Wikipedia talk:Attribution

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that any changes you make really do reflect consensus.

Editors, please note:

After four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution have agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ at WP:ATT/FAQ.

There are no policy innovations suggested: WP:ATT is intended be a more cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar.

)

"in articles about themselves"

The wording keeps getting changed back to "in articles about themselves", but this isn't the actual criteria. This wording is both too broad and too restrictive for neutrality. Questionable sources should not be used for concrete statements of fact, but they should be used for statements about themselves or their authors. In other words, you can't say "the earth is flat", and use someone's blog as a reference for it, but you can say "blog writer x says the world is flat" and use the blog as a reference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in an article about the blog or about its author. — Omegatron 07:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think a random blog passes the test for use as a reliable source in the first place ? Wjhonson 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source in an article about the blog or its author. But why such an article would claim the Earth is flat is beyond me... JulesH 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in an article about the blog or about its author." Yes it does, because such a statement would have no place on any article but one about the blog or its author. Marskell 10:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the idea that any fact is not contentious. The current article makes it sound like we can use an anime fan webiste as a citation for anime fans being predominantly male. Anything is contentious once somebody says it might not be true. Lotusduck 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary source

See: Archive 11: Primary source --Philip Baird Shearer 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. There is a definition of what a primary source is, and a number of good examples too. JulesH 12:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The change I am making is to put similar information after the definition, instead of using the term before it is defined. Also it is not edits to text that are covered by this policy document but rather "All material in Wikipedia" (the text once the edits have been made). --Philip Baird Shearer 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using a term and then defining it in the next sentence. This is fairly standard practice and helps the document flow better. I'm also not sure why you're picking solely on primary sources when the exact same arrangement is also used for secondary sources, 'original research', 'reliable sources', 'questionable source', and 'self-published source'. I do agree with you that the reference to 'edits' is perhaps wrong, and should probably be changed to 'articles'. JulesH 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet altered secondary sources etc., because incremental changes are better than large changes. You may think that it helps the document flow better, but the structure of this pivotal policy document should be close to a well written legal document, and in those definitions always come first to avoid ambiguity in the text. After all the reason for combing WP:V etc into one was to clarify things which were already there but in several documents and it helps if this document should be constructed in such a way as to reduce ambiguity still further. One way to do this is to make sure that it is structured logically.

Also I have problems with "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Why pick out the Bible for consideration why not the Koran or any other religious book? The current wording implys that the Bible holds a special position inside Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The bible is the most widely distributed primary source material in the English language. This is the English Wikipedia. The Koran is not generally translated into English, so few of the English-speaking readers of this web site will be familiar with its content. The reasoning behing this choice is obvious.

I also disagree that the structure of a wikipedia policy should mimic that of a legal document. Most people find reading legal documents difficult and tedious; wikipedia is not a beurocracy and we want to encourage people to understand the policies rather than needing lawyers to interpret them for them. The policy should therefore follow the structure of documents designed to inform, i.e. educational texts. The style of using a word then explaining its meaning is common in such texts. JulesH 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Choosing the Bible may be in your opinion "obvious" but it is not in my opinion an example of systemic bias and probably breaks the WP:NPOV policy. If this needs to be mentioned it should be in the FAQ not in this policy article.

How do you know that most people find reading a legal document difficult and tedious? I think it depends on the document. In the past when solicitors were paid by the word I would have agreed with you, but modern contracts drawn up with a consideration for plain English are much easier to understand. I put it to you that if this article is structured in such a way as to minimise inconsistencies, it is less likely to misunderstood. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest that if we introduce the reason why the reader of the policy should care about a concept before describing the meaning of the concept, it is more likely to be read. What precise ambiguity is introduced by using the phrase "primary source" in the sentence before it is defined?

And, what other source can we use for an example that a significant proportion of our readers will be familiar with? JulesH 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One comment -- generally speaking, when writing about research or scholarly work, particularly recently published research that's reported in news media, given a choice between citing the original scholarly publication and citing a newspaper or other popular media account of it, citing the actual work should be prefered, and one should basically always cite the actual work where possible. Newspaper accounts on new studies etc. can sometimes distort and create a sort of telephone effect, citing the actual work both makes clear what the work is and enables some future expert to tell if it's been reliably described. In these cases, suggest that primary sources should be preferec to secondary ones even though the newspaper accounts will be in plainer English and easier to understand. One can always cite both. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

The introduction to this statement of policy mentions the "burden of evidence". I've never heard of the burden of evidence. Ought it not read "burden of proof"? DavidCBryant 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's really required is some evidence that backs up the editor's claims, not necessarily definitive proof. Evidence is really a minimum requirement since without any evidence there's certainly not proof. ChazBeckett 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement means that the burden of providing evidence to back a claim (ie a citation to a reliable source) is upon the person wishing to add the claim to the article. Blueboar 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and not to be confused with the burden of evidence about the truth of the cited assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If we said "the burden proof" people would think in terms of the truth of the assertion ... by saying "burden of evidence" we make it clearer that we are talking about who has to add sources. But perhaps "burden of providing evidence" would be clearer yet? Blueboar 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

question about application of Wikipedia:Attribution

What is the rule concerning a user who removes text because of Original Research of their own? For example, a use who removes an argument because they think its false based on their own original synthesis of other sources?--Urthogie 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we should not have argument based on an editor's original synthesis in the first place, the editor not only may, but is encouraged to remove it. If you like the argument and wish to keep it in the article, go look for an independant secondary source that states it. Blueboar 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my question. I'm saying when the removal itself is based on the removers OR.--Urthogie 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not prohibited. Neither, however, would restoring the information be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I would say it is prohibited. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

JayJg - Which is prohibited, removing or restoring? Blueboar 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not policy violation to restore non-OR (unless its 3RR). My question, though, is if its a policy violation to remove something because you find it to not be true based on your own obvious original research. And this is assuming everyone editing agrees with you that X isn't true after you show your evidence.--Urthogie 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is prohibited to remove relevant material sourced to reliable sources because you have done some original research and decided the reliable source is actually wrong. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I'd say it depends. If by "original research" we are talking about an experiment, I'd say no: if you have come up with a rigorous experiment that contradicts received opinion, the best thing to do would be to see how you can get your results published in the appropriate periodical. If by "original research" we are talking about a secondary source that claims that source X had a given passage in it, & you have read source X & found that it does not -- I'd say that is possible grounds to remove that use of the secondary source. I'd try to find one or more Wikipedians who know the subject, show them your findings, & solicit their input first, though; there may be good reasons why this happened. -- llywrch 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Llywrch is addressing the issue. Sometimes editors reading about "original research" get it confused with "source-based research". Original research must assert a new fact, doing research to find that person X asserted a new fact is not itself "original research", but rather "source-based research". So perhaps the original poster can give us the specific example in this case? Wjhonson 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Another question, I don't see the new policy mentioning tertiary sources. Are they considred to be reliable sources? --Brian Wiseman 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATTFAQ says that "[t]raditionally published encyclopedias are reliable sources". All the same, unsigned encyclopedia articles are hardly desirable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Effects on External links

Via the WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #2 guideline, this policy page now applies to external links (normally). The nutshell states that this policy applies to material in Wikipedia. Was this intended? AndroidCat 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question really should be asked at the EL page... if the original intent at EL was that WP:V, WP:NOR and/or WP:RS were to apply to External Links, then this page (or the relevant sections) should apply as well, since this policy is a continuation of those Policies. Blueboar 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External links are material in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean the content of the sites we link to must adhere to ATT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The guideline in question reads: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: ...

