Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This poll is now closed.
Shortcut

Background[edit]

Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT) is an attempt to unite Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) and Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR). It was worked on for over five months by more than 300 editors, and was upgraded to policy on 15 February, 2007. The proposal was e-mailed to Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, made public on various policy talk pages, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, and was announced on The Wikipedia Signpost.

More recently, on the WikiEN-L mailing list, Jimbo Wales suggested:[1]

  • "A broad community discussion to shed light on the very good work done by a group of people laboring away on WP:ATT and related pages", (see: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), and then,
  • "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results."

References:

  1. ^ Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, "Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?" WikiEN-L, 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How to participate in this poll[edit]

  • Please do not directly respond on this page to opinions of other editors; discussion should take place on the designated talk page. Comments in the polling sections of this page should be limited to short statements (300 words or less ideally). Responses in the 'polling' section will be refactored and moved to the Talk page.
Notes
  • This is a hybrid Requests for comment and straw poll, not a vote. As such, any numeric results may not be definitive. This is a means of gathering opinions on one page in an organized way.
  • We are not polling on the name of Wikipedia:Attribution; when this poll is done and the page unfrozen, such requests will be welcome at Wikipedia:Requested Moves. We want to see what people think of the merger.

Question to all editors[edit]

Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research into a single policy page.

Some aspects of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS) were also merged into WP:ATT, with other material from RS to be incorporated into the accompanying Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ (WP:ATTFAQ).

The intention is not to change policy, but to express it more clearly and concisely, and to make it easier to follow and maintain by having it expressed on one policy page, and discussed on one talk page.

What do you think of this? Reply in the below comments section with your statement.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Your opinion here, please[edit]

NOTE: Please keep your statement short and to the point. You may change or edit your statement. One total entry per person, please; if you want to endorse someone else's, do so as part of your total entry. Please bold key words (I support all, oppose all, support A but not B etc.).
Do not reply HERE to others. All threaded replies to points will be refactored/placed onto the poll's Talk page. If you wish to reply, copy their statement to the Talk page, and reply there.

In broad support of WP:ATT[edit]

See also alternative sections in this survey: In broad opposition to WP:ATT & Neutral/qualified/compromise/other

Refactoring note: If you replied to someone else's vote, it may have been moved to the talk page, see here.

