, but in this particular case, you are simply not being honest. If you have a valid concern that something isn't factually accurate, you should list them out. Simply saying "No source for common misconception" is not a valid reason for deleting content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

the refs first have to be red and understood . these two minute editors only look if there is a number there or count the words and no . there are some school boys who do not even do that. also if one has nothing worthwhile to contribute they can feel important deleting. it is interesting to note only the english wiki seems to have these problems . draw your own conclusions if you can .

Wdl1961 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to put Quest for Knowledge's concern in historical context. You may know that many other encyclopedias - EB, World Book, Compton's - do not have footnotes or inline citations. In the early years of WP we did not either. There was no cite sources policy, and what "veifiability" meant just that, that one could find support, not that support was required. Our articles looked like EB and other encyclopedia's articles.

Then, after a few years, several editors were concerned that too many of our articles had too many inaccuracies. EB doesn't have footnotes because EB articles are written by graduate students supervised by professors supervised by editors who make sure that there is some level of quality, and we do not have that. As a result, V was strengthened, cite sources and reliable sources were created (first as guidelines) and NOR was strengthened considerably, and people started putting in citations. Now you all should be abl to imagine the outcome: lots of articles filled with citations, and lots of articles (the ones written in the first few years) with no citations. Articles on conroversial topics had the most footnotes, because in a controversy people need to provide sources to support their edits.

I think that what I just wrote really ought to regulate the state of affairs here: the more controversial, the greater the need to cite sources.

Now, what happens to all those articles written in 2001, 2002, 2003? I think two things are happening, and they appear the same but are not, and this is the crux of the problem Quest brings up. Wikipedia has attracted many new editors. Some are real experts in a field. They read an article and see that a minority view is presented as a majority view, or an important view is represented in the article but inaccurately. These are the people we created CS and RS for, these are the people who hae read all the cutting-edge or most respected sources and really can recognize well-sourced or poorly sourced articles. They may read a paragraph lacking cittions but full of views and they may feel that such paragraphs are correct. So they move on.

Others do not know much about most topics - they have had a lecture in high school or college, or have read a text book. But they have really read wikipedia' policies. They read V and CS and RS and in good faith they believe they can go through all those old articles and put in tags everywhere as if this were a service to the project. I think ths indiscriminateuse of tags is not a service to the project.

I think that adding sources is a good thing if thy direct readers to the bst books or most authoritative articles on a subject. The problem with editor type #2 is that they do not know these peer-reviewed journal articles or academic press books. So some of them - in good faith! - google and look for websites that might support a claim and if they do they put these in. Well, I know this is good faith work, and I appreciate the effort, but I think it compounds the problem. Let's say I am a real expert on a topic. I read a Wikipedia without sources and in my view it really is accurate and verifiable in the sense that I know sources exist for every view. Now, what is the purpose of Wikipedia?

If it is to present accurate information on topics, I will not make any changes to the article because I know it does a good job (I certainly won't put tags in).
If it is to help researchers by pointing them in the direction of the most authoritative or cutting edge sources, I might add footnotes with such sources. Someone reading the article who wants to go further knows where to go. But this mania for adding the first website (often some other on-line encyclopedia, or somoeone's college project) they come to via google as "the source" is not only disingenuous (it was not the source for whover wrote it), it i unhelpful (it is not the source people should go to if they want a higher level of scholarship in their research).

In short, we strengthened the CS, RS, V and NOR policies because we wanted to make sure that our articles met scholarly standards. But only a scholar - it doesn't have to be a PhD or a university professor but someone who really does know all the sources (including all of those on paper, in a library) and who knows which sources are most widely cited by other scholars - would know how to apply these policies properly, by rewriting a paragraph based on the best sources and by providing the source. When people who do not know all the sources try to "enforce" thse policies, we just end up with a mess.

And this is the problem. We thought that as Wikipedia expanded, it would attract more scholars in more fields. Instead it attracted a lot of people who genuinely wanted to help out, even if they did not know a lot about scholarly fields and did not have the skills, time or interest to do the real research it would take for anyone to become an expert. But these new editors wanted to help and they feel that one way is to help enforce policies. Well, this is my sense of what has been going on. I do not know the two editors involved in this specific case so I amnot going to comment on either one of them. I am not judging either one of them. But Quest's questions do raise a more general issue, one I think we need to address. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] an operational policy proposal, with explanation

In the instant case, misconceptions are, by their nature poorly documented anywhere, and certainly very rarely in some fully outfitted with scholarly apparatus place. They are the 'ground' in contrast to 'positive knowledge' and are therefore not prominent, not the figure. It's in part a perceptual problem.

In the more general case, I think we have sprouting, or well into luxuriant growth actually, a sort of blind fanaticism which is, like most such, not the result of any perspective on the relevant subject of an article, but merely the relentless (and thoughtless) application of Wiki policy. Policies which are excellent, and needed, and should be continued, but with some common sense in application. Maybe it needs to be revised a bit to reduce the tendency toward jihadic application against infidel observation sin articles. Given the quality of the source citations these folks find acceptable (due to lack of fact tagging), there should be some thought on the question of quality of citation. Though that will move the absurdist insistence on thoughtless observance of Wiki policies merely a bit farther down the metaphorical road, changing nothing in practice.

There is the same problem with notability. It is always possible for someone to argue against the notability of this or that, sometimes on the ground of lack of citations establishing notability. In the case of art (especially art without an associated critical structure, or art which is new and not yet accepted into existing critical structures), this immediately becomes a question of competing tastes. Hardly the sort of thing Wikipedia, or its editors, should be getting involved with. Inherently NPOV.

These issues are central to any consideration of Wikipedia quality, and the existing situation is tending toward reducing quality, a most vexing concern. Thoughtless, rote, blindered-perspective application of just about any policy is likely to have unfortunate results. Even perverse effect, or in a negative sense an instance of the tragedy of the commons. The latter is peculiarly critical for the Wikipedia, a 'commons' if there ever were one.

In the pre-history of WP, Larry Sanger felt the problem unsolvable and left the project. As I understand it, his concern then (and that of many today -- unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but willing to reach damning conclusions without much familiarity) was that of a proliferation of false, misleading, information throughout a freely edited project. That problem, in my judgement, has proven to be much less an issue than Sanger expected.

But the varied problems caused by unthinking application of well-meant, and even necessary, official polices is, I think, larger, if unanticipated in that pre-historical era.

Because such damaging application of Wiki polices can be started (and in effect carried to completion) by a single person with what often seems to be a monomania, supported by a very few fellow travelers whether witting or not, resulting in deletion of worthwhile content and of worthwhile articles, the present consensus rules which govern such proposals (ie, deletion of content when there is disagreement about source requirements, and deletion of articles when there is lack of 'notability') should be revised to require more than a few members of a Wiki-lawyering cabal to savage WP content and quality.

Just how many votes should be needed to delete articles or disputed unsourced comments is harder. I suggest that an article's non-anonymous serious editors (perhaps those with more than 5 or 10 non-minor edits in the prior 90 days?) be automatically notified (or manually, as the result of the application of this new proposed policy) and that some portion of those editors (1/4?) agree to article deletion or disputed unsourced content deletion, before the deletion is permitted. And that anonymous editors, or those without prior article edits, tagging or deletion suggestions require a second by a non-anonymous editor of that article. Either of these polices would reduce the problem, and each would reinforce the other in effectiveness. They would limit the effects of drive-by fact taggers and wholesale article deletionists, with the likely result of an improved general level of WP quality. Certainly reduced thrashing about. All are goals to which every editor, save those whose 'legal' activities are essentially vandalism, can aspire.

This proposal has the additional advantage of still allowing unsourced and non-notable content / articles to be removed, and of correction of simple graffiti vandalism by patrolling editors in just the way they operate now. There are few disputes about juvenile vandalism removal, and not many more about less immediately obvious non-graffiti cases (eg, Hitler was really an American Indian and his policies were intended as revenge against colonial outrages -- not sourceable (I hope!) and not likely to be disputed by other editors on removal either). This proposal is intended only to require a more thoughtful application of Wiki policy.

Comment? ww (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This definitely looks excessive. The user should consider using {{fact}} more liberally in the future. causa sui × 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this drama is just a continuation of the list's AfD. The list has two systemic problems:

Inadequate quality of sources verifying that a misconception is common and a misconception: When a source that does not focus on misconceptions says that something is a popular misconception, then it almost never gives any details such as "a study found that 2 in 5 Germans believe that paper contains vitamins", and it's usually hard to tell whether the source actually means what it says or just uses "According to a popular misconception, all cows in the Alps are violet" as an attention-grabbing opener. Sometimes (as in "a lot of people believe that herbal tea is a sort of tea") the "misconception" is even true unless one is unusually pedantic. – The dedicated books on misconceptions are not better, because this is an infotainment genre. These books are written for profit and entertainment, not to advance scientific knowledge about the nature of misconceptions. The main criterion for inclusion is that a misconception should be either outrageously stupid or appear correct to most readers. In the first case, it doesn't matter if nobody really believes it ("you can balance an egg on its end on the first day of spring; only!"), and in the second it doesn't matter if it's actually true when interpreted in the intended way ("a mirror switches left and right").
Almost no scrutiny by subject matter experts: The problem here is, for every single factoid, a woefully inadequate ratio of potential knowledgeable editors to readers. An article on Danish history attracts readers specifically interested in Danish history. If for two weeks in 1941 Jews in Copenhagen did have to wear a yellow star, after all, then one of the readers of a Danish history article will notice. An article on cooking attracts readers specifically interested in that. If under normal cooking conditions 90 % of any alcohol is gone after 10 minutes and the 3 hours given in the article are for getting below the detection limit, then one of them will notice and make the article less misleading. In an article on astronomy, if metallic meteorites do arrive hot on the earth's surface, then sooner or later the claim that all meteorites are cold will be corrected. If cold weather's failure to cause the common cold (statistically) is due to the positive effect of regular exercise outdoors counterbalancing the effect of hypothermia, then in a medical article, sooner or later the mistake will be corrected. – But if we stuff all these factoids into a single article, neither its readers nor its editors will be knowledgeable about more than a handful of entries.

This is not a battle between deletionist process wonkery and inclusionists who follow the spirit of our policies. This is a battle between editors who try to maintain a minimal level of correctness under the adverse conditions set by an article that narrowly survived an AfD with "no consensus", in spite of its obvious problems. Hans Adler 19:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler, 100% Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for the deletion of unsourced/poorly source item

Regarding our article on List of common misconceptions, I've made the following proposal for the deletion of unsourced/poorly source items here:[5]. Does this seem like a fair and reasonable compromise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal looks like a very reasonable solution to the debate. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. causa sui × 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

all we need is more two minute editors scanning and deciding what is poorly sourced. look at the record.

try reading and undertanding some material including the above.

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is some sarcasm or something in what you wrote, but it's extremely hard to tell without any context. Perhaps you want to clarify what you meant. I have no idea whether you are trying to argue for or against the unsourced material. Hans Adler 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

QED Wdl1961 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i just checked the "model theory" article . two in line refs only. needs extensive editing but i do not know what.

the only model i ever cracked was the buchholz wave guide equation on a cdc at bell labs.Wdl1961 (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that your initial comment here was not meant to be constructive. Sorry for having wasted my time by responding. Hans Adler 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

are you ready to write rules for "anybody" to follow in editing and deletion in "model theory"?? anybody includes people that can barely count to ten. sometimes it is useful to do a little research otherwise try contacting user: Scheinwerfermann. good luck.

Wdl1961 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New proposed guidlines for editing scientific articles

See here Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What to do when a reliable source is wrong?

What to do when a reliable source is wrong?

See for example this UK Daily Telegraph article Wikipedia hits 3 million articles where tey say

It was formally launched on January 15 in 2001 by Ward Cunningham and Richard Stallman and was initially intended to feed into Nupedia, an earlier now defunct project to produce a free online encyclopedia. Wikipedia soon overtook Nupedia and became the largest free global encyclopedia.

This is easy to fix, there's lots of other reliable sources. But what about BLPs, or obscure topics? Do we just stick with a printed source that's disputed? ருந்தவனிட (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the specific instance that you mention, it's a matter of not utilizing aberrant reports or tiny minority views. (As you mention, there's a lot of other reliable sources.) I cannot provide an opinion on your questions, because I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. what do you mean by disputed? Do you mean that there are some people on the net that dispute the report? Do you mean that the subject of the article, or a person close to the subject, disputes the source? Do you mean that there is a conflict between sources? Or do you mean something else entirely? --Vassyana (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For empirical science topics, the problem is more serious. In the end, the "verifiability not truth" policy is questionable, because unlike in the humanities, which are mostly a game of arguing PoV, the "hard" sciences may not have absolute truth but do have absolute untruth. And ever so often, this throws a spanner in Wikipedia's works if one argues strictly according to policy.

Three examples:

Kinnareemimus - "The name "Kinnareemimus" was first mentioned in a 1999 paper by Sasithorn Kamsupha, and (as "Ginnareemimus") in a publication by Ryuichi Kaneko in 2000". Actually, the sources as presently cited only support the latter half of the sentence. I kinda happened across the Kamsupha factoid. But as long as we don't have anyone with sufficient Thai skills to the rescue, we can hardly cite an article titled ไดโนเสาร์แหล่งใหม่ที่จังหวัดชัยภูม and published in a (non-peer-reviewed, I presume, but a scholarly RS nonetheless) journal named การประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติการและสัมมนาวิชาการกองธรณีวิทยา...

Archaeopteryx. The problem revolves around the actual specimen to which the name Archaeopteryx is attached. Each and every source that deals with the problem - except one source, that is - asserts that the holotype is one of the skeletons.

But it isn't. It is the (indeterminable) feather, and thus Archaeopteryx is technically the most widely-used nomen dubium (a name that cannot be reliably referred to a specific genus that is known from specific and unequivocally identifiable skeletal remains, in this case).

However, the only source that really digs into this matter is in German and not available online as fulltext, so the barrier to it getting read by editors are almost as high as in the Kinnareemimus example. It has been ignored by other scholarly authors on the topic. As far as I could trace the matter, someone fucked up royally decades ago and didn't read the original source (in this case, ICZN Opinion 607), but nobody noticed. The low-down can be summed up in the following comment:

The fact is that Archaeopteryx the taxon (not ichnotaxon) prevails ovewhelmingly in the literature, and while you are right about all this, it's original research until published. In other words, nothing needs to be changed in the article itself here ;)

So policy seems to force us to spread old an old canard, simply because the source is obscure - and even though in this case it is a peer-reviewed scholarly RS (a source of the highest quality) and overwhelmed by a mass of RS that in this particular point are anything but R.

(Note the commentator himself fell into this trap. The OR claim is strictly speaking nonsense, as anyone can check out now that the secondary sources are online. Still, the number of "RS" that get it wrong is more than tenfold the number of RS that are accurate, so if you want to play a game of "I have more RS (even though they may be unreliable)", it is indeed OR)

Platycryptus (spider). I'll save you the details; they are not especially pretty. Suffice to say I spent some 5 bucks on getting shitty photocopies of the obscure French and German sources needed to resolve this issue. None of the sources, however, explicitly state that the spider genus has an invalid name, because spider and ichneumon wasp researchers have more important things to do than scour each other's publications. But the ICZN Code - the "law" for all of zoology - leaves no wriggling space.

We have raised the matter among some spider experts, but it'll be time - at least one more year - til we gonna get a RS (the reason is that it is being suspected that the "Platycryptus" are not a distinct genus, in which case the issue resolves itself). Til then, the fact remains that Wikipedia is the only source where enough spider and ichneumon wasp material is brought together to actually notice that the spider genus name was never valid: the wasp genus was accidentially left out of Nomenclator Zoologicus, and so every researcher was bound to think that Platycryptus was still an available name. (BTW nobody even think about doing a renamer. A lot of spider experts would be pissed off, and thus their Statement of Intent according to ICZN Code Appendix A(2) is herewith duly repeated.)

The matter can be expanded; there are even more extreme cases where two (or more) RS cannot be reconciled. Typical situations involve high-impact papers that present arguments based on statistical inference, when there is material evidence that flat-out contradicts it available but in a RS which receives little or no publicity (due to being extremely specialist, or non-English, usually)... but that evidence, being from another field of science entirely (say geosciences versus molecular biology) is overlooked by the team of scientists making the high-publicity claim. This is especially problematic because publications like Nature and Science get a lot of media presence but curtail authors' page allowance severely these days, preventing comprehensive coverage of all angles of some new discovery (see here for some professional scientists' comment on this problem).

A hypothetical but easier to understand example:

Suppose one gives somebody's death date according to the available RS. Suppose one then finds another RS that does not concern itself with the person specifically, but merely contains a picture of said individual alive and kicking and holding in their hands a newspaper with a headline regarding some event that only happened after the presumed death date.

Since a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time (at least not when being visible to a camera), clearly, the bulk of RS would not be as "reliable" as it seems. But in a strict interpretation of OR, claiming that all usually-cited sources are wrong and presenting the photo as counter-argument can be already considered OR, since the "dissident" source does not actually make the explicit claim that all others are wrong. And if this person is not especially notable (a long-dead minor celebrity of their time perhaps) the odds of a RS getting published that sets the matter straight for Wikipedia purposes are pretty slim.

Basically, the reasons for the problem are twofold:

the fact that uncritical use of tertiary sources runs rampant even in RS of the highest quality, and
the fact that Wikipedians are collectively able to check out many, many more sources than any single expert ever could, and are people with fields of interest so different as to never meet and exchange information in the context of professional research.

Current policy forces us ever so often to assert things as if they were "verified fact", when they are actually empirically, demonstrably and unequivocally wrong.

Still however, the rule allows us to avoid conflicts of opinion that otherwise would be prevalent in all cases where there is no "binary" truth, where there is a grey area of individual opinion that is larger by far than any black or white - i.e. basically all of the humanities. It is one of the reasons why Wikipedia can work at all. It works well insofar as it was intended to work.

Yet it assumes a world more perfect than reality. And it seems to have been authored by people who have little to no experience in epistemology in empirical fields where falsifiability is not just Popper's pipe-dream, but rather the gold standard that can in many instances be met.

We should perhaps ponder changing the rule to verifiability before truth.

That way, we can cope with the fact that Wikipedians as a collective are better (non-original) researchers than any individual scientist could ever be, and will ever so often stumble upon source conflicts that no RS has yet discovered. And we would still maintain the original intent, i.e.: a claim on Wikipedia that has no (R)S to back it up is deletion material if anything, or ^{[citation needed]} material at best, but certainly not something to tout or FA-worthy.

As policy is at present, however, it enforces a lower standard of quality than what could be achieved at no detriment to function.

(Also, it looks shitty. We are the only encyclopedia ever to pride itself on telling its reader "not truth", or so it looks - really really bad PR it is. Especially as we do manage quite well, by now, to tell the reader things that are interesting, verifiable and true!) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I told MY Truth about threshold some time ago. I feel like we are concerned by the same issu. Take a chair and sit with me ! I don't like the idea but it's sort of sacred ground here; Nothing will realy change until someone realy apply this rule exactly as it's written and get in serious trouble. --Iluvalar (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In the cases supplied above, was there a serious dispute among Wikipedia editors that the best source was the obscure one? If not, then I don't see the problem: just cite the best source, even if it's obscure. And if so, what were the disputes? Eubulides (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BURDEN at the article level

WP:BURDEN states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. We have an effective system for dealing with Verification problems when the material being quetioned is a single statment or sentence: Under some (limited) circumstances we can summarily remove the material, otherwise we tag the sentence, wait a reasonable amount of time for someone to supply a source, and then (if no source is provided) remove it.

What we don't seem to have is a similar system for dealing with the same issue written large... ie when articles are completely unsourced. We can tag them with the {{unreferenced}} tag... but then what? If the problem persists, how do we "remove" the unsourced material?