...Any site containing factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

It then gave a wiki-link to the old WP:RS guideline. I think the purpose was to help the editor define what is meant by "verifiable resarch". If that is the case, then the intent is the same when linking to this Policy. If they mean something else, or find that their intent is not met within this page, then it is up to the folks at EL to re-word their page. Blueboar 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, that answers my question and I'll take it up in EL if I absolutely have to. :) AndroidCat 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak sources or sources used outside context

In the article Norouz as celebrated by Kurds, this source has been used:

"Rasbridge, Lance Andrew; Kemp, Charles (2004). Refugee and Immigrant Health: A Handbook for Health Professionals. Cambridge University Press, pg. 236. ISBN 0521535603."

To support a statement regarding legends behind a spring festival. This book is obviously focused on something completley different, not only to the festival, but to the ethnic group we are discussing here. I believe there was just a note regarding this festival to explain hazards probably regarding injuries caused by jumping over a fire (a tradition of this festival) or something similar.

I wanted to know whether this can be used as a primary source to support a statement and whether it can be called a "weak" source. It must be appreciated that the statement has another reference too so I am just using this as an example and do not object to the statement that the reference has been used for here. Regards, --Rayis 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The source should be fine if the statement within it is reliable and supports the claim. The need for a claim to be a primary subject in the souce is critical to establishing notability but doesn't make the source weak. Of course, if there is completely contradictory information from a more reliable source on the matter, such as a scholar of Kurdish issues, the scholar should accordingly receive more weight. The Behnam 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-scholarly sources

In a recent AFD discussion where someone was complaining of the sort of sources used in an article on a fictional subject, I had attempted to provide them a link to the section in the old WP:RS that discussed non-scholarly sources. When i discovered the recent merger and that the section was no longer included i looked and discovered that the section had been removed from the original RS on Feb. 24th without any discussion. I am restoring the section to the main page here, as it was removed without consensus in the first place. If anyone would like to discuss changes to the section I invite them to do it here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is in the WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Individual sections need tagging

I'm noticing that there are shortcut links to bring readers/editors directly to core principals (like NOR). This is fine but unfortunately it can be a bit disorienting to suddenly "teleport" via a hyperlink to a section and not immediately understand what it is pertains to. I think it would be sensible that each shortcutted section be tagged as being representative of policy so that individuals are not obliged to review the entire page (and in particular the top) to understand they are looking at Wikipedia policy. I would like to edit these features in. Is there anyone who disagrees with this idea? (→Netscott) 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you describe exactly what you intend to do? JulesH 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is not uncommon to find links like this: WP:NOR as we edit Wikipedia. Obviously NOR is jargon for No Original Research but for editors not familar with the the term it's just a TLA. So when one clicks on a WP:NOR link they are instantly whisked away to the Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research section of WP:ATT. For such an inexperienced person to understand that what they are reading is policy they are (currently) obliged to scroll up to the top of the page to see the {{Policy}} tag. What I am proposing is to label each section with a mini tag so that when a user is brought to that section of the policy page they will instantly recognize that what they are reading is policy. (→Netscott) 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, I added a new "policy section" template to the NOR and RS sections in line with your concerns. My only worry is that it might lead newbies to think that somehow the other sections aren't official policy. If others want to remove the new template, I'm fine either way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that adding a tag per section could get confusing, and create a bad precedent. The main problem I see, which SV noted above, is that putting the tag on one section necessitates doing it for all, which would create clutter and confusion, since we also have one for the entire page. I think we need to assume some minimal competence and intelligence on the part of our newer editors - it doesn't require a rocket scientist to scroll up to the top and get some context. Crum375 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the section tag would need better wording, mainly that each section represents a part of an entire policy page. I was thinking of coming up with some slimline templates for such a purpose in line with what I am talking about here. (→Netscott) 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My concerns are precedent, confusion and clutter. I can see how once we have these sections tagged as 'policy', every section of every policy would require one, or else we would have inconsistency and confusion. Also, we already have way too many templates - this is very disorienting to newer (and some older) editors. I think we need less, not more, templates. I still think that one 'policy' template at the top certifies the entire page - adding section tags diminishes the role of the main one, IMO. Crum375 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't really even need to be tags... it could be as simple as a policy symbol much like the {{sprotected2}} symbol off to the right that'd be clickable and take one to the top of the page or something along those lines. (→Netscott) 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, smaller and less intrusive is better clutter-wise, but it may not address the precedent and confusion side, as we would need it for every single policy section site-wide to be consistent. Also, if they are small icons, then their utility for the newly-landed editors who don't scroll up would be reduced also, since they may miss or misinterpret the icons. Crum375 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just made this. Would something like it work?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:

That has potential. :-) (→Netscott) 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I could attempt to make a version in SVG format so that it scales better in smaller sizes. Will take some effort to do that, so I will wait for aditional comments and assess if there is some basic support for such a "seal". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My response was only half serious. I like the logo though. What I was envisioning was just to use the standard green check (and be clickable to the top of the page) something like this: (→Netscott) 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the logo a lot. It shouldn't be too small or newbies will likely miss it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would work a bit on making a logo in SVG format (vector) that will scale well and would be readable at smaller sizes. It may be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It does look nice, but again my question is: are we going to put it on every section of every policy site-wide? If not, which criteria do we use to decide which section gets it and which doesn't? And what happens to the ones that don't, do they then seem less important? And overall does this reduce confusion or add confusion and/or inconsistency? I can see the motivation for this, but my concern is that the solution could add more problems, if applied inconsistently. I can see using your nice icon (or similar one) at the top of every policy page, though. Crum375 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a bit of a precedent actually: WP:FU with the policy section. I don't forsee a problem with adding small policy indicators. I'm really only proposing this as ATT has brought together under one roof all of these former policy pages that had a bit more "punch" and I'm just trying to reestablish some of that lost "punch". (→Netscott) 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The WP:FU example is exactly what I am worried about. It seems that in that case there is a policy embedded inside a guideline. So if we were to add an icon or tag on a section here, we'd have possible confusion about whether the entire page is a policy or not. If not, then why is it needed per section? And why not for every section of every policy site wide? I believe in simplicity and consistency. I fully realize the history of WP:A and the motivation, possibly temporary, to clarify that each piece of it is a policy, but I still see a potential for confusion. Crum375 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far you're the only one with who's voicing solid objection, maybe we boldly do a trial run here on ATT and see what others think? (→Netscott) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it does have significant implications for every policy site-wide. I therefore suggest we discuss it with a wider forum - I have a suspicion that only a few of us are actually looking at this issue right now. Crum375 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Official policy" seal

65 pixels

40 pixels

28 pixels

In SVG format, that scales well and text is readable in small sizes. Hope it works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Version with text shadow:

At my resolution, the 28-pixel size is unreadable and the 40-pixel size is barely readable. I don't think that it's a good idea to include text in the icon, and I agree with Netscott that the familiar green checkmark should be used. —David Levy 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff of how the {{policy}} template looks with the seal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

15px green checkmark, text link

Here's my proposed format:

==No original research==

===What is original research?===

Material counts as original research if it:

• introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

—David Levy 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The green check mark may be familiar to long standing Wikipedians, and graphically only says "check", not "official seal". Here is a version of the seal that has not text, that could be used in the sho7rcut boxes:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, a "seal" is just another arbitrary symbol. I don't see how it better conveys the "policy" concept, and I see no valid reason to abandon the setup (green checkmark for policy, blue checkmark for guideline, red X for rejected/historical page) that's been in use since December 2005 and copied by various Wikimedia sites in different languages. —David Levy 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A "seal" as a "seal of approval" could be a more effective way to denote official policy, while a check mark says very little. In any case, I was just trying to improve on the long-standing version, and if it can be improved then why not? (I can easily create different color versions for guidelines and for policies) Let's see what other editors think. (≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, the checkmark/x mark symbolism is quite clear, and it would be confusing to change a setup that has become recognizable throughout this site and numerous others in various languages. That consistency is highly beneficial. —David Levy 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure ... to long standing Wikipedians that already know the policies by heart... But that only represents a tiny percentage of users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Save for the fact that the green check is already established a seal does make sense in that it is essentially a worldwide recognized symbol that I would argue almost all cultures are familiar with. That said the blue symbol here seems a bit kid like (techno anime)... not serious enough... imho... but I'm liking what I'm seeing in terms of a symbol in the shortcuts area... that is essentially what I was thinking of... something unmistakable about a section being policy. What about the symbol but back to gold? (→Netscott) 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the concept of a seal recognizable to more cultures than that of a checkmark/tick? (That's a serious question. I don't know the answer.)

