Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Can a cite be in the history

A prolific editor has been claiming that he can explain his source in the revision comments. Is he violating verifiability, if the actual source is not near the text? Or if it is nowhere on the article page itself? Complicating this is the fact that the article has been moved from another one. I have been removing the content as uncited, as I cannot check the citation without going through all of the history revisions. Am I wrong?Mzk1 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not "wrong", but you are dealing with it the wrong way. Since you have been informed that there is a citation available, you should assume good faith... tag the unsourced information (with {{cn}}) rather than repeatedly removing it. Techincally, per WP:BURDEN it is then up to the editor who originally added the information (or another editor who wants to keep it in the article) to comb through the archives, locate the citation, and return it. Best practice, however, is for you to assist in this process. You might, for example, ask the other editor if he/she remembers an aproximate date when he/she remembers the citation being in the article... and both of you could look through the history and see if it can be found.

Of course it would also help to find when the citation was remvoved... there might be a good reason why it was removed in the first place (perhaps someone determined that the source was not RS, or that it did not actually support the article text). So you should also go through the archives of the talk page and see if anyone left a comment about it.

The point being, work with, not against other editors. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I might observe that the unfortunately named Wikiblame may be of assistance in such efforts.User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. I asked the editor, put he was too busy ponificating over the only possible way to edit wikipedia to answer me.Mzk1 (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I if I put the citation request, then what? If the editor does not add a citation (highly likely), how long do I wait before removing it? The editor does not respond to article talk pages (to me, anyway) unless there is an administrative action involved.Mzk1 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC WP:REDFLAG, Argumentum ex silentio and WP policy

I have posted an RfC at policy discussion section/query regarding Argumentum ex silentio over on WP:NPOV talk. I am mentioning it here because certain aspects of the argument involve WP:REDFLAG, especially as a strong justification for allowing Argumentum ex silentio. You may be interested. (20040302 (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Further to that, the above editor is now proposing a change to this page there. Peter jackson (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT

This is a misnomer that misleads some editors. It is sometimes applied as a need for truth, rather than a need for verifiability. That is why I inserted an explanatory reminder, and that is why I have tagged the Redirect for speedy deletion. So please consider discussion as "open".
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not open. That is a long-standing redirect, and you tagged it for speedy deletion with an inappropriate criteria and without providing any justification or rationale for the encyclopedia-improving that would come from such a removal. You've been reverted and speedy has been declined on the redirect. If you'd like to actually start the discussion, please give some details about why you think the redirect is such a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not open? hmm. Okay, what would you like to hear that I have not already noted? Isn't it enough that some editors persist to use WP:PROVEIT (NOT the other shortcuts, just PROVEIT) to indicate that Wikipedia endorses only claims that can be proved to be true? Explain it to them and they argue, because the section lacks clarity (the shortcut takes editors directly to the section, bypassing the lede of the policy), hence the NOTE that I included. The whole idea of WP:PROVEIT is a misnomer el grande. Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable verification of claims, NOT with "proving" those claims to be true.

And not for anything, editors Jclemens and Blueboar, but since when is "longstanding" a character of merit as regards this encyclopedia? It's that kind of thinking that may continue to cause beautiful women to be dragged from their caves after being clubbed over the head. (in my humble opinion)