  1. Support - The merged pages, specifically Verifiability and No Original Research, contain such similar and mutually relevant material that it completely makes sense to merge them. Why have pages for orange, tangerine, and clementine when you can just have orange blobs of taste? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support - attribution is the most significant aspect of Wikipedia and WP:ATT makes its meaning clear without using odd phrases like 'verifiability' which implies that only truth is necessary. -JC 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - multiple links are a turn-off and do not promote confidence in Wikipedia as a research tool Lensim 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I Support amalgamating these policies into one document - it only seems logical! One is much easier to read than all three. Froginabox 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I Support streamlining disjointed policies into one document. I am sure it will be easier to get versed on policy if it is updated on one page.Guy Montag 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I support all of Wikipedia:Attribution without prejudice against continued discussion to hammer out the details. Sourcing is one issue with many facets, and should therefore be covered in one policy page (Wikipedia:Attribution) with many sections. I think consensus was achieved in the several months worth of discussion which occurred on WT:A, that the merger should be remade, and that the other three should be superseded. Picaroon 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I support ATT per Picaroon and per KISS. There is no change in policy — ATT is merely a relocation of the existing policies into dedicated sections in a unified page, where they can all be linked into separately if needed, while being maintained coherently and efficiently. Crum375 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - ATT does not change policy, only merges the principles upon which the policies of V and NOR were created, into one, concise, simple to understand and refer page.
    • Think of the thousand + new editors that register each month... WP:ATT gives them a concise and accurate presentation of our core policies.
    • Think of experienced editors lending a hand in content disputes: A single destination to send people to (in addition to WP:NPOV)
    • Need examples, details, etc? Go to the WP:ATTFAQ. It still needs work but it has promise.
    • In summary: WP:ATT is good for the project, for both newbies and experienced editors alike. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support — most of my reasons have already been stated. ATT consolidates several policy pages and clarifies everything. Wikipedia stresses succinctness in its articles; it should also stress this in its procedures. — Deckiller 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I support the general idea of a merger between WP:V and WP:NOR.
  11. I support WP:ATT although I really wish there was a better way to express it than to say that Wikipedia is not about recording the truth. That statement reads really badly. When I consult an encyclopedia it is because I want the truth - not because I want a list of attributed/attributable claims. Our goal is most certainly to express the truth - attribution is the way we find truth when many editors have differing opinions, when we have people trying to insert untruth, when a myriad of other bad things happen. Attribution is a test for truth - albeit a flawed one - it is merely that we agree that attributed statements are more likely to be true than those that are unattributable. SteveBaker 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I support WP:ATT strongly, and have even though I never discussed it in process before. I was aware of the changes and feel that, while I didn't participate, I was kept well informed through the normal channels. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. - cohesion 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I support WP:ATT fully. The merger will make life easier long-term for everyone. - Denny 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I support the WP:ATT merger of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would prefer that WP:RS remain as separate as possible. After a few weeks getting used to it, I think the idea of a single ATT policy rather than V and NOR separately is a definite improvement.--ragesoss 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I support the WP:ATT merge, RS changes and all. The more simply and clearly we can state our policies, the more effective Wikipedians (especially the newer ones, who we need just as badly as experienced editors) can be, and the better chance we have of building a really good encyclopedia. Oh, and, any editor who speaks up now about Wikipedia's role in reporting "the truth" is encouraged to take the time read the Wikipedia article on truth, and it should become clear very quickly why pursuing "the truth" is far less likely to succeed than merely requiring attribution from reliable sources. -/- Warren 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. There was no change of policy, hundreds of editors were involved in its development, and people liked it. It was a genuinely popular move. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. Guettarda 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support ATT, because attribution is at its core what we do. Verifiability and No Original Research are reasons why to attribute, and as such may deserve an explanatory page more than a subsection. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if we're providing ways to verify our content or whether we're trimming WP:MADEUP; we practice what we preach. Nifboy 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support WP:ATT: I don't see anything being lost in consolidating these very important related concepts into subsections of one clear and concise overarching topic. Krimpet (talk/review)
  20. Support WP:ATT - Consolidation and merger into one page will make things easier, policy is not going to change.. If there are any editors who would like parts of the policy to be changed, they can be raised in its talk page and discussed and modifications brought if need be. Baristarim 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support WP:ATT, as I believe it sums up the three policies it merges quite well. Indeed, those policies can be summed up in a single sentence-"Do not use your personal knowledge or original research to write articles, instead use only verifiable information from a reliable source." Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Succinct and effective synthesis combination of worthwhile policies; nice to have them congealed into one spot. --EEMeltonIV 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support all. Policy reform is one of the most important things Wikipedia can do right now. It'll have lasting and important effects on how people view the project and how they act within it. Our policies thus far have grown up more or less to meet circumstances: that is why we've got so many policies, and so many who are pigeonholed, legalistic, or arcane. As Wikipedia becomes more self-aware, I think there'll be an increasing will to combine and otherwise reform extant policies to meet our mission and fit more circumstances. This particular move is a great step towards making our policy logical, accessible, internally consistent, broad, and simple. I've watched the attribution page grow into what it is for some time now, and I think it's more than ready to fill the shoes of our other policies technically. I urge everyone to support it. Cheers, -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Specifically separate sub-topics, but all within the realm of attribution for the purposes of Wikipedia, clearly. Each can still be cited in the usual manner (normally done during talkpage spats) ;).--Keefer4 | Talk 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I'm tired of editors who cite all three to build an argument against something. ALTON .ıl 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - The policy of "Attribution" does not contain any new information, but what it does do is simplify the policy situation which in this case is a Good Thing (tm). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - the merge did not change policy, and made the whole package easier to understand and to manage. The shortcuts such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS can still be maintained by linking these to the appropriate subsection of ATT. I think this re-organization of policy is very helpful to newcomers and older editors also. The ideas are presented in a much simpler way, and is much more useful when explaining to people. The merge gives us V, NOR, and RS on one page, which makes it easy to find, easier to read, easier to maintain. This particular move is a great step towards making our policy logical, accessible, internally consistent, broad, and simple. WAS 4.250 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - the more policy pages, and the more detail in those policy pages, the more opportunity there is for rules-lawyering and holding the letter above the spirit of the law. Merging everything into ATT brought together related concepts and simplified things greatly, but having all four pages running concurrently is a step backward. Remerge please. Bryan Derksen 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Keep it simple. Iorek85 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support all of Wikipedia:Attribution. There is no changing of policy, only merging of the principles into one, concise, reference page. This makes the transition into WP easier. I believe the future benefits outwieght any negatives.