I agree that this particular seal seems kid-like. (No offense intended. I wouldn't be able to create an SVG anywhere near as good.) It also is too busy, and I don't like the idea of duplicating text from the template (or introducing an element requiring localization before wikis in other languages could even consider adopting the icon). —David Levy 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see from our checkmark article that the symbol is not commonly used in Japan, but the Japanese Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikisource all use this icon in their policy templates. That it symbolizes an error in Finland and Sweden is of greater concern, but there might be countries in which a seal has little or different meaning. (I have no idea.) —David Levy 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with an SVG editor, such as the open source Inkscape, could localize the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, but I prefer the idea of an icon that can simply be used (and I see absolutely no benefit to duplicating text from the actual template). —David Levy 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I perceive the symbols themselves as inherently meaningful. Speakers of no fewer than 26 different languages evidently agreed, and I was referring to consistency with these wikis (not with our own). —David Levy 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas for a different symbol? I am sure we can improve on the checkmark. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a stamp? "Stamp! Official". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that a check mark denotes the just the concept of "yes" or "validated" and it is very much of US-centric use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to tell you Jossi, maybe we should make a post over on WP:VPR? (→Netscott) 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know that the "US-centric" claim is false; checkmarks (known as "ticks" in British English) are used in many countries. As I noted, Wikimedia wikis in numerous languages use this icon in their policy templates. —David Levy 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it was decided that check marks would the symbols used for guidelines and policies. Obviously the check mark is readily recognized in English speaking countries. I think gold seals (as typically found on legal documents, etc.) are a bit more universal though for denoting a "seal of approval"/authority. (→Netscott) 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do know that checkmarks are far from US-centric (or even Anglocentric). This icon presently appears in the policy templates of Wikimedia wikis spanning no fewer than 26 different languages (and possibly more if some are using a different filename).

Incidentally, there was no formal decision to use the checkmarks here. I simply added them to our templates and people approved (and editors of the other wikis followed suit). —David Levy 05:46/10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see... I will work in creating a Gold version for policies (and a copper version for guidelines maybe?), to replace the blue design that may be too cute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the color isn't my primary concern. —David Levy 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold version of seal ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With caption: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking much better Jossi imho..much more "official" looking than either the check mark or the blue seal. The only other thought that occurs to me is that green could be an alternate color in line with the current green check. (→Netscott) 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking actually on "gold" for policies, and "silver" for guidelines. Color is culture sensitive, while Gold and Silver are widely accepted and recognized. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Diff of how this will look on the {{policy}} template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. My only reservation is that the seal is a bit busy with so many points. If it is not too much trouble maybe you could come up with one that has about half as many points? I agree with you about silver and gold (and copper too for that matter) particularly given the significance of such colors (Olympics, etc.). (→Netscott) 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am running out of time now, but will work on a "less points" version later tonight. In the meantime, other editors can comment further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I see no benefit to the use of a bulky icon (with completely redundant text) that increases the template's minimum size for many users (myself included). —David Levy 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even at 62px, the icon's text is extremely difficult to read on my screen. I don't know what settings you're working at, Jossi, but please try to be considerate of those of us with high resolutions. Mine is 1400x1050 on a 15" LCD.

And again, I strongly object to the use of text in this icon. It's completely redundant and creates unnecessary work for wikis written in other languages.

I believe that you're working on a solution to a nonexistent problem (the false premise that a checkmark is "US-centric"). Given that readers of 26 different languages (not counting English) decided to use the green checkmark, its cultural significance clearly isn't anywhere near as narrow as you've claimed. I see no need or benefit to starting over.

Additionally, the widespread misconception that guidelines are "ranked lower" than policies would be reinforced by the use of such colors as gold and silver (or copper, bronze, et cetera). I deliberately selected a pair of colors lacking such a connotation.

Having given this some thought, I also believe that the connotation carried by the seal imagery itself is inappropriate. Another widespread misconception is that our rules are sacrosanct laws that must always be followed to the letter. To me, this new icon seems indicative of such a situation, while the checkmarks convey the reality that these are mostly consensus-based checklists of concepts determined to be appropriate via use and discussion (descriptive, not prescriptive). —David Levy 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the gold seal look with the blue style text/lettering? - Denny 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the text centered rather than around? Or just the same typeface with the shadow? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, that wasn't clear. I think the Gold Seal itself is better than the blue. The current gold seal with the darker lettering doesn't work quite well. make that lettering white (and shadowed) but with the same current wrapping/curved appearance could work. What I was thinking really could be nice however could be the gold seal image with the larger, bolder centered text with shadows you have on the latter of the two blue seals. - Denny 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a couple new iterations later tonight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New version: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

that is nice. That's what I meant (but you went black instead of white text as suggested--I like your idea better). - Denny 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you reading my criticisms? You aren't replying to me, and now you've added additional English text and made the intended display size even larger.

The bold lettering helps somewhat, but it remains difficult to read at my resolution (even at the enormous 82px image size).

And again, you haven't demonstrated a problem with the status quo. I've debunked your "US-centric" claim, and you seem to be ignoring this. —David Levy 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Debunking? Why should I debunk anything, David? Status quo for the sake of status quo, is not a very strong argument, is it? Or is it that there is no room for improving our graphics? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my above comments. I didn't say that you should debunk anything. I noted that I debunked your claim that a checkmark is "US-centric." And no, I'm not arguing in favor of status quo for the sake of status quo. I'm pointing out that your justification for this change (the checkmark's "US-centric" nature) has been proven false. Meanwhile, I've raised various specific objections to the new icon that you haven't addressed. —David Levy 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Much improved there Jossi, the seal with fewer points is much clearer. While I like the lettering in the image I'm going to have to agree with David Levy. Universality is important. In response to to David's concerns about policies being considered moreso like flexible guidelines I don't see that changing with the seal imagery. The core fundamentals of policies hardly change and I think it is in the interest of the project that policies be taken a bit more seriously particularly if we want the project to be taken more and more seriously. This as we're coming under more and more scrutiny with the Essjay controversy making headlines. (→Netscott) 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am all for our policies to be taken more seriously, but I do not believe that replacing a tick mark with a seal has much to do with that issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not that policies are taken too seriously. On the contrary, it's that guidelines aren't taken seriously enough. It's common for people to argue that they're entitled to disregard any guideline with which they disagree (because "it's only a guideline"). While it's true that guidelines sometimes have more wiggle room than policies do, they generally should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. That's why I selected a pair of colors that doesn't reinforce the notion that guidelines carry no official weight. Gold and silver (or any other "lower" color) would be counterproductive. —David Levy 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But guidelines are ... guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning what? —David Levy 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a Diff of how this will look on the {{policy}} template. I will place a notice at the Village Pump to seek comments from the wider community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the gold seal (as well as the blue one) looks rather silly on a policy page, and at any rate it's not such a good idea to affix any kind of Official Seal Of Authority to our policy pages. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Keep the checkmark. >Radiant< 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Move the dots closer together and make them bigger and it would be a smiley face. Edison 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because we have such friendly, happy policies here at Wikipedia! Blueboar 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

There is an ongoing dispute about whether to change the policy from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable ... not whether it is true".

