Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.254.222.178 (talk) at 11:28, 13 July 2022 (→Geographic sourcing bias on Wikipedia: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.



How long does material have to be part of the article before a discussion is about removing existing material vs adding new material

Here's the scenario: an editor adds material to an existing article. Some time elapses and another editor questions the addition on the talk page. Some discussion ensues without consensus being reached. WP:NOCON states

"In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

Seems clear to me that if the material was questioned within hours or a couple of days of it being added, the policy would be to remove the material due to a lack of consensus to include it. OTOH, if the material had been up for a couple of years, the material should be retained as there is no consensus to remove it.

My question is: what is the time period that must elapse before the default result becomes keep instead of remove?

I'm not expecting a precise answer, like "exactly 23.57 fortnights", but some general guidance on how to apply this policy.

(note: I framed this as an addition to the article, but it would equally apply to modifications or deletions. I focused on additions for simplicity)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr swordfish (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It depends… in an actively edited article with lots of contributors, a few weeks is usually enough time to say that there is a “silent consensus”. In an article that has little activity and very few editors, that time frame can extend to years (consider the possibility that the objecting editor might well be the first editor to even look at the article after the material in question was added.)
Time is actually a really poor measure of consensus… A much better measure of “silent consensus” is the number of editors who have contributed to the article between the initial addition and the desired change. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the case at hand, 35 distinct editors in the last 30 days. 19 days elapsed between the "bold edit" and initiation of discussion on whether to accept it. Edge case? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree that it is a combination of time and number of editors from unique editors. Something added 10 years ago but where only one editor has made updates in the meantime - even in the dozens or hundreds - should not be taken that the edit from 10 years ago had consensus. Masem (t) 17:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Silent consensus" is as poor of a measure as time, unfortunately. Articles often rack up a lot of procedural edits, minor spelling edits, bikeshedding over content, etc., while blatant issues elsewhere get buried. I regularly have to dig through literal thousands of edits to find the source of something questionable from the early 2010s (or earlier!) and confirm that it is, in fact, vandalism. This includes high-profile articles -- just the other day I fixed an instance of possible reference vandalism on Background and causes of the Iranian Revolution that had been there since God knows when (it was grandfathered in through several separate merges and I lost the thread around #3). This is a relatively small case but they have not all been this small. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea where anyone would get the idea there is a time period. Anyway, that and related matters have been discussed recently in a WP:V thread "Get consensus" objections to text citing to Consensus policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "time" is not the right word to use here. At some point circumstances change and the default transitions from "revert" to "keep". Any help in evaluating what/how circumstances need to change to make that transition cheerfully accepted. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is… the circumstances change depending on the specific article and the specific material in question. There is no “one-size-fits-all” rule to this. What really should happen when there is “no consensus” is that everyone goes back to the drawing board… they call in new people (who might come up with a solution no one had thought of yet). Everyone keeps discussing the material and offering compromises … until a consensus emerges. It will probably be something that no one “cheerfully” accepts… but something everyone can grudgingly accept. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is a little vague. Let's say that the "discussion" on the talk page is an RFC along the lines of "Should (some material) remain in the article?". And that discussion produces nocon. I'd be taking the view that the material ought to stay in those circumstances. But not necessarily in other circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How long something has been in an article is meaningless. See WP:HOAXLIST for examples of hoaxes and/or false statements which existed in articles for more than 10 years before being removed. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Swordfish, no algorithm has been developed yet that can determine what belongs in an encyclopedia article. There are some areas, this being one, where human intelligence is still way ahead of machine intelligence. You have couched your question in generalities without indicating which article you are talking about, but you can only get a straight answer by identifying the particular article. Wiikipedia deals with specific cases rather than such generalities. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr swordfish, ironically that line was added to NOCON – which is a summary of other policies, not a making-new-rules-here section – by an editor who has since been indef-blocked for edit warring. It contradicts the older WP:ONUS (which says you must have a positive consensus to include sourced content, not merely the absence of a consensus to remove it), and does not account for all of the complications. What if editors can't agree what to do, but they also can't agree on which version is "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"? It's not always clear. What if editors are struggling to form an agreement, but the choices are "new version that is definitely legal vs old version that might be a copyright violation"?
I think it should just be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the historical perspective. Seems to me that a "policy" that's difficult to apply in practice (i.e how long is enough to make the default "keep" vs. "revert") is not as effective as a simple a positive consensus to include sourced content is necessary to include it, not merely the absence of a consensus to remove it. And it seems like the advice in WP:NOCON can be used tendentiously, and if what you say about the editor who added it, it may have been added to facilitate tendentious edits.
Maybe what's at WP:ONUS is too simple in practice, but I'd support that in favor of the verbiage at WP:NOCON. This probably isn't the proper venue for that discussion, and the immediate issue that I was dealing with has been resolved so our work is probably done here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UCoC Training Update