We can nominate the article at AfD, but that does not resolve the issue... WP:BURDEN does not apply at AfD (since AfD is based on WP:Notability and not WP:Verifiability... as long as it can be demonstrated that sources exist, an AfD will result in "Keep"... and there is no burden for any one to actually add those sources to the article.)

So I have to ask... Does WP:BURDEN apply at an article level? When an entire article is unsourced, is there a burden on anyone to provide sources? If so with whom does it lie, and how do we enforce it? Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercilessly edit the article down to a stub version. The burden of restoring any information from the longer unsourced version would clearly fall on the editor(s) reinstating the claims. --Vassyana (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana -- This point of view is reasonable, and it is consistent with WP:V. Nevertheless, in a context informed by experiences you don't share, this optimistic formulation is worrisome. It is incompatible with the complex games which are likely to ensue. The disjunctive rationale which your short sentence reveals is frustrating, perverse, and unhelpful.

I am unable to respond effectively to the issue Blueboar presents, but I feel justified in rejecting this overly tidy response.

Vassyana -- Please try again to analayze and respond to Blueboar's query. There is no question that WP:Burden is a pivotal and easily misunderstood concept. Perhaps a constructive point will become clearer if you try to express yourself in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the response is not all that unreasonable, but maybe too major to start with. Other options: encourage major editors to provide sources via their talk pages, find sources yourself, tag key sentences/paragraphs with cite tags. If nothing happens over time - follow Vassyana's advice. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If an editor wants an article to list sources, he or she should add them. The same is true if one wants an article to have images when it has none.

Our goal is that articles should, at least, provide general sources where a reader can learn more about the topic at hand. Articles should also give specific references for quotes and material likely to be challenged. If there is no material in an article that would be likely to be challenged (or if one doesn't know enough about the topic at hand to have any idea whether the material is likely to be challenged) then there is no reason to remove the content merely because no reference has already been listed. Doing so is likely to be treated as disruptive. For similar reasons, adding a {{fact}} tag after every sentence is often viewed very negatively. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CBM wrote "If an editor wants an article to list sources, he or she should add them." That's fine if the article contains nothing that could be challenged in good faith. But I see no reason to tolerate an editor creating a dubious article on an obscure topic, which few editors could be expected to have convenient access to relevant sources. The contributing editor is either

making it up, in which case the article should eventually be deleted
using some obscure source that is sitting right there on the table next to the keyboard, but the editor can't be bothered citing it. I have no stomach for such behavior, and wouldn't hesitate to delete the article after a suitable opportunity to provide sources.

Sure, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but the disproportionate effort between the contributing editor who already has the source at hand, and the challenging editor who must conduct a search through the Internet and major libraries, is quite inconsiderate. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a third option: perhaps the editor is writing about a perfectly standard topic, and only writing things that are present in every undergraduate textbook on the topic. For example, reciprocal rule. So one cannot make a hard-and-fast rule about what to do with articles that have no sources. It is certainly better practice to put some source at the end of the article, and new articles on dodgy topics are often deleted if they do not include references. So if an article has made it for a long time with no references, despite editing by several editors, there is a good chance that much of the information really is verifiable. There is no reason why our article have to be perfect right now, and our practice is to tolerate many types of bad articles with the aim of improving them eventually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... thanks for your comments so far... I think you are saying that WP:BURDEN does not apply at the article level. That bothers me. I see it cutting into the very heart of what WP:V is trying to say. Yes, I do understand that articles don't need to be perfect right now... but what is the incentive to ever perfect it? At the sentence and paragraph level, we can use WP:BURDEN as a final stick... we can (after all the proper taging and resonable waiting periods) turn to other editors and say "source this or I will remove it". But at the article level we are left saying: "source this or ... or I will not remove this tag. So there!" Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that tags can stay on articles indefinitely long is well known. I view it as evidence that tagging articles in the first place is not as useful as some think.

Of course WP:BURDEN does apply in the sense that an article that appears to be entirely unsourceable will probably not be kept at AFD. And WP:BURDEN clearly applies to particular controversial statements. So the only sense in which it doesn't apply to whole articles is that it doesn't provide a stick to force other editors to add general references right away, in the absence of any specific argument that material in the article is unverifiable (again, reciprocal rule is an example of a bad article that could use improvement but is utterly verifiable).

This doesn't impact the spirit of WP:V, which is that material in articles must be verifiable in the current literature. The sprit of WP:V is not that all statements in articles must be sourced, which is why WP:V includes a specific provision that quotes and challenged material, in particular, should be sourced. For other material, verifiability in principle is all that is required. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing to remember (as CBM picks up) - WP:V calls for sources on material likely to be challenged. An unsourced article on a rudimentary topic that is rather apparently all true shouldn't come under the same scrutiny for sources as an article that covers a controversial topic. But regardless if you create an article beyond stub-iness without sources, you should be prepared at any time to be challenged to provide them. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ivory tower rationale this thread has engendered is all very nice; and indeed, the discussion arises from a foundation with which I'm entirely comfortable. However, a problem is likely to develop in the ensuing tit-for-tat game which this thread ignores. In my experience, any reference to WP:Burden is rejected out-of-hand with escalating indignation as the surest way to end discussion. At that point, any 3rd-party intervention is likely to assume the contrived interpersonal conflict has merit, the extravagant, aggrieved language succeeds in obscuring anything and everything else. Feigned offense is accorded priority attention. All hopes for measured consideration of WP:Burden becomes effectively blocked. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be said of all the guidelines in WP! Changing the wording of WP:Burden is unlikely to change this effect (although I haven't seen it as pervasive as you seem to). What do YOU suggest be done? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jwy -- Thank you for presuming that I might have a remedy to propose; but that extends beyond my reach. Frankly, it has taken me more than a year to figure out how to express this issue in succinct words. My words represent only a very small step; but it is none-the-less intended as a constructive contribution. If you or others have not encountered a counter-intuitive scenario like the ones I describe, I'm encouraged that you simply ascribe plausibility to a reported experience which is unfamiliar. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei, that is because you tend to apply WP:Burden without at all making it clear which statements you disagree with. And/or to statements that are already sourced. Taemyr (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If WP:Burden were understood as an ordinary tool like this adjustable spanner, then our questions might become something to do with using it more effectively?

Taemyr -- The verb "tend" is a dismissive word choice, implying a process of assessment informed by specific instances. Your sentence assumes that your judgment deserves to be credited, but that claim is undercut by the admission which follows. You have it exactly backwards when you seem to marry WP:Verifiability/WP:Burden with a demand that I find something to complain about; and then you blame me for failing to participate in a needless dispute I'm trying to avoid.

If your purpose here is to devalue my contribution, I reject it. If your intent was to clarify, your words miss the mark -- except in the sense your comment illustrates a fundamental presumption. Your unstated axioms do skew analysis of the problem at hand.

You seem to equate WP:Burden with disagreement, but this a priori focus presumes to establish a fulcrum at the wrong point. I begin to worry that you misconstrue the fulcrum and the lever and the use to which both are to be applied. Your unwelcome focus on what I may or may not "tend" to have done in the past denies my ability and willingness to change. I am unafraid to re-examine alternate ways in which any number of difficulties could have been handled differently, but I wonder if this is the right venue? I feel that the thrust of this thread needs to be more forward-looking. --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm afraid I have trouble understanding your concern and your interpretation of other's input here, but your reaction seems extreme to me. But, as I understand it, you seem to be concerned about articles that have no references but should and most particularly what party should be "burdened" with providing the sources. Am I correct? (John User:Jwy talk) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is in response to the original question... yes. My question was spurred by my growing frustration due to numerous AFD debates I I have seen. The articles are nominated for deletion because they provide no sources. Several people over several days opine with "Keep, sources exist" (some with various google searches attached). This is enough to Keep the article... But no one bothers to actually fix the underlying problem by adding any of those sources. So, far too often, the article just sits there, unsourced... sometimes for years. This irks me. It is a flaw that I see with the AfD criteria... but I do understand it (the sources show there is notability and the potential for adding sources... it's just that no one actually does so). Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do see how this can be annoying. Do you have a sense of whether those AFDs were started with the genuine intent to get the article deleted, or if they were started only with the goal of getting sources to be added? In the few occasions I have seen the latter situation, I did not go out of my way to add sources when commenting on the AFD, because I didn't want to encourage that bad practice from spreading. When the notability of the topic is truly in doubt, I don't hesitate to add sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is wrong with Vassyana's suggestion - if you can't easily find sources, and the stuff is dubious, remove it all. If interested, knowledgeable editors can supply sources, it will quickly be reinserted and referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The only issue with Vassyana's suggestion is that it differs completely from standard practice, and goes beyond what is required in WP:V. There have been proposals before to force all articles to list sources, or to delete articles that are marked as unreferenced for too long; these do not gain widespread agreement. The idea to cut down all unreferenced articles to stubs would no doubt be rejected for similar reasons.

In the end, everyone wants our articles to be well-sourced. But the only way for that to happen is for editors to add sources, which is a slow process. We already do a reasonable job of deleting articles for which there are no sources in existence, so there is not a pressing need to immediately add sources to the ones that are left (and there are lots of them, dating back many years). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It may go beyond what is required by the policy, but it is consistent with what is allowed by it. ("Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed...") I'm not sure what you think is "standard practice" in this situation - leave things as they are without any sources?

I'm confused by your take on this. You wrote "everyone wants our articles to be well-sourced" but went on to say "there is not a pressing need to immediately add sources to the ones that are left". So we all want articles to be well-sourced, but there's no hurry? Your last sentence also makes no sense to me - you say we already do a good job of removing such articles, yet there are still lots of them from several years ago?? --hippo43 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The standard practice for an article that lists no sources at all is to nominate it for deletion if there is a reasonable chance that no sources exist in the real world, and to either fix it, leave it, or tag it {{unreferenced}} if no sources are provided but it is clear that they exist. We do a good job of deleting articles for which no sources exist at all, leaving a backlog of articles for which sources exist but where no sources are explicitly listed. See my comments above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks... you have given me a lot to think about. Your answers have not releived my concerns and frustrations, but they have helped me to understand why they exist in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread became a teachable moment, not that I learned much; but even a very small step is better than no steps at all. --Tenmei (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language sources

If a source is in a language other than English, can it be used to support information in English Wikipedia? Asoer (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. Yes. Says so on the page here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it depends on what the source is though. For example a national newspaper from France would be far more reliable than a blog created in a Frenchman's basement.--70.24.179.9 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a national newspaper from France would be far more reliable than any blog... including on in English. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, that tastes like a challenge. Most reliable blog, anyone? ;-) LeadSongDog come howl 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Or for that matter, least reliable national newspaper?LeadSongDog come howl 15:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the topic. If it's highly specialized or technical, a blog can easily be more reliable than a mainstream publication. Brad Abrams's blog is far more reliable than any mainstream or even technical publication regarding .NET development. This might be one of the areas where Wikipedia's guideline on WP:RS breaks down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) When an article is about a subject in a non-English speaking country, then often the best sources are not in English and may not have been translated. But beware of non-English language sources for subjects in English-speaking countries or of well known subjects in non-English speaking countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles should be based on third-party sources

Moved from WP:RSN

Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources.

There is a general dispute between myself and another editor about the meaning of these policy statements. My view is that they mean that most of an article, including most of each section or entry, should be based on 3rd-party sources, and that primary or self-published sources should be used sparingly for illustrative quotes, factual details, etc. (The self-published materials in question are by the subject of the article). The other editor has written that "There is no 'correct ratio' of primary to secondary sources." In other words, if a 3rd-party source mentions an issue, even very briefly, then it is acceptable to write any amount of text on that issue drawn from primary sources. In addition, the other editor seems to believe that if there are secondary sources in some parts of an article then it's acceptable for other sections to rely exclusively on primary sources. So here's the question: Does "based on" mean "partially based on"? Is it acceptable to use several primary sources to synthesize an overview of an issue instead of relying on secondary sources? Will Beback talk 21:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably best discussed on the V or RS talk page. My quick answer is that there is no quick answer. Some local guidelines (e.g. WP:MEDRS) are really specific about the use of primary sources. Some local guidelines (e.g. WP:FICT) are too caught up in related battles to offer clear guidance. WP:PSTS is offered as a solution to the problem, but in my opinion that is a terribly written piece of policy/guidance and it leads us astray on a great many issues. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Moved. Will Beback talk 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "third-party source" is a legal term and is useless in deciding if an article, or part of an article is verifiable. The term should be expunged from this policy.

In contracts, the first and second parties are the people or organizations that made the contract; third parties did not sign the contract. When the concept is extended beyond the realm of contract law, it becomes a vague concept that is not suitable for making detailed decisions. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a pet peeve of mine, and, despite Jc3s5h's assertion, I think that "third-party" can be well-enough defined to not present a problem. Certainly articles should rely on third-party sourcing, and should not be based primarily on self-published sources and sources that have financial arrangements with the subject (or subject's creators, publishers, or copyright holders in the case of fictional subjects). I think it's reasonable to expect that in normal cases at least half the text of an article should come through independent sourcing, and, if it doesn't there's ample reason to think something is amiss. There's wiggle room, and since I can at least conceive of cases where I could argue that the material from the tainted sources was sufficiently key to the understanding of the independent material I wouldn't want to do it based on word count alone. Still, articles that try to use a passing mention in two reviews as foundation for several thousand words derived from primary sources cannot be said to rely on independent sourcing. They are the logical equivalent of coatrack articles: they aren't trying to actually discuss the notable aspects of a topic, they are using the notable aspects as an excuse to discuss other things.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A further comment on one detail of the original question: since I'm not in favor of strictly applying word counts as a measure, I do oppose trying any measure on a section or subsection basis. The article has to be measured as a whole to make any reasonable judgment about reliance on sources.—Kww(talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In his comment, Kww uses the term "primary source". This term is useless for determining the reliability of a source. Some would consider any work that introduces new results (rather than analyze previously published results) to be a primary source. This would include the National Electrical Code, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, or a national census. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, the articles about many localities, such as Ira, Vermont, consist mostly of census data. Since they rely mostly on a primary source, all such articles should be deleted. Not only are they based on a primary source, but they lack third-party source information, since such towns are governed by the United States, and the Census Bureau is an agency of the United States. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely articles that rely primarily on census data should be deleted. I've argued that for ages. Can you suggest a wording that you would find acceptable?—Kww(talk) 00:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The regular editors of this policy insist on using the useless phrases "third-party source" and "primary source". I have given up trying to fix the policy. While I will follow the spirit of the policy, I will ignore the wording whenever I edit articles. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the primary sources for census data the completed returns by individual residents/citizens? The census itself is a systematic compilation of this data and so a secondary work. LeadSongDog come howl 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are narrow and wide concepts of what a primary source is. Suppose a cabal of editors insert restrictions on the use of primary sources (based on a narrow definition of primary source). Next, an editor, W, who does not follow any policy/guideline talk pages reads the policy or guideline. This editor believes in a wide definition of what a primary source is. This editor avoids the use of perfectly good sources because of a badly written policy or guideline.

Furthermore, most people accept U.S. census results because the agency over the centuries has developed a reputation for being reasonably fair, competent, and comprehensive. This willingness to rely on their results has nothing to do with it being a primary or secondary source. Any source that has established a similar reputation should be equally acceptable, even if it technically could be described as a primary source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my question wasn't well-phrased. The sources in qyuestion are almost entirely self-published, as opposed to published by 3rd-parties. Further, the self-published source is known for having a view of itself that is at odds with the view of the majority. ("Paranoid" is not an uncommon description.) So the sources are not like reliable primary sources such as census data. Maybe the notriceboard is the better place for this after all? Will Beback talk 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My answers apply to both cases. A person's opinion of himself or his work should never be the primary focus of an article. It sounds like WP:FRINGE is probably going to get involved in your case as well.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about the wording of "primary source" and "third party source" aren't germane to the question at hand. I agree with Jc3s5h's core complaint that wikipedia has a fundamentally erroneous view of what constitutes a "primary source". But answering the question (that is, determining what "based on" means) doesn't require that we travel down that path. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the original question:

1. It's not correct that, if some parts of the article rely on secondary sources, then other parts may rely exclusively on primary sources.

2. It is correct that there is no "correct ratio" as such. It depends on context and common sense. It also depends on whether the primary-source material is challenged.

3. It's also not correct that, if a secondary has briefly alluded to an issue, it's necessarily okay to discuss that issue in depth using only primary sources. It might be okay, again depending on context and common sense.

One of the problems with relying on primary sources is that it tends to produce original research, in the sense that a Wikipedian is picking and choosing from primary sources to decide what to present in the article. He may focus on material that makes an incident look less serious that it was, or that makes a person look more scholarly than he was, and so on. A secondary source may focus on entirely different issues. Therefore, to avoid original research, it's safer to be guided by secondary sources as to the kinds of issues the article ought to be presenting.

To give an example: if you're writing an article about me based on my diary (primary source), and you like me, you might focus on that time I won first prize at school, or the day I helped an old lady across the road. You might miss out the year I spent in jail, or that time I was found drunk in the gutter by my employer. You would therefore be expected to rely on secondary sources who've written about me to tell you which of the issues in my diary you should be focusing on.

Two useful rules of thumb are (a) the more contentious the issue, the more the article ought to rely on secondary sources; and (b) where the use of primary-source material is challenged, the editor ought to produce secondary sources to back him up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are "reliable" third-party published sources better (than me)? Any non biased person = lying or stupid. One proof :compare some wiki articles in different languages.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your proof. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One example. Just compare the English , French , German , Dutch and Russian articles on the "speed of light". Difference in size does not explain everything . You may draw yuor own conclusions. Wdl1961 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. I want a proof that people who claim to be non-biased are either stupid or lying using only different wikipedia articles. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Certainly my bias is not yours.Wdl1961 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another issue re primary versus secondary sources has been seen in areas relating to evolution. An example would be looking through Darwin's work from the 1860s and finding language which, to a person in 2009, seems offensive (perhaps racist or sexist). There have been several attempts to inject sentences into articles which essentially say "Darwin was racist/sexist because of the following remarks". The sources verify that the words were written by Darwin, but a reliable secondary source is needed to interpret them: we cringe at "savages" now, but what did it mean to a scientist in the 1860s, and what about Darwin's very non-racist attitudes and actions (and more which I'll omit here). Also, Darwin wrote a lot, and one of his techniques was to introduce a topic with flowery language, and then take many pages to dissect that language. Therefore, pulling a few quotes from a primary source can be very misleading, and articles should rely on analysis by secondary sources to verify many types of claims. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's really a separate, and pretty clear-cut, question of original research. If someone takes a source, wheher it's primary or secondary, and says because author A used word W, and word W is considered offensive in current practice, then author A is racist, that's a leap of logic that creates a new, and possibly untrue fact that is not present in either cited source. I believe the original question was more along the lines of how much weight we may give to primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It happens all the time in fiction articles and biographies like Darwin's. Adam Smith's article is periodically plagued with editor conclusions about Smith's writing and its impact on later trains of thought in economics, citing only the original text from smith (which isn't strictly speaking a primary source). More common we have broad, interpretive (there is some criticism of that term, but it is a little rarefied so I'll ignore it for now) claims about plot points, author intent, etc. on fiction articles and sub-articles. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is necessary for each article to have at least some secondary sources to establish notability, there's no policy on how much of an article can be based on primary sources, and for good reason. It basically comes back to that we don't have notability guidelines for parts of an article, only for the article as a whole.