I put the following at the top of this page to reflect the fact that there is a dispute and that there is not consensus:

(However, there is a dispute about the change of policy from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable, ... not whether it is true." See "Role of truth" below. --Coppertwig 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Someone has deleted it. Please put it back. I have major objections to the alleged change in policy. My questions in "role of truth" and in "Is this really policy?" have not been answered. There is definitely a dispute here. --Coppertwig 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a dispute. The current version that has been worked on for the last fourth months, represents a fair consensus of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out to Coppertwig, the two statements mean exactly the same thing. There is nothing to dispute. This is getting tiresome .... see WP:POINT. Blueboar 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's becoming disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute. We changed one word to go from an oxymoronic claim that made some sense at a shallow level but literally meant "truth, not truth" to one that is clearer and says what it actually means. How is this even disputable? --tjstrf talk 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiable" and "true" do not have the same meaning, and "attributable" isn't even the same thing. "Verifiable" means "could be verified". If I cite a scholarly paper, you can go and verify that the paper says what I claim it does. On the other hand, I can say "I had a turkey sandwich for lunch today." It is true, I really did. It's even attributable (to me), I said so. What it is not is verifiable, there is no reasonable way anyone can verify that what I said is true. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "verifiability, not truth" wording very accurately describes a long standing, and very important, point of policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To verify is normally to demonstrate the truth of, [1] so Tjstrf is right when he says the previous phrase was almost contradictory, though in the context we were using the word, it was, as HighinBC says, an important part of our core policies. One of the reasons for the move to Attribution was so we could retain what was important but ditch the misuse of the term "verifiability." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the new wording along the lines of "Attribution to a reliable source, not truth", but this "not whether it is true" seems a bit awkward. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If the old and new wording mean exactly the same thing, let's solve this dispute by going back to the old wording, which was shorter. In my opinion they do not mean the same thing. --Coppertwig 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They mean the exact same thing, but the new wording fits the name of the new policy better, and "verifiability" was being misunderstood. There is consensus on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not a consensus on this so-called policy. Saying that there is does not make it so. --Henrygb 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither does saying that there isn't make that so. Hundreds, if not thousands of editors have been through here and seem happy with the change. It has been discussed extensively. A small minority are unhappy with it. This doesn't mean there isn't Wikipedia:Consensus. The policy tags have been on the page for some time now. JulesH 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The present wording is far more useful than the previous one. I have come across editors telling me that they can verify a subject's notability because they have met them (cue messy discussion of what is meant by "verifiability"). qp10qp 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The present wording takes the amateur's side at Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur. Does the so-called consensus? --Henrygb 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if the amateur can cite the suggestion that the moon is made of cheese to a reliable source. I.e., no it doesn't. JulesH 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a herring. Made of Double Gloucester. qp10qp 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NASA is a reliable primary source and Google's use of NASA imagery is therefore a reliable secondary source. Go to http://moon.google.com/ then put an Apollo landing site in the centre of the screen and zoom in as far as possible. You may have to adjust the colour settings on your screen. So, as I said above, this page supports the amateur. --Henrygb 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is taking your own interpretation of a reliable source that isn't explicitly backed up by the words of the source. It may look like cheese, but it requires an expert to interpret it and publish explicit results in a reliable source before we could cite it. So, as I say, no it doesn't support the amateur. JulesH 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All your arguments are those of the amateur not the astronomer. The moon is not made of cheese, you know it, I know it, and basing everything purely on sources is not how encyclopedias are written.--Henrygb 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't understand your point. Nobody has pointed to any reliable sources that say the moon is made of cheese. There are plenty of reliable sources that document the actual composition of the moon. There is no difficulty writing an encyclopedia article on this subject based on reliable sources. So what, precisely, is the issue here? JulesH 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis section

The plagiarism example on synthesis remains very difficult to follow. I've mentioned this before, but giving more detail:

• The whole background to the case is complicated and not explained. What does "copying references" mean? The reader is left guessing as to what the case is about.
• The claim that "The whole point of this paragraph is the conclusion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it." does not follow from the text quoted in the example. The paragraph cites a definition of plagiarism, and makes no comment on whether or not Jones committed it or not.
• The example is supposed to be illustrating synthesis, i.e. putting together two sourced ideas A and B to come up with an unsourced conclusion, C. None of the conclusions in this passage appear to rely on more than one source. In particular:
  • The conclusion, "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." does appears to rely on one source only - the Chicago Manual of Style. It is not at all obvious how this is meant to be illustrating synthesis.
  • Similarly, the conclusion "The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism."" appears to rely on one source only - again the CMS. So this is not synthesis either.
  • The third line "instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.". Again, this is based on ideas from the CMS only - there is no hint of a synthesis with other ideas or other sources.

From my understanding of the original case, I think that the real dispute was over the interpretation of the CMS (or rather, the Harvard student writing manual, which was the source actually referenced). Smith interpreted it one way, Jones the other. Because Wikipedia does not take one interpretation of the "truth", each interpretation needs "Smith says..." or "Jones says..." before it, and an appropriate reference. This is a very straightforward and well accepted application of the attribution policy, and has nothing to do with synthesis. I propose that the example is removed, and preferably replaced with an example that is easier to follow and actually addresses synthesis. Enchanter 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Proposed new example of synthesis. I agree with you that a simpler example would be better (or a simpler example, plus a link to this complex one elsewhere). I think, though, that one of the points being made in this example is that Wikipedians should not put two sentences next to each other to make a point if the point is Original Research. Maybe in the original, Smith and Jones didn't refer to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), but argued using other definitions. By putting the mention of the CMS in the same paragraph, the Wikipedian editor made it look highly relevant -- practically almost drew a conclusion for the reader. That's what's being deprecated. Maybe if the text introducing this paragraph were better written it would go over better. It could prepare the reader for what's coming. It could say "Note how, by putting two sentences together in the following paragraph, the writer strongly implies something." Instead of saying "now comes the synthesis" when actually there's no synthesis in the first sentence of what comes next -- or in fact anywhere within the paragraph. The synthesis to me comes at the very end of the paragraph, when the reader has taken in all the information and suddenly jumps to a conclusion. There are also other complexities which are not needed here. The simplest example that demonstrates synthesis should suffice. I give some hypothetical examples in the discussion at the link I give above.

Here's another example: Suppose one Source A says "In this town, men often walk around shirtless on the street in the summertime, but women always wear tops." Suppose source B says, "Jane, a resident of this town, was interviewed on the street in this town during a march of the Topless Freedom Society." A Wikipedia article should not say, based only on these two sources, "Jane was wearing a top during the interview." A similar example might be constructed using a Barefoot Freedom Society. However, this example doesn't illustrate juxtaposing two sentences to make a point.

Here's yet another example: Suppose source A says "Any liquid colder than 0 degrees C can be used for this purpose." and source B reports, in a different context, that liquid nitrogen is normally stored at -196 degrees C. Based only on these sources, a Wikipedia article should not juxtapose sentences to say: "Any liquid colder than 0 degrees C can be used for this purpose. Liquid nitrogen is normally at -196 degrees C." because this implies that liquid nitrogen would be suitable for the purpose. --Coppertwig 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the examples, it would be nice to find something that looks more like it could actually be from an encyclopedia article. Coming up with good examples can be surprisingly hard!