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paine, I suspect that when an editor misconstrues "PROVEIT" as you suggest, he/she has not bothered to actually read what WP:BURDEN or the rest of the WP:V Policy says. The section makes it quite clear that what must be "proved" is verifiability... through citation to a reliable source. It isn't a misnomer once you understand what must be "proved". Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the possible misuse of a shortcut by editors isn't a reason per WP:R#DELETE. Note specifically the example "confusion" regards the confusion of one topic with another topic. The solution to the problem seems to be to politely challenge misuse of the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if everybody here agrees that WP:PROVEIT can be confusing, then I must ask why we should leave it to editors to have to deal with other editors, mostly new editors, who misunderstand it? PROVEIT is an obvious misnomer that, when taken literally, completetly goes against what WP is all about. It seems to me that it would be so much better to perhaps move it, change its name. Perhaps WP:CHECKIT or WP:AFFIRMIT, WP:CONFIRMIT, WP:SUPPORTIT, anything but WP:PROVEIT. This is a longstanding shortcut that has been confusing for too long.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, all of our policies can be confusing to new editors, and it is up to those of us who are more familiar with them to clear up the confusions. As a shorcut, "WP:PROVEIT" makes the point of WP:BURDEN very well (ie "It is up to those who want to say something in Wikipedia to prove that what they want to say is verifiable"). Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, Blueboar. What I'm attempting to persuade is that if there are ways to make our policies less confusing, if we as editors and administrators can find ways to simplify without oversimplifying so that, over time, policies become less and less confounding, then it seems excellent to do so. I agree that "PROVEIT" gets the point across, however, the word "prove" is too general. And because it is too general, it is sometimes taken literally by editors. Editors who are aware of what PROVEIT actually means take it the way you described. Editors who take PROVEIT to mean that the claim itself actually must be "proved", are confused by the term and sometimes argue vehemently for this misconstrued cause.

All I'm saying is that we have an opportunity right now to see that, from this point on, there will be no (or less) confusion if we take the general word "prove" out of the picture.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You said it yourself— ". . . all of our policies can be confusing to new editors, . . ." The need is to make policies less confusing whenever we can. The need is to make it so editors who understand don't have to try to explain it to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to listen. Nip it in the bud. Make it understandable even to new editors, so a lot of time won't be wasted edit warring and filling talk pages with sometimes incivil disagreement. It's broken and needs fixing. Fix it right here, that's the need. On the talk page I linked to above, an editor was blocked due to an argument that escalated largely due to his misunderstanding of WP:PROVEIT. Had we as editors made WP:BURDEN more clear to him, right here where he originally read it, then maybe it would have turned out differently. If you don't want to change WP:PROVEIT to something else, we still have an obligation to find a way to keep these things from happening by making WP:BURDEN crystal clear to new editors.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think PROVEIT is fine. That section is reasonably clear, and any editor with reasonable intelligence can understand it. IMO a lot of the problems stem not from lack of understanding of what the policies say, but from people trying to wikilawyer and twist the words to suit their POV purposes. We can tweak the verbiage until the cows come home, and it will have no effect on those determined to get their way. So it's better to have reasonable language for reasonable people, and deal with the trouble makers as needed. Crum375 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see two problems with PROVEIT. As Paine notes, the name of the shortcut is unnecessarily confrontational and SHOUTED. WP:CitePlease might have been a better choice, but there are already several quite acceptable shortcuts in place. Why should we encourage good-faith editors to seem rude to each other? The text of the section has been pretty thoroughly debugged, but it could be improved by clarifying what constitutes "reasonable" behaviour, particularly giving some guidance on how long to leave a {{cn}} tag in place before assuming it will not be actioned.User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A request to WP:PROVEIT is not rude. If an editor is concerned appearing so, one can always pipe, as in "Dear fellow editor, I would greatly appreciate it if you would take it up on it you to provide an explicit citation, which, as I would like to bring to your attention, is required of everyone making a definite claim in an article.". Besides, WP:PROVEIT is not rude, it is confrontational. "WP:PROVEIT aZZh0le!!!", that is rude. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By rude, I refer primarily to the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is widely interpretted on the internet as shouting. When combined with the confrontational nature of the demand "prove it", the initial message to a novice editor is "I don't believe you, and I'm angry that you would say what you said.", irrespective of what the linked guidance says. That emotional impact hits the novice before they've even clicked on the link, and that is a problem that should be resolved. User:LeadSongDog come howl 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "shouting" aspect is a matter of context. If you read an old telegram, where all letters are caps, you don't consider it shouting. Similarly, virtually all WP shortcuts are caps, e.g. WP:SOURCES, or WP:BURDEN, so in that environment, caps are the norm, not "shouting". Crum375 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says you have to use WP:PROVEIT? wp:proveit works just as well. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Have we forgotten that we want to offer a welcoming environment to new editors? I'll clarify. The subjective effect of the shouted imperative is before the novices follow the link to that policy environment. They don't yet know that it is a common format for a policy shortcut name, they just know someone is shouting a command at them on a talkpage. Either the shout or the command by itself would not be taken as overly rude, but the combination is. Most such shortcuts are nouns or adjectives, not imperative verbs, and this takes much of the sting out of the shout. In fact, I'd prefer to see the whole cluster of shortcuts (PROVEIT, BOP, BURDEN, and UNSOURCED) replaced over time by WP:Proof or WP:CitationNeeded, which are presently unassigned and far less likely to cause offence, but WP:UNSOURCED is a reasonably innocuous shortcut to the policy. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of whatlinkshere shows that none of these shortcuts is used more than 2000 times, so a replacement task would be a fairly quick bot (or AWB) task.User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether a bot does 2 edits or 2 million need not concern us. But what will the bot do with talk page comments like "I want you to WP:PROVEIT."? Let's try it the other way around: How often has this shortcut caused problems? Personally, I find it useful, and want to keep it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a clear case for a supervised tool, like AWB, instead of an autonomous bot, though I doubt even a bot could create problems by changing it to "I want you to WP:Proveit." I'm not sure just how to conduct such a search, but I'll give it some consideration. How often is too often? User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about WP:TPG. Editing thousands of comments is liable to raise quite a few hackles, even if they don't produce gems like "You need to WP:UNSOURCED".