I know that many members of our community were against mandatory UCoC training for all admins. There is an update on this. The UCoC Revisions Committee, of which I am a member, has revised this to limit mandatory training to one module (of 3) and only for those who would serve on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Importantly this is only an agreement for now. After we finish these revisions it will go to the community for feedback, before it is truly "finalized" (I put it in quotes because it is unknown whether there will be another ratification vote or not after the revisions committee finishes).

As the revisions committee has been operating under a different set of confidentiality expectations than the original enforcement guidelines committee, I have been able to keep a blog detailing what work has been happening. A friend accurately pointed out that I gave this blog too boring of a name so I thought it worth noting this first major decision in hopes that more people who might be interested will follow the work there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving references

(I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct place for this discussion, but I think it is the most relevant.)

So I personally try to make sure to keep all my additions and edits properly referenced, but it's frustrating when looking at pages (especially about older events) to try to go through to a link and find it doesn't exist anymore. Even more frustrating is when you try to find an archived version of it and there isn't that either. I was wondering should we add a policy to archive references when adding them? I.e. for each reference you add, you need to go into an archiving website (for example archive.ph or Wayback Machine) and make sure there is an archived version (and if there isn't, save one). Perhaps having this as general policy is too much, but at minimum it should be in my opinion a requirement for Good Pages and Featured Pages (as well as filling out the "archive-url" parameter).

Alternatively, I know there are bots/tasks which fill-out bare references, so perhaps this would be a good task for an automated process, to scour Wikipedia and save archived versions for references that don't have them?