Your interpretation of the case as being that the CMS is being introduced when it is not relevant makes sense, but does not appear to be the issue in the real life case - both Smith and Jones had discussed the definitions of plagiarism in the CMS. And in any case, the example is meant to be illustrating synthesis, not the introduction of irrelevant sources. Enchanter 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I understand you are one, if not the, originators of this essay. Your input, as to, if the scientific POV should be privileged or not would be greatly appriciated. Thx, Fossa_?! 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Role of truth

This is a continuation of an ongoing discussion, the earlier part of which has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Role of truth.

As I said before, although I'm OK with the change from "verifiability" to "attributable", I worry about the change to "not whether it is true" without a word such as "verifiability" to counterbalance it. I think it would be closer to the original meaning of "verifiability, not truth" to simply delete "not whether it is true" or to insert "merely".

I gave one example earlier of a situation where I think the new policy would produce undesirable results; I'm waiting for those who favour the words "not whether it is true" to comment on that situation.

Here's another hypothetical situation where the "not whether it is true" wording wouldn't be good: Suppose several publications have been reviewed by publishing houses in the normal way, but that the authors and reviewers all come from the same religion, ethnic group or political group, and three publications, of the type normally considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, all state that at a certain time and place a UFO landed and aliens came out and shook hands with people. Suppose no other publication mentioned the incident -- it isn't considered important by other publications. Now suppose someone insists that a Wikipedia article state, "A UFO landed and ...". And suppose other Wikipedians argue that it either shouldn't mention it at all, or should use a prose attribution. The first Wikipedian could use this policy, with its "not whether it is true" wording, to support keeping the statement in as an assertion by a Wikipedia article, without a prose attribution. The user could challenge others to find a publication that denies it, saying that only if such a publication is found must a prose attribution be added. ("prose attribution" means inserting something like "Fun and Games Magazine states that ...")

Here's another example. Suppose three sources report a person's birth date as 1901 and one source reports it as 1801, and many sources report the person doing things in the 1900's and no sources report the person doing anything in the 1800's. Someone could use the "not whether it is true" provision to insist that the 1801 date be mentioned with approximately equal weight (or precisely one-third the weight) as the 1901 birth date. Thus the article would not say "J. Smith was born in 1901," but would say "According to several sources J. Smith was born in 1901, while another source reports the birth date as 1801." People could argue that it's ridiculous to include the 1801 date, but they could be overruled by this policy which states that whether something is true is not the issue.

Here's another example. Now, normally, when someone says something, it is assumed that the person is asserting it, and if it isn't true and the person knows that, the person can be accused of lying (or fraud, or perjury). But if the person says "What follows is fiction." then that doesn't apply. Well, the wording "not whether it is true" could be taken as a grand "What follows is fiction" applying to all of Wikipedia. Someone might take up the hobby of scouring books for typos and misstatements and whenever they find one, inserting it into Wikipedia. The "not whether it is true" wording can be understood to be encouraging this behaviour. If the pattern of the person's edits is noticed and the person is accused of disruptive behaviour and of wilfully writing false material into Wikipedia, the person could point to this policy and argue that the person has a right to continue doing the same sorts of edits on the grounds that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to present true information, and that others should leave the attributed misstatements in the articles. The person could claim that the person is helping to write the encyclopedia according to its stated purpose.

In reply to SlimVirgin: I don't understand the phrase "do truth". Perhaps you would be willing to explain what you mean in different terms. Re your second comment: Either the new wording means the same as the old or it does not; you can't have it both ways.

In reply to BlueBoar: Of course Wikipedia does not care: Wikipedia is a thing, not a sentient being. It's not capable of caring about anything. But Wikipedians do care about the truth, often passionately enough to engage in edit wars about it. I suppose by "accuracy" you mean accurate representation of what is in the sources as opposed to conformity to reality. I think the dictionary definition of "accuracy" is conformity to reality, so you might do well to explain what you mean when you use the word that way -- I'm still not quite sure that's what you mean. As I see it, we should care about conformity of assertions in Wikipedia to reality as high a percentage of the time as feasible, and requiring attribution is simply a method of achieving both high conformity to reality and less time spent on edit wars. What do you think the purpose is of trying to write an encyclopedia that conforms to other publications and not necessarily to reality? The purpose of writing an encyclopedia that conforms to reality as much as possible is to make a useful reference that people can get useful information from.

In reply to Crum375: I don't think there's a platonic version of the policy somewhere of which the wording on the policy page is merely an approximation. I think the wording on the policy page is the policy itself. If different people had different interpretations of "verifiability", then it's not the place of one Wikipedian to say that one of the interpretations is right and another wrong, (or that one is "true" and one is "false") especially when large numbers of Wikipedians had the same interpretation. If the words meant one thing to large numbers of Wikipedians, we can't assume there was a consensus supporting a different meaning.

In reply to Jakew: Why do you say we're not in a position to determine whether a statement is true or not? Wikipedians come from many walks of life; probably many are the authors of material used as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Do you mean we sometimes are not in that position, or that we can never determine whether a statement is true? Can we determine whether the following are true?

"We're not in a position to determine whether a statement is true or not."

"This book contains this statement on page 53."

"There was consensus in favour of the new policy."

I think we often are able to determine whether a statement is true, at least with a high degree of certainty. The problem is that sometimes people disagree about what is or is not true, and requiring attributions is a good way to resolve those disagreements, since attributions are often more objective than other things people might bring into an argument (e.g. personal experience); people tend to agree more about what the sources say than about whether what the sources say is true. So that's fine to require attributions. But it doesn't follow from that that we have to claim we never know what's true or that we have to change the whole purpose of the encyclopedia.

In reply to Mackan79: Excellent point. Without the word "verifiability", there's no more need to say "not truth" than to say "not whether it is relevant, interesting, important" etc.

Would those who support the wording "not whether it is true" please provide an example of a real or hypothetical situation (such as a content dispute) where you believe that wording would be helpful? Please explain why those particular words would be helpful, not just the change from "verifiability" to "attributable".

I note that no one has specifically addressed some of the specific suggestions I made for addressing my concern. For example, no one has objected to my suggestion to insert "Not all attributable statements are worthy of inclusion." If there are no objections, I will soon edit this sentence into the policy. --Coppertwig 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, as for what I mean by "accuracy" ... I mean that we should report what the sources say accurately. This means we should examine the entire source to be sure that it does indeed say what we claim it says. We should also examine a source to make sure that it states the facts accurately. If it misquotes someone, or takes a quote out of context, then we have good grounds for determining that the source is unreliable. These are issues that must be hashed out on the talk page of each article.

Lets take your 1901 vs 1801 example... if there is honest debate as to these dates, then yes, we do need to report that one source says the person was born in 1801 while two sources state he was born in 1901. In reality, if there was a range of 100 years between the reported date of someone's birth, the editors would know that there was probably something wrong with one of these dates and hash it out on the talk page of the article... some common sense would probably come into play. For example, if the source that says the person was born in 1801 later states that he died in 1978, at the age of 77, then it is fair to assume that the 1801 date was a typo. There would quickly be a consensus that the article should disregard the first date as unreliable. But, let's take a more realistic situation: say two sources say a medieval King was born in 1355, but another source says he was born in 1353... we should indeed report the fact that the date of his birth is debated, and give both dates. Wouldn't you agree?

As for your UFO story... (assuming it met the criteria of WP:FRINGE which usually covers such claims) if the landing of a UFO is reported in a reliable source then, yes, according to this Policy we would indeed have to say "A UFO landed..." In reality, since UFO sightings are rarely if ever reported in reliable sources (they tend to be the stuff of the marginal press) it would be proper to attribute the statement as "According to a report in UFO Magazine a UFO landed..." This is a statement that accurately relfects the facts and fits with the parameters of this Policy. It is not up to us to determine if a UFO actually did land... only that this was reported.