"too often": Hm. Pro: Removing an as yet unspecified risk of keeping fresh meat out. Con: The effort required to do the change. The risk that you will have to fight to keep the shortcut dead. Potential of conflict with an unknown fraction of ~1000 editors.

I'd say if it's a significant problem, it should be addressed. Probabilitites of less than 5% are customarily considered insignificant. That means 100 instances where the shortcut has done more harm than good. Show me 42, and I'll support the slaughter. Failing that, I have no problem designating the shortcut as deprecated. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a need to depreciate the shortcut. Paine says it is confusing editors... but is it really? I'd like to see a few examples of situations where someone actually was confused by it. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see the TPG issues. Even though simply changing the one shortcut from UPPERCASE to Titlecase shouldn't be too bad, it wouldn't serve much point and might be seen as revising history. We can't prevent past disputes, so why worry about old arguments that did or did not occur. Looking forward is another matter. Simply removing the uppercase from the shown list of shortcuts while maintaining the redirect would address the concern without, so far as I can tell, creating any problems. Would that be a reasonable saw-off? User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't stand in your way. I see a roadhog up ahead, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a need... but I don't object to simply changing the case. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the case will not get rid of the problem, Blueboar, all it will do is de-standardize shortcuts, which are all in capital case. You say you don't see the need. I have provided several reasons why there is a definite need to change PROVEIT. I have provided an example of a relatively new editor who misused PROVEIT. If there is one example then you have to know that there are more examples. If you cannot see the need, then please address the needs that I have shown previously:

• to make policies less confusing whenever we can
• to make it so editors who understand don't have to try to explain it to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to listen. Nip it in the bud. Make it understandable even to new editors, so a lot of time won't be wasted edit warring and filling talk pages with sometimes incivil disagreement.
• On the talk page I linked to above, an editor was blocked due to an argument that escalated largely due to his misunderstanding (or misuse) of WP:PROVEIT. Had we as editors made WP:BURDEN more clear to him, right here where he originally read it, then maybe it would have turned out differently. If you don't want to change WP:PROVEIT to something else, we still have an obligation to find a way to keep these things from happening by making WP:BURDEN crystal clear to new editors.