Waiting for your thoughts and suggestions, -- SuperJew (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Have you had a look at InternetArchiveBot? You can also manually run it (I personally try to run it on pages I come across from time to time using the handy link in MoreMenu) — TNT (talk • she/her) 15:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen that bot occasionally add an archivelink. But as far as I understand is what it does is add an archive link if there is an archived link already in the databases and doesn't actively archive the web page. Or does it? Anyways would be happy to hear more about the suggestion to have this as part of policy. -- SuperJew (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It'll actively archive the links (would recommend selecting Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional) so that it'll make an archive copy before the link dies!) — TNT (talk • she/her) 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IABot does not create new archives in the WaybackMachine. -- GreenC 15:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a program called NoMo404 that monitors the EventStreams for additions of new URLs on Wikipedia (on any language and project). When it detects a URL, it captures that page into the WaybackMachine. This system has been running since about 2015, although there were some earlier systems and site scans. It should happen within 24hrs at most. There is no guarantee to captures everything however so it might a good idea to verify after a few days. Older links are the most trouble since many have long since died and have no archives anywhere. -- GreenC 15:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime and GreenC: Thanks for your answers. Okay the IAB and MoreMenu are great! Loving them :) I do think most of the pages I had problems with were before 2015, so that computes. I think, on the technical side I got good answers :) The remaining question is if we should have policy that Good Pags and Featured Pages must have archived links on all references (all pages is too much of a stretch since we still have pages which are unreferenced or have bare references). --SuperJew (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum it would be wise policy every link in GA/FA is verified to have at least one if not two archives available somewhere. That doesn't mean archive links need to be in the article, today, but at least available for future use. Two because for example WaybackMachine will sometimes take archives offline at owner request so what exists today might not in the future (a very small percentage). Other general options are archive.today and ghostarchive.org .. we recently lost the entire webcitation.org provider which was the second largest on Enwiki for a while these things can (and probably will) happen with smaller single-owner sites. -- GreenC 16:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea for someone to voluntarily do that, but I would not make it a requirement. Editors are regularly surprised to discover that GA doesn't even require consistently formatted references. The actual rule for citations in Wikipedia:Good article criteria is "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source." This is because GA is about writing a decent article and very much not about following every jot and tittle of the MOS or engaging in the kind of polishing that is most efficiently done by a specialist with a script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: So in your opinion, a good article is an article with information which can be false and there's no way to verify it due to it being sourced to a dead link? --SuperJew (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Wikipedia:Good articles are the articles that meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria.
I have also discovered that it is sometimes – perhaps even frequently – true that there are ways to verify information even if the cited URL is a dead link, or even if there is no citation at all. I suspect that you would agree with me that there is a significant gap between "it's not necessarily quick and easy for me to verify this information because the link is dead" and "there's no way to verify it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support mandatory archiving. For one, we already fail to force people to properly format their references. Requiring them to do something which requires more technical knowhow and the use of outside tools is not going to improve anything. The bot itself has issues with picking its archive links; earlier this month me and another user were collaborating on an article, and the other user activated the bot. The bot did a lot of heavy lifting but repeatedly added an archive link for a Google books reference I had used, problem was it was using an archived version of the Korean Google books page that also did not include any preview of the actual text, making it utterly garbage for verification purposes (which is why we archive stuff in the first place). -Indy beetle (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point and it's why I said all pages is too much of a stretch since we still have pages which are unreferenced or have bare references. However, regarding GA/FA, I think it could be a smart requirement. And the reviewer would of course go into the archived page to verify it, as the reviewer goes into references to verify them. -- SuperJew (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wayback Machine is a useful archiving tool, it is not perfect. I have several times encountered situations where snapshots disappeared permanently without explanation. As the retention policies are unclear and afaik largely non-public, such incidents are practically impossible to forecast. Granted that they seem rare, the possibility is still there, in which case a second archive would make sense. But requiring archives may not be the best option, and could backfire. Some editors could understandably balk at the work required and avoid adding the URL instead. Or even the entire citation if it depends on a URL. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I resist mandatory archiving because I encounter editors to see WP:PLRT, and possibly other policies, as license to run IABot – which in user mode adds all archive links, not only where it detects the originals have died, which it does when it runs by itself – on pages they are apt to have no other interest in curating. When the useless additions amount to tens of thousands of characters, I'm likely to revert, and sometimes have to explain myself to an unhappy editor. Is adding all archive links the default mode for a user-initiated IABot run. Can it be changed? Should the preventing-link-rot policies be regarded as encouraging massive bot runs, or do they, as I interpret them, suggest that the tool be used only by those actively checking the results (as by those first creating the citation) and limited in the number of citations changed at any one time? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a problem to add an archive link to a pge which currently is live? -- SuperJew (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a reversion seems unwarranted. Archiving pages while they are live is the entire point, no? I've seen people do that on pages I frequent, even if they have no other interest in the subject. In contexts where link rot is particularly common (either due to bad web hygiene or censorship, or both, in the case of articles about e.g. contemporary Chinese issues), that should be especially welcomed. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS lead discussion

There's a helpful discussion underway at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Seeking_consensus_for_table_modification, please take a peek and offer your input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted mass-creation of articles

Proposal: The creation of articles in a rapid fashion is much more likely to produce inaccurate or useless pages. Everyone is restricted to create 4 articles per 24 hours and 10 articles per week without approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This includes pages that were created outside mainspace and then moved to mainspace by the same person.

Unreferenced articles created as part of an unauthorized mass creation of articles may be speedily deleted.