--88wolfmaster 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - I broadly support the establishment of WP:ATT as policy; it is a worthy synthesis. However, that support is conditional on WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and other underlying policies and guidelines remaining valid and intact; vague portmanteaus do not serve our purposes. RGTraynor 06:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per KISS. --tickle me 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I Support the concept of merging several policies and summarizing them. This is a perfect remedy to Wikipedia's already many policies and guidelines, and the merge makes it easier for new and experienced users to grasp. Sr13 (T|C) 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support any simplification or coalation of Wikipedia's varied and sometimes byzantine policies. Openness and transparancy is important, and in a circumstance where keeping it simple is possible, it should be done. I think in this case the merging is both appropriate and necessary to an approchable body of work that needs less arbitrary restrictions, not more. Salad Days 06:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The condensation of our policies is absolutely essential to prevent instruction creep, especially as the project grows ever larger and has to create additional mandatory/"core" policies like WP:BLP to deal with new challenges it faces. The merged pages dealt with only slightly different cases of the same subject, so there was no reason to keep them separate. WP:V told us that we had to be able to source our information, WP:NOR merely expanded on a detail of this, saying that our personal experiences were not valid sources. WP:A incorporates both elements quite cleanly and accurately, and does not change the spirit of the rules from their previous state, so it should be accepted. --tjstrf talk 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support; I agree that condensation and simplification of Wikipedia policies is for the overall better. Streamlining the system will make it easier for editors to reference guidelines and for new editors to understand those guidelines. Peptuck 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. This is very much an issue of simplifying red tape, and considering that a lot of users don't bother reading policies before they post (I know I originally was one of them :$), this should encourage people to abide by the positions. Simplication = Better understanding. The Prince 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support all. More precise, more maintainable, much easier to lead newbies to a correct understanding. Doesn't weaken NOR in the slightest—explains it better and places it in correct context. Using the guideline RS to explain the policy V never made sense. Marskell 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support because the three templates to be merged are all talking about the same thing. - 上村七美 | talk 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. A good idea. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, I agree with above opinions.-Marcus 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support per Jossi and per Sr13. Merging these pages in WP:ATT will render a single policy, which will be easier to mantain (at least, inconsistencies will be easier to detect and correct). If you have any doubt when reading the policy, just scroll up/down... all is in the same page. (However, admins should be prone to allow modifications in the content, as long as they do not modify it meaning) Rjgodoy 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support Very good merge, way more practical. Garion96 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Insofar as this will remove redundancy and make the policy statement more concise for users, I support it. JDubowsky
  45. Support. This would keep everything in one page, making its n00b-friendly. __earth (Talk) 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, OR is and always has been a special case of lack of verifiability/attributability, so it only makes sense to cover it all in a single policy. As for the complaints about the loss of the word "verifiable", I think this is more than adequately compensated for by the long-overdue inclusion of a requirement for reliable sources in policy. Attribution to reliable sources is verifiability! Plus, ATT is more concise and clear, and less intimidating than V and NOR were separately. Xtifr tälk 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support the merger. Easier to understand, to remember, to reference and to maintain. There's still work to be done on the merged policy's content and wording. Itayb 09:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I find ATT in its current form clearer than NOR and V, and it successfully presents the two as special cases of the root principle. Viewing the arguments for and against, I find the arguments against fairly alarmist, and the arguments for quite straightforward and compelling.--Father Goose 09:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support for WP:V and WP:RS to be merged, but think that WP:NOR should remain separate. However, merging all 3 would be better than the current situation too. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support a merger. As I previously comment, a merger should work as codification making easier our life here: easier access, more methodical organization of relevant provisions. This is the idea.--Yannismarou 09:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support the merger. In order to become more reliable as a source, Wikipedia needs a more strict and more clear definition of what (external) information is reliable. Merging WP:V and WP:NOR results in this clearer definition, upgrading WP:RS into the policy WP:ATT should result in the use of more reliable sources, which in turn results in a higher reliability of the information in wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support WP:ATT absolutely. Keep it simpler. See my original comments at the discussion. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - "It's just a merger."™ Yonatan talk 10:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support WP:ATT because people are forgetting to do all 3 three things but only do 1 or 2. Getonyourfeet 10:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support because multiple overlapping policies are bad, and simple policies are easier to follow, and easier to learn and explain. We can keep V and NOR as separate for explaining the two important approaches to the issue. The merger basically changes nothing, except that it makes things clearer. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - this is a lot easier to understand than the original pages. I haven't been editing here long, but I have seen the previous pages cited incorrectly countless times - this merged page should help reduce that. Doceirias 10:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support If we don't fundamentally re-think our core policies every three or four years, we're not a learning organization. If we're not a learning organization, we're dead in three years. ~ trialsanderrors 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. I support WP:ATT because it is a simpler, clearer, more useful structure and ideas behind the NOR and V. I found both "original research" and "verifiability" confusing, because the way Wikipedia uses them conflicts with their everyday meanings. "Attributable" is a much better term. --Jdlh | Talk 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I think this merger will make referring to the policies much easier, currently the huge amount of them can be daunting to new members and difficult to refer back to. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support all --Sean Brunnock 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -- A single "parent" resource is necessary for new and senior editors alike. If related concepts such as verifiability or original research need distinguishing or elaboration, we can still link to subordinate pages. The current system is too confusing for new users and cumbersome for experienced users when explaining things to the newbies. --Keesiewonder talk 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support enthusiastically. This will make life easier when dealing with people who say "If you guys are promoting Red vs. Blue, we should be able to write about our unreleased series that no-one has heard of."--Drat (Talk) 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -- it'll just make things easier. Matt.kaner 11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support a merger. I had almost every edit I made to the policy reverted, but I feel one can put ego issues aside and think about what is best for the project. The most vocal opposition to ATT has not been about the issues Jimbo raised, but about almost the opposite, namely that WP:ATT will limit our right to do original research in determining the Truth. Well...
    1. The role of truth has not changed! Verifiability meant "verifiable attribution", please, tell me what has changed?
    2. Obviously, we all want Wikipedia to strive for the truth, but this is a content policy, not our mission statement! Are notions of truth ever helpful in resolving content disputes?
    3. In short, the policies have not changed, this is finally stating them less ambiguously, and that's why I like this policy. Who would have known that "no original research" also disallows "mundane non-research" just because the conclusion isn't attributable to a reliable source. Well, let's be explicit about it! --Merzul 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Simplifies, clarifies and disambiguates a lot of the confusion that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR had. Obviously, a numbers game is no way to determine consensus, but I throw my hat in to support anyway. Batmanand | Talk 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. In my mind, V and NOR are almost the same (specifically, NOR is a subset of V). I know some people think they're different concepts, but I couldn't find an example something which is both Original Research and Verifiable (in the meaning of the policies). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. If someone hasn't edited Wikipedia before, explaining that we have two content policies WP:A plus WP:NPOV is slightly easier. Addhoc 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. It just makes sense. darkliight[πalk] 12:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support a one-stop policy for all attribution issues - RS and V are so intrinsically linked that seeing them separated is confounding, and NOR is sufficiently close that it can logically be included in the over-arching policy. Whilst I have not personally contributed to the community discussion, I have watched it carefully. --New Progressive 12:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per KISS. Makes sense to me. --Deenoe 12:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support - especially for new users. We must strive for clarity and brevity: three articles impose too great a psychological distance, and impose too much redundancy to meet the brevity requirement. To simultaneously relate and distinguish policy from guideline, I advocate a tabbed layout, or some other obvious distinguishing layout style as a means of clearly delineating the two.--Lexein 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Merge, merge, merge; the articles are similar enough for a merge, and have multiple guidelines on a policy that could be summed up as Wikipedia:Reliability or Wikipedia:Sources. That being said, I do disagree with the title and feel that Wikipedia:Reliability would be the most appropriate. Having all the policies accesible will streamline Wikipedia, make it easily accesible to the masses, and reduce confusion by keeping it simple. It is much easier to reconcile one set of instucutions then multiple ones that may contradict each other.--Jorfer 12:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support makes a lot of sense, and simplifies things.