Decisions about how much of an article should be based on primary sources should come from local consensus, not from policy. Articles about towns, airports, broadcast stations, or automobiles can draw many facts and figures from primary sources without it being undue, while the same level of reliance on primary sources may not be appropriate for more abstract topics. Even in articles about fiction, while we require some secondary sources to establish notability, we don't require a secondary source for each individual Ewok. I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that this is from one of the ongoing Larouche debates. My take is that while we cannot allow those articles to become a playground for LLR supporters, we should, in articles such as as Views of Lyndon LaRouche, give at least a Cliff's Notes-style overview and list the historical heroes and villains ( i.e. Plato, Aristotle ), but not require a secondary source for each entry. I've also argued about a year ago, in the AFD for the same article, that because of an ArbCom decision that LLR media outlets couldn't be cited even as primary sources in non-LLR articles, by necessity a lot of material had to be crammed into that one article.

The goal should be something that a reader who picks up a copy of EIR for the first time could use to decipher who the good guys and the bad guys are. Like anything else, if there's an impasse the next step would be an RFC from uninvolved editors, not a change to policy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:I am the "other editor" that Will refers to in his initial post, and what Will neglected to mention is that yes, the article in question is Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I understood Will's initial argument in the content dispute to be that LaRouche should not be used as a source for his own views, and that the article should consist exclusively of what various journalists say LaRouche's views are. I think he has modified that stance somewhat. I was concerned about BLP issues in this case, because there is the danger that the views of a controversial person may be misrepresented by his opponents. My opinion, with respect to this particular article, is that once a particular topic has been identified by other sources as significant, then the danger of OR has been averted and LaRouche's own writings may be used to provide a more detailed (and misrepresentation-proof) account of what he has to say about it. In another article, not about the views of a controversial person, I might apply a different standard. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Posting by sock of banned user struck-through. Will Beback talk 04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that describe Larouche's views. If the choice is between using reliable 3rd-party sources and using an unreliable primary source, then the choice seems clear. Will Beback talk 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree here... the most reilable source for statements as to a person's views is the person himself. The key is to make it clear that their view represents an opinion and clearly attribute it as an opinion. Now... you do have to be careful... any conclusions about the accuracy of those views must be taken from 3rd party sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point here is not who more accurately conveys what a person has said. The point is simply that, when we decide which parts of a person's life to write about on Wikipedia, we can leave that decision (a) to a Wikipedian, who reads the primary source material and picks out the bits he wants to highlight, or (b) to a published secondary source, such as a biographer or a New York Times reporter, who also reads the primary source material and picks out what's important to mention.

The point I've been making here is that, when it comes to contentious biographies (or any contentious subject), we should rely on the secondary sources to decide what to include, not on the Wikipedian, because relying on the Wikipedian amounts to original research. The question is therefore not so much, "are the primary sources reliable?" but more, "are the Wikipedians who decide which parts of the primary source material to write about reliable?" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, in most cases you'd be correct that a person's own writings would be the best source for their views and accomplishments. However in this case there are several extenuating circumstances:

1. the ideas are complex and aren't contained in a single place. And because of his often convoluted writing style it is hard to find short passages that are cogent and comprehensive. Therefore, substantial intepretation and synthesis are required to create an overview. Picking through LaRouche's writings to decide which views are noteworthy and how to describe them is virtually, if not actually, original research.

2. It is easy to pick through the subjects writings to find seemingly outrageous statements that have never been reported in 3rd-party sources. But doing so would be no more neutral than picking out sentences that seem insightful.

3. The subject is not a reliable source about himself. This subject is famous for having an extremely inflated views of his place in the world. Most recently he has credited himself with blocking the Obama health care reform effort, for example, and in the past he's called himself the most important American economist and the most important economist of the 20th century, as well as the target of a vast conspiracy that seeks his assassination, which could have occured many times except for the protection of powerful but hidden individuals high in the government.

4. The subject's writings are unevenly available. Selected materials are posted on his website, but others are not and proponents tend to oppose using any primary sources that are not posted there.

So this is an unusual case. Will Beback talk 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

SV gets it dead on here. There are hundreds of good examples where the subject of a biography would characterize their actions or motivations in a way which would mislead readers if we presented it primarily. Our biographies of Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Patton, Friedman, etc. (just sticking to US examples in order to needle the systemic bias crowd) would be woefully inadequate if we assumed that the primary (an unfortunate word given the terms primary and secondary are otherwise being used) font for biographical info would be the subject. Nixon might even be the best of the bunch, given his habit of recording everything, but they would all be tragically incomplete. Protonk (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what people are saying... and perhaps there are extenuating circumstances in the LaRouche case... but I still think a primary source is still the best for statements of opinion and views ... when discussing what Adolf Hitler's opinions were, there is no better source than Mein Kamph. I completely agree that it is very easy to venture into OR when using such a source, and we must be very very careful not to do so, but... as long as you are careful, when it comes to supporting a statement as to what the opinion of any individual is, a statement by the individual is better source than one by another person. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I respect that view but I think it's absolutely wrong. The best source on Hilter's view's isn't Mien Kamph (or however you spell it). The book was a rhetorical argument, a call to arms. It was written with an audience in mind. If we (the wikipedia editor) read MK (to avoid further spelling issues) we may assign undue primacy to certain expressed views there. We may also fail to sample other views expressed more privately or expressed to different audiences. Let's take a less thread ending example. There is ample discussion among historians about Lincoln's views regarding slavery. The purported range includes the possibility that Lincoln hated slavery and felt deeply about equality for black americans and the possibility that lincoln made decisions about slavery in a tactical manner in order to first win election and later save the union (obviously those poles include interior options). If I were to sample some of lincoln's writings I may come to the first conclusion (indeed, this was taught in many schools for some time and is still basically taught in most american high schools). If I sample some other writings I may come to the second conclusion (See revisionist histories for extreme examples of this). In sampling I run the risk of introducing a great deal of selection bias, since lincoln said many different things to many different people and held (presumably, from the evidence) changing beliefs over time. The avoidance of those errors is one of the reasons we want to rely on trained biographers and historians to compile and explain primary sources. We serve our function best when we balance those secondary sources against one another (preferably with review articles helping us do the weighting). We serve our function worst when we short circuit that huge raft of expertise. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Protonk and Will Beback on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Another serious problem is appearance of favoritism. While it may seem (and it is) totally reasonable for you and I to give different weight to some normal person and some...more conspiratorially minded person...when we handle SPS statements about the speaker, to an adherent of the marginalized group it looks like we are treating one set of sources differently than others. Since those people necessarily don't think LaRouche is crazy, they won't agree that LaRouche's statements about himself are suspect but Person XYZ's statements are admissible. They will feel (very much in line with their prior worries about marginalization) that wikipedia is pushing out his viewpoint due to some nefarious conspiracy. Now I know there is no reasonable measure that will appease people who feel Obama is Hitler, but we at least have to make is so we have a defensible position to others. That's one advantage of our reliance on third party sources. It is a clear and transparent solution. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It looks to me as if from about here downwards this discussion has strayed into RS and BLP areas. I haven't placed a link here on the related talk pages, but it seems to me as if that would be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC at WT:NOR regarding examples

FYI there is a request for comments on a proposal to replace the examples in [[WP:SYNTH] with a link to the same examples on another page. See RFC - Replace examples in WP:SYNTH with link to examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has evolved into an alternate proposal to keep the examples and move one of the paragraphs within the same section WP:SYNTH. Your participation would be appreciated. See Alternate proposal (only reorganizes within section and keeps examples) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question: How to verify unpublished tribal knowledge

Question on verification.

For subjects of largely tribal / oral knowledge bases that are rarely Published, i.e. Circus acrobatics terminology, or Collegiate cheer leading stunts. Literally subjects that by their very nature have too small an audience to enjoy formally published or peer reviewed written sources.

Now this is more to do with niche tribal knowledge than controversial subjects where truth is in question. If the underwater basket weaving enthusiasts can't find a link to a verifiable source does that mean they can't have a series of articles on their subject to reference and share?

Simple question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"If the underwater basket weaving enthusiasts can't find a link to a verifiable source does that mean they can't have a series of articles on their subject to reference and share?" Yes, that's exactly what this policy means. If it isn't important enough to publish in a reliable source, it isn't important enough to publish in Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, there are usually books or articles on such things, albeit often highly obscure. Anthropologists might have covered it, or a circus acrobat wrote a biography or training manual at some point. An obscure (but reliable) source that adds detail to a notable field is almost always welcome, and we do allow self-published sources by notable experts to be used with caution, so if a major flying trapeze artist wrote a short guide, it could be cautiously used to add terminology to the article on flying trapeze. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying underground literature or publishers without a URL or ISBN are considered verifiable sources even if there are a minimal number of copies in existence that can not be obtained by public audience due to out of print limited distribution to a niche audience? (i.e. graduate research papers) Logically that would infer I could use my church newsletter as a verifiable source; because it was written down, published and physically exists as a record somewhere, correct?

That doesn't allow for a knowledgeable individual to contribute beyond the scope of an obscure and limited source.

And Second point - what if those sources are unavailable; but I personally have a great deal (decade or longer ) of experience in the subject as a paid professional. Does that mean I have to self publish to contribute on Wikipedia? I can't legally reference confidential or proprietary information (i.e. consulting contract deliverables); I.E. if the nature of the business precludes written or public records then according to Wikipedia it doesn't exist? Some of us are too busy practicing the state of the art to write about it.

Or is the exception that perfectly accurate and factual information will just sit with a needs reference tag on it for perpetuity? If that is the exception policy, That would seem reasonable as long as the information is left intact.

But wiki thugs deleting information because they don't deem it worthy seems contradictory to the concept of a wiki. "Anyone can edit if the cite a verifiable reference." That's providing incentive for subject matter experts to ignore contributing Wikipedia.

The assumption that only knowledge that can be sold in a written format to the general public is the only knowledge that is valid really limits the utility of a wiki. It guarantees that Wikipedia will be a condensed mirror of everything published on the internet or in print (i.e. Pop culture); and will specifically ignore redacted proprietary, niche and subculture content unless it happens to be internet culture accepted by the administrators familiar with it.

This is about inclusion of obscure information; not controversial opinions. The verifiable policy is perfectly valid, but would benefit from an exception for obscure subjects. If Wikipedia is to be "the most authoritative source of information in the world" shouldn't it have place for everything?

Please respond. Point to point even - please insert as needed. This discussion is not rhetorical. Rather it is meant to be a conclusive test of the limits and potential of Wikipedia; Is the administrative culture of Wikipedia flexible and able to grow? Or is the monster of virtually unlimited content so difficult to manage that they delete anything they don't want to deal with?

[edit] Disallow or severely restrict foreign language sources

[edit] American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Due to the current legal action relating to this article, could people who have expertise in dealing with difficult WP:V and NPOV issues please review this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In particular, additional reliable sources that discuss this organization and which would help verify the facts under dispute more thoroughly would be very welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Well now

There's certainly been some editing of this policy since the last time I read it, and I think it's jumped the shark in the last three months.

Jimbo's quote urgently needs to be restored to WP:BURDEN, and the business about the person who adds material having sole responsibility for citing sources is nonsense (and if followed, would lead to deletion of most of Wikipedia's older content on grounds of not being sourced).

The burden of evidence is on everyone. Not just content creators, everyone. Finding sources and checking them is the basic job of an encyclopaedist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it says "adds or restores". If material is removed due to being unsourced, the person that wants to restore it must demonstrate the existence of a source. The person removing it has obligation to look for a source, but does not bear the burden of demonstrating non-existence.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that someone who removes unsourced material has to prove a negative.

What I'm saying is that looking for sources is everyone's job. The present phrasing of WP:BURDEN is disastrous, because it's a licence for editors to remove material without checking for sources themselves. That's immensely destructive and it cannot remain as presently phrased. The current wording directly contradicts the much older and more established WP:BEFORE.

Further, Jimbo's quote explains the purpose of WP:BURDEN in context, and removing it to a footnote was a bad idea. Jimbo's quote needs to go back in its proper place.

I don't often use wording this emphatic on Wikipedia, but I strongly feel that the present version of WP:BURDEN should not have been implemented without a full RFC.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The language you object to has been in the policy for at least a year.[6] (I stopped searching once I got back that far) I'd say that it has consensus and was not the result of some ninja-editing. And since it has been there for over a year, I think predictions of disaster are a bit extreme. The Jimbo quotation was removed recently, but I don't see how it would modify the language you object to. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The language has been in the policy for a lot longer than a year... in its present form, it goes back to August of 2006... and, in very similar language, long before that. As policy statements go, WP:BURDEN is probably one of the most stable on Wikipedia. S Marshal is going to have to demonstrate that a significant change of consensus has occured if he wants to change it. As for the Jimbo Quote... we discuss this above... the quote has not been removed, it has simply been moved to a footnote. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The person adding or restoring material has an obligation to provide a source, unless it isn't a direct quote, isn't controversial, and isn't likely to be challenged. It would be nice if people removing material would look for a source, but the degree of niceness varies with the nature of the material being removed. The nicest people look up material that is reasonably easy to find on-line or in the would-be remover's personal library. A person who searches for sources for absurd allegations (Elvis bought a pink Cadillac on January 1, 2009) isn't nice, he/she is a sucker. People who go to the ends of the earth to find a source for something that is plausible but uncertain are being more than nice; that borders on heroism. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct about the person adding material in the first place, but if it has been removed for being unsourced, it's too controversial to restore without sources pretty much by definition.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord. Well, I'm completely wrong, and that language has been in there since forever. (wipes egg from face)
The emphasis has certainly changed (italics, removal of Jimbo quote, addition of "unambiguously") and it reads much more strongly than I remember.

The point is that WP:BURDEN directly contradicts what we say elsewhere (in WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, for example). I think it's well established that everywhere on Wikipedia except in WP:BURDEN, the onus is on everyone to search for sources.

I think it's a good thing that there's a creative tension between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN but they should not contradict one another so flatly. I remain of the opinion that my edit was a good idea, and it brings WP:BURDEN into line with what we say everywhere else.

I also remain of the opinion that Jimbo's quote should go back where it was. I understand the temptation some editors feel to remove Jimbo's fingermarks from Wikipedia's clay before they get baked in, but I think it's misguided.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no-one now objects, but I'll leave it another 24 hours or so before re-implementing my proposed change. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Just because no one responds does not give you leave to reinsert a change that was disputed. Anyway, I object. LK (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I object. It is up to the person adding material to provide a reliable source, and instant deletion is always an acceptable response to an editor who can't be bothered to tell us why we should believe something. Please consider this objection to be in force unless I strike it out. --Jc3s5h (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
I'm fine with "I object" where a basis for objection is provided, because that's a discussion. "I object" without giving a reason is not consensus-seeking behaviour. BRD means "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, perpetual stasis".
Jc3s5h's objection is reasonable, and entails some modification. I propose the following revised wording:

"When new material is added to the encyclopaedia, there is a burden of evidence on the person seeking to add the material. The presumption is that any material that is challenged should be removed unless verified. This does not extend to longer-standing content, particularly material that may have been added before WP:BURDEN was implemented. In the case of longstanding content, WP:PRESERVE should prevail."

This seems to me to resolve Jc3s5h's objection but it also enables us to bring WP:BURDEN into line with WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the general concept of WP:PRESERVE for long-standing information. Bearing in mind that a search for sources isn't necessary for long-standing material that has not been challenged, the degree of effort expended in looking for sources should be in proportion to the likelihood that the information is true. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording should remain as it is. Unverified material should not be grandfathered into the encyclopedia because of oversight or laxer policies when it was first added. All material should have to pass the same standard of verifiability regardless of when it was written; all material should conform to the same high standard. WP:BURDEN as worded is appropriate. (I'll also say that the bare existence of an objection means that WP:SILENCE no longer applies, however reasonable that objection might be to you. This subject has been discussed before; it seems entirely appropriate for some to say that they object to a change without rehashing their reasons when some proposes, "since there is no objection.") RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that we should leave WP:BURDEN as it is and edit WP:PRESERVE instead, then, RJC? Or do you see no conflict between the two?
The fact that it's been discussed before doesn't stop me discussing it again. If you'd like to refer to a previous discussion, simply link it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

S Mashall... I think that you see a conflict between WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE that does not exist. For one thing WP:PRESERVE does not stand alone... it is immediately followed by WP:HANDLE, which discusses removing problematic material... including material that is unsourced. There is a balance between preservation and removal. Both have their place.

That said, if there were a conflict between these statements, I would say that WP:PRESERVE should be the one to be edited and not WP:BURDEN, as WP:V is a core policy with solid community consensus, while WP:Editing policy is not (It is actually somewhat controvercial, and has frequently, allbeit so far unsuscessfully, had its status as a Policy questioned.) Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is hardly controversial. The last person to make significant revisions to it was, er, me, in June; I think that's the only major edit that's stuck for rather a long time; WP:PRESERVE is jealously-guarded, and rightly so.

I like WP:HANDLE, and think it a much superior policy to the present wording of WP:BURDEN. WP:HANDLE supports the basic view that looking for sources is everyone's job. It does not pretend that it's okay to revert content creators' good faith edits without searching for sources, and the basic problem with WP:BURDEN as presently phrased is that it can be read like that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly is more controversial than WP:BURDEN (prior to your June edit, WP:PRESERVE pops up farely often on the talk page... and WP:Editing policy as a whole, continues to be controvercial).

I will also note that, as a policy statement, WP:PRESERVE is a lot newer than WP:BURDEN. WP:PRESERVE was created on 26 Sept, 2007 with this edit... In its current wording WP:BURDEN had been in place for a full year prior to the creation of WP:PRESERVE, and in substance for longer than that. If I saw a conflict, I could argue that this means that PRESERVE never actually reflected consensus, even when it was first introduced (I don't argue this... because I don't see a conflict). Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... looking back through the archives ... there was a lot of discussion about the intent of WP:BURDEN just before WP:PRESERVE was written. Worth looking at. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Well, that's the moment when WP:PRESERVE got its own link and its own subheading, but the core words ("So, whatever you do, preserve information") date back to 2002. The "verifiability" page wasn't even created until 2003, and WP:BURDEN basically dates back to Jimbo's words in 2006. WP:PRESERVE is by far the senior policy, with its roots in real old-school Wikipedian thought—not that I consider that particularly relevant now. I agree that it's right to look for sources.
Blueboar, I recognise that you don't think there's a conflict between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, but can you understand why some people do?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't. I understand that they do... but I don't understand why. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe the current wording implies a licence to remove content without checking for sources first?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no... One of the ambiguities of the section is that the wording "may be removed" can be taken in two ways... 1) it can be seen a warning to those who are adding material that it might be removed (and if you want to avoid this, provide a source)... and 2) it can be permission for editors to remove material that should be removed.

As for what material should be removed, what sorts of steps you need to take before it actually is removed.... that really depends on the nature of the material under discussion. The more harmful it is, the fewer steps need to be taken. An unsourced accusation in a BLP, for example, should be removed immediately, without discussion or tagging. An uncontrovercial statement that seems likely to be accurate should probably never be removed (it probably is not worth tagging)... And there is a wide range between these two extremes. Most unsourced material should be tagged, and discussed on the talk page.

That said, BURDEN is definitely not a licence to rush around removing things purely because they are not cited. You do need to explain why you are challenging the information. And once a challenge has been issued, you need to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to locate sources before you do remove material.