Then there is the argument addressed by editor LeadSongDog that PROVEIT is inherently confrontational. So rather than say that you don't see the need, please address these needs and say what you don't see as important about them or why you think they don't apply.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond point by point:

• I don't think the policy (or the shortcut) is confusing (yes, one editor, who seems not to have actually read the policy was confused... I see no evidence that there actually are more editors who are confused by this)
• If someone is not going to read the policy (ie listen), then we are going to have to explain the policy to them in any case... removing the short cut will not solve this problem.
• I think the case you are pointing to is an isolated incident. At most it is a rare incident. To put it bluntly, I don't actually believe that we have that many editors who are misusing the phrase: "Prove it" in this way. But even if we did, I think the benefits of having the phrase as a link outweigh the occasional misuse. Furthermore, I think WP:BURDEN is "crystal clear" to new editors... if they bother to read it.
• Yes, WP:PROVEIT is inherently confrontational... in fact, I would go further and say that it is intentionally so. The act of challenging an unsourced statement by asking others to provide a reliable source is itself inherantly confrontational. We have several ways to link to WP:BURDEN, to fit the circumstances. If we want to be less confrontational we can choose to use one of the other links. But when we need to be confrontational, we have the option to be so. We even have a middle ground... we can tone down the confrontationality by typing the link in lower case (typing: "WP:proveit says you have the burden of providing a source for this" works just as well as "WP:PROVEIT says YOU have the burden of providing a source for this".) This flexibility is needed. It makes our policy "crystal clear" to those who are reluctant to add unsorced material to our articles. Pointing someone to WP:BURDEN by saying "proveit" tells them clearly that they need to find a reliable source if they want their material to remain in the article.

So again, I don't see that there is a need to change anything. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BlueBoar. Wikipedia is all about finding reliable sources to support anything we say. If you believe something is correct, you need to WP:PROVEIT by supplying reliable sources for it, and it is your WP:BURDEN to do so. If you don't get this crucial point, or some new editor doesn't, they have to read and re-read that linked section and policy, over and over, until they do get it. Removing a useful and informative shortcut because someone may not understand its meaning will move us backward. Crum375 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar certainly makes very good points, and at first I was inclined to agree. But now, editor Crum375, you just made another valid point for getting rid of PROVEIT. "If you believe something is correct . . ." This is precisely why PROVEIT is confusing. Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE IF A CLAIM IS CORRECT/TRUE! Wikipedia only cares if a claim can be supported/verified by reliable sources. So even you seem to confound, or be confounded by, the policy AND the shortcut!

Making things clearer so that new editors won't be confused, and so that experienced editors cannot MISUSE a shortcut is a step forward in my book.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Crum can correct me if I am puting words into his mouth... but from my experience with him, I am sure he knows the difference between "correct/verifiable" and "correct/true". I suspect he was referring to the former. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Correct" in Wikipedia means attributable to a reliable source. If you believe what you say is attributable, and it is being challenged or is likely to be challenged, you must WP:PROVEIT by providing the reliable source(s) to support your claim. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you. This is the essence of the verifiability policy. Crum375 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, please forgive me if I, a semi-experienced editor, was confounded by your wording and misconstrued your meaning, Crum. And believe me, I, too, completely understand the essence of WP:BURDEN, as well as its ageold and epic struggle with WP:PRESERVE. Yet if this present conversation does not clearly show both of you the dire need to clarify this section, then I suppose nothing will.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, everything we write (in article space) on WP must be attributable to a reliable source. This means that if you want to add something to an article, and you are challenged, you must prove that it is attributable by providing the source. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor adding the material. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of WP:V. Is it really that difficult to understand? Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true". So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors. If you want, Crum, we should probably continue this conversation in the RfC section.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Text vs. other media

The lead on the project page says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."

But that seems to be applied only to text, not to images or video. I believe we do not discourage original images and video. The difference would have made more sense 20 years ago, when it was harder to doctor or fake nontext items. Maurreen (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "Other media" also includes sound recordings. Maurreen (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "material" is specifically used to include all forms of communication media, including audio and video. All of these are covered by the policy. Crum375 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We do make a special exclusion for user-made media which do not introduce new information and are self-verifying in some way. Crum375 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had missed special exclusion. That should probably be at least linked to from WP:V.