-BillDeanCarter 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support - There is enough overlap in concept for NOR and V to be merged. A merger will lessen the likelihood of these policy pages being edited so that they conflict with each other (as has occasionally happened in the past). The old policies should be redirected to ATT with links to the relevant sections. That said, I feal that the guideline WP:RS should not be redirected and linked to ATT at this time. WP:RS should be edited to bring it into sync with the Policy statements contained in ATT, with the idea that it will eventually be re-worked and incorprated into a new guideline. That new guideline - comprised of segments of the current WP:RS would be called something like: "Determining reliability", and focus on advising editors on how to deal with the grey zone issues of determining if a given source is reliable within the context of a given article being written. This new guideline would avoid language that could be construed as being "the rules"... pointing the editor to ATT and NPOV for such statements. Instead it would be a true guideline... offering guidance on HOW to determine if a source is reliable within the framework and policy set out in ATT and NPOV. Blueboar 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. KISS. --MZMcBride 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support there is considerable overlap between NOR and V - and when a negative policy (do not do ...) is clearly linked to a positive policy (do do ...), it makes sense to draw them together into a comprehensive policy. And it makes it easier for people to follow our policies when there are fewer. remember, in the beginning NPOV was our only really dominant policy; NOR and V developed as independent attempts to address some of the same problems. ATT gets us to coordinate our policies in a way we really should have done long ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I generally Support the merge. Many editors have adressed concern about some of the percieved changes in policy. Many of these concerns are valid, and policy should be changed accordingly. But in terms of the merge, I am in full support of one, broad, unifying policy. --YbborT SURVEY! 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Full support of the merging. Keep things easy on newbies. CSP 13:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I find it laborious to see admins who feel that by citing three policies, they're building some kind of monumental case against an article, when one policy is simple and sufficient. --WikiGnosis 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - per above --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support merge conceptually, agree with many that there are still some details to hammer out about final wording and inclusion, confident that wikifying of final product will continue post-polling. Jfarber 14:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Obviously some details to be worked out, but the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS into one cohesive concept seems logical and prudent to me. -- Satori Son 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong Support I believe the unification of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is a great thing for Wikipedia, as it would make newbies to Wikipedia lives easier and it is a logical decision. I don't see why we should even have to have a poll. This should have been able to happen without delays. Xtreme racer 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. All three prior policies are aspects of the same requirement - if a source isn't reliable then it can't be used to verify. If something's OR it's inherently unverifiable. MartinMcCann 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong support. It would be more convenient for other users who don't provide citations. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Abridged talk 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support on the condition that all information from the each policy is kept and transplanted into WP:ATT, while also improving the policy's quality. Taric25 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Best to merge policies for user ease, I am not commenting on the details but on the broad proposal to merge 3 pages into ATT, which is an excellent idea, SqueakBox 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support This sounds very sensible - what about all the templates though? Benbread 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Strong Support. The policies may be conceptually distinct, but they are practically equivalent. While someone contemplating the merge in their leather armchair in front of the fire may find it devastating, I believe in the field it will provide great benefit at trivial cost. And like Picaroon said, continued discussion can hammer out the details. Moreover, I feel that the essay in opposition presents silly, weak arguments. Punctured Bicycle 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support because when the policies were on separate pages, they often became inconsistent. I reject the argument that these are separate ideas, because the separate policies, as they existed in the last year or so, did not describe the ideas in a way that makes the differences apparent. --Gerry Ashton 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Very Strong Support-I strongly support all of this :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support having this information located in one place is easier on both new and old users. It makes intuitive sense to have this info all in one place. --LadyShelley 15:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support reduces redundant and often contradictory instructions, no significant drawbacks I can see Simões (talk/contribs) 16:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support for reasons above, and for the more passive advantage of regularly leading confused editors to one single spot, encouraging them to familiarize themselves with these guidelines in one place. -Markeer 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Having the policies in one place is an improvement when it comes to practical usability. Pax:Vobiscum 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support for reasons set out above, and for having a single area that, hopefully, will not contradict itself. Saga City 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Leo44 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Definately Support when I was a new user, I personally had a difficult time finding what I needed in the help and policy pages. Any way to make them easier to use is a good idea. VonShroom 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Broadly supportive of a merger of policies however strongly oppose the inclusion of reliability issues as doctrine beyond the concept that sourcing should be based on reliable dcumentation. RS is not policy and shouldn't be policy. Support editors don't figuratively beat them.ALR 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Weak support for the merge in its entirety. I'm a little nervous about the banishment of the word "verifiable" from the policy, but overall, I think that all the information needs to be in one place, and I think that a greater understanding of what reliable sources are will be a boon to everyone. Rmj12345 17:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong Aye since it makes it all more simple. The policy is the same, so maybe this should be considered when counting the opposes (and their reasoning). Ian¹³/t 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Seems like a pretty clear-headed way of making the policies more user-friendly. --Mantanmoreland 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - A definite improvement. Bensaccount 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. I well remember slogging through three pages of often contradictory 'guidelines' to try to figure out whether I was doing things correctly. A one-page approach is the only way to go. It may not be perfect yet, but neither are the alternatives, and a concise one-page version can be worked on more easily than three. Cop 633 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support all. It seems quite intuitive to me. All over-lapping, interdependent (or, as Northrop Frye might say, "inter-penetrating") ideas. Also, for new users, one "recommended reading" page, rather than 3 that are all needed to explain one another. -- Pastordavid 18:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. I fully support the merge, which makes the necessary information clearer and more accessible, and does not (as far as I can see) change policy. We don't want to water down policy, but we do want fewer policy pages. ElinorD (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong Support - no need for 3 similiar-yet-different policies guiltyspark 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - I remember being new to WP and being puzzled by these three policies that all seemed to be slight variations on the same theme. NOR, in particular, is confusing to new editors. I believe these concepts can be harmonized into a single policy, perhaps with supporting pages etc. More work needs to be done, but I think it's a great direction for the project.--Kubigula (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support This should have been done long ago. Tirronan 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong support Although I have my reservations, and I'm sure there will be glitches along the way, if we get behind this and use it, it will make the necessity for properly referenced information on here that much clearer. Nmg20 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. I Support the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Having these related policies on one page will make it a lot easier for any user to implement those policies correctly. I am still annoyed by the fact that sometimes I have question about how something should be done correctly and having to look through various policy pages only to give up because I couldn't find the answer because it's buried somewhere in so many pages. --Leon Sword 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support per Crum375. Simplification is they key provided that the essentials aren't lost, and they aren't. Js farrar 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support: I don't like polls, because they never get us anywhere. But anyway: it's a well-written merger of three pages, the appallingly written RS (the ATT FAQ does a much better job), the badly written NOR and the well-written V which contains the awkward term "verifiability" (difficult to use with newbies—I've even been offered telephone numbers to "verify" claims). Despite those who say that those three pages are distinctive, it is ever so difficult to stop them contradicting each other. Those who maintain policy pages (constantly the target of single-issue edits) have a terrible time trying to keep them in synch, a major reason why they would prefer to work with a merged page. qp10qp 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support strongly — No organisation of policy is perfect, but this revision is an improvement in so many ways. To me there are three utterly compelling reasons to support the merger (in addition to the simplification of guidelines it provides):