In short... this isn't something that we can make hard and fast rules about... both PRESERVE and BURDEN can be abused... but in intent, they work in harmony. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we agree on what the intent should be. If WP:BURDEN contains exactly the language you just used, I'd be perfectly happy with it. Why can't we add: "WP:BURDEN is definitely not a licence to rush around removing things purely because they are not cited. You do need to explain why you are challenging the information. And once a challenge has been issued, you need to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to locate sources before you do remove material" to the policy?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Because sometimes the material should be removed immediately. It depends on the material in question. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Maybe "WP:BURDEN is a licence to remove uncited material, but unless the material is a copyvio, disparagement of a living person, or a breach of personal privacy, there is also a burden on the remover to search for sources first."—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one can abuse BURDEN... so one can abuse PRESERVE ... Again, it really depends on the material in question. If someone comes across an unsorced statement that they think is accurate, or likely to be accurate, they definitely should try to source it (tagging it with a {{cn}} if they can not). On the other hand, if they are reasonably certain that the unsourced information is inaccurate or flawed in some way, they should not be (and, per BURDEN, are not) required to go through the effort of looking for sources that they do not think exist... They are going to challenge the information (removing or tagging it with {{fact}}tag depending on the severity) and make anyone who wants to keep the information do the hard work of providing a source. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We could say "...there is also a burden on the remover to search for sources first, unless they are certain the information is inaccurate." But the trouble with that is that it enables semi-informed teenagers to remove experts' contributions without looking for sources themselves.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way to enforce a burden on the challenger... the challenger can simply say "yeah I looked, and I could not find anything"... we have no way to know if they actually looked or not, but assuming good faith we would have to take them at their word. However, we do have some degree of enforsement on WP:BURDEN... find sources or the information you want included will be removed. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a policy statement is a description of how the community feels editors should behave, not a description of how we can force them to behave. And I think policy statements should be in more harmony with each other than is presently the case (I've said that some degree of tension between WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE is good, but not this much).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on here

What change, precisely are we discussing? There is a sea of WP:BLUEPOLICYLINKS (lol, please be red) but I can't 100% tell what the dispute is about. Feel free to let me know if that stems more from my habit of skimming than from any inscrutability in the above discussion. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is who's responsible for looking for sources, basically.
My answer was "everyone is responsible for looking for sources". But the verifiability policy as presently written suggests that only the content creator needs to look. I changed it, and then all that text above happened.

Essentially the outcome is that I still think "everyone is responsible for looking for sources", and I think our verifiability policy should say that, but the consensus is against me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall -- Your proposed words are not wrong nor is your intention ungenerous; however, this is impractical. More to the point, it is entirely unworkable.
Your point-of-view renders WP:Burden even more of a nullity than it is currently. If your proposal were less innocent or idealistic, it would be infuriating. In like circumstances, I might have embraced this notion before I actually found myself learning lessons the hard way during interactions which could not become teachable moments.

In short, this causes me to recall: Above all, do no harm.--Tenmei (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not only perfectly workable, but it's a principle that's been enshrined in Wikipedian policy for years, as I have exhaustively demonstrated above. I've also shown that WP:BURDEN is the only rule that's out of step with it.
Characterising me as "innocent and idealistic" is not a substitute for a reasoned argument as to why WP:BURDEN must remain phrased as it is. It is, however, typical of the responses I've received in this matter.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference as I see it is this: Yes, everyone should look for sources (and add them if they can find them)... but, to prevent challenged material from being removed, it is up to those who wish to keep material to actually find sources (and add them if they can). In other words... when it comes to sourcing unsourced material, while there is a burden on everyone, there is a significantly greater burden on those who wish to keep information. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All I want is for the policy to reflect the first part of your answer, Blueboar, as well as the second. The bit where you say "everyone should look for sources" is conspicuously absent at the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall -- In no way do I diminish the validity of my comments by characterizing you (although flattery does have its place in argument). Rather, I offer succinct adjectives which are intended to clarify flaws in your proposal.

Blueboar -- The conceptual notion that "everyone should look for sources" is conspicuously absent from my experience with those who seem to enjoy disputing in ways I do not.

In practical, everyday editing, this proposal is generous and collegial, but unworkable. Lest S Marshall mistake the intent of these new adjectives, please allow me to re-focus. Instead, construe my purpose as spot-lighting significant flaws in this "tweaking" exercise.

In my view, S Marshall selects the wrong fulcrum. I'm not missing the point; but I wonder if the proposed change doesn't serve to marginalize WP:BURDEN? Is it timely at this stage in the evolution of our multi-language wiki-projects? --Tenmei (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei, I'm conscious that last time you were before Arbcom, you asked me to help you write more effectively. I think you've made some progress since then, but what you say sometimes remains confusing.
You said "I offer succinct adjectives which are intended to clarify flaws in your proposal". The actual adjectives you used were "impractical" and "unworkable", and while those are certainly succinct adjectives, in what way do they clarify a flaw?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Restatement: "How to enhance the marginal utility of an important wiki-fulcrum?"

The thrust of S Marshall's proposal is impractical and unworkable because it is generous and collegial. In my comments above, the married adjectives offer succinct rebuttal by shifting emphasis. The word choice brings to the fore those situations in which editors are strategically ungenerous and the fiction of collegial activity is only words.

I worry that this calm discussion blurs the wrong lines, that it functions to undercut the effectiveness of the fulcrum WP:Burden is designed to be. S Marshall's argument has implicit axioms which cause us to consider re-positioning a fulcrum in the wrong place.

This is a visual image which is only partially in focus.

Is this a little like an hortatory policy which may be improved by the kind of "fine-focus" adjustments which this thread seeks to propose?

As I see it, S Marshall's constructive suggestions seem intended as a modest "tweaking" exercise. As context and despite WP:Burden, we witness the expanding effects of those who construe Wikipedia in the service of non-neutral objectives. There is no cynicism in this, only a recognition of the way things are.

I do understand how statements of wiki-policy serve an hortatory function, but is that all there is to it? --Tenmei (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I can understand that.
My response is that Wikipedian policies and guidelines assume good faith and are, correctly, aimed at good faith editors. Dealing with bad faith editors is an entirely different matter, and there is no point writing policies and guidelines to deal with them, because bad faith editors will disregard rules that don't suit them in any case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But good faith editors need directions to help combat other editors who add (or restore) random stuff. Sure, the current BURDEN wording could be misused to remove half the text from many articles – but no policy/guideline can avoid misguided application. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall -- I find myself wondering if it's helpful to encompass something beyond hortatory objectives? I had not recognized nor investigated the assumptions which inform my personal approach to wiki-policies. I had construed core policies – WP:V, WP:Burden, et al. – as generally practical, flexible templates which were crafted to help me and others find ways

(a) to escape conflict and

(b) to move towards areas of identified agreement.

As you know, this strategy hasn't worked well for me thus far; but I rationalized this with a hypothesis that novel circumstances required a different kind of agility. Clearly, this thread now becomes fodder for further thought. Thank you for initiating it. --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Policy pages need to be simple. The shorter and simpler they are, the more likely people will read them and apply them. As an overriding consideration, any change to the policy must be very succinct.
Policies should also be consistent with one another. They should not give conflicting messages. The problem at the moment is that WP:BURDEN needs to be brought into conformity with WP:PRESERVE (and I've already made edits to WP:PRESERVE to bring it closer to WP:BURDEN).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I see it... WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN discuss different stages in the sourcing process. WP:PRESERVE talks about what should happen before somone challenges an unsourced statement... while BURDEN talks about what must happen after someone has challenged an unsourced statement. This is why I do not see any conflict. In any case... I would object to any wording that diminishes the clear intent of WP:BURDEN. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Content notability

One debate I have seen in WP is that there is no content notability guidelines. Any time someone tries to bring up WP:NOTABILITY to show that suggested content is not worthy of inclusion in WP, someone brings up the fact that Notability only applies to articles, not material. But I know of no specific policy that mentions that fact. I feel we should add something that states that inclusion of content has a different standard than the creation of an article on a topic, and it seems that Verifiability is the closest content guideline for that aim. Angryapathy (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea of judging content to decide what to include is exactly the point of WP:NPOV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with any proposal on "content notability" is that it is extremely undesirable to cut reliably-sourced material from Wikipedia. If it's reliably-sourced, it merits inclusion, and if it isn't, it doesn't. WP:NPOV is often but not always a matter of phrasing and emphasis rather than exactly what content to include.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, "if it's reliably-sourced, it merits inclusion" is not true. The US census rolls for 1930 are a reliable source for who lived in Fort Worth, Texas in 1930, but it would be inappropriate to trancribe the name of every resident into the "Fort Worth, Texas" article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the best we have is WP:WEIGHT which is a subsection of WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, I didn't say "every single detail from every reliable source should be included". I'm not denying that Wikipedia should be written in summary style. I'm saying that there should be a presumption against cutting reliably-sourced material from the encyclopaedia.

In your example, if some idiot added the name of every resident, you'd summarise that by saying "According to the US census rolls, (x number of) people lived in Fort Worth in 1930."—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about content notability, which means whether content is important enough to include or not. Presumably if one is considering eliminating a claim because it isn't important, one has already decided that less subjective reasons for exclusion, such as lack of a reliable source, don't apply. If one is writing a policy and says, in a section about how important material must be to merit inclusion, "if it's reliably-sourced, it merits inclusion" then, according to Marshall's policy, the full list of 1930 Fort Worth inhabitants may be included. That's why including "if it's reliably-sourced, it merits inclusion" in a policy about content notability would be a disaster. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You aren't responding to what I said. You're addressing a straw man.

I said "it is extremely undesirable to cut reliably-sourced material from Wikipedia". That's what I meant.

You can move it, you can merge it, you can trim it, you can summarise it, you can cut it from huge swathes of content down to a paragraph, a sentence or even a couple of words. But only in exceptional circumstances (such as BLP violations) should you remove the link to the reliable source.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no patience for editors who expand and reword their ideas to prove they are always right. You are just wrong on this one, and I'm done discussing it. Any attempt to put this idea into policy will result on me calling upon others to take any necessary steps to remove it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the main point Marshall is saying is that the "if it's reliably sourced, it merits inclusion," is pretty much the general unsaid rule of WP. The qualification to that is there are some rules that will cut down on which information is disallowed. Your example of the census data would not be allowed under WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTLINK. But this argument here is a perfect example of why something should be included to address this issue somewhere. And I disagree with Carl that WP:NPOV addresses this issue, as NPOV refers to when two sets of information contradict or are in conflict with one another. Angryapathy (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. " The key word there is significant. The key issue in "content notability" is undue weight: for some content, even though it is reliably sourced, the due weight is zero, and we should not include it in our articles. This includes not only tiny-fringe opinions, but also hyper-esoteric facts, detailed census data, etc. Of course editorial judgment is required to determine whether to include content in an article. The question, according to NPOV, should be framed in terms of how much weight to give each piece of information, with some content not even warranting a mention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See, that quote would be applicable if it didn't have the word "view". A view is an opinion or one side of an argument. That is very different from information. The historical stock price for a company is not a view, but can be reliably sourced. So again, that policy still does not say "any significant content that is reliably sourced may be added to Wikipedia," only significant views. There is a still a hole is the guidelines where many arguments are fought about what makes content notable enough for WP. Angryapathy (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, contrary to your assertion, NPOV does say that. WP:WEIGHT notes: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." This text was there at least a full year ago,[7] so it is not a recent addition or new interpretation of NPOV. Vassyana (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV covers not only opinions, but all material in articles. It is possible that whoever wrote NPOV was using the widely-held convention that "all writing is argument". So I am saying that, if anything needs to be clarified, it is the section on "undue weight" in WP:NPOV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl mentions one other key factor in determining content notability... editorial judgment. Whether a specific reliably sourced fact or viewpoint should be mentioned in a specific article is ultimately up to the editors of the article. It isn't a policy issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tertiary sources

I have come across numerous articles where contentious information is supported by tertiary sources. When information is supported by reliable secondary sources, it is possible to trace the sources and also to find academic criticism, neither of which is possible with tertiary sources. The problemn usually arises in political articles where editors use tertiary sources to define terms like "liberal", "left-wing", "social liberalism", etc. where definitions are disputed. It would be helpful to have a guideline that tertiary sources should not be used when they disagree with reliable secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS. Angryapathy (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsourced material

... how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

Must every unsourced statement be removed on sight? If not, how long may a {{fact}} tag stay up?

I ask this, because one editor has been following me around and methodically removing every word I write on a particular topic. Meanwhile, I've seen fact tags stay up for over a year in articles unrelated to this topic.
Should this other editor be making reasonable efforts himself to find sources that support such material? Or does he have the right to erase every statement I make until and unless I can find an acceptable secondary source?
Must all information about a church be provided by sources other than that church?

For example, would a Catholic Church source be acceptable about the history, doctrine, organization or current activities of Catholics?

Please give me practical, in-depth answers to these questions. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It depends on the assertion. If someone writes that the moon is made of cheese I'd expect a source immediately. But I usually wait at least a couple of weeks or a month if the assertion isn't extraordinary or controversial.

2. The burden is on the editor adding the material. While it's polite and shows good faith when an editor seeks out sources for an unsourced assertion, it isn't a requirement.

3. The Catholic Church has not always been a reliable source for its own activities. New religious movements are even more problematic as sources. I believe that official church sources should be normally treated as primary sources. They'd be fine sources for the exact wording of a prayer, for example. But articles should be based mainly on third-party sources. Will Beback talk 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, in my haste, I overlooked your reply. Thank you for it; it seems quite sensible, especially #1 and #2. I need further guidance on #3, as I am a member of a new religious movement and get most of my information about it, from it. I'm often astonished to find that other Wikipedians would question a Unification Church source about church theology or organization. For example, the church in America got a new leader (the founder's own daughter), yet when I quoted a church document as a source this source and the info itself were both immediately challenged.

Can't members of the Unification Church of America be trusted to know who their own church president is? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I have never examined any of your edits, so understand this is hypothetical. If you were to repeatedly add the same, or similar, claims to various articles, had been repeatedly asked for sources, and never found a source, then you should just stop adding that claim or group of claims. The policy writers never really thought of the phenomenon of the same unsupported claim being added over and over to many different articles, but I think it is no different in spirit to adding the same unsupported claim to a single article over and over. That's called edit warring. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about; obviously, as a Wikipedian of long standing, I know that it would be counterproductive to keep inserting the same challenged info - if I also failed to locate sources.

What I'm asking about, rather, is one particular user's practice of immediately removing information which (to me) seems not to require a source. Instead of following WP:BURDEN and adding a fact tag and giving me sufficient time to find sources, he just (1) removes the information and/or (2) lectures me on supposedly violating WP:BURDEN.

This user is holding me to a higher standard than anyone else at Wikipedia must follow, and the effect is to squelch WP:TEAMWORK.

So I ask again, is there a rule that requires each statement inserted in an article to be supported with a source? And is it within policy for a user to routinely delete all statements which lack a source? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This user Ed Poor (talk · contribs) seems to have a pattern of creating wholly unsourced articles [8], and also adding completely unsourced material to articles, including even to WP:BLP articles [9]. He may be seeking comments here to vindicate this inappropriate behavior. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just add a source? If you can't find a source, don't add the information. WP:BURDEN puts the work on you to source what you've added. In cases of BLP-related articles and info, you absolutely should not be adding unsourced material. Any such additions should be immediately reverted. If the claim is contentious, whether BLP or not, it should be removed immediately. Lara 14:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I am writing about controversial topics - not biographies per se. Now, in the old days of Wikipedia, I never had any trouble with balancing articles by adding positive information when the article consisted primarily of negative information. This is in accordance with NPOV, which at that time urged writers to adhere to the highest standard, i.e., that no one reading the article (or even a particular edit) would be able to guess which side of the controversy the writer personally favored.

I am not seeking vindication (or I'd be in conflict resolution). I am seeking clarification of the new policies and guidelines. If things have changed (or if as is theoretically possible I simply am misremembering the old policies and practices in place before 2005), then I need guidance. Now it looks to me like one user is trying to remove all important and/or positive information about the Unification Movement and substituting his own personal (and unattributed viewpoints as if they were indisputable facts.

I on the other hand am trying to present a balanced view, conscious of the handicap of trying hard not to violate the conflict-of-interest rules. I could use some help and guidance. If no one wants to help me find sources for the valuable information I have, does this mean I have to do all the research myself or just keep out of it? I don't see this standard being applied to other articles, but if articles touching on Rev. Moon and his movement must follow this standard, I will follow it; but I expect all others to follow it as well.

Before I embark on a campaign of removing all poorly-sourced derogatory information and unsourced speculation and OR from all these articles, I'd like a clarification of policy.

I was an admin and bureacrat, and one of the most trusted members of this community. I have not changed, but if the community has changed I promise to change with it. Please tell me what the new rules are. (Or at least show me specific cases where I have messed up and explain what I should do differently.) The constant barrage of false accusations by one user - who has been repeatedly scolded by others for this - is not helping. I need guidance from experienced editors in good standing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that trying to balance POV with unsourced statements is a bad way to go. If there are NPOV problems, unsourced statements should not be used as the solution. Angryapathy (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully with Angryapathy (talk · contribs), but I would add in addition to unsourced statements to balance POV, statements from primary sources, and sources affiliated directly with the subject, should not be used - especially when an abundance of independent reliable secondary sources are available! Cirt (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for an article to have a balance of positive and negative statements; what is required is that the article present a fair picture of what the reliable sources say. If all the reliable sources about X say he is an asshole with no redeeming qualities, then Wikipedia should say X is an asshole with no redeeming qualities. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] First principles derivations do not need citation

I argued about that some time ago here or on the OR page. I was told to invoke WP:IAR if I were to get into trouble on the articles I've been working on, because it was unlikely that wiki policies would be changed. Now, User:OMCV is threatening to put the article Relations between heat capacities on AFD, simply becaue of a ciation issue, not because he has any argument about the content.

Now, this article is a sub article referred from a few articles on heat capacity. Interested readers can read about the technical derivations from first principles. So, the very existence of this article enhances verification. If you know the necessary math to understand the derivation but have not studied thermodynamics, you would not be able to easily verify the statements via the citations in the main article. You would have to get hold of the books on thermodynamics and then you would have to work through the book, studying thermodynamics in the process. So, it is not a straightforward verification at all.

Because of my background in theoretical physics and my teaching exprience, I am able to give self contained derivations where possible. The statements themselves can be cited, but the derivatins cannot. The theory behind the derivations can, of course, also be cited. The reason why the derivations cannot be cited, is because I've adaped them to make them suitable for incusion in here in wikipedia. Derivations in books will build on other statements made elsewhere. The writer of the book will assume that the student has a certain knowledge. Here on Wikipedia, I make different assumptions on that the reader already knows (I assume that the reader knows less) and I will have to do with wiki links to other articles. In some articles, others have added a citation for the derivation, but that's i.m.o. misleading.

Now, the state of the thermodynamics article before I started to edit them was abominable as I explained here last year. The wiki policies on verification, rather than helping to make the articles better, were actually helping to keep the articles in the flawed states. Flawed statements were seemingly supported by citations. People are less inclined to question a statement that looks a bit strange if that statement is supported by a citation. Citation are almost never checked out (as explained above, that would be a non-trivial exercise anyway, it could involve weeks of study). You'll find no trace on the talk pages of the affected artcles that discussed even quite trivialy flawed statements.

Recently, I wrote this proposed policies to address these sorts of problems, but I got little supoort for that. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The bigger issue I see with that page is not whether the derivations can be sourced, but that the page looks like a textbook. The issue of when to include derivations is not simple, and there are differing opinions, but in general the focus of the article should be on the theorems rather than the proofs, so to speak.