But not requiring previous publication, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" could be applied to text also. Maurreen (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For text we have two "exclusions": First, per WP:V, if it's unlikely to be challenged, and is not challenged, it does not require a source. Second, per WP:OR, we are allowed to use our own words to fairly and accurately summarize what the sources say. These effectively provide what you suggest. Crum375 (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, let's say an editor adds a sentence of which he has first-hand knowledge. The editor does not have a published source attesting to that information. The editor is unsure whether any such source exists. But no one challenges it, and the editor doesn't expect anyone to challenge it. Are you saying that's OK? Maurreen (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because if "the editor is unsure whether any such source exists", he can't assume in good faith that it's unlikely to be challenged. We allow people to leave out sources for items that are "obvious" to most people, where they know sources would be trivial to find. If they are not sure they can find a source, then the claim is not obvious, is likely to be challenged, and therefore requires a source. Crum375 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry to intrude, but for one thing, that would depend on how controversial the claim is, wouldn't it? The more "juicy" the claim, the more likely it is to be challenged. Uncontroversial claims often go unchallenged.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No intrusion; I think the topic is worthy of wide discussion.

I am thinking about uncontroversial material -- information that is or would be agreed on by people who know about the subject. And people who don't know about the subject would have no cause to doubt it. It's not extraordinary claims; it's just extra detail.

For instance, some years ago, I added some information to a couple of articles about the U.S. Marine Corps. The information is still in those articles, the articles have been substantively edited, and I believe no one has challenged the info.

But I have no knowledge that this information is published elsewhere. Adherence to WP:V would mean that information should not be included. Maurreen (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But our practices do allow me to include nontext material that would give the same information. Maurreen (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If what you claimed is obvious to most people, it must be published somewhere. If you think it's not, then it's likely to be challenged, and would require sourcing. In the case of non-text, if it's introducing new information not supported by existing sources, it too (or its caption) would require additional sourcing. Crum375 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I suggest changing special exclusion to add the word "information," as in "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished information, ideas or arguments." Maurreen (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No. We make the special exclusion specifically to encourage uploading of home-made illustrative media, because WP can't include published images due to copyright issues. There is no such issue with text: we are allowed to quote (briefly) and freely summarize published textual material. The current textual "exclusions" which I summarized above seem to do a good job. Can you provide a specific example where you believe more latitude is needed for text? Crum375 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether more latitude is needed for text is subjective.

I understand some exemptions related to copyright. My suggestion would not negate that purpose.

The exclusion refers to ideas and arguments. I don't see why the treatment of information should be based on whether it is text or not.

You said above, "In the case of non-text, if it's introducing new information not supported by existing sources, it too (or its caption) would require additional sourcing." That is what I am suggesting to clarify, and that is what you are disagreeing with. Maurreen (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My position is less a matter of whether it should be A or B, and more a matter of not being both A and B. Maurreen (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is the the current policies seem to work well, and we don't what to fix what ain't broke. Can you provide a specific example where you think the current V and OR policies are too restrictive, or otherwise inadequate? Crum375 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to use my own additions as examples. That might result only in my additions being removed because only we're not aware of any published sources.

But I don't understand why you say, "In the case of non-text, if it's introducing new information not supported by existing sources, it too (or its caption) would require additional sourcing," but disagree with clarifying that in a policy or guideline.

So if I did have nontext material that illustrated the statements I added, the situation would be vague at best. On the one hand, the exclusion policy at least allows the addition. But your statement would not allow it. Maurreen (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a concrete example to show where the current policies fall short in your view. If you are worried about your own edits, make one up, along similar lines. Crum375 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this for an example: I walk down the street and take a picture of some public space in a small town. We'll say the photo shows the playground at the municipal park. I upload it to Commons and add it as an illustration of the landmark.

Do I need to find a published source that verifies that this photo really, truly is the playground at this park in this city? Or are we willing to assume that I'm probably neither a liar nor delusional?