    • It re-emphasises the concept that an article should be "attributable" rather than "attributed";
    • "No original research" is a consequence of being "attributable", which greatly clarifies its meaning;
    • In a world where truth has different meanings to different people, using the word "attributable" instead of "verifiable" greatly clarifies the role of an encyclopedia as a repository of knowledge (which is partly about what is believed rather than necessarily what is true).
    In a sense every WP article which is not plagiarism is original research because it gathers information and presents it in a new (and hopefully fresh, interesting and exciting) way. Hence the key point is that this information should be attributable. Geometry guy 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. WP:V and WP:NOR state the same thing. If something isn't verifiable, it's by definition original research. No need to have multiple policies to confuse people. The idea of merging the two has occurred to me before, and it's nice to see someone actually doing so. jgpTC 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Weak support with a few proposals. This is likely to be a wikipedia-wide debate, with enough votes to qualify for WP:100, WP:200, or even WP:300. I have a few suggestions, however. I suggest that all of wikipedia's most important policies be merged into this. This way, users would be able to read this page and understand all the policies. Also, it should have many other names that are redirects to the page, so when users search for wikipedia's policies, they end up at this page. Also, the former policy pages should be changed into redirects to this page, and any double redirects created should be fixed. make sure you do everything that is needed when you merge, if this poll passes. Pages that are not policy pages, in my opinion, should not be merged; including pages in the template, article, and user namespaces. Make sure you decide what policies are to be included; if this is only about article writing policies, only include those, and so on, etc. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support all, as this allows centralizing policy. If desired, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS can be kept as more specialized pages, but this change will allow WP:ATT to contain the basic rules that were spread across several pages. --Sigma 7 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Now let's build an encyclopedia. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong support Much better to understand article for the newbies. centralized information. Anyone in the "Neutral" section that says "support as a summary" must be truly uninformed about good communication standards. Anyone who wants more nitpicking can start a WikiProject:Nitpickers. The merge is GOOD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Strong support A merged article will be clearer and more concise making it easier to explain to new users. New users are more likely to read one policy than they are to read three. Also I feel reliable sources should be a policy not a guideline. A policy can still have exceptions, but they need better justification. Taylor 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support I like the idea of putting it all together into one page. Perhaps some sort of summary-style with subpages is in order, but they all need to be under the same umbrella. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Good merge, makes the life of WP editors easier. --Aqwis 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support In this instance, less is better. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support One consolidated and well-articulated policy statement is preferable to three related policy statements that can be perceived as overlapping and/or possibly contradictory. --orlady 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. There's nothing that I can say that hasn't been said well by others; Orlady puts it as well as any. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. It's hard to explain what statements are and are not acceptable without a single official policy page to turn to. -Rustavo 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. More people are likely to read it if they don't have to go to 3 different pages. JIMOTHY46ct 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support All It makes more sense to say that something should be attributable (to a relaible source), than that something should be able to have its truth determined (which is what verifiable means). Truth is a difficult concept. Attributability is not as difficult. But we should also aim for truth if we can in the articles. THe only trouble is deciding on what is a reliable source! This may cause much discussion.--SlipperyHippo 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. I support all of Wikipedia:Attribution. Sourcing is one issue with many facets, and should therefore be covered in one policy page (Wikipedia:Attribution) with many sections. I think consensus was achieved in the several months worth of discussion which occurred on WT:A, that the merger should be remade, and that the other three should be superseded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grosscha (talk • contribs)
  132. Support A single unified policy is preferable to the current proliferation of policies. Just as editors have adapted to the idiosyncracies of interpretation in the current policies, any difficulties with WP:ATT will be sorted out. VectorPosse 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Strong support. A valuable move in the right direction, distilling clarity and sanity from confusion and conflict. The evolution of one united policy statement to subsume three old ones was forced by the failure of the latter, as many an edit war and talk page exchange made painfully evident. --KSmrqT 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support The topics are so related - that really why not have them in a page? I believe that a lot of wikipedia policies are really too spaced out, but here you can easiliy get to a sub-section with the table of contents and your there.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support For clarity's sake I support the merger.Zeus1234 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support per the need for clarification and agreement between current policies. shoy 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support It simply makes sense to combine them. It will make things much more convenient and clear.Zeppelin462 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, progress is nice, less b'cracy is nice. / Fred-Chess 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. By merging the pages together, editors will be more likely to apply WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS together as a logical unit, determining what is a RS, what is original research, etc., in the context of the article or project at hand.--Myke Cuthbert 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. It will help make policy more organized, easy to navigate and more efficient. I've always wanted these policy pages to be more organized. I would also support what someone in the neutral section said about keeping all articles. But either way, WP:ATTribution needs to stay. PoeticXcontribs 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Although I usually prefer many smaller articles in most cases, I would prefer that related policy and guidelines be kept all in one place. This makes things easier to find. The whole thing just seems to make good sense overall. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 23:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. . Thee17 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. Merge makes sense -- both verifiability and NOR require content to have adequate sourcing, RS describes how to determine if it does or not. Furthermore, objections over the presence of "attributable ... not truth" are invalid, as verifiability currently has "verifiability not truth; verifiable means published a reliable source" (paraphrasing). JulesH 23:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. I strongly support Wikipedia:Attribution without reservations. I think it is a logical, evolutionary step that we need to take. It pulls things together, and in so doing clarifies policy without changing policy. Brimba 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support as an understandable merger of three policies which all seemed to be the same anyway. - AMP'd 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Simplicity is always optimal. Will also make helping guide new editors to the correct resources easier.--K-UNIT 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Strong support notability guidelines have been abused for too long. Odessaukrain 02:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Having less number of core policies will help newcomers to understand Wikipedia policies faster. --Indianstar 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Strong Support under the general principle of KISS. I'd also support making RTFM policy as well. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Strong Support I feel that the broad source of information on which Wikipedia relies, merits a simplified and all encompassing system of checks and verifications of any meaning and that switching to WP:ATT makes the entire process of debating factuality more stream lined than using NOR, VER, and whatever else. This is a change for the good of the million+ editors and contributors that help make wikipedia successful. Xlegiofalco 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. SUPPORT ALL Help editors learn policy and be successful. Bill Huffman 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - No reason to have weaker, piecemeal policies when one stronger, cohesive policy very nicely does the trick. --SpamWatcher 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support simplicity is greater with the merge. This way, the noobies can real the policy in just one page instead of three and learn about attribution. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support all - These are all on some semantic level really necessary parts of holding up the pillars of wikipedia. I think the merger reduces the problems of instruction creep and the mess that is become of WP:RS. Merging them is the only way that they wont contradict each other and also limit the amount of confusing in content disputes with people misintrptting and cross quoting the diffrent documents. Dalf | Talk 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. SUPPORT. Why have multiple policies when one can summarise them all? Having multiple policies can cause confusion in newer editors, and they might not Be Bold in making edits out of fear. — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support all - The less guidelines and policies the better. Wikipedia is starting to rival some governments with its bureaucracy. KISS please! Peter1968 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Strong support. WP:ATT combines three inter-related pages into one; original research is a synthesis or analysis that cannot be verified to a reliable source. Having the two policies and the guideline in one place helps clarify their inter-relationship, and makes it easier to ensure that they do not diverge from one another. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Less policies make its simpler for novice users to understand. And for experienced users it shouldn't matter - they can adapt to any scheme. Wikiolap 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. General support for WP:ATT; however, I also support the continued existence of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS as separate policy pages, further elaborating on different aspects of the core policy WP:ATT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Broad support to merge the closely-related policies. Support for those who wish to hammer out the details. It's good to simplify things for newcomers. It's good to have broad summaries, with links to specifics. Good to simplify! Canæn 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Strong Support - clear and concise. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. All three policies are really different sides of the same coin (if that coin had three sides). I thought supplanting three pages with one was the original idea anyway. Daniel Case 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Strong Support Verifiability was always a misnomer, attributability is what was always meant. This makes the sense and meaning of the existing policy clearer. Paul August ☎ 04:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support, great idea. Khoikhoi 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support, and while I wouldn't be opposed to forking subs for NOR etc. if there were truly technical reasons to do so, we should still be vigilant of allowing the "policies" to diverge. TewfikTalk 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. All points above. It will also be easier for readers to understand related policies on only one page without getting lost in a maze of links. Aeons | Talk 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. I support this modification. ---Axios023 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. I support the merger and believe the merged policies should be marked historical. I also commend SlimVirgin for her work in leading the merger. Grace Note 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support merger of Verifiability and Original Research policies into the more user-friendly Attribution policy. --TommyBoy 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. Anything to reduce the sprawl. Terry Pratchett wrote that "nine tenths of the universe is the paperwork"; let's see if this can get that down a tad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wareq (talk • contribs)
  171. Support merging three pages on the same topic into one. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strong Support. One thing that often frightens people away from participation is fear of making a mistake. WP's be bold policy (if a new member finds it)does a lot to explain that mistakes will happen, but that's ok and the most important aspect is to participate, but still, for some that it not enough. What greatly frightens many is the overall complexity. For instance, the basics of computers are not difficult at all to master over time, but if you have never used a computer before, to see that 500 page manual can easily frighten you into thinking "there is no way I will ever get this". This how I see Wikipedia. There are so many policies and so much information that it can turn you away from reading everything you should know and more difficult remembering it all. Anywhere that policies can be joined, narrowed, and simplified, the better it is for anyone trying to learn, in my opinion. If you have two policy articles with similar information but only read one, you don't get the full picture. Joining said articles prevents that from happening again. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support merging basic Wikipedia principles into one concise, simple to understand page that can easily be refered to, and will provide helpful guidance to newcomers and oldtimers alike. Dovi 07:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support. It is better to put all the information into a page as a well organized article. I think the users will find it easier to check for the sections of an article, instead of searching the other pages for similar issues.--Maestro 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Full Support. As per Maestroka, Dovi. --HubHikari 08:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Full Support. New page is much clearer and eliminates contradictions. dramatic 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support for simplicities sake. Originally out of process or not, it's in process now, and on the merits it makes sense.--CastAStone|(talk) 08:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Strong Support – WP:A concisely and clearly explains each aspect of the policy in relation to the other aspects, much better than trying to relate separate pages. Useful detail such as WP:RS belongs in guideline or FAQ pages relating back to this core policy. .. dave souza, talk 08:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strong Support - Authority of sources has been a huge problem on the Internet since I first logged on in 1993 and it's nowhere felt more keenly than at Wikipedia. This may help and arguments against are weak. Economy1 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. support - Hopefully the new page will be clearer and easier for new editors to understand. ajdlinux 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support per Jossi. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-01t11:02z
  182. Support - good idea. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support - centralised policy makes it easier to understand. If the three clash, then they're not proper policy in the first place. --Firien need help? 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support - More often than not, all three are violated on a page rather than just one. The merged policy makes sense. darkskyz 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Tentatively support - most mentioned problems can be avoided in debates by referencing the 3 original concepts in WP:ATT and changing comments to something along "please no original research as per WP:ATT". Only major complication is research that has not been published in a single source, but follows logically from comparing two or more sources (in the natural sciences, which strive but all too often fail to be interdisciplinary, one encounters a lot of that). Specific problems in articles can be approached by the {{fact}}, {{check}} etc tags. Dysmorodrepanis 12:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support. Seems inevitable. --Anoma lee 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support evrik (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Appears to be an important improvement in policy presentation. Lyrl Talk C 12:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support One single policy is better then three overlapping policies that all deal with sourcing articles. --Edokter (Talk) 13:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. Always felt policies overlapped enormously. "As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only organises knowledge already published elsewhere. Facts and interpretations need to be eminently traceable to a verifiable source that is likely to give a reliable representation of the facts/opinions as they are." JFW | T@lk 13:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support, makes for simplicity and easier navigation. Cricket02 13:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support, weakly - specifying exact parts may be tricky, but simplicity is more important. --Evan C (Talk) 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support. Avoiding contradictory rules is most important. It also illustrates the rationale of each of these related policies by grouping them together; at least I found it increased my appreciation of NOR, which had previously seemed arbitrary to me. not-just-yeti 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support, but we should make sure that it is enforced. Just having a guideline or policy that sits around don't cut it AlfPhotoman 14:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support. Simplicity and easier navigation is very important, as has been stated above. mcr616 Speak! 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support, strong Clear, no contradictions.It's all about attribution and reliability. SalvNaut 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support keeps it simple and reduces the number of pages to be searched when looking for help. - Ctbolt 14:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support It helps people to find the right policy when searching, and I feel many of the policies overlap. Also, if someone asks at the helpdesk then they may learn about more than one policy. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Unqualified Support. This approach effectively integrates WP:VER and WP:NOR into a coherent policy that operates side-by-side with WP:NPOV and the WP:Consensus method of arriving at article-by-article implementation of these policies, without diminishing any of these fundamental WP policies in the slightest. ... Kenosis 15:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support per Kenosis, Casmith ,Not-just-yeti, Picaroon, Warrens, Was.4.250 and others. JoshuaZ 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support As I am sure others have stated, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS overlap in many ways, and it would be much simpler and cleaner to integrate them into one single page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 16:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support per above. I don't think I need to restate everything that's been said. — BrotherFlounder 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support will at last make the policy clear for anyone. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support the relocation of all three policies to one page. Amphytrite 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support I support the merger of these pages into one page because the policies are interconnected. Moreover, any quick survey of the articles up for FAC will reveal substantial sourcing problems. I feel that wikipedia needs to provide a simple and concise explanation of what kinds of sources it recommends for articles and when they should be used. While WP:ATT may have some flaws, I feel that those flaws can be worked out but that the idea of a single page on sources is much better than three or even four which users are less likely to read and less likely to understand the relationship between. Awadewit 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support as being clearer. I don't like the name (it's a bit unclear), but the principle of merging the pages seems reasonable. --ais523 17:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  207. Support and keep old pages as reference. Haiduc 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support an excellent idea and an excellent implementation. TomTheHand 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support a largely successful attempt to make attribution more accessible and understandable for everyone, which will help promote Wikipedia content verifiability, and, thusly, help make Wikipedia content more reliable. Justen 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support but with a paragraph shortcut as for WP:SYNT. --BMF81 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support. Axl 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support. It's a reasonable idea that was properly implemented. Eluchil404 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yeah looks good to me.