We do not require that every derivation can be cited word for word from a textbook. Actually, copying long derivations word for word would not fit into our rules about copyrighted text, and paraphrasing them too closely would be some sort of plagiarism even if it managed to avoid the copyright issue. So some element of originality will always go into writing derivations. The general standard (which is vague, not precise) is that the derivations we include here should be written in a way parallel to the way they would be written in the best textbooks in the area. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I added a first reference to a textbook with a derivation of one of the formulas. For standard textbook fare it is usually not too hard to find them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an issue where it is probably best for WP policy not to be too specific. On the one hand, there are articles where it's valuable to have a reader-friendly derivation, and I wouldn't like to see sourcing rules get in the way of that. On the other, Talk:0.999.../Arguments is a pretty convincing demonstration of why it's not enough to say "sound derivations are okay" - too many people aren't competent to judge whether their derivations are sound. I don't think it's possible to handle this problem without making the occasional judgement call. --GenericBob (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely support "First principle derivations do not need citations". One article that I liked was Stress (mechanics) because of it's derivations. If you care about "truth through verifiability" rather than "verifiability, not truth" then an inline derivation is much more verifiable than a citation. Jrincayc (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Translations of primary source quotes

Lots of articles include quotes from ancient texts, including the Bible, Qu'ran, hadiths, and in the case of one article I'm working on, the Mahabharata. I know that these should only be there as a supplement to sourcing from secondary sources, but within these limits I believe consensus is that it's acceptable to include them. Say we use a standard English version of the text. Is it really useful, per this policy, to include either in the text or in a footnote the original Latin, Arabic or Sanskrit? If "chapter and verse" is given, then it should be easy for anyone who is able to read the original language to go and look it up. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that this should be handled on a case by case basis. In my opinion, only if the original language version were somehow well-known in English (e.g., cogito ergo suum) or there were some verifiable dispute among translators would there be a need for the original language source; WP:NPOV would require acknowledging different translations if they were meaningfully different, I think. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific reason that including the original language quotation is necessary or particularly edifying, I don't see why it should be quoted. Additionally for Bible texts, what particular source texts are being used need to be known. Different Bible translations use different text sets. For example, one would need to know if the translators were using the Textus Receptus, Nestle Greek New Testament, or another source. Vassyana (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Access to sources

Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#pay_up_or_shut_up as an example of a recurrent frustration at WP:RS/N which resulted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, both of which resulted in WP:RS/N editors adding "access to sources" to this. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a short section on how the accessibility of sources does not impact verifiability. This is due to getting repeated questions at RSN about "pay sites" and the like. We need to make it clear somewhere that verifiability does not neccessarily mean that "you... personally, must be able to access the source right now, for free, on line, without leaving your chair or doing any leg work" Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, sources should be verifiable in principle, not verifiable sitting at home without expending effort or money. However, there may be extreme examples where it is necessary to rethink this, e.g. citation to an incunabulum written in archaic German accessible only by certified researchers kept in a museum in Budapest. LK (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

suspect Primary and Original Research cover that generally Fifelfoo (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One saving feature is that if the only source to verify a statement is very hard to access, that source could not be relied on to establish notability nor anything contentious. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is generally understood that sources must be accessible to whoever is willing to go to the right place and pay the required fee. It should not be necessary to go to work for a particular government organization nor to join a particular organization or religion. The case of having to be a bona-fide researcher isn't so clear. The researcher just has to demonstrate that he/she is serious; the researcher need not work for a particular employer or espouse any belief. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Many sections of the NY state archives (largest state archives in the US) are accessible only to certain members of the state govt or those researchers who are able to get special access. Many of those documents would be of great use for a article, even if they are primary sources (and yes primary sources are important, and of great use in a Wikipedia article). Should we say that anyone who does get clearance to see them can not then use them in an article because few others can? Especially if it is to dispute a claim put forth in a source that says "document A states..." and the document actually says the opposite when put in context. As for religion, yes we dont expect individuals to convert just to see a document or read a book; but there are Wikipedians of every religion out there who could verify FOR you, you dont have to be able to see it yourself, do we not trust each other? Same with foreign languages, find someone who can read the language and translate it for you. Verifiable by SOMEONE, not necessarily YOU.Camelbinky (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The matter really needs to be addressed and it would be good if there were some definite provisions for referring to (extracting facts from) archive documents, because in many cases they are the *only* real way to get certain facts straight. Things like: what school did X go to? has X really held a manager position at company Y? when did they start teaching this or that subject at so-and-so school? Sometimes that kind of thing is vital to find a good and illuminating way to set something out - what person X says about it himself might not do, there could be a thousand reasons that he'd distort things or hush it up. Or in order to judge the value of what a third-party source is saying, perhaps on some other matter (if archive documents show that X was doing his military service at time T then it might prove that he can't have gone abroad and witnessed the event E at the same time, which he said later that he had). Telling people in interviews that he went to a more flashy school than he actually did and so on. Some in the WP community want to ban all use of archive documents, even public ones that are open for free to anyone, and also stuff with restricted access such as the NY archives, because they are - you guessed it - not easy to check for everyone and thus threaten to corrupt articles where they are used.

We need to develop some stance on this, at least some clear guidelines. It's not just archives: more and more news sources are erecting some kind of paywall again, or blocking access to some material unless you happen to be in the same country. For the last five or six years we've had relatively unlimited access to free news and features from every outlet that was online and with a very wide backlog, and sites like Wikipedia have drawn on this, but that era is coming to an end at least with many reliable newspapers and magazines. /Strausszek (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We altrady have a stance on this... see: WP:Verifiability#Access to sources Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you slightly missed the point. I'm fine with that it doesn't mean "everyone must be able to check at a moment's notice" but some facts are actually hard to check, or verify in a fail safe way, for other than a limited swarm of people with special interest or special access to the relevant documents or books. And the range of sources that will demand special access (paid subscription etc) is growing, and very likely to keep on growing. Lots of WP articles use online newspapers and mags as their main verifications, but more and more papers are protecting a big part of their content behind paywalls. A few years ago the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were the only US newspapers who did that, but there will be more of it and effectively it means people here could keep on challenging each others' claims if these are sourced from such a news source behind a paywall, as long as no one will check. And as long as the losing part isn't so suspicious he says "You made that up, you sided with him! I don't believe The Economist actually ran that argument!" /Economist now requires subscription to be able to read much of its content online, especially the backlog of articles/

---edit: okay, I can see we agree in principle on paysites, but suppose it's a site or a magazine that has a subscription fee that's much higher than normal. Some leading scientific journals have prohibitive subscriptions because they are effectively able to impose subscriptionship: if you're an elite university in that area you have to keep journals A,B and C to qualify. That's actually a major problem to university libraries these days. The publishers can command 2.000$ a year in subscription and no, they don't put things out online. Only on paper. Of course those mags will be accessible at the research libraries in question but it's still limited access. - end of added bit -

I've seen instances here on WP where people have been accused of "original research" and their matter deleted when they added something highly relevant to an article, even though their sources were all open and could be checked by anyone who took the trouble and they'd indicated (without any real synth input) exactly why this ripped apart certain claims made by the subject of the article (not first-person claims about X self, but central assertions that had been made in, for instance, a book he/she had written). Sometimes when you want to do an article that does its job, says what is relevant and central, you need to resort to sources with limited access to make sure you get it right. The current WP:Verifiability#Access to sources doesn't really deal with it in any thought-through way. It just presupposes everything that matters can be sourced and settled from places that are open and free./Strausszek (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can reach the conclusion that the section presupposed what you say it does... if anything it presupposes the opposite... that materials are often NOT free or are difficult to access... and they are just as acceptable as materials that are free and easy to locate... to quote:

"... This does not, however, mean that any one can do so instantaneously, without any cost or effort. For example, some on-line sources may require payment to view; and some print sources may only be accessible in specific university libraries. The ease of access does not affect the verifiability of the information taken from such sources." (bolding added for emphisis)

This means exactly what it says... "The ease of access does not affect the verifiability of the information taken from such sources". Period, end of sentence. I don't see how we can get any clearer than that. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I'm not sure how you want things changed: I don't think you are saying "if its above x dollars a paragraph, then we can't use it?" Some portion of citable information will be difficult to access. Some (probably small) portion of that will be contentious. Some smaller portion of that will not have a secondary wikipedian readily available to check. In the small number of cases where it continues beyond that point, I don't think there is much we can pre-decree here. What SHOULD we say here about it? (John User:Jwy talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess one part of what I want nailed down is this: If we have a news story, a reported scientific discovery or the like and some journalists are making a factually overstated claim which sounds hefty, twists the story and sells copy, but which is not borne out if one takes a hard look at the primary (data results, a recent Ph.D. study that's cited as a brekthrough) or secondary (scientific survey reports, interviews in a specialized journal) sources these journalists would or should - have used, then those better sources must override what those journalists said, even though the papers and tv reporting are much easier to access and will get repeated by some wikipedians: "it says in this newspaper that so-and-so, and that other source you're waving about isn't really trustworthy, how can we know it says that - I can't access it?" It doesn't matter what newspaper or magazines printed those faulty articles, if they can be proven wrong those statements shouldn't be cited anymore. Very few news outlets are 100% accurate all the time today, or can claim they never print something that was engineered to create sensation or controversy, and so it might likely be overstated, abusive or wrong.

It could be an old story as well; reporters and popular writers tend to parrot each other a lot, so once a certain story, a certain turn to a story, has taken root, it can survive for many decades even if it clearly misrepresents the facts. You get a thousand popular accounts that say or imply e.g. that the October Revolution was a popular rising undertaken by the ordinary people with lots of street fighting. No, it wasn't - there actually wasn't a huge amount of street fighting except at some key points and the ordinary people of Petrograd didn't participate. But thirty to fifty years ago the version which made it look like the French Revolution was current even among western historians who had zero sympathy for Lenin. Even in some school textbooks. They had bought the idea that the city was jampacked with people shooting with rifles and cannon and that everyone was aware that the old cabinet was going. Eight months before, at the February Revolution when they kicked out the tsar it was just like that, but that one had next to nothing to do with the Bolsheviks. There are lots of old legends like that, I'm citing it to point out how they survive.

The praxis we have today makes it very hard to stick to the authority of the sources who really know about a certain contested thing, plus many wikipedians hate authorities on principle. The catchphrase "verifiability, not truth" gets in the way, because to many people it means all third-party sources are equal. But that kind of "anything goes as long as it's quoted" attitude really jeopardizes the reliability of WP. /Strausszek (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah... what you are talking about is "assessing the comparative reliability" of different sources... ie which sources should carry more weight ... not whether a specific source is verifiable or not. Wikipedia deals with this under WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Essentially, if two equally reliable sources say something different, NPOV tells us to present both view points. However, very often sources are not equally reliable... and WP:NPOV does not say that we must treat all sources as being equal. Obviously a scholarly source carries more Weight than a media source... and Wikipedia wants our articles to be based on the most reliable sources possible. However, judging between two sources can not be narrowly discussed and mandated by policy... because such determinations are always subject specific. They must be worked out on the article talk page. Wikipeida policies and guidelines are broad principles, not narrow laws. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I plainly don't think you can say, en bloc, "the New York Times is always top of the list reliability-wise if it's in conflict with other sources" (the NYT can be replaced here with any high-end news source). Now, I regularly read NYT online and I would personally trust it >90% of the time, but that doesn't mean every word printed there is a gold standard and can't be challenged from facts (or from some other source's interpretation of something, and the facts cited there). And WP:RS just seems to imply that news sources that qualify as "highly reliable" should always be supposed to be right if they are cited. The trouble for me is that it permits no attempt to discuss the reliability of a specific article or statement. At least if we see WP:RS as a Law (not a rule to be tweaked by common sense) and if it doesn't matter what the primary source facts are or who wrote the news piece/op-ed piece in question. Unfortunately, some people here, even Admins, do see WP:RS and other rules as Laws to be clobbered into everybody's heads.

To lots of Wikipedians I've encountered, the established practice is that all statements from reliable sources are perfectly equal: there is no real source criticism or discussion of the relationship between different sources and accounts, unless you can borrow that discussion straight from a third-party source (and it still risks getting neglected). And in practice, when the high-end newspaper is set against other sources, these users tend to lump together Fox News and the rare scientific report that you have to go 300 miles to some college library to read, because Fox News isn't reliable (true) but the rare report isn't easily accessible. So they are both pushed out by, like, Daily Telegraph or CBS 60 Minutes or Larry King Live - which is a bit debilitating. A guy who is doing serious research wouldn't take such a sloppy view of his particular sources. WP isn't generally into research, but I think it should at least accept that we can avail ourselves of the means of research to check specific facts and get the picture right. /Strausszek (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There SHOULD be discussions such as those you say and difficult disputes can appeal to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we are getting off the topic of "access" to sources and payment regarding reliability and getting into comparative weight. If that is true, I suggest we state a conclusion to the access part (status quo as per Blueboar's interpretation as codified into existing policy and the cost essay) and break this into a subthread regarding comparative weight.Camelbinky (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that we got off the topic... I think we simply clarified what the topic actually is. Strausszek's concern isn't really an access issue... but one of comparative reliability. This is something that can not be dealt with through policy... the various sources need to be examined on a case by case basis by those who best know the specific subject and the sources ... ie on the article talk page. And if they need outside opinions... Jwy hits the nail on the head... WP:RSN was created, in part, to give editors a venue to get help with issues relating to reliability such as those Strausszek is concerned about. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for advanced topic of a profession

In short, is the article of such topic requires citation, although the contributor is strongly against it?

A topic(substance, theory, truth) of a particular professional field.
That topic isn't (likely to be) challenged today in that profession.
That topic isn't considered as a "common knowledge" by people outside of that profession.

So here's the story. Rencetly in ZH Wikiepdia Village Pump (Policy), there's a repetitious debate (假如一條條目沒有外連及指出參考文獻，理應掛{{unreferenced}}模板，可是……) stemmed from few users who aren't in the profession placed the {{unreferenced}} tag in 1,3-dipole. The contributor of that article insists that 1,3-dipole is an objective truth without dispute in chemistry and citing this EN policy page as his basis of argument:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

While other users challenge that because they do not understand chemistry, particularly about that article being discussed, citing source is required. The dispute continues with each side repeating their same statement and no one seems to agree with the opposite. So I ask for suggestions here. Thx -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just find a source... If something is "an objective truth without dispute in chemistry" it should be easy to find a source for it (for example in a basic chemistry text book). Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested the same. (As the contributor also stated such topic is available in chemistry textbook, so one {{cite book}} template would have simply settle the dispute.) But the point is, right now the policy doesn't mandatorily require citation for "an objective truth without dispute in that profession". The contributor seems to afraid that Wikipedia would become an encyclopedia full of unrefereneced tag or articles plagued by ref code (so making them edit-unfriendly.) Anyway, the opposite cares not the difficulty to have citation in article, but the policy which "if it isn't required, don't force it like it is disputed." -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that we don't require every statement in Wikipedia to be referenced... however, we do require sourcing for any statement that "is challenged or likely to be challenged". We allow editors to write articles without having to spend time and effort locating sources for basic information ... information that is "not likely to be challenged". However, sometimes deciding whether something is "likely to be challenged" or not is a judgement call... and different people may disagree as to whether something is "likely to be challenged". What we can definitely say is that, when someone comes along and accutally does challenge the information (by requesting a citation), then there is now a burden to actually locate and add a source.

In other words, you don't need to worry about citing basic stuff unless someone asks you to do so... at which point you do have to cite it. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That it correct. We don't want a citation for every mention of "sky is blue", but if an editor requests it, we should be willing and able to provide a source, at least on the talk page. Generally, scientific points that are "well known" to experts in that science can be sourced to a textbook, or a famous paper. If neither type of source exists, it's very likely not so "well known", and some source is clearly needed. Crum375 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As Crum says, you can also consider giving a citation on the talk page, for the sorts of things where putting a citation in the article would be silly.

Regarding the specific article 1,3-dipole, the issue there is that the article is a stub, with only two sentences. So it should be marked as a stub, which is stronger than just marking it as unreferenced. Adding at least one general reference to the article, just so that someone who wants to know where to look can find it, would be a good idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm talking about the ZH version of zh:1,3-偶极体. Anyway I've found out that in the ZH WP:Verifiability there's an exclusively extra statement (特别是受合理質疑且确無可靠來源查證的內容) which can be loosely translated as "especially for content without citation of realiable source and received reasonable doubt". Which sets up the threshold for non-professional user/reader to question/challenge the verifiability of content without citation. I wonder if this statement is rational, it seems that the contributor defends by this reasonable doubt to avoid citation for a "truth" somehow not studied by the majority. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask why are we discussing an article on the ZH version of Wikipedia on this page? Different versions of Wikipedia have their own policies and guidelines, and (when these are similar to those here on the EN version) have developed different interpretations of their policies and guidelines. What we say here does not relate to what goes on at the ZH version. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute in the Chinese Wikipedia and it is related to the interpretation of the policy. As many policies including WP:V in ZH Wikipedia are based on their counterparts in the EN version, the EN Wikiepdia is served as the supreme court of Wikipedias. --Quest for Truth (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean that. Since the discussion there's almost stagnant, I ask for suggestions in EN. Alhtough I personally prefer unchallenged scientific article must provide at least 1 citation (either inline note or reference reading), I'm not going to use this disucssion to serve as a supreme judgment to my interest. Either way, WP:Scientific citation guidelines (not yet translated to ZH) does not mention any exception, I hope that's enough to support my basis. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting from a source that is not easily accessible.

My opinion is that sources that are not easily accessible or free should be quoted in detail. Perhaps as a foot note, so that readers are able to read the original. It would also prevent an editor from misquoting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you define "easily accessible"? Easy for whom? Keep in mind that many very high quality accademic sources are "easily accessible" by those living in major cities or university towns, ie places with major libraries, while these same sources would not be "easily accessible" by someone living in a rural area. Would you have us quote, in detail, every dead tree source that is not accessible over the Internet?