If a source other than my own attestation is required, then we pretty much need to ban all user-created images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you shoot and upload a photo of a landmark, and you state the date and location, the image becomes self-verifying, since any reader can go there and verify that the image reflects the landmark. This is similar to a user providing a source in an old book requiring a trip to a special library. As long as there is no special reason to doubt that the information is valid, it is not controversial, and it can be verified in principle by anyone, we extend good faith. Crum375 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try a couple of hypothetical examples.

Let's say that in an article concerning Marine uniforms, I wrote about "blousing boots." (This refers to how certain pants are handled in relationship to the boots.) Let's say that I wrote that some Marines use rubber bands, instead of official blousing bands.

Or say that I wrote that sometimes Navy chief petty officers are mistakenly saluted, because their uniform and insignia resembles that of officers.

What is the difference between writing these statement or illustrating them with nontext? Maurreen (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take just your second example, if I may. Let's say an editor claims that Navy CPOs are sometimes saluted by mistake, because their uniforms resemble officers. To me personally this sounds fairly obvious, and whether to provide a source or not would depend on the editor. Once someone shows up on the talk page and challenges it, however, it will require a reliable source. I am not sure how this relates to our image policy. If you take and upload an image of a CPO in dress uniform, you could use that presumably to highlight the point, but if the caption made a claim about mistaken saluting, its text would be treated like any other text in the article. Crum375 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the playground example, what is the difference between showing certain equipment at the playground and writing that the playground has that equipment? Maurreen (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that if you state where and when you took the photo, and it's a public venue, in principle any interested reader could go there to verify the photo is authentic. As I noted above, this is similar to sourcing a claim to a rare book located in a special library. Crum375 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to WhatamIdoing, I think the playground is a better example.

I understand the self-verification aspect, but that could also be applied to text. I could write that as of March 3, 2010, Foo park in Bar City has a teeter-totter. Or I could show it in a photo. Maurreen (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that because of copyright issues, we encourage photo taking to help illustrate our articles, not to create new information. If your photo happens to show a teeter-totter, it won't be very controversial and will be verifiable by anyone visiting that park. If you write some text about a park, you'd need a reliable source, because we have no copyright restriction to paraphrase or even (briefly) quote published sources. Crum375 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Judaism, you get stuff that does not generally appear in traditional sources because it is obvious to everyone. (Thank heaven for Maimonidies, who wrote a book that includes everything. But if it's later, you can have a problem.)Mzk1 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Images plus the U.S. Navy...such delightful subjects. One has to be careful, though. Below is a gallery from a digital restoration I did a year ago of the aftermath at the Wounded Knee Massacre. The original photograph (at left) had been identified in official Library of Congress records as "scattered debris of camp". Restoration revealed that this was not merely debris. The foreground had four human remains partially wrapped in blankets. What to do about that?

---

• Restoration on the Wounded Knee Massacre yields a discovery
• 
  Unrestored version: mislabeled scattered debris of camp in Library of Congress bibliographic notes.
• 
  Restored version: four human remains in foreground partially wrapped in blankets.
• 
  Detail from restored version: a face in profile, hand at right.

Until the librarians confirmed the find and updated their records, the image appeared in Wikipedia captioned only as being a scene from the aftermath. Afterward the find became a minor news story and has since been incorporated into the official program notes for a historic photography exhibit at the Montréal Museum of Fine Art.

Images are not a backdoor to insert original research into article text. Nor should the photography exemption be expanded to text. If an editor actually has something important to say in that regard, it is much more rewarding to obtain independent verification. And actual verification isn't so hard to come by. Durova⁴¹² 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "mainstream" and "prevailing view" in REDFLAG

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian who frequently gives Third Opinions on content disputes and I'd like the community's comment on my a priori understanding of the meaning of "mainstream" and "prevailing view" in WP:REDFLAG. From just an intuitive basis and from the references to exceptional claims and fringe theories in the redflag section, I understand "mainstream" and "prevailing view" to mean "universally accepted or nearly universally accepted by the world community of all human beings or by the relevant worldwide academic community" not just "uniformly or universally accepted by those who have an opinion on the matter or who have cared to look at the matter". My understanding thus causes "exceptional claim" to mean something like "flies in the face of world opinion" not just "contradicts what a few people think, albeit unanimously." For example, consider the following claims:

• A biologist claims that opossums did not originate on Earth, but were instead deposited on Earth by extraterrestrials.
• Only four biologists have studied Jurnal's Opossum, a very rare opossum that lives in an isolated jungle habitat in New Guinea. The first three completed their studies in the 1960's to the 1980's and all concluded that the adult opossums grow no larger than 15cm in length. In a 2008 study, the fourth biologist says that he believes that the first three biologists saw only juvenile Jurnals and that adult Jurnals grow to 35 cm in length.

^{(Note: Neither of the foregoing examples reflects, to my knowledge, a current dispute; the opossum named in the second example is entirely fictitious and was created purely for this example.)}

My current a priori understanding would say that:

• the claim in the first example is an exceptional claim because it is universally accepted that opossums originated on Earth, but
• even though the views of the first three biologists are uniformly opposed to that of the fourth biologist in the second example, the fourth biologist's claim is not an exceptional claim because there just isn't any universally-accepted body of knowledge about Jurnal Opossums; there is, therefore, no mainstream or prevailing view.

I've seen some comments in the archives here that would seem to suggest that I'm wrong. Am I? Please take into consideration that though the foregoing examples concern science, my inquiry is not just about science, but is also about all the different areas we write about here. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it right. Although I would add an important qualification... As far as wikipedia is concerned, the "universally-accepted body of knowledge" that we term "mainstream" is determined by looking at reliable sources and not unreliable ones. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's an interesting issue, that occurs on in the Judaism pages. There are a lot of sources within rabbinical scholarship itself, but not a lot of easily accessible (there's the rub!) scholarship about the aforementioned scholarship. The latter sometimes takes a form akin to Biblical criticism, as if someone were to reinterpret a physics text differently than any known physicist ever has. There are really only two encyclopedias, the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Judaica. The former was written in 1902 and follows a particular German school, but since it is online and public domain, a lot of the entries are turned right into articles.

OK, so far, no problem. However, occasionally you get a real whopper in the JE, something that completely contradicts the entire field as well as everything in the sources. (They also tend to be somewhat unclear and sloppy.) They appear to be claiming that the sources orginally meant something that is contradicted by the entire field they are studying and the later sources that are available. Furthermore, the JE itself has no source for the statement.

I therefore tend to treat this as an "extraordinary" statement, that needs more than an unsourced opinion in a single 1092 encyclopedia - and I remove it, usually with a lot of other speculation that goes beyond what the JE actually says. Is this so far off? (Example on request.)Mzk1 (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see WP:REDFLAG slightly differently: in "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" I interpret "mainstream" as the view of the relevant authority (normally a body of academic research, but could be, say, a series of reliable polls on some question of public opinion, or a religious body on a question regarding the particular religion). In some cases (like global warming), the debate is too recent (and hysterical) for a confident statement regarding what "mainstream" means, although we could agree that fringe groups and their views are not mainstream. It would be hard to evaluate what is the world opinion on any topic, so "mainstream" cannot usefully be defined in terms of world opinion. I understand WP:V and WP:NPOV to imply that in order to have an opinion that counts in an encyclopedia, you would generally need relevant academic study (for example, public opinion on whether all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor does not establish the "mainstream" view). I totally agree about the Jurnal's Opossum: in that scenario the claim is not exceptional, and there is no solid mainstream view. In fact, the relevant article would simply describe the situation (a more recent study reports that larger animals exist). Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted

Should the shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, be moved to a different shortcut name or deleted altogether?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move or Delete. (as nominator of this Rfc) Please reference a previous discussion on this Talk page here. A consensus apparently cannot be reached on this issue. This is a longstanding shortcut that may have been causing confusion and incivil confrontations among Wikipedia editors for a long, long time. A most recent example of either misunderstanding or misuse by a relatively new editor can be found on the Talk page of a sometimes very controversial article. It is my contention that this shortcut should be deleted/moved in order to eliminate future confusion and/or misuse.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I can see a clear consensus already against any change, i.e. only one editor for it. FWIW I also cannot see a reason to change anything.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus most clearly has been reached. While I don't mind you seeking more input in such an approved manner, there's a clear feeling that the misuse you allege is simply not enough reason to delete a long-standing redirect. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, then I must be totally misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Jclemens means to say that there is a general feeling that you have not adequately addressed the concerns raised. Consensus does not necessarily mean that everyone is happy with the result, but it does mean that all rational arguments have been duly considered. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Consensus is not unanimity. It allows for good faith (yet hopelessly minority) objections. We're not the UN here--there's no particular holdout veto power. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

JC, don't you think the UN thing is a little strong? <g> Consensus, by definition, actually does infer a unanimity of sorts. This unanimity automatically requires giving a little here, taking a little there, until all parties either agree to what usually turns out to be a compromise, or they just get tired and hang up. At any rate, even if you end up with a small minority that still feels strongly about their position, then instead of a consensus, there is the potential for "majority rule - stomp all over the minority". And on Wikipedia, I've found that this is often mistaken for a "consensus". Let's not let that be the case here, okay?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• comment looking at that link the user asked to PROVIT has been blocked for his behaviour, including refusing to provide sources [1], so I doubt it's a problem of simply misunderstanding.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case you're probably correct, Mr. B. However either way, whether the editor misunderstood WP:PROVEIT or misused it, this calls for, at the very least, more clarification in the section of this policy to which the SHORTCUT points, and at most the moving of the SHORTCUT to a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused": A challenge! Provide one, give it your very best shot. I'll show to you that it is totally confounding, and then I'll abuse it. A shiny new € coin in my pocket says I can. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already suggested some, but just for you, Paradoc, I'll repeat 'em: WP:CHECKIT— WP:AFFIRMIT— WP:CONFIRMIT— WP:SUPPORTIT, and one more... WP:VERIFYIT. I suppose with a little effort, you would be able to do as you say, however I don't see how anybody would be able to challenge the fact that all of these are SO much LESS confusing and have SO little possible abuse potential than the two-faced misnomer, PROVEIT.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear consensus over time is to use this very informative shortcut. Removing it would imply that the editor adding material to an article does not need to prove that it's properly sourced, which is clearly wrong. Crum375 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the other section above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true". So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything and everything, including every single shortcut on WP, can be misunderstood by novices. This is why we have a link from WP:PROVEIT to the actual words of the policy, which they can read at their leisure. Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can, over time, make improvements that make all that "anything and everything" less misunderstood by novices, then aren't we obligated to do so? Don't we have a responsibility as "editors" to improve every aspect of this encyclopedia in every way we can in order to make it less and less confusing, more and more clear, concise and helpful, both to readers and to other editors?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, we are always open to improvements. But you say that something which is very straightforward and linked to the complete explanation may be confusing for a novice. I believe that there is nothing on this planet which can't be confusing for a novice. We need to focus on the big picture: does it convey a clear message as a useful reminder to someone who has read the linked text (and an invitation to read to someone who hasn't)? I think it does, and apparently the other Opposers here feel the same. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so very straightforward, editor Crum, for in this context, the PROVEIT shortcut can easily be construed in the manner you describe, and just as easily be misconstrued as the imperative need to prove the statement itself rather than just to prove that the statement is verifiable. PROVEIT is therefore a misnomer that we all would be better off without.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• No the shortcut should not be changed/deleted - there is no need (see above for further disucssion). Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Remove from displayed list in WP:V - No need to break any existing or even future usage, let's just not encourage its usage. Even a cursory review of WP:List of shortcuts makes it obvious that this shortcut name, an imperative verb, is absolutely not consistent with the other shortcuts. User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree . Thank you, LSD, it's not so lonely at the top anymore! <g>

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hint: when you're arguing as a lone voice in the face of reasoned and polite opposition, such that one editor who halfway agrees with the RfC you started is an encouragement, you might just want to read and consider WP:STICK. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)