--FunnyMunny 17:55, 1 April 2007 :(UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user Light current (talk · contribs). Rockpocket 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second edit. Marskell 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. this deoes seem to make more sense than having 3 indpendent policies--UnderTrade 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user Light current (talk · contribs). Rockpocket 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    First edit. OK, what's going on? Marskell 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Strong support, but not the WP:V shortcut. The policies combined here are separate ideas that interact towards the same principle—in fact that's why it is confusing to new editors to have them on separate pages that overlap... Right now, WP:A confusingly tries to cast verifiability as the same as WP:RS. Verifiability—whether content fundamentally can be verified—is probably closer to WP:A itself than to the WP:RS section. The word verifiability also ties WP:A to WP:N. --gwc 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Supportr. If something is verifiable, then it is not original research (so no need for both). And "attribution" is also important where opinions differ. --Iantresman 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Limited support (maybe I've put this in the wrong section) - I support the merger of WP:V and WP:NOR into WP:ATT, as "attributability, not truth" makes more sense than "verifiability, not truth", and I think that attribution and "no original research" are essentially two sides of the same thing. However, I think WP:RS should continue as a separate guideline. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support. Everything will be so much easier on one page. Bagpipeturtle 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Strong support. One page (with a coherent explanation) will make things much easier on new and experienced editors alike.--Kathy A. 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support. "One policy to rule them all" makes sense; the simpler it is to explain, the better--as long as WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS are kept as subsections of WP:ATT (for situations where policy needs to be as clear as possible on a specific case). Ourai тʃс 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support and get rid of WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS. I just used Wikipedia:Attribution, in a comment to a new user's talk, and I felt it was a clear, concise and sensible alternative to an overwhelming alphabet soup. I was also accused of doing original research fairly recently, when an editor thought I had added some unsourced statements. Original research is a unique case, fully subsumed under the issue of attribution that has gotten quite a bit of undue weight due to the separate pages. Enuja 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support. I like the idea and the goals for carrying it out. If it comes together as planned, it will represent a substantial improvement over the separate section. ChemistryProf
  221. Support. Get related concepts bundled together. Merge in WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. They're all driving towards the same principle, and WP:ATT does a better job of articulating that and then getting into the different ways the principle manifests itself. - Ehheh 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support. I think it's clearly simpler: to me, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS fundamentally overlap. -- bcasterline • talk 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Mildly indifferent support. It makes policy more accessible. NOR, V, RS can be kept and referred to as seperate sections. So long as the merger does not weaken what's now WP:ATT, I'm cool with it. But even ATT is overturned for lack of consensus (likely at this point with 210 in favour, 170 against), no big deal. Aren't we all wasting a lot of mindcycles over this mere rephrasing of policy? Sandstein 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. I support the merge. It'll make things more organised, in my opinion. Rusty5 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support. Read the articles pro and con, and I think it's a sensible proposition that will simplify things. --Leifern 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support, in general. But IMO, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR each need to stay around for quite a while as they do each explain distinct concepts which a lot of us are used to working with. I'm still not all that happy with what's at WP:ATT but I do support it all being in one place.Garrie 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support Having them on the same page is handy, but keep the individual parts in separate subtopics Sharpevil 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support for the sake of simplicity. Luvcraft 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Strong support - being new here, I find it very time consuming and very confusing with so many separate policies that are not easy to find, especially if one doesn't know what to search for. It's already time consuming researching, editing and writing articles, and then having to find explainations to concerns all over the place. I strongly support this merge as it will help simplify finding policies. Jeeny 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  230. SupportSimplicty and clarity is best. Editors will be more likely to apply WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS together as a logical unit Lost Kiwi(talk) 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support since it doesn't change either policy. I think that it's a sensible measure since we have so many policies already. Darthgriz98 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support. The details do need to be hammered out before any merge. However this should reduce confusion on what has already been made policy.Phatom87 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Very strong support. The arguments for and against have been done to death, so I won't go over them again. Suffice it to say that I think this is a great idea. Chrisfow 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support -- merge 'em baby! Xdenizen 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support because I'm tired of arguing with others about what "original research" and "verifiability" actually mean. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Strong support. New editors need to discover the complexity of WP in layers, and ATT could be a very useful outer layer. Only after that should the WP onion start to stink, then make you cry, then add flavor your mental food... - Freechild 02:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support I find WP:ATTR much more clear than the others ever were. Gutworth 02:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Strong support, not only does this keep it simple, it better explains the connection between RS, V, and NOR, which are inextricably intertwined. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support. Consolidation is a good idea, so long as the key information in the existing separate pages is kept and simplified if possible. Truthanado 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support. Much easier to find what needs to be taken into consideration for writing an article, and also keeps it much simpler. -- DSGruss 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support per above.--Eva bd 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Strongly Support — but i would like to add emphasis on Verifiability as one of the goals & effects of Attribution —- .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support - i think WP:ATT is a great example of being bold, which is now being wishy-washed with folks who are too used to keeping all their things right where they left them. There is no change with this formation, and it really cuts it down to the pith of the policy. JoeSmack Talk 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support strongly. WP:ATT is easy to understand and will reduce problems with conflicts between two separate policies with essentially the same goal. Attribution is a generally accepted academic standard and should be the standard here. I had no problems with WP:V, but WP:NOR was confusing to newcomers who may not have understood the desired area of writing between original thought and plagiarism. (Heck, there are hundreds of thousands of students out there who don't understand this distinction, some of whom I have tutored.) For these reasons, the policies should be merged. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support. While I would welcome refinement of the "The threshold for inclusion... not whether it is true" statement, in general this is a simplification and clarification worth doing. We should not, however, belittle the value of truth or accuracy. --Brons 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support. I feel that the problem with original research is one of lack of verifiability. Streamlining the policies to make it clear that a bare necessity is some sort of source to verify (this ensures, if not truth, that we have something to blame on if we write something wrong), a common factor for both NOR and V. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support what a brilliant idea. I love it! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 07:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support MisterSheik 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Support - After considering the for and against arguments in detail - The reasons for far outweigh the reasons against.