Article creations before this proposal passed are not considered to be unauthorized unless the community decides otherwise. Lurking shadow (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This came up in a current arbitration case. Mass creation of articles should be held to a higher standard because it is more likely that the article creator didn't take time to fact-check the articles. This also addresses WP:FAIT problems. Speedy deletion of referenced articles is not authorized because you can at least check the sources for accuracy.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles, and certainly the users, you'd be restricting with this are entirely unproblematic. (For reference, here's some data that I was asked to produce at that arbitration case.) —Cryptic 16:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the benefits of this proposal. The Banner talk 23:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not often that I write more then one article a day but why should manual production of articles need bot-approval? I can save up my drafts until I have 12 articles ready to publish but that still does not make me a bot. This sounds like using a nuclear bomb to destroy a fly. This proposal causes too much collateral damage. The Banner talk 11:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this; creating large numbers of articles isn't an issue, what is an issue is bot-like article creation where an editor works through a database and creates near-identical articles sourced only to that database. This proposal would prevent the second, but it would also prevent the first, and as Cryptic points out there are many editors who are productively engaged in the first (for example, Davism0703). In addition, the second is already banned under WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT. BilledMammal (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I can think of several scenarios where people might well exceed four articles a day or ten a week. For example Sportspeople at the Olympic Games and politicians after a General Election. Focus on quicker detection of those who create lots of problematic new articles, we don't need new rules and procedures to stop the creation of valid new articles. ϢereSpielChequers 14:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have created many more than 10 pages in a week before; it should be encouraged to create articles, not need to apply for additional perms. Poor creation of articles is a behavioural issue, not something to restrict. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying WP:NOT, MOS:WORKS

See here for a proposal to modify WP:NOT and MOS:WORKS. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is pending changes review an exclusive right?