As for "What follows is fiction"... if the statement is relevant to the article, then yes, we should report that the author made the statement and note that he stated that is was fiction. Blueboar 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying. I agree completely about how we ought to be reporting birth dates and hashing out on the talk page whether a birth date given in a source seems to be a mere typo. In other words, we need to concern ourselves with whether the material presented in the sources seems to be plausible and to accurately conform to reality as far as we can reasonably tell. This is why I would like to delete "not whether it is true" from the Policy. It seems to me that the policy, with the "not whether it is true" wording, could be used to avoid any discussion of whether 1801 is a typo and to insist that 1801 be mentioned in the article regardless of whether it could possibly be true.

I agree that the policy as currently written could be interpreted as requiring Wikipedia articles to state things like "A UFO landed ..." if the sources, of a type normally considered reliable, say so. I see that as an undesirable aspect of the policy as currently written. What do you think? Do you think it's productive for Wikipedia to report that sort of thing, and if so, why?

I think you missed my point about "what follows is fiction". I was not talking about an author of a source saying that. My point is that the "not whether it is true" wording in this policy in effect states that all of Wikipedia can be taken as being fiction, and in so stating, it frees Wikipedian editors to insert known falsehoods. I see this as a major flaw in the policy as currently written.

What if several books printed in a certain country state that the leader of that country physically shook hands with God, and those books are the type of source normally considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and have no other surprising information, and there are no published sources stating that the leader did not shake hands with God. Should Wikipedia report "The leader of this country has physically shaken hands with God."? I don't think so. At most it should be, "Several books state that ...". In other words, Wikipedians do need to concern themselves with whether the statements made in Wikipedia articles seem to be true as far as the Wikipedians can tell using their common sense. --Coppertwig 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that a claim that the leader shook hands with God would be a significant part in an article on him. We should indeed report that these sources say he physically met with God... Chances are, if such a claim were included in three reliable sources, then the leader is tied into his countries religious practices and belief due to this claim. Wouldn't that be worth mentioning? Have you never tried to edit an article on a religious topic? See: Muhammad as just one example. You might not agree that what the islamic texts say is "true"... but could you really see not mentioning what they say in the article? In fact, going back to your example, if you didn't include the claim that the leader physically met with God, you would have a hoast of editors from his country, his followers, yelling at you for violating NPOV. Blueboar 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus.

CMummert said on Feb. 23, "ATT has been tagged as policy for 8 days, and as far as I can tell there are no outstanding objections. Perhaps it is time to implement the redirects? ... CMummert · talk 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)". But in the 8 days previous to this, six different users made the following six comments (extracts of the comments are shown, and in most cases diff links), and with the exception of possibly DCB4W, I see nothing to indicate that they had retracted their objections:

And perhaps if WP:V redirects to it, mention the word "verifiability" at least once in the policy? Gracenotes^T § 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (At Village Pump. See [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Case in point: WP:ATT]].)

Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia? ... DCB4W 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [2]

(Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear an answer to this from those who support the new wording. Coppertwig)

I think it might be best to just keep the name it "Verifiability". —Centrx→talk • 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [3]

"Strong objection" A435(m) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [4]

[5] "It seems to me that an overly strict reading "The threshold for inclusion [is] not whether it is true" will open the door for unscrupulous editors to convey attributable information that they know to be factually inaccurate as simple statements of fact. I cannot help but think that this would compromise the reputation of our project. CJCurrie 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

"Having "attributablity-not-truth" embedded into policy gives the upper hand to pushers of fringe theories. Wouldn't it be better to water down the opposition between attributability and truth here with a "not merely" or "not necessarily"? that is, to identify "truth" as a necessary but not sufficient condition? semper fictilis 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)" [6]

--Coppertwig 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole verifiability/attributability vs. truth things make sense if you distinguish between fact (i.e. undisputed) vs. opinion (disputed), or better yet the varying degrees of disputedness, and point people in the direction of WP:NPOV. The main point is, it is not Wikipedia's place to judge what is true and what is not. Trying to do so can lead to very ugly content disputes. We should document disputes without engaging in them... at least not on the article. Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I contend that it often is the place of Wikipedians to judge what is likely or apparently true and what is likely false or contentious. An article in Wikipedia should not say "God really exists." but it can say "Acquinas argued that God really exists." On the other hand, an article in Wikipedia can easily say "P. Jones was born in the year 1901", but it would probably be awkward and inappropriate for the article to say "A recent biography reports P. Jones's year of birth as 1901." In most Wikipedia articles that I've seen, most information is presented in the form of ordinary sentences without prose attribution. To do this requires judgement on the part of Wikipedian editors about the likely truth value of the information.

I expect uglier content disputes with the "not whether it is true" wording. The reason is that if the policy flies in the face of common sense, some editors will passionately follow the policy while other passionately follow common sense, leading to edit wars. It's better to have a clear, sensible, easily followed policy such as simply requiring attribution without saying anything about truth. I don't see how that would lead to any more edit wars than any other policy. When Wikipedians disagree about whether something is true or not, they simply put in a prose attribution, making the assertion in the Wikipedia article trivially true (i.e. it's true that the source said that.) --Coppertwig 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedians try to judge what is true, then quite likely they will argue about whether or not God really exists, and for that matter, which God exists, and what is the correct meaning of God. Not able to agree on the answers to these questions, they may simply revert each other endlessly. If we put aside the question of the truth of the existence of God, we can simply report what our sources say, proportional to the relevance of their opinions, and attributed to their source, and write an article sympathetic to all major points of view. If something is undisputed by all sources that are significant, it can be stated as fact. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians can judge whether some things are true without having to argue about whether God really exists. As soon as they notice that some Wikipedians believe that God exists and some do not, they can start using prose attributions; no argument is necessary. Part of the purpose of requiring material to be "attributable" is to cut down on edit wars.

Do you really think a Wikipedia article should state as fact that a UFO landed and aliens came out and shook hands with people if all 3 sources (sources of the type that are normally considered significant and reliable) that mention this particular incident agree on it? --Coppertwig 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there was an excellent example above somewhere, it must've got archived but it was a great example. Generally, if something is contentious at all, it's best to state with a prose attribution, if not, we can simply state it. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States.^[1]" is fine, but "Scholar X states that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was constitutionally permissible under wartime power based on the Smith v. Doe decision.^[1] However, Scholar Y disagrees, citing the Was Not Either clause, as well as the Whoever vs. Someone case.^[2]." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimblade's procedure, which is the one I normally follow. If a remark is bland "Britney Spears was born in Dallas" we can cite it without explicit attribution and merely include a source like "The Life of Britney Spears by xyz" under "References". However if a remark is likely to be seen as contentious "Britney Spears was abducted by aliens three times" then we should attribute it explicitely to a particular source. "Britney Spears was abducted by aliens three times", according to her mother<ref>"Amazing facts", New York Times, Apr 4, 2007</ref>Wjhonson 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This really seems like a Neutral Point of View issue to me. Why not simply talk about the distinction between facts and opinions (which are unrelated to truth), with a nice link to that policy, tying other parts of WP:ATT into WP:NPOV if we feel like it? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure NPOV covers it completely. I mean what about the case where an "assertion of fact" is neither positive nor negative? "Britney Spears says banana pie is her favorite pie". Wjhonson 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good to talk about how sources affect neutrality, but I think WP:NPOV has a lot to say about that example. Suppose, for example, Britney Spears said that banana pie was the best kind of pie. Now, on the pie article, for example, suppose they are writing a section about the best and worst kinds of pie. Britney Spears is not an expert on pies: including her opinion on the pie article would be giving her undue weight on the subject of pies. However, Britney Spears is an expert on her own opinions, so we can include her opinion about banana pie on the Britney Spears article. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

However, even in the Britney Spears article, we cannot say that banana pie is the best kind of pie: we must attribute this disputed opinion per WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. Also, when we are discussing the best kinds of pie in the pie article, even better than saying "X thinks banana pie is the best kind of pie" is stating why X believes that. For example, is banana pie generally sweeter or smoother than other kinds of pie? See WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.