Also... extensive quoting can bump up against copyrite laws. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If a x*^#@ editor would make up a citation, the x*^#@ editor would make up a quote too. However, having the quote would help detect cases where the source and quote actually exist, but don't quite support the claim presented in the article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is all sources that cannot be counter checked right away, at a click, should be quoted in detail. I am not sure about the copyright angle. Just my opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This would also take care of the foreign language problem, as then one who wishes to check could do so using translation software, which are available without charge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is simply not practical. To actually check a reference usually requires looking at large parts of a text, including parts much earlier than the actual part being quoted. This is because you have to check the context in which the quoted material is located. But even if we made editors type only the surrounding 3 paragraphs of the source, this would add an enormous burden to anyone who wants to add a source. There is no reason why all sources need to be verifiable online; sometimes people have to go to the library, and that's OK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you suspect that a specific source is being misapplied, taken out of context, or otherwise misused, there is nothing wrong with requesting a more detailed quote on the article's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just saying that it would kill my productivity if I had to retype a page out of the book every time that I make a citation. If a specific issue comes under discussion, then it starts to be more worthwhile for me to spend that time. Particularly because, when an issue is under discussion, it's usually necessary to look up several sources to make sure that the one being quoted is reflective of the overall literature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Blueboar and Carl. Plus asking editors to type in large quotes from offline sources raises huge potential copyright infringement issues. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur, this is a non-starter in almost all cases. Better to work on improving the quality of citations so that other editors have a reasonable chance at finding the source in a major library.LeadSongDog come howl 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The need to refer to books violates the utility of an online encyclopaedia. Well perhaps this view of mine is generated from my limitations. The nearest library for me is a world away. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you are unable to access the source does not invalidate it. The principle is that anyone must be able to do it, not everyone - that is an important distinction. All it takes to call into question a source is that only one person checks it and reports that it does not say what it is claimed to. Roger (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would go a step further and say, instead of "anyone" it actually means "someone" can verify it. Just as one person can claim the source doesn't say "it", it also takes just one person to verify that "yes, its OK". I feel bad for you, Yogesh, that the nearest library is a world away, however an encyclopedia's utility is not to exist as a tool to "find" sources, actual book encyclopedias rarely put their all their sources, or many of them, as the individual articles are mostly written by professionals on that topic (Einstein once wrote an article on Relativity and Physics for an encyclopedia). The sources used in a paper encyclopedia are even harder to access than those we use in Wikipedia. Your suggestion would easily open the door to invalidation of any book citations, newspaper articles, and other non-internet sources. Contrary to popular belief very little of total human knowledge can be located on the internet, even less is free.Camelbinky (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually my views are from the perspective of an editor and not a casual reader, though in the case of Wikipedia they are often the same. I am not suggesting harsh steps taken in a hurry. I wonder how articles in the real world for example journals are reviewed? Does the writer of these articles provide the sources he quotes? I could check this out though. I have a few acquaintances who have written papers published in reputed international scientific journals. I would like to rephrase your ending remark, I would prefer it to be very little of total human knowledge is presently located on the Internet... Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a grad student I can tell you that for most professors who publish it is his/her grad students who round up the various sources (I even worked for a professor who wrote out his entire paper, then told two of us "to go find sources to support what I wrote and throw in footnotes where needed"; so basically his opinions came first and then sources that supported his statements were thrown in; and yes it was published with no problem in a peer reviewed journal). Peer reviewed journals, at least in my discipline of Political Science, may often have completely opposing papers in the same journal often on purpose; "peer reviewed" does not mean, as some on Wikipedia seem to think, mean that the conclusions or data presented has met the approval of the writer's "peers" or that it is representative of the consensus in that community; on the contrary even professional academic journals do very little "peer reviewing" as I just defined. I agree with Yogesh's rewrite of my quote; hopefully by using non-internet sources and bringing more of them to Wikipedia we are increasing the amount of total human knowledge on the Internet every day.Camelbinky (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As a publishing scientist (in computer science), I know the papers I reference. If I review something, I typically know the core papers that are being referenced. If not, I often get the abstracts to see if a claim is plausible, or, even the paper - either online, from the library, or from the scientist. But most computer science papers I read present substantially new material anyways - references mostly add context and lay the groundwork. Referencing is much less anal as on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that providing good context is much of a burden at all. Lets face it, copying even 3 paragraphs of text from a book you have in front of you is not that big of a deal. Considering how much time most of us spend, and how much text is written, on talk pages alone, those 3 paragraphs' value far outweigh the one-time cost. This is not about denying AGF, it is about honoring it, while allowing for pertinent information. I don't know that we should demand it for every offline source, I doubt it, but it might be worthwhile to at least introduce such behavior as a 'good idea'. Unomi (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a big deal, but it's likely to constitute a violation of copyright policy, which requires that non-free text be used in accordance with WP:NFC. NFC forbids extensive quotations of copyrighted text. Three paragraphs is extensive even if it is the only text copied from a source, but if a source is used multiple times in one article or across multiple articles, then the infringement is compounded and we can wind up with a very substantial taking indeed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the reference is about something contentious, where someone may doubt about what does the source exactly says, we can quote the text being referenced. But 3 paragrapahs, or even 1, are too much, and unneeded: a quote of the key sentences would be enough. And if the information is distributed in the way "important sentence - uninteresting sentences - another important sentence" we can use the quotation technique of "important sentence. [...] another important sentence." MBelgrano (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Cite book}} is already provided with a field for the quote from the book. Having in mind the topics about copyright and not making a reference giant, it simply needs to be used when needed. MBelgrano (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A demand that if the reference (I prefer to say "reference" rather than "source" because often the fact you want is not indisputably demonstrated in the reference text, it's just mentioned as an already verified thing, or even implied) is not easy to get hands on for any medium user then it must be quoted in full detail - that demand if enforced would make some articles almost impossible to write or to keep understandable. It would increase the scope for pointless edit wars too, because people could always say, if they wanted to, "this is not quoted in enough detail" or "I have another source which contradicts your source - I'll cut what you've written and put in my version".

Science isn't always unambiguous and scholars don't always express themselves in cut-and-dried statements of everything they've thought or concluded, so if we're not allowed to use some measure of judgment in handling references, appreciating what they want to say, where the facts come from and whether the reference author makes his case, there is really no point in trying to stitch together logical and sourced articles - much of the time it still won't lead to any stable result, just "back-writing" from the kind of sources you can wave in front of other wikipedians. Preferably sources that are online or easy to get at a public library, and preferably in English. That kind of demand would make this WP both more shut-in, more biased and more uncritical.

As Camelbinky put it, the source groundwork behind articles in paper encyclopaedias and scientific reviews is often even harder to access and check than the references we use here, and actually, the arguments in those professional texts aren't completely chained down to the data references. The reasoning and the "story" they make follow, to some extent, their own logic to win over the reader. I have become increasingly disillusioned with some editors here at WP who don't understand how complex it can be to "verify" beyond doubt an outwardly simple statement when you can't grab it in one piece off the bookshelf, and who will edit out everything that "doesn't have a fail safe source right now", no matter how dubious that "non-sourcedness" would be. Any statement that deals with the intentions of a person relating to something he did, or a social/historical/ literary movement, or which says that X likely did not know about Y or wouldn't have understood that Z, those and other statements can be challenged no matter how obviously true they are if you know the topic. They are really hard to verify before a non-peer audience which you can never be sure you may tell "bear with me and I'll explain": it takes several steps of reasoning to bring the grounds out and people who don't get it tend to say "you haven't shown us all the sources for every step of this - why can't you be like a physicist who points out exactly what he claims and proves it?". Er, if I did roll out the entire reasoning, they'd fall asleep!/Strausszek (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to have strayed a bit from the topic of this section, but "... arguments in those professional texts", etc. seek to do something which Wikipedia seeks to avoid doing. Wikipedia editors should not engage in synthesis of published material that advances a position. WP articles should not contain in original research. WP articles might report that Bob says ABC and Jane say DEF, citing sources supporting those assertions, and might report properly attributed conclusions drawn about what Bob and/or Jane said by the cited sources reporting what they said. WP articles, however, should not draw conclusions or seek to persuade. There is some leeway in that for editorial judgement; how far that leeway extends is established by editorial consensus on an article-by-article basis. Regarding cases where excessive detail is needed to properly support an article assertion, removing that detail to an explanatory footnote might minimize disruption to the flow of the article prose. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If a source does some synth, we can and do use that synth that the source does and do not have to attribute that "source A says B+4=X" in the text. We simply say "X" and source it to A using a footnote, we dont have to say anything about how source or author A got to the conclusion or that it was a synth of sources B and 4. So I would disagree with most of Wtmitchell if I correctly understood him. However I think Wtmitchell also got off the point of this thread. The point is that WP:V's last section is quite clear as is the related essay linked to at the page (both of which were created at my request at the RS/N)- cost or ease of accessibility does not in any way affect reliability or verifiability. Exessive quoting is not only discouraged by current policies but is looks bad and is cumbersome to the reader and can get one in legal trouble as well. The quick answer to anything anyone may have regarding an opposing opinion is this- "verifiable does not mean by YOU, it means SOMEONE, we dont care if you personally cant verify it, tough luck". So basically I dont see any opposing opinions here that cant be answered back with that quote right there.Camelbinky (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, it's not about trying to brainwash people or push a POV or a fave theory on the subject of an article, but about producing intelligible and nuanced texts. That's a central part of what this site is about in my mind, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't think you could improve articles to some lasting results, a ground level of usefulness and accuracy where those articles (at least some of them) will remain for a decent length of time. But to get there, in very many cases the people participating have to be given the space to be specific and clear about what verifiably went on during, let's say, the Suez Crisis, the Battle for Britain or the evolution of MTV. Behind the scenes too (a part which is often vital and mostly not covered in easy-to-get news sources, which toss in anecdotes or legends instead). And they have to keep out the urban myths and falsehoods. It's just not possible to give a cogent account of the hows and whys, of what went on and how it's been retold and interpreted by historians (we're all our own historians to some degree) if the only allowed structure is to say "at date A, B happened -ref- - then at date C, D happened -ref- and RSource E says that F because G <quote or pseudo-quote from E here, indicating precisely F>G" etc. That way of telling something breaks down into a jumble as soon as those who are listening can't supply their own memories of the events, or a firm consensus doesn't already exist. It's neither scientific nor readable, and that kind of account leaves the door wide open for any ignorant editor to say "I don't believe it happned like that, I have this source that says it was P who invented it", "my source says Bush planned 9/11" and so on.

To get to a reasonable account, those "isolated fact points" have to provide some structure and the structure mostly means some amount of synthesis in many places - statements that are not just brute A+B=C. Ordinary encyclopaedias and handbooks are full of it. One of the reasons they don't fall into the kind of insane POV wars we see here is that people who write for the Britannica, for newspapers or whatever highly reliable sources, have to think of their reputation. If they publish gravely biased or unsourced drivel, they risk ruining their own good names. But here at WP, broadly speaking, no one is conditioned by the need to protect their rep and no one can point to his own authority in that way - so to some extent we have to find other ways of handling it. The "reference everything" position is one way of doing it, but a bad way I think, because it doesn't really match how reliable and intelligible texts are produced. /Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Camelbinky I too did not suffer from the misconception that peer review meant that the peers agree to the conclusion but that, one purpose of peer review is to check the references, for example if I write that rats are a staple source of proteins for Indians in the summer and quote a source, the peers check whether the quotation is there, the interpretation is correct and the source is of a good standard. Which is one job of editors here too. I hope I am clear. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial oversight

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."

What if you have a newspaper that has a good reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight and the journalist being sourced in WP is quoted for an international story, but the journalist specializes in local and human interest pieces? Would the newspaper be likely to provide editorial oversight or fact checking in such a situation? This recently came up where the writer interviewed an individual with a POV on internationals matters in relation to an upcoming local event. The journalist makes a blanket statement in relation to what "the Arab world" thinks. I believe the journalist just picked up on something the person he was interviewing said but did not quote him, merely expressed it as a fact. Some say it is acceptable to use this person's quote as RS for the thinking in the Arab world, since he is under the auspices of a RS. However the journalist clearly does not write about international issues, just local and human interest (handbags and shoes and murders and such), so I contend he would not be subject to editorial review in terms of what he says about international events.

Can we discriminate this issue? Am I making a reasonable argument? What would WP say? I'd appreciate input. Stellarkid (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the byline and the "tone" of an article (a source) need be taken into consideration. An example: Newsweek is generally a RS, I think, but a recent article referring to "our muslims" (immigrants to the US are well-integrated as opposed to those in Europe) had me seeing red. Sounds to me just like "our gypsies" and "our niggers". Never mind that the handfull of Muslims I know are way different from one another (Uyghur, Somali, Iraq (Arab), Iraq (Kurdish), Bosnia, Chad, Egypt -- in no particular order).

I'd rather we avoid any sign of patronizing or racism, or just in general sloppiness. - Hordaland (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking you're talking about Gaza War and the article in the South African Sunday Times? My answer would be that the South African Sunday Times is a reliable source and it is permissible to use it as a source in that article. However, the relevant phrasing should not give undue weight to Lauren Cohen's opinion, and must conform to a neutral point of view.
In this case I would think the phrasing you removed was not inappropriate and it might have been preferable to leave it in. I'm sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the Gaza War article, although I think the question is a broader one or I would not have put it up here. There are other issues involved in its removal. Does it really qualify as an "alternative name"? As a citation in the lede and contentious, we could expect more RS etc. and the issue of POV. So while I would hope that the answer supports me in this case, I really think the broader question is important for background. If a newspaper is reliable does that editorial oversight policy include every writer for every topic? Would the cartoonists be covered under the policy for example? (not trying to be funny here) Stellarkid (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like another situation where in text attribution would clarify things. Suggest that you re-phrase the sentence to read something like: "According to a news story printed by <name of reliable source X>, the Arab world thinks 'blah blah blah'.<cite to reliable source>" In text attribution alerts the reader to the fact that the information comes from one single source and might not accepted by other reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(In response to Stellarkid) I don't think it's possible to generalise here. For commonsense reasons a cartoon or humour piece isn't to be treated the same as a serious article, but I think in these matters of the detailed content of an article or the prominence to be given to a particular phrase, a local judgment needs to be made and it would not be possible to give a rule that wasn't stating the blindingly obvious.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citations to media sources (books, TV, Movies, etc)

My synthesis of the WP:NOR and WP:V/Access to Sources rules suggests to me that, when writing about a piece of publicly published media--a novel, movie, song, or TV series epsiode--a formal citation to the source is not necessary for factual assertions made about that primary source in the context of that article about that source... but we don't actually say that, and I've seen people tag such assertions with FACT, which I geneerally take back off. Anyone have thoughts, pro or con?
--Baylink (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You are essentially correct; But a lot depends on exactly what is being said in the article. For a basic statement of plot discription, such as "The Headmaster of Hogwarts is Professor Dumbledore" we obviously could cite to the Harry Potter books... and since that citation is so obvious, we do not require that you actually do so.... the citation is assumed.

However, we do have to be careful... the statement: "Professor Dumbledore is the homosexual Headmaster of Hogwarts" is not something that could be cited to the books (or left with an "assumed" citation)... as the sexual orientation of that character is not actually mentioned in the books. For that fact, we need to cite another source, such as the author's statement where she disclosed Dumbledore's orientation.

Also, we can not use the books for a citation (or an assumed citation) for an analytical statement about the books, no matter how obvious we think the analysis might be ... As per WP:OR, we would need to cite a source that directly includes the analysis. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm clear on the distinction. I was talking about people citing for direct content, as when someone alleges a character on a TV episode speaks a certain line of dialogue; that appears to be something which a reader can themselves independently verify given the context, and which therefore some *other* editor should not FACT tag, which was the thrust of my inquiry. Should we work up some language on this point for WP:V?
--65.34.94.81 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We had something to this effect a while ago... and it caused problems (mostly over people misunderstanding the differences I layed out above) and so it was removed. I think it best to leave it as an "unwritten rule"... as an interpretation of the policy (specifically, the concept that what we require is that things be verifiable, not that they be verified.) The fact is, sometimes those pesky FACT tags are valid, and correctly draw attention to something that does need to be cited. So, it is better to let people add the tags freely, check them, and simply remove those that are mis-applied. If they add the tag back, ask about it on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's conclusion, but not his expression of it. There are many ways to cite a work, for example, footnote, as a general reference, or described in the text. The title of the article Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone constitutes a general reference to that book, and everything in the article that can be confirmed directly by reading the book is properly cited. I prefer not to use the word "verified" in this discussion, because it leaves open the question of who has verified it, the editor who supplied a citation, or the reader who might or might not have taken advantage of the citation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat related discussion is going on at the Village Pump (proposals) regarding spoiler warnings and it has evolved to a discussion also about whether or not detailed "plot" descriptions based on the book or movie itself and not on secondary sources. I thought some of you may be interested in it.Camelbinky (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Then I will continue to Be Bold in removing such FACT tags when I think they're unwarranted for this reason, and not be too concerned that we're not explicit about it in the policy. Thanks, folks. --Baylink@en.wp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.94.81 (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of articles pertaining to both a virus and a disease

Have started a discussion pertaining to the organization of articles to address a conflict between WP:VIRUS and WP:MED Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Organization_of_articles_pertaining_to_both_a_virus_and_a_disease Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question concerning self-published and third party statements

Is there agreement that these are correct statements of Wikipedia guidelines?

The limitation on self-published statements that are unduly self-serving is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief.

In an article about Scientist A, who claims to have produced cold fusion, if a statement is made by Scientist B denying the claim and asserting that Scientist A is a “crank,” then Scientist B is not considered a “third party” for purposes of restricting rebuttal by Scientist A. --Swood100 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is being answered at WP:RSN... lets keep the discussion in one place please. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Let's discuss it there.--Swood100 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published sources

This was added: "Self-published sources should only be used as sources about what they claim rather than what they be or have done."[10] I think this directly contradicts the statement above that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." I think this needs discussing before it can be considered policy. Fences&Windows 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's a contradiction, and doesn't even make much sense. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs an example, and taking it to extremes is the best way to illustrate the need.
I could easily produce a self-published source that says "S Marshall is the most important person in the universe." If someone were dumb enough to start an article about me, they might then write "S Marshall claims to be the most important person in the universe" and cite my self-published source, and that would be okay. But they could not write "S Marshall is the most important person in the universe" and cite it to the self-published source.

Make sense now?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's already stated or implied in the policy. We would use in-text attribution, and we probably wouldn't use that anyway under the principle of "not unduly self-serving." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did say it was an extreme example. Real-world examples wouldn't be so clearly self-serving.
I'm all in favour of keeping policies as succinct as possible (in the hope that eventually they'll get so short that some of the people who need to read them, actually will), but I also think this a matter that it's a good idea to pin down precisely. So if we can find a succinct way of encapsulating that idea then I'd rather like to see it in.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We could simply add, "using in-text attribution as appropriate," but it's a hard thing to legislate for, as so much depends on context. I saw a recent example of someone who didn't like a BLP adding, "A says on his website that he has a B.A. from X, and also says that he studied journalism as a postgraduate. According to A, he also obtained a degree from ... etc," so that the attribution reached the point of almost being a BLP violation. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

By all means change or tighten up wording, but policy needs to be self-consistent. Your point is that we shouldn't believe everything someone says about themselves, but lots of things that people say about themselves get reported in the media, like EssJay's credentials.[11] Fences&Windows 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We also shouldn't believe everything people say about others, not only about themselves. When to use in-text attribution is a matter of editorial judgment, and it's not restricted to self-published sources talking about themselves. I'd be worried about adding a clause that we can't predict the consequences of, given that editors have a tendency to cling to the precise wording of policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

God, I wish they did...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, they do when it suits them. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Burden when removing reliably sourced material

I added (and SlimVirgin swiftly removed) the following underlined clause to the article:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material; however, the burden of evidence also lies with the editor removing published or otherwise reliably sourced information.

Slim says this is a major policy change. I don't see that. Wikipedia is a verifiable encyclopedia which anyone can edit; if you add something with a reasonably reliable source, the advantage should be on you and not someone who just doesn't like the material. The remover should have to show that the information doesn't work because (1) it is inaccurate, (2) it is likely to be inaccurate (the source isn't really reliable), or (3) it violates policy through being undue weight or something similar. This is how Wikipedia does in fact operate, and this why I can't simply troll through articles deleting sentences which contain information I personally don't like. II | (t - c) 08:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd have to be very careful how we worded anything like that, and I'm not sure it's worth it, because the issue is a matter of common sense. If a source really is good, appropriate, and is being cited correctly, it will tend not to be removed. I know that a consensus of editors sometimes forms on talk pages and agrees to remove material that strictly speaking is fine, but our adding something to the policy isn't going to stop that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it common sense, it's also already enshrined in policy. The relevant shortcut is WP:PRESERVE. I see little benefit in repeating that here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have always had a slight problem with WP:PRESERVE... I understand and approve of the general intent... but it does not take into account edits that are intended to preserve the information, but improve the wording of a passage; and it does not take into account edits that replace one source with a better, more reliable source. We should make it clear that it is the information that is to be preserved... not the exact wording and not the source. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to preserve all three, each for different reasons, but that's a matter for a different talk page! :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely... it does relate to this discussion. The proposed addition says: "... the burden of evidence also lies with the editor removing published or otherwise reliably sourced information." My point is that, unlike adding information (which needs to be verifiable), removing information does not always require "evidence". Information can be removed from an ariticle for many reasons... it might be out of date (superceeded by more modern sources), the statement as written may be overly POV, or may constitute Original research. I can agree that, in these situations, there is some degree of "burden" on the editor removing the information to explain why he/she is removing it... but an explanation is not the same as presenting "evidence". Indeed, sometimes there is no "evidence" to present... an editor might simply think the information is trivial or irrelevant to the topic of the article. Sometimes the determination of what should be mentioned in an article is simply a matter of editorial preference. Yes, the reason for removal should be stated (either on the talk page or in an edit summary), but that is not the same as saying that there is a "burden of evidence". That term implies presenting some degree of "proof", and presenting "proof" is not always applicable. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Another valid reason to remove information is the information is too detailed for the intended audience of the article. It would be inappropriate to give, in the September 11 attacks article, a detailed description of the Boeing 767 mechanical systems, unless they related directly to the hijacking. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is covered in WP:UNDUE. Fences&Windows 20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words... This policy talks about there being a "burden of evidence" when adding material, because providing sources is directly connected to the concept of verifiability. However this policy does not talk about there being an equivalent "burden of evidence" for the removal of material because there are a lot of reasons for removing material that have nothing to do with the concept of verifiability. The various reasons for removing material are dealt with elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have long railed against the "burden of evidence" being put on the person who wants to put back material that was unsourced due to the fact that if an editor can take time to remove information then they should take time to do a google search first and either cite it themselves or put in their edit summary that they couldnt find a source for it. It should be their burden to do their due diligence before removing it and causing others to clean up their mess.