Any autoconfirmed editor can copy a pending change into their own edit, but they can't approve the change or edit on top of it. Why's that? Since pending changes protection is about vandalism, it seems unlikely that a random editor would approve a bad edit by an IP. Galagora (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, an editor making a change is always editing the latest version of the article in question, including all pending edits. As you allude to, this edit will also become a pending change until it is reviewed by a pending changes reviewer. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But can't an editor edit an old version of the article and copy the pending change over? Galagora (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor just wants to include all pending edits, there's no need to manually copy anything. Editing the current version will include all of them. If they want to leave out some pending changes, then they can start with an older version. This is the same as with any article that is not under pending changes protection.
Pending changes protection only alters what is shown to non-logged in users; it doesn't affect editing. A non-reviewer can't make their edit visible to non-logged in users. After one pending change is made, all subsequent edits are pending changes until a reviewer reviews them. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was thinking of it like Git, where if you branch off of an old revision you get a new history with all the edits after that revision gone. So your edit would be the next edit after the old revision. But actually, basing your edit on an old revision just undoes all the subsequent changes in your edit, instead of discarding them from the history, so your edit still goes to pending changes review.
But I still don't understand why only a select group can review pending changes. It seems like a simple thing that any editor can do. Galagora (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"unlikely that a random editor would approve a bad edit by an IP". It's wonderfully optimistic but I'm afraid that's far from the case - random editors do all sorts of unhelpful stuff (when they're not being helpful or harmless). Just being autoconfirmed is not incredibly different from being an IP editor. There are some editors with thousands of edits who don't have a clue. At least with a manually assigned right there is some sort of sanity check. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But now we have a situation where an autoconfirmed user can vandalise the article themselves, but, as soon as an IP makes an edit (good or bad), any of the autoconfirmed user's edits can only show after review. So there's no protection from autoconfirmed vandalism until an IP happens to make an edit. Galagora (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helps to think of this from some use cases, for example:
  1. There is a good page with PC1
  2. An IP makes some small vandalism (like changes a date)
  3. A good faith editor comes by the article (not in response to recent changes review, etc) and adds something useful to it like a new paragraph
In this use case, the bad vandalism is still there, and readers are still being protected from being exposed to the bad edit. Someone that knows what their doing about review pages will eventually get to the page in the backlog and hopefully discard the vandalism, keep the good addition, and make the page live for readers. Now with all of this being said, @Galagora are your questions about the protection policy answered? — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. You can edit the page without vouching for the pending changes beforehand. This answers the question, thanks. Galagora (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Galagora, as to why the decision was made to separate it into an exclusive right, using xaosflux's scenario, a reviewer in that situation would be prompted to screen any previous unreviewed edits for vandalism, which is a task they have opted in to. However, if every autoconfirmed user was prompted to review past edits for vandalism, a large majority would probably have no interest in doing so and would just approve their own edits without checking the rest of the article. The system just makes more sense if it's limited to actual anti-vandalism volunteers. But I do remember at the time it was rightfully acknowledged as taking rights away from the community, and there was a clear intent PCR was to be viewed as re-granting rights that autoconfirmed users used to possess by default: the right to review any edit and the right to make any edit. For this reason, the user right is essentially granted to any editor upon request. Granting guidelines are minimal. In the beginning, it was granted to many active editors without request, for that reason, it was viewed as reinstating existing rights that the community is entitled to. So you have to opt back in to the role, but anyone can opt in. ~Swarm~ {sting} 15:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PCR should autogrant with autoconfirmed or at the same time extended confirmed . I would say bundle, but that would remove the ability to remove it from people who don't want it (the watchlist banner it gives you might be the single most annoying design feature on Wikipedia. I have CSS to remove it.)
    The whole theory behind PCR is that it restores to autoconfirmed users the ability they have always had — to grant edit requests. Theoretically pending changes is a lower form of protection than semi-protection, so PCR is supposed to be granted liberally because it makes no sense to have a lower form of protection have a higher standard of review. I think Mz7 started a discussion about this a while back, but can't remember. Honestly, we should just get rid of pending changes all together; it creates more problems than it solves most of the time, but barring that, we can streamline giving people the right to review them. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni, autogranting CRASH status is, and has always been, a nonstarter. It's brought up every so often and always gets shot down on the grounds that PCR requires a fair bit of knowledge of what is and is not vandalism - something an autoconfirmed user won't have and something an XCP user doesn't need PCR to help enforce. (Disclosure: I refuse to accept the CRASH userright and refuse to edit or watch pages under CRASHlock.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Less damage than can already be done with autoconfirmed since by definition semi-protection is more sensitive than anything with pending changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "CRASH", but if that simply means the process of reviewing pending changes, then Tony's idea is definitely not a nonstarter. A while back, I did indeed float this idea on the idea lab village pump. While I ultimately didn't start a formal RfC for the proposal, I don't really think the idea was shot down. I am still quite sympathetic to the idea, and I suspect I would probably support a proposal to autogrant it with extended confirmed.
      PCR is by far the most lightweight right that administrators can grant. Note that it only grants the ability to accept pending changes—anyone can reject pending changes by reverting to the last accepted revision (such a revert would be automatically accepted). Because of this, the amount of disruption caused by misuse is quite low (much lower than rollback, where misuse of the tool can alienate good-faith editors). While PCR does require some common-sense knowledge on what is and is not vandalism, WP:RPC#Acceptable edits expressly states It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting. Virtually all editors who are not novices should have the competency to review pending changes, and this is reflected in our established practice of granting PCR to virtually every non-novice editor that requests it at WP:PERM. Mz7 (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic sourcing bias on Wikipedia

Why do some Wikipedia editors believe that popular western sources are the only independent sources deserving of consideration for determining the notability of subjects? In a deletion discussion about Patrick Lancaster, an editor is claiming that the lengthy treatise by Zabrorona on the subject is not journalistic, and other editors support this saying there are no independent sources. The subject is very specific to Ukraine and Zabrorona is a very high-quality independent source from Ukraine, and I tried getting community input on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as advised by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but no response so far. If independent sources from the west are the only ones that can be trusted, then millions of articles on notable Tatar musicians, Indian shamans, and Indonesian politicians are likely missing from Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Define "independent" sources and provide examples of such purported sources in Wikipedia articles. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1097935314"