I think WP:NPOV covers the topic quite thoroughly. WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation discusses the difference between facts and opinions: I think WP:ATT can expand on this by showing how to use sources to tell the difference, but should let WP:NPOV tell what to do about it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Broke this up into paragraphs for easier reading, 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear an answer to this from those who support the new wording. Coppertwig)

The new wording is no different in this regards to the old wording. A reliably-sourced but incorrect statement is verifiable, according to the definition of verifiable that was used in the old wording. JulesH 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely true. There are some problems with WP:NOTTRUTH, such as the incident with Cohen's Persian descent, where a reliable source copied Wikipedia and this same source was used to perpetuate the falsehood. The important fact is that the cited examples all used WP:VERIFY to justify the inclusion of cited falsehoods. The role of truth has not changed. --Merzul 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, please add another example, raised on February 22nd, to the six you enumerate above as unresolved objections to implementation of WP:Attribution as policy. To wit: "I still think this policy should include text that instructs editors to use common sense. Reliable sources publish incorrect information, and unreliable ones publish correct information. If there's a good way of telling the difference (which may be specifc to the particular situation), that should be enough for us. JulesH 09:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)" -- see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive_11#Can information be both verifiable and demonstrably false? I had raised a variation on this complaint here on February 8th and March 1st as the Diligent dissident's scythe. My concerns were dismissed, as were those of the others, (in particular the cogent arguments of Ken Arromdee in the above-cited discussion, and those of Tearlach in Dissident's scythe).

The common thread in the complaints is that one cannot declare truth to be irrelevant to decisions about what factoids stay and go in WP -- on the grounds that people turn to an encyclopedia because they seek truth, and they count on its editors to hold truth as the ultimate standard for entries. Because editors fully realize that "truth" is a slippery slope, what those concerned have called for here is not the blanket right to appeal to truth, but guidelines and examples clarifying when it may be an appropriate consideration (e.g. undersourced but undisputed statements may be deleted on sight under WP:A, whose wording and tenor emphasize this deletability in a way that was not usually applied under the previous policies).

The response given to this point is invariably, "attribution being the closest encylopedic proxy for truth achievable, it is also WP's goal and standard in lieu of truth, therefore: 1. We don't believe WP:Attribution will permit known untruths to enter WP or known truths to be removed, but to the extent it may, this will be trivial and speedily corrected; and 2. Since our intent was to change nothing in previous policy, this new iteration cannot encourage any more negative or unintended results than the predecessor policies -- so if you think it does, you just don't understand what we've done here." Henceforth the objections raised, no matter how elaborated or documented, are deemed answered and rebutted. They haven't been. But until a broader audience, perhaps of slashed-and-burned WP editors of good faith (as john k becomes in this case), finally turn their attention to this new scythe, the WP:A grim reaper won't be restrained. Lethiere 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that my comment there was not an objection to WP:ATT being implemented as a policy, but a suggestion for an improvement to it. The same weakness also applied to the previous version at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I also have not yet heard a response to my answer to these complaints, that all of them applied equally to the previous policies that WP:ATT has replaced. Except User:Henrygb's suggestion that verifiability hasn't had consensus for over a year now, which I'm pretty sure is wrong -- WP:V has been cited by a large number of wikipedia users scattered across hundreds of talk pages, afd debates, and other debates during this period, and nobody has challenged it until now. So: people who oppose this, can you point out a real, practical problem that this policy has but which the previous one didn't. Because nobody has done so yet. JulesH 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP:V did have consensus. But there were several different reasonable interpretations of what it meant. I mistakenly spent a long time last fall discussing these differing interpretations in the context of WP:CITE. For the time being, in order to have consensus, WP:ATT has to be a "big tent" policy that can accomodate both:

• editors who feel that the ultimate goal is truth, but accept that true but unattributable material can be removed
• editors who feel that the ultimate goal is to have every statement backed up by a reliable source and feel that truth is irrelevant

Of course these are not the only two possible viewpoints. My point is that neither of these two groups would be able to get consensus for rewriting WP:V or WP:ATT to explicitly reflect their interpretation. This is fine, because WP uses consensus to interpret its policies, not a pseudo-legal system, and there is no bar for wikilawyers. CMummert · talk 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some areas where I've argued against the "consensus":

• Using the Dershowitz (Smith/Jones) example as an example of NOR
• Including false information (see above)
• Not allowing the popular culture exception
• Not allowing wikis as sources even when the objections (self-published sources, can change at any time, hard to determine who really wrote it) don't apply

Consensus? Not in the least.

By the way, "W:V has consensus, because it's been cited a lot" is not valid. It could very well be that some parts, which are cited, have consensus, and other parts don't. It could also be that people are reluctant to argue against a policy and may not be sophisticated enough to know they should point out the policy has no consensus. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

For a while, Flatbush Depot and a number of similar articles have had information about what types of buses are located there and what bus routes serve the depot. The only source given is a "fansite", and I do not believe that it is possible to find a better source. If I remove the information, I know that it will be reverted. What should I do? --NE2 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend first trying to find a better source, if you have not done so already. If you can't find one, you can try putting {{Unreliable|article|March 2007}} on the article. If no one adds a reliable source in a reasonable amount of time, which will depend on the traffic the article receives and talk page comments, I would recommend nominating it for deletion or merging, documenting your efforts to make the article well-sourced.

Some editors may disagree with me.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to find a better source and failed. I might create bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority and then redirect everything there, but the issue is that it will be me against all the regular editors of these articles. --NE2 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD will bring it to the attention of a broad cross-section of the Wikipedia community, not just the regular editors of those articles. However, if you try putting {{Unreliable}} on the article for awhile, giving other editors a chance to look for good sources, I would think that the AfD would probably go better. Other editors might look for sources in places that you have not thought of, and in the meantime the template will alert the reader not to trust the article too much. I do not know if you can nominate things for merging on AfD, although merging is the outcome sometimes, but there is also Article RfC. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AFD is for deletion only. I don't think the topics are bad (I added some historical information to Flatbush Depot); I just think some of the information is bad. --NE2 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this brought up at WP:NYCS. Perhaps ask there? Gimmetrow 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And so it begins... any advice? --NE2 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... BWCNY seems to have accepted it. Thanks Edison if it was your revert that did it. --NE2 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments needed

Sorry for intruding, but we could use some WP:ATT expertise at Talk:Johann_Hari#Request for Comment: Disputed Photo. Briefly summarized, the parties dispute whether an image is usable in the Johann Hari bio article - Hari denies that the picture is him, but some editors believe that the image is unmistakably him, and the image is captioned (on Flickr) as being a photo of Hari taken at an event that he later wrote about. Is the picture subject to WP:ATT, and, if so, does it meet the requirements? The full explanation is here, and comments are welcome here. Thanks, TheronJ 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirming editors' credentials

I'd like to propose adding this new section to the policy in order to deal with the confirmation-of-credentials issue that is being wrestled with in various places. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen the proposals from this ed. to be eminently sensible, but this one needs rethought. How can it be sourced that I was born in Philadelphia without violating privacy. or that another person is heterosexual? or that a third has worked in the past as a railroad engineer? Or that someone else is a member of the Lutheran Church? All factual questions. For people in article space, there is a bio from which documentation can be taken. But most of us are not of that much importance yet. If someone does want to write an article about one of us, then it has to be sourced. I might claim a degree i music from somewhere, but the documentation would at best prove there is someone with my name who has a degree in music. All this has been discussed. For N individuals, such material can be found without COI. But not the eds. (I do know a few eds. who edit under their real name and have bios in here. Let it apply to them. DGG 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about something to the following effect: "User pages and the claims made on them are not encyclopedia articles and cannot be verified. You should not trust such claims any more than you trust the user making the claims." – Þ  01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the good points DGG makes, I don't like this for the simple reason that this policy is about our content and not about our editors, and it should stay that way. --Conti|✉ 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it covers academic qualifications and professional claims only. Please look at it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, but it still would be about editors and not about content. Also, where do we stop with this? When we demand sources for academic qualifactions, why not demand source for claims like "I work at the University of X" or "I work at Microsoft"? Even if I would agree with the general idea behind this, I'd say that WP:ATT (and WP:BLP, for that matter) is the wrong page for this. --Conti|✉ 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion about what it says. Here it is:

Editors should not make claims about their professional expertise or academic qualifications anywhere on the site, including on their user pages, without supplying reliable, third-party source material in support of it. The source must be independent of the subject and should include the subject's real name. If the material has been published, the publisher must be a reliable, non-vanity press. If not published, the source material must be provided by a trusted source such as a university; for example, a degree certificate from an accredited body uploaded onto the site and displayed on a user subpage would satisfy this provision. Any such claims on user or other pages that are not attributed to a trusted source may be removed by any editor, although editors should use their common sense and be sensitive in their approach when considering whether to do so.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: There is a vigorous debate ongoing at WP:CRED. I would suggest to wait and see how that proposal plays out, before adding something here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble imagining how the proposal would provide real verification. Can you provide some specific and detailed examples of how this proposal would work in practice? --JWSchmidt 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A much easier idea, tell everyone to take unsourced statements on userpages with a grain of salt, but do so on another policy / guideline. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the proposal is problematic for the reasons stated above by others. Slimvirgin when you say "professional expertise" that is a very broad statement. How do I prove that I've been an auto mechanic for five years? How do I prove that I have a business, out-of-my-home, decorating birthday cakes? "Professional expertise" is a bit broad. Also credential images can be easily faked. I got a copy of person X's diploma, put my name on it and voila I'm a Doctor of Divinity.Wjhonson 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see three basic problems with the proposal to offer verification for claims of professional expertise.

1. Some people may put information on their user pages in a way that makes information such as their home address accessible to a wide audience, without thinking through the possible adverse consequences.
2. As pointed out above, most of us can only prove that a person with a certain name has certain credentials; we can't make a verifiable link between the name of the professional and the Wikipedia user name.
3. The practice of providing professional credentials will suggest we are moving to do away with the requirement that articles be attributed to reliable published sources, and that it really isn't so bad to rely on the original research of a Wikipedian with suitable credentials. --Gerry Ashton 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my voice to the opposition here. There are thousands of Wikipedia users who already have listings of academic qualifications on their user pages. See Category:Wikipedians by degree for just some of them. Are we really going to require all of these users to provide evidence of these qualifications, despite the fact that in 99% of cases those qualifications are totally irrelevant, and nobody will treat the user differently because of them? User pages currently enjoy an exemption from this policy, and there are good reasons for this. JulesH 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the whole content of this page was to be applied to user pages, I don't think the content of user pages should be covered here. A major policy innovation like this needs its own page. --Zero^talk 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving asside the issue of whether verification of claimed credentials is something we want to do ... We have long held that the policies that were merged into this one only aply to articles, and not to user pages, draft articles attached to a user's page, or an article's talk page. If verification of credentials is something we as a community want, it should be made a policy on it's own. Keep this one purely on articles. Blueboar 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think, per Jossi, that WP:CRED is the place to have this discussion. I also don't know how we'd enforce the "should not". Will other editors have a right to remove such info from user pages? That would create a terrible situation, IMO. Marskell 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

The discussion was previously at Reliable sources, now putting this here for lack of a better place: US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We're you going to add this to the article, or what? Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually have any idea what to do with it, or what to make of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Without reading to much into both policies... correct me if I am wrong but does this policy's first sentence contradict Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Specifically: (to enter examples here)

• WT:A states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."
• WP:AI states: "...just because something is true and verifiable doesn't automatically mean it should be included in Wikipedia."

Any comments? --FR Soliloquy 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comment: Article inclusion is a personal essay and should not become a policy or guideline. Marskell 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No conflict... AI talks about whether we should have an article on a topic or not ... this policy comes into play after that decision has been made, and talks about what can and can not be included in that article. For example... AI says that we might choose to not have an article on "Hairstyles of US Presidents", even if there are several books on the subject of Presidential hairstyles. The topic may not be considered notable enough for an encyclopedia. However, if the decision is that we should have an article on Presidential hairstyles, then ATT states that we must avoid original research and back statements up with reliable sources. In other words, AI talks about whether to have an article, while ATT talks about what goes into the article if it is written. Blueboar 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there are enough reliable sources on Hairstyles of US Presidents, then we should have an article on it. Wikipedia does not determine what is important or worthy of being included in an encyclopedia -- that job is left to reliable sources independent of Wikipedia and the subject itself.

I think AI needs to be reworded here. Perhaps what they're driving at are trivial details that may be verifiable, yet have not been noticed by reliable sources. For example, "Peter Griffin farted 15 minutes, 23 seconds into Episode 6 of Season 3 of Family Guy" may be verifiable (by watching said episode), but no reliable source is going document that. – Þ  01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar that there's no contradiction. Nothing in WP:ATT says that every single verifiable piece of information must be included in Wikipedia. It simply says information that is not verifiable should not be included. —Celithemis 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In short, there is no real contradiction and these two rules compliment each other! Though in the long run it may be nice to work WP:AI into WT:A, one is a only guideline while this WT:A is a policy. So I would probably be correct to say that the probability of doing such a thing is slim, right? --FR Soliloquy 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AI isn't a guideline, just a proposal that may or may not ever achieve consensus. —Celithemis 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Can you give your opinions about application of NOR in Talk:White_people#Behnam.27s_view? Basically he says that the sources must explicitly mention "white people" to be included in the article. And I say info about European people may also be given because that info is relevant to the topic as long as we do not make a synthesis (ex: because X is true for Europeans, X is also true for whites). The relevancy of Europeans to the topic has also been sourced by many sources throught the article. Lukas19 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOR ... "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The genetic studies Lukas19 is trying to add weren't about white people, or even used to bolster the 'genetic' view of white people. But Lukas19 is using them to add to the 'genetics' view. Hence, OR. Also, if you do investigate, try taking a look at the whole page rather than just one section. We could use some help. Thanks. The Behnam 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I told you many times before, "directly related to" does NOT equal to "having the same topic". It exactly means that, directly related. European people and white people are related topics. This has been sourced.Lukas19 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this Original Research?

Could someone take a look at the article Unholy Alliance. My take is that there is a lot of original research and synthisis involved, but I need a second oppinion. Also, the article uses a google search result as a source... I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. Perhaps one of the pages that came up IN the search might be a good source, but not the search itself. Blueboar 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

never mind... it's being nominated for deletion on exactly those grounds. I consider my querry answered.Blueboar 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we need to specifically point somewhere else for queries of this sort. (Did I just spell "queries" right?—I hate that word). Wikipedia talk:Attribution and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view etc. are meant to discuss the policies themselves, not specific cases. Not to discourage you Blueboar, but on a talk page that is rapidly becoming unreadable due to it's length, we should point things like this elsewhere. Marskell 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution Noticeboard? WAS 4.250 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution Talk (Policy) and Attribution Talk (Application)? I'd also really really appreciate if any of you can comment about the above section. Lukas19 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)