With that said, I have also supported there being extra measures in place to put the burden on those who remove sourced material. I see no harm in having an extra sentence here saying that the editor who removes sourced material has to have extra load of burden on their shoulders to prove WHY they removed it and not to throw the burden on others; since this is the policy most often quoted by those who go around removing information it stands that this policy does need to cover it as well even though it may be more under the pervue of another policy, perhaps link to the relevant policy.Camelbinky (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Language is important.. I feel strongly that we do not want to use the word "PROVE" in connection to the removal of material ... we need to "EXPLAIN" why we removed it. Sometimes this will be a simple edit summary... sometimes it will require discussion on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar about both not wanting to use the word "prove", and with that sometimes it can be a simple edit summary. However the proposed new sentence II wants to add doesnt say "prove" and if we can all agree that it is already existing policy and therefore his sentence doesnt contradict policy nor hurt Wikipedia; my question is- why cant we agree that it is ok to have here? If it isnt hurtful then I see no reason in not having it in. It will be a good reminder to those who like to quote this policy when recklessly removing information they disagree with, sourced or otherwise and who probably ignore WP:PRESERVE anyways. As I stated I cant stand the existing wording anyways, would love to see a discussion on changing it but I know how that would go as too many editors already think the status quo must always be defended as if it was written by a race of super-Wikipedians who handed it down to us verbatim and we're too stupid to rewrite it because they knew better than we do.Camelbinky (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok... then let me rephrase... I strongly oppose using the words "burden of evidence" or similar phrasing in conjunction with removal... for all the reasons before said. I conceptually support the idea that "any time editors remove information they should explain why they are doing so (either in an edit summary or on the talk page as appropriate.)"... but (unlike the burden to provide sources) I don't think this statement has anything to do with the concept of Verifiability and, therefore, I don't think such a statement belongs in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My attitude is that people who edit an article should watch the article for at least a few days to see how others react. Since the editor who added material knows where to find the source, and is (or should be) watching the page, it is acceptable to remove any unsourced addition within a few days of the addition, just because the editor who added it didn't bother to provide source information. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the proposed new wording. The point of "burden of evidence" is to stop fringe or POV claims being dropped into articles, possibly with an edit summary or note on the talk page that the information is well known, or treated in common text books, or available in a search, or whatever. Another editor can remove the claim with edit summary "unsourced". It is not up to the removing editor to prove that no source is available: that is what "burden of evidence" means. The question of what to do when an editor removes a sourced statement needs to be dealt with somewhere else, but isn't it just WP:BRD? Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

- I don't really have a strong interest in playing out a long debate on this. I do think this is related to WP:V in that it expresses the fundamental idea that Wikipedia is made up of verifiable information and that such information should not be removed without good reason. It's true that this is expressed in other policies such as WP:NPOV (all notable positions should be expressed) and perhaps WP:PRESERVE, although PRESERVE feels more technical and does not feel like it communicates the idea - that reliably-sourced information pertinent to the topic can't just removed based on someone's opinion.
- Blueboar: maybe "evidence" doesn't seem like the correct word, but citing a policy is certainly a form of evidence. Explanation doesn't feel like it conveys the message, as it makes it sound like any old excuse can do, when the point is that the editor removing should show that the information doesn't work (that something has been shown is subject to interpretation, obviously). It's a philosophical thing which I don't imagine would change much, but often individual editors don't seem to realize that when they block the inclusion of a small bit of well-sourced information based on their opinions, they are not doing right by Wikipedia.
- Jc3s5h and Johnuniq, this is targeted specifically at well-sourced information, which I presume to be largely works which reference their sources and are published by decently well-known institutions (although the particular details of that can be debated at another forum). There's nothing in this wording which could promote fringe or POV claims; to the contrary, this puts in words the spirit of Wikipedia and reduces the ability of individual people to block content they don't like - a form of POV pushing. I recall that this sort of behavior was quite evident at ADHD not long ago, when a pro-drug person really didn't like the negative research sourced to reliable, recent, PubMed-indexed reviews and would repeatedly try to cut it out citing "undue" or somesuch. However, the problem runs across the Wikipedia. Typically both groups will call the other fringe and try to keep out content, even content sourced to recent, academic, secondary sources. Admittedly, it's not always academic sources (and academic sources often cannot describe all views, given that they have a particular bias) - in politics newspaper articles might be the best available, and in environmental issues public interest groups might be the only ones covering the information from the particular perspective. In finance, asset managers and corporations will often have a relevant perspective. II | (t - c) 02:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The standards for adding and removing information are much different. To add information, there must be a source or it must be unlikely to be challenged. To remove information, reasons such as "it makes the article too long" or "it isn't interesting" are adequate reasons. Of course, deliberately suppressing reliably sourced information because it does not agree with an editor's personal opinions is not a good reason to remove information, but it is wrong to write a policy as if every deletion is a deliberate attempt to suppress the truth. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Not interesting" is a reason to remove information? Since when, and according to whom is the information "not interesting"? That is a subjective call that should first go to the article talk page. Same with "it makes the article too long", since if the article is too long the information should be preserved but split into another article per WP:PRESERVE (does anyone read that policy anymore?!), this can be done by veteran editors who know the article and not a passerby removing unsourced or sourced material based on their own decisions.

If information is factually correct, and sourced then you really need to have a damn good reason to remove it, and if someone returns it what "burden of evidence" are you expecting of the person returning it?, it is already sourced! So by default the "burden of evidence" must fall on the remover, they need to in some manner show why the information is harmful (too long or not interesting is not harmful and is not a valid reason btw, imo). If it is not sourced, why not look up in two minutes a source for it?, alot of editors get really pissed by that as, evidenced by the support I got at the VPP when I brought this very question up. In fact another user created a warning template to use on editors who removed sourced material without reason. This very policy warns you that it is common courtesy to first find a source yourself prior to removal, for the very same reason I give here, it pisses people off.
Other policies spell out why this crap about "unsourced information added by IPs and newbies needs to be taken out" is crap- ignorance of our way of doing things, procedures, and our policies do not negate a good faith edit. If an IP or newbie adds new things, they might not watch a page, good information is lost when all it could have taken was two minutes at Google for a veteran editor. Are these types of editors who remove stuff that busy on Wikipedia they cant be bothered? If so why are they trolling to other articles just to remove unsourced material? Be constructive, not destructive.Camelbinky (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, if I were to add the statement "Barak Obama is the current President of the United States<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama</ref>" into the article on My Favorite Martian, it should not be removed... dispite the this factually accurate and sourced fact to be completely irrelevant to the topic.

Or perhaps relevancy qualifies as a "damn good reason" in your book? Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Any decent writing guide will emphasize the need to make any piece of writing concise. Camelbinky does not seem to accept this principle. I will always feel free to rip out crap that does not contribute to the theme of an article, and give that as my reason for doing so. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that "If information is factually correct, and sourced then you really need to have a damn good reason to remove it," and I doubt that most Wikipedia editors do. I'm currently reading a biography of Alice Sheldon that's almost 500 pages long. If I were to insert every accurate, sourced fact from that book into the Wikipedia bio it would become the longest article on Wikipedia. The article on Meryl Streep, for good reason, doesn't cite every review mentioning her for every film she's ever appeared in. Outside of their immediate families, the odds are that nobody cares who Barack Obama's fourth-grade classmates were, and turning up a class yearbook or list wouldn't justify inserting the list of names into an article about him. Wikipedia would be greatly improved, on balance, if all the sourced reports of incidents embarassing celebrities were removed; te signal-to-noise ratio there is minuscule. There are many adequate reasons for removing sourced content from articles that have nothing to do with verifiability, and everything to do with writing a useful encyclopedia article that satisfies the needs of its users. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. I don't think that adding a statement that one has to make a good argument for removing well-sourced material by itself contradicts summary style, staying on topic, undue weight, or other rules, but I can see how it could be thought of that. Perhaps such a statement is more trouble than it's worth. II | (t - c) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Inclusion While we may agree that not 'every' factually correct and sourced bit of information need be preserved, this is solved simply by achieving consensus for whether that bit of information falls under say WP:WEIGHT. We do need this line in there, and it is not a major change, it is in fact captured by WP:TEND and precedence has been established in this arbcom principle. The arguments put forward by Wolfowitz and others above are sound, but they still need to be made on a case by case basis on a relevant talk page. Unomi (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly reinstated the language that holds that the expected behavior is to make a good faith effort to find sources, rather than merely good practice. Unomi (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I object to this change... I could barely accept saying this was "good practice"... I strongly disagree with saying that it is "expected behavior". We have options...

If an editor thinks that some bit of unsourced info is accurate... he can either a) leave it unsourced, b) find a source himself, or c) tag it so that someone else will provide a source.

If an editor thinks that some bit of unsourced info is inaccurate, he is not (nor should not) be "expected" to waste time searching for sources that he has every reason to think probably don't exist... he should either a) tag it or b) remove it (depending on what the statement is). Yes, he could be wrong... a source might exist... but it is up to those who want to keep the challenged info to provide it and demonstrate that the removing editor is wrong.

As for Sourced information... I think there is a general consensus that "Sourced info should not be removed without cause"... and I don't have a problem with this concept. What I do question is the appropriateness of talking about it in this policy. The reason why this policy talks about the "burden of evidence" for unsourced information is because that is an issue directly related to the concpet of Verifiability. However, the reasons for removing sourced information usually center on issues that have nothing to do with to Verifiability (and the vast majority of removals relate to some other issue). Thus, while the concept probably should be stated in some policy, I think it is inappropriate to state it this policy... in WP:Varifiability. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to understand why I get "ripped on" for stating that "if you remove sourced material you better have a damn good reason", but then Blueboar states "general consensus is that 'Sourced info should not be removed without cause". How is that any different than what I said?! Blueboar's example about Barack Obama is an example of having a damn good reason, exactly what I wanted; everyone is reading way too much into this. Why cant it be "remove sourced information only if you have a good reason, and you need to state it"; exactly what I said, but somewhow another editor says "Camelbinky doesnt understand", I dont understand what exactly?!

As for Blueboar's three "options" an editor can do with unsourced info, why is three even an option? If you have time to tag, find a source, if you're too lazy then dont be going around tagging (you as in the editor, not referring to Blueboar, whom Ive always respected and am sad to be not be agreeing with him right now). The problem I see with removal is- it can get buried under subsequent edits and therefore not be at an editor's watchlist for him/her to see offhand, per wp:preserve if it isnt hurtful or illegal then what harm does it do to keep it? If you cant find a source for it or its obviously not true then go ahead and remove it, but dont be lazy and not look for a source, I have seen LOTS of edit summaries by other editors that say "added source, took 2 mins" and sometimes it gets ruder and almost a personal attack on the editor who removed the information. I myself- if someone removes information and I have to put it back and it took less than 2 minutes to find the source...I go to their talk page and I let them know that and ask that in the future they take the 2 mins themselves instead of robbing me of that 2 minutes I couldve spent doing other good things.Camelbinky (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] removing unsourced information and "best practice"

Here's why it is an option... any reasonably intellegent person can read an article on just about any topic and think... "hmmm, I think this statement needs a source". I do not need to be familiar with the topic to say this. However, I do need to be at least somewhat familiar with the topic to know whether a particular source is reliable or not.

I could try to source the statement myself, but I know my own limitations ... I know I run the risk that, in my ignorance, I will inadvertantly cite a source that is in fact completely unreliable. Alternatively, I can identify the problem statement with a citation tag ... so that other editors (editors who are familiar with the topic and who do know what the the reliable sources are likely to be) can fix the problem instead.

In other words... I prefer to tag, not becuase I am too lazy to look for a source... but because I do not feel qualified to provide one... and I hope someone else will be. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagging, fine; but removing should be a last resort used only if the editor has looked for a source and either a- couldnt find one in a reasonable time (a few mins is all I'm asking) or b- found a source that completely contradicts it. I am of course only talking about normal writting, not vandalism, issues unique to BLP (that dont apply to all articles), etc. I dont see why we cant remove the whole "burden" and "good practice is to take time to look for a source" and replace it wholesale with the following-

If information is uncited either find a source to cite it or tag it with the appropriate template. More specific policy applies to biographic articles, see WP:BLP for those.Camelbinky (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with you when it comes to articles on topics that I am not familiar with (and why I don't remove unsourced information in most articles)... but, when it comes to articles on topics that I know well (admittedly, a small number... but there are some), I could not disagree more. In those few topics, I am very familiar with the reliable sources, and I am also familiar with what they say on the subject. If I come across a unsourced statement in an article on one of those topics, and I think it is unlikely that any reliable source will support it, I have no hesitation in removing it. I am not going to waste even a few seconds searching for a source that I am sure does not exist... nor should I be required to. It is up to those who wish to keep the questionable statement in the article to demonstrate that my well informed removal was, in fact, incorrect.... by providing a source when they return the information. That is the essence behind the Burden of Evidence section of this policy, and I support it full square.Blueboar (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with you on the fact that if you (or me or anyone) removes information on articles they know about then it cant be misused; and I similarly have a small core topic that I work on and know about, and I too do not remove information on articles I dont know about, you and I are very similar on that. However, it isnt editors like you and me who misuse the burden clause and then quote it as justification. Editors who troll around to articles they dont know about are the problem. Their actions and mindset of course wont be changed by changing the wording here, but perhaps you can work with me on a wording compromise/change on here to make it so they would be less able to justify removing information they know nothing about? I believe you once wrote you didnt like the "best practice" wording that suggested one should find a source oneself first, do you think there is a better way we can address my concern or are the trollers a necessary evil I have to live with?Camelbinky (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this is as much of a problem as you make it out to be. I don't think many editors "troll around to articles" removing unsourced information just for the hell of it ... oh, there may be a few... but the vast majority of editors only remove information from articles on topics they think they know something about; and they only remove information they think is incorrect in some way. Yes, they may be wrong on both counts... they may not know the topic as well as they think they do, and the information may actually be correct, but it is up to those who want to keep the information to demonstrate that they know better and that the information is, in fact, correct... by returning the information with a source... a source which should have been there from the start.

That is my beef with the best practice statement... the best practice is for editors to research their topic and to have their sources lined up before they add material to an article... and to cite those sources when they add it. This is what we should be telling editors to do. If more editors followed this best practice, we would have far fewer unsourced statements for anyone to challenge and remove. Best Practice is: "Never add unsourced information to Wikipedia, especially if that information is likely to be challenged". Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Self-republished sources

I've added the following text to the section on self-published sources, which I believe is noncontroversial and presumably reflects the intent of the existing policy:

"On occasion, a book previously published by a commercial house may be reissued in a self-published edition after the rights have reverted to its author. Such a later reissue does not mean that the book is no longer a reliable source, although if the text of the later edition is revised, claims unique to the later edition may require independent sourcing."

As commercial publishing (at least in the US) continues to shrink, it's becoming increasingly common for authors to reclaim their rights to out-of-print books and reissue them through print-on-demand publishers or other publishers providing self-publishing services. This is probably most common among genre fiction writers, but also includes various types of nonfiction, and will almost certainly become more common as e-book publishing expands. Since the reliability of the source can't be undermined by its republication, there's no policy justification for treating a self-published reissue as less reliable than the trade/commercially published original. I would have thought this went without saying, but I've seen contrary editing on a few occasions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine if the print-on-demand publisher is reliable, or if the author is reliable enough to be taken at his/her word that no changes were made, or that the changes were confined to particular areas. However, if the author is not reliable, then a reliable source would have to state that the republished version is the same (with certain described exceptions) as the original. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concept here... but I am not sure why it is necessary. If a book is reissued under self-published but was previously published by a commercial publishing house, just cite the commercially published edition.

The only time I could see having to cite the self-published re-issue would be cases where some bit of information was not included in the commercially published edition... in which case, that specific information is self-published (with all the caviats and restrictions that apply). Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar wrote "If a book is reissued under self-published but was previously published by a commercial publishing house, just cite the commercially published edition." I can't do that if I don't have the original publication. If I don't have some means, outside of the republication itself, to establish that the republication is reliable, I can't use it. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My point was that if you can locate the commercially published version, and avoid using the self published re-issue, then you don't need to worry about the issue. You can often find older editions through google books. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] burden vs BLP?

I was involved in a now-settled dispute which was somewhat complicated by the fact that WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP don't seem to exactly agree. WP:BURDEN says "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page." WP:BLP doesn't have an equivalent statement that I can find. The closest I can see is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

So WP:BLP says that contentious unsourced material should be immediately removed (this word is used multiple times), and WP:BURDEN says damaging unsourced material should be immediately removed. But these aren't the same thing at all; something can be damaging without being contentious, or vice versa. Indeed, the language above from WP:BLP explicitly does not take the positive or negative nature of the information into account, and the rest of the article in general doesn't imply that positive and negative material should be treated differently (except when dealing with people who are relatively unknown, in WP:NPF).

I'd think at least one of these pages should be changed for consistency (and possibly WP:RS too which uses WP:BLP's language). It seems to me that the sentence in WP:BURDEN is intended to summarize WP:BLP, so WP:BURDEN is what should change. Gruntler (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The concern about BLPs has always been that incorrect negative or damaging information is inserted destroying people's lives or careers, and leading to lawsuits against Wikipedia. There is no more urgency to remove untrue positive information about a person than there is to remove untrue positive information about a country or a company. As such, I think that the BLP rule should be made consistent by stating that unsourced questionable material should be removed from BLPs if it is 'negative or damaging'. --LK (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The Wikimedia Foundation's resolution regarding BLPs [12] also stresses the inappropriateness of inaccurate/unverifiable positive claims in BLPs, and calls for "special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles" -- not limited to content of any type. That concern underlies the "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable" language in WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Untrue positive information included in the biography of one person could harm a person who competes with the biography subject. This might happen in elections, or if several actors are competing for the same role. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, BLP should take precidence over BURDEN. If one of them needs to be conformed to the other, I think it is BURDEN that needs to be modified to match BLP. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Only in the case of biographies though, right? I for one would not want to have BURDEN match BLP in order to take BLP's stricter requirements and apply them to all types of articles. I've seen editors (who obviously dont know what BLP stands for) quote BLP in an argument about an article that wasnt a Biography of a Living Person (or a biography at all for that matter, it was a building).Camelbinky (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct... although I suspect that my understanding of the normal Burden requirements are far stricter than you would like, I agree that there is a difference between them and BLP. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source - overall guidance

The current Reliable Sources section contains overall guidance starting in its second paragraph. This section is possibly the most important part of the article in getting practical instruction across to the editor trying to get appropriate verifiablity into an article. Unfortunately, some of the language is hard to follow, such as run-on sentences, going from specific to general instead of the other way around, mixing topics across paragraphs, etc. I'd like to propose the following change. Currently reads:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

New proposed text:

Here's a good rule of thumb for determining the level of reliability of your source material: It is best to choose material that has undergone a great degree of scrutiny in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing its evidence. Anything that has a greater degree of scrutiny in these areas is typically more reliable than material that had less scrutiny in these areas.