--VS talk 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support After careful consideration, I find that the benefits of having one page for these closely connected policies outweigh the drawbacks. I do not belive this merger causes a significant change in policy, rather it serves to clarify the previous policies. Tengfred 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Support Sander123 09:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support - this would seem to be a much clearer, concise policy and be easier to explain to new users. ••Briantist•• talk 10:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support - Clarity and commonsense par excellence. Vizjim 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Tentatively support I say run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. WookMuff 12:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support Lets make it simpler. Themcman1 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Support - the fewer separate policies we have, the more quickly new users can become familiar with them. Warofdreams talk 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support. A step forward. NicM 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  259. Support. It is important to gather former 3 principles. More I am confident in wikipedia we must report information and not create this or write what we remember of this. Therefore, attributing is crucial. Congratulations for this proposal. Alithien 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Support. KISS. Alpha Omicron 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support. More in one place is always better. Less following links around trying to find the right thing. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Support. WP:ATT as high level is good, but keep WP:V WP:RS WP:NOR as expanded detail pages. WP:NOR in particular is need as a separate concept. jmj 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support. One of the major ideas of Wikipedia is to explain things in plain language that is easily accessible. This is a step towards that. Hatch68 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Support as it is easier for new editors to have less policy pages to wade through. The problems I have with the policy were already existing in WP:V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 15:03, April 2, 2007 UTC [1]
  265. Support The three pages are closely related, so it makes sense to merge them. · AO Talk 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support. Marking WP:ATT as policy seems to have done no harm and at least some good. (1) WP:ATT as written is at least as good as WP:RS, :V, and :NOR were at explaining the relevant goals and policies. I have been citing to it without confusion or problem. (2) Centralizing these policies is a good idea. Not only does it avoid creep, it also prevents the interminable debates we used to have when WP:V and WP:RS diverged. Centralizing these policy points means that future changes will be in a single place, so interested editors can keep an eye on them. Also, ILIKEIT. TheronJ 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support. The distinction between attributed and attributable is now clear. Andeggs 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support. I prefer having to refer to one page that deals with all aspects of attribution. This would help newbies a lot. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support; the concepts of V and NOR, while not identical, have the same basis; thus, I feel that a merge is appropriate. --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Support It fights instructions creep, and is easier on the newbies. IronDuke
  271. Support Verifiability always encouraged people writing articles about themselves, and made a call for attribution to published source seem like an insult to their personhood. The search for truth leans towards original research, the search for education is attribution.Lotusduck 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support Simplify, simplify, simplify. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  273. I support this merger as a fairly new user because it is always easier for me to have one tab to refer back to rather than 3 or 4.Gillian416 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  274. I support this merger as it will make WP policies less confusing if however precisely expressed -- Androux 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Strong support: the page is an elegant synthesis of the policies and will help alleviate the instruction creep currently out of control. Criticism of the process used to draft the policy are unfounded; what matters is the content of the policy and, of course, the process by which it is officially adopted. Fishal 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  276. Support. It not only indicates that editors should use reliable sources, but also that they should cite those sources in an article. There are a lot of articles out there that used reliable sources, but never provided citations, so it's up to the reader to determine the reliability of an article. Providing proper attribution to sources as a matter of policy will go a long way toward providing verifiability and reinforcing the credibility of Wikipedia articles. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support. Even if all three policies need work, the process of merging them into one will help highlight the redundancies, conflicts, and just plain weaknesses/holes/deficiencies among and across this triad so they can be fixed. Further, even though bending to the lowest common denominator is not always advised, in this case, simplifying and streamlining WP policy will make it more likely that WP policy is adhered to. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  278. General support. Comment: now that redirects can include fragment IDs, we can make WP:NOR redirect to Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research, so this idea gives us additional, more precise ways to specify exactly which policies we're referring to. CWC 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Support: The new policy is more concise. As for whether this jetisons truth, "verifiability, not truth" has been in WP:V since August 2005 and I regard tweaking that wording as being pretty much unrelated to whether WP:ATT is a good idea. Kingdon 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Support: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS significantly overlap. It would be much simpler and cleaner to integrate these three policies, which are really just restatements of the basic policy of attribution, into one single article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-04-02 22:02Z
  281. Support:Wikipedia policy is far too contradictory and complex and needs to be cut down and simplified. This is a good step in simplifying WP policy and merging overlapping and bulky material into a single page.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Support:Speaking as somone who grasped what was going on inspite of rather than because of the way the policies are presented I think this seems like a very sensible change. Frankly No Original Research never made much sense to me. Cp6ap 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Support: "Attributability, not truth"! _R_ 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Strong Support: Concise, a single-policy driven content validity scheme which also allows some well-documented unpublished contents to enter Wikipedia. ray 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support: It will help to remove the number of different pages that users would have to navigate to learn the policies. Ixnayonthetimmay 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support by KISS. /kaˈʁɛːfa ˈweːnaː/T|E 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support, It would probably be a good idea.--Anglius 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support Yes, put everything into one convient article. W1k13rh3nry 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Support to keep it simple and clear. Gordon 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support. Congratulations to the editors who wrote Wikipedia:Attribution, which is an elegant merger and a clear improvement in the wording of the relevant policies and guidelines. Bureaucracies hate change, of course—even common sense changes—so it remains to be seen whether the community can overcome its bureaucratic intransigence on this issue. I've read the arguments against the merger and find them unconvincing and, occasionally, incoherent. Many of the objections below are simply bureaucratic ("I object on procedural grounds") or status quo for the sake of status quo (people are accustomed to the old pages). Other objections are theoretical in nature (role of truth, conceptual differences between NOR and WP:V, differences between policies and guidelines), which are fun to discuss and important in some contexts, but mean little when it comes to actually writing an encyclopedia with a NPOV. The important question now is whether WP:ATT, if implemented, will improve the process of writing a reliable encyclopedia. I think it will. —Kevin 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support. Verifiability and No Original Research are both about sources. While these may be different principals the policies generated have so much overlap that separate pages become dificult to keep synchronised. Keeping a page about Original Research is probably worth while for further elaboration but the Attribution page should be the policy page though 'Sources' might be a better name than 'Attribution'.Filceolaire 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support. Having a simplified and central policy will streamline processes in the future since there will be fewer ambiguities and conflicts. --Sukh17 T • C • E 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support. ww 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support, though my guess is that it will bite me in the 455 - Frelke 06:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Support. KISS. Foobaz·o< 07:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Support per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Support. Much easier to understand. --MichaelMaggs 07:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Centralization is clearer than divergence. >Radiant< 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Support As per above, will make referencing and researching much easier. Flymeoutofhere 10:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  300. 'Support, streamlined is better. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Support - merger makes sense. John Smith's 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Support. A unique reference on the topic is suitable for discussions between editors. -- Knverma 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  303. Support because it makes it easier to explain the policy to others. Andrew Dalby 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  304. Support--It is important to simplify and consolidate policies(guidelines) through healthy discussion. (Policies should not be used either as weapons nor searched for loopholes to allow avoidance of the intent.)--Lmcelhiney 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Strong Support--Should be more clear for the new users, this policy also eradicates problems with users saying "well my OR is verifiable EVERYONE KNOwS