Usually, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media can be valid sources, subject to the same reliability criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in many areas, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Opinions? Dovid (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it works as presented, Dovid. I didn't quite get what you were saying about the current version being hard to follow. Is it just that you want the "rule of thumb" part to go first, or is it more than that? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More than that. Yes, rule of thumb should probably go first, as it sets the table for what follows and is generally more applicable. But here are other things I've attempted to fix:

I turned two paragraphs into three. The older two paragraphs really have three topics (general guidance, specific best types, and context/conflicts), so it makes sense to have three paragraphs. Previously, the middle topic on best sources was split artificially between the two paragraphs, and the rule of thumb was in between the two parts of best specific examples. This breaks the train of thought and is somewhat disorganized, and I fixed that.
Electronic media sentence is misleading, as it leaves the impression that it continues from the list of most reliable sources. That really still depends on the publisher/author, so I added the "subject to..."
The rule of thumb was an awkward sentence. It was a long conditional with a short conclusion (the greater the BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH the more reliable the source is). Makes it hard to follow and connect the two "halves." Plus, ending in "the source is" raises form issues, similar to the prepositional ending. I'm not a stickler for those, but the first three times I read the sentence, my brain was looking for what comes after the "is."

So, when you say it doesn't work as presented, I hope you were refering to my explanation, now made clearer, and not my text. Dovid (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I like this last version SV. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it flows a little better. Dovid is right that the current version is a bit choppy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed third paragraph to supplement Slim's two:

If a source comprises user-submitted content, such as messageboard posts, blogs, IMDB, or Wikipedia itself, then it is not a reliable source.

Might as well spell it out. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect. We do allow user submitted content in some situations, e.g. from established experts who have been published elsewhere. Crum375 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Change "not" to "not usually" in the appropriate place, then.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest this change:

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; ~~and~~ books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Otherwise readers might think peer-reviewed journals are normally published by university presses, and that other peer-reviewed journals are not among the most reliable sources. Statement of potential bias: I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a publisher of many peer-reviewed journals. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, good point, though it opens up the problem mentioned in the section below, of some peer-reviewed journals being a bit dodgy -- making sure they were published by university presses at least protected us against that. I don't think it's an issue we can get into here, though, because as you say, there are good peer-reviewed journals that aren't published by universities. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's always been implied that the order that the sources are given in is important. i.e. from most reliable (peer-reviewed) first. Can we spell that out as: "The most reliable sources are usually (in order of preference): peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." LK (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The order isn't important, and no one should see a hidden implication that it is. All the sources we mention are regarded as reliable in principle, and the way in which they ought to be used depends on context. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting with Slim's, ah, version. The "context" sentence shouldn't be the lead, it is more of a final modifier, i.e., the basic idea is show how to rate sources to begin with, and only then say "now that you have figured out how reliable your source is, use context to decide whether that is reliable enough for the subject." I also would prefer not to use the phrase "professional structure," it is presumtuous. The previous language was more neutral about how the fact checking was done, just that more checking is better. And "disagreement about sources" is still breaking the flow between the rule of thumb and the specific application (journals, etc.). So, here's my edit to SV's:

In general, the best material comes from publishers that are careful and consistent about checking and analyzing for evidence, facts, legal issues, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The most reliable sources are typically peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

Where there is disagreement between sources, the opposing views should be clearly shown and attributed in the text.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Certain topics will demand higher value sources, while other subjects accept a somewhat lower grade of source. For example, subjects such as history, medicine, and science are rigorous. They also have top notch sources available, such as those described above. For these subjects, lesser sources, such as corporate web sites, blogs, or brochures, would be inappropriate. However, for less rigorous subject areas, such as company information, travel, and geography, a wider variety of sources might be considered reasonable, such as corporate web sites and government travel brochures. So, there are many degrees of subject, and many degrees of source reliability, and editors must find the right match and balance.

Opinions, again? No need to nitpick, the tweaks could go on forever, but I do want some quality and consensus before posting this in Dovid (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the phrase "peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses" intended to mean that peer-reviewed journals are published by university presses? --Jc3s5h (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dovid, I disagree with your version. I'm happy for it to be copy edited, so long as the new text really is better written, but not a rewrite and an expansion, and the "top notch" sources thing takes us into very subjective territory. I'm going to add the basic copy edit I suggested above, because it doesn't change the content but flows better than the current text. If you want to argue for a change of content, that should be done separately. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with pseudo-NPOV/Suggest greater qualifications

As we all know (I hope...) even the best of sources can contain errors of various kind, including typos, poor fact-checks, out-dated information, and a number of other problems. This is an unavoidable problem and something that we have live with.

However, this is complicated by two other issues, namely:

Some of the sources often considered reliable (at least by the proponents of a cited statement) are not. Major newspapers, e.g., tend to by abysmal at fact checking, yet are often taken as infalliable with statements like "X is the leading newspaper in Y! This is a reliable source! I am right and you are wrong!" (Note that this is not a policy issue, per se, but rather a lack of judgement in the individual editors.)
The current style of writing typically amounts to a claimed fact followed by a reference, claimed fact followed by a reference, etc.

As long as we write on topics that are sufficiently uncontroversial and have a near-consensus, this works well. However, when we move on to controversial subjects (typically something were strong ideological, religious, nationalistic, or similar feelings and POVs come into play), this becomes very dangerous, and articles tend to be written in a pseudo-NPOV manner, where claims are stated as unequivocal facts followed by a reference (as in 2.) and any attemp at altering or critiqueing these statements are met by claims that they are referenced claims. (The hitch is often that radically different, often opposite, claims with equally many references could be provided---which brings the issue down to what faction has more time and editors.)

 In order to combat this problem, I suggest that the recommendations are changed to unequivocally require that disputed statements be written in forms like "According to x ..." rather than as in 2. Doing so would go a long way towards reducing both the POV problems that we do have and the many, many fights over what articles are POV, NPOV, who is right, who is wrong, ...

(Exactly how to define "disputed" goes beyond this post, but in first sketch: a) A sole editor disagreeing with a referenced source is likely too little. b) A number of editors, or a sole editor with own, reputable references should be enough. c) Cases were a mere majority of all scientists agree, as opposed to a near-consensus of scientists, would typically be disputed.)

Note that a somewhat similar issue applies with regard to NPOV: Editors often argue "NPOV means that the article should reflect the majority view in its main formulations [or views according to followers, or similar]; therefore, this statement should be made as an absolute."---which is not (necessarily) true: If three out for dentists prefer X and the fourth Y, then it is not a good practice to claim that X is the truth, but instead statements like "three out of four ..." should be used. (Note that this is, again, not as much a policy issue as poor judgement in editors.) 88.77.135.55 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a verifiability issue — it relates more to WP:NPOV. When making a non-contentious and properly sourced statement, it can simply be stated as fact: "X was born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi.[1]" If there is some controversy, the statement can be presented with an in-text attribution, for example: "According to the Jackson Register, X was born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi.[1]" If there are conflicting sources, the ones representing the majority and larger minority views should be presented: "According to the Jackson Register, X was born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi, although a biography published in 1972 states he was born in New Orlean, LA and his family moved to Jackson when he was four.[1][2]" This is all part of presenting sources neutrally, in a proper balance, and the proper format should be decided by the editors on the page. Crum375 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, more complex source conflicts and/or apparent errors can be discussed in footnotes, so as not to detract from legibility. Crum375 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph

I don't know when this was added, but I just noticed it, and it's problematic:

Care should be taken in evaluating the quality of journals, as journals created to promote a particular viewpoint may claim peer review, but have no meaningful peer review outside of adherents of the viewpoint they promote. Such journals generally represent the consensus view among such adherents, but may otherwise be considered unreliable; for instance, the prominence and notability of their views should be ascertained by using other sources. Examples include, The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, and Journal of Frontier Science (the last of which claims blog comments as its peer review process).^[1]

This seems too general for the policy, and somewhat POV, given the particular journals that are mentioned, which may very well be reliable sources in articles about the issues they cover. In addition, all journals arguably exist to promote a certain view of the world, and all peer reviews will tend to include only adherents of those views; anyone strongly disagreeing will likely not be part of the group regarded as "peers." As this opens up a can of worms, I think we're better off not saying anything about it and leaving it to editorial judgement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with the statement but I think it belongs in the reliable sources guideline rather than a policy. Rather than being too general I think it is too specific for a policy. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why it was added. The policy explicitly mentions that "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals..." and this leads some editors to the (incorrect) assumption that anything with the word "Journal" in it's title must be considered a reliable source. The fact is, not all "Journals" are equal, and some definitely do not have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.

That said... I agree that this probably belongs in WP:RS rather than here. As far as this policy is concerened, I think we can get across the idea that there are exceptions to the statement that "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals..." if we simply highlight (ie italicize) the word "usually". Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the paragraph has been there for at least a few months, and hence many people have viewed it and found it acceptable. I support it's inclusion, at least as a footnote, as there really are a lot of 'journals' that are written and reviewed only by a particular fringe group, and viewing them as reliable is a serious problem. LK (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion between reliability (for WP purposes) and neutrality, or representation of the mainstream. We can have a fringe group which believes the Earth is flat, and publishes its peer viewed journal, Flat Earth Monthly. The articles in that journal, if we assume they are vetted by representatives of the group, are reliable for WP purposes as representing of the views of that group. OTOH, they are so far removed from the mainstream, and such a tiny minority, that their views should not be included at all in the Earth article, because of WP:UNDUE. But if we were writing about that group in the Flat Earth article, that particular peer reviewed journal would be preferable to some individual member's blog. So as bottom line, for reliability or verifiability purposes, a peer reviewed journal, even if all peers are adherents, is generally a better source (for the views of a group) than somebody's website. But WP:NPOV must also be considered as part of the equation. Crum375 (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, I see your point. I wonder how to put that. After all journals besides Flat Earth might disagree with the earth being flat and would not be considered reliable by flat earthers, and yet Flat Earth would be reliable source or sorts about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy presently states "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals...." Almost anything, even a scrap of paper pulled out of a waste bin at a metro station, can be used as good evidence of something. Journals published by fringe groups should not be considered "among the most reliable sources". The most reliable sources are those that can be used with confidence for any relevant purpose, and will be accepted by everyone except fringe groups. (Exception: in the area of religion, few adherents accept anything outside his/her belief system, including those who believe the supernatural does not exist.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is still confusion between verifiability/reliability of a source, and the neutrality of its presentation in relation to a given topic. The Flat Earth journal could be an excellent verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed source to describe Flat Earth adherents views about the Earth, and why they believe so, in the dedicated Flat Earth article. It would not belong in Earth per WP:UNDUE. To use the word "reliability" on WP as a synonym to "closest to the truth" is plain wrong. That is not what we mean by it here; our goal is to present what sources say about a subject, not to strive for "truth". For us, reliability only means a well-vetted published source relating to a topic. We do need to gauge the relative prevalence and acceptance of sources by the mainstream, so we can decide which sources to use and how to present them per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two aspects to reliability: quality and breadth of application. While a journal published by a fringe group might be of high quality in the sense that it accurately portrays the views of the group, it has a very narrow breadth of application. Nature, on the other hand, not only has well-vetted articles that are as accurate as can be expected, but the articles can be used in any relevant Wikipedia article without having to think about whether the claim made in the article falls within some very narrow application area. We can say that Nature is more reliable than any fringe-group journal because it at least matches them for accuracy, and beats them for breadth of application. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the topic is Flat Earth, then Flat Earth journal may be a better source than Nature. So while I agree with you that if I wanted to get a mainstream view on a scientific topic I would use Nature, I would not necessarily see it as the best source for cults or fringe groups. So the point is that it's relative: the most appropriate source depends on the subject matter, independent of any "intrinsic" reliability. Crum375 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are essentially arguing that because a source is reliable for the claims of the group publishing it, it therefore is a reliable source. This is incorrect. For example, self-published material has long been accepted as a reliable source for the claims for the individual or group publishing it, but this does not mean that self-published material is a 'reliable source' (per our policy). A 'reliable source' is one that is reliable for generic statements of fact, (e.g. "the Earth is an oblate spheroid"), not for qualified statements of the beliefs of a particular group (e.g. "according to the Flat Earth society, the Earth is disk-shaped"). LK (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

LK, I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the concept of RS on Wikipedia. A WP source is not RS because it "is reliable for generic statements of fact". On WP, a source is reliable if it has been published and we have reason to believe that it has undergone some vetting by third parties. In general, the more and better the vetting, the more reliable the source for WP purposes. It could still be extremely "POV", and claim that the Earth is made of cheese, and people made of marshmallows, which would make it a tiny minority view, in which case it would be unacceptable due to NPOV/UNDUE, unless we were writing an article about a particular group that holds that view. To be able to assert a statement without in-text attribution, e.g. "the Earth is round", we'd also require a source which we consider mainstream and part of an overwhelming majority, with at most a small fringe dissenting. I think your confusion stems from conflating neutrality and reliability, which are two distinct concepts on WP, though both influence what we may include and how we present it. Crum375 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not my, nor I feel anyone else's, reading of 'reliable source'. Ask anyone in academia what a peer-reviewed journal is, and they'll have very definite criteria – criteria that publications like Creation Science Quarterly do not meet. An in-house magazine put together by a small group, is not a peer reviewed journal regardless of the claims of the group. You are essentially arguing that there is no significant difference between a peer-reviewed journal like the Quarterly Journal of Economics and Creation Science Quarterly, this is something that i cannot believe the majority of Wikipeidians believe. If what you say is correct, what is to stop me and my cousin from founding an association, and starting the Bi-monthly Journal of Economics, start printing it ourselves, claim that it is a peer reviewed journal, and then start citing from it on articles here, as a 'most reliable source'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 25 November 2009

LK, WP policies are self-contained, and define their own terminology, which may differ a bit from usage elsewhere. In our case, RS is not a source we accept as being "more correct", or even "more mainstream". The only criterion for WP RS is that it is published and properly vetted. It may represent the view of a tiny minority and be completely contrary to mainstream views, and still be RS for WP purposes. Your confusion, as I noted above, is that you seem to conflate NPOV/UNDUE with V/RS, which are distinct concepts on WP. Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A RS is a source with a reputation for fact checking and correctness. We usually accept them as authoritative at least within their domain. The hypothetical Flat Earth Journal is not making claims about Flat Earthism, it makes claims about geology. It is not a RS for anything except the position of the journal. Nature, PNAS, or, for more general news, the NYT or The Times, are reliable in the sense that we trust them to usually get it right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"An RS is a source with a reputation for fact checking" - agreed. That's another way of saying we know that it is well vetted. As far as "correctness" — what is that? How do we gauge "correctness" of a source? And which side does the gauging, if it's controversial? I believe "correctness" is part of NPOV, i.e. representing a certain faction or view: mainstream, majority, minority, etc. Since WP takes no sides in controversies, per NPOV, we must focus on verifiability, which means that if we state X said Y, any reader can verify our statement, and we ensure that X is a source with a reputation for fact checking, i.e. performs good vetting of its published output. Crum375 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And let me add that we address the "mainstreamness" part of the equation by following the NPOV/UNDUE policy requirement, which tells us to exclude tiny minority views, and present and weight information according to its prevalence among the reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No. That is an unrealistic and practically useless definition of NPOV. We do make and can make absolute statements if supported by sufficiently reliable sources. Figuring out what "sufficiently reliable" is, is part of our job as an editor. From our current FA: "Count Nikita Moiseevich Zotov (1644 – December 1717) was a childhood tutor and life-long friend of Russian Tsar Peter the Great." No "according to X here, and it would not be helpful. A simple item of news can be sourced to a reliable newspaper, and an uncontroversial statement of scientific fact can be sourced to PNAS. But no absolute statement can ever be sourced to the Flat Earth Journal. NPOV is good, but if we fall into the postmodernist trap (all reality is a subjective construct of society) we lose all relevance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
We can make "flat" statements, or assertions, if the editors decide that a certain view is non-controversial, after considering the available reliable sources. So we can say "life on Earth began 3 billion years ago", without in-text attribution (but with an inline footnote) because the editors of that article decided that the minority's opinion that life began 5,000 years ago is so tiny and non-mainstream that it can be relegated to a footnote, or its own article about biblical views or creationism. This is exactly why we have both RS and NPOV: the former to tell us when a source can be accepted in principle, and the latter to tell us how to present it, if at all. If NPOV tells us it's mainstream with no significant opposition, we can present it as an assertion. If there is controversy with a non-trivial opposing view, we can use in-text attribution, etc. If it's tiny minority, it disappears from view except perhaps in its own article. The important point is to realize that NPOV and RS are separate and distinct concepts and policies, which should be both used to tell us how to present information. Crum375 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus here seems to be that the paragraph is need, and I'm taking silence here as consent. Does anyone have a problem with adding the paragraph back in as a foot note? If not, I'll stick it in tomorrow or so. LK (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the above 18 November comment by User:Dmcq (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has ~~been overlooked~~ not been fully addressed. This para is about RS, not V. It belongs in WP:RS not WP:V.LeadSongDog come howl 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This policy spends a considerable amount of time discussing reliable sources, so the section belongs here as much as at WP:RS. Also, this policy makes a very big claim that peer-review journals are usually the most reliable, so it makes sense to qualify that statement immediately instead of being redirected to another policy. Angryapathy (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My point, evidently put too tersely, is that this page already has far too much discussion of reliable sources to be good policy. Good policy should be simple and readily understood. It certainly should not need to use weasel words such as "usually". That is the path to becoming just a guideline. We should leave the interpretive guidance to WP:RS.LeadSongDog come howl 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This policy specifically refers to WP:RS for more details about evaluating reliable sources. Saying that it makes a claim is a misunderstanding of how these things work, policies and guidelines describe the consensus of editors. Whether something is true or false is not the point and statements in policies do not need justification according to WP:V WP:N or anything else. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about what peer-review means. It does not mean reviewed by a group of people who hold the same opinions but by people who are acknowledged experts in the field. The Flat Earth Journal could not be peer-reviewed because it advances the theory that the earth is flat and does not acknowledge that even were the flat earth theory generally accepted by geographers, that the consensus could change. An article advancing the flat earth theory would never be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal like The Geographical Journal and even if it was the consensus of other contributors would discredit the theory. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think another way to look at it is that "peers" are all those who have carefully studied the field in question, not just those who have studied the field and come to a particular conclusion. A peer-reviewed journal is one which submits papers to review by a group of peers who reasonably represent the views of all peers as a group, in the sense that a jury represents the views of the community from which they are drawn. A jury drawn from those who are members of the Klu Klux Klan or who live in fear of the same would be no jury, and a trial at which they served would be no trial. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The fact is, there is a world of difference between reliable peer-reviewed journals and something printed by a fringe group that claims peer review. As the place in policy to go to for what is or is not a reliable source, this basic fact should be noted in WP:SOURCES. LK (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel this policy already says more than enough about the whole subject. WP:SOURCES already says stuff about this in more than one way. Any more and it'll be reiterating things even more. Policies should not reiterate and they should not duplicate. It is definitely not the way to make clear policy. The place to look for more details about reliable sources is WP:Reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion

I am in dispute with Someidiot at List of red-light districts about sourcing. Everything on the list is currently sourced and I think a source should be added immediately when adding an entry. He disagrees and thinks (among other things) that a lot of entries are common knowledge therefore don't require a source or at least not immediately. To me that's degrading the article. See this discussion. Could an uninvolved editor give some input? Garion96 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subtle Vandalism

I am concerned about minor vandalism that might have profound effects in the future. Recently, I ran across and editor who was adding unsourced middle names to a variety of BLP articles. It appeared he was just making them up as he went along, as in one case, in two different edits of the same article he had inserted two different middle names. The only reason I caught this was it happened on a page I was watching; I reverted, look at the editor's history, and found this going back a couple of months. With so many sites mirroring Wikipedia content, many of changes had already propagated, which could lead to a circular reference. This type of vandalism is hard to detect, particularly not caught immediately. I am not sure what the answer is; I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. --Seaphoto^Talk 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding middle names without a source is not vandalism... but purposely adding incorrect middle names (ie knowingly adding false information) is. I would report this to WP:ANI... they will be able to look into the situation and assuming it is vandalism, may be able to perform some form of blanket revert of all this user's edits. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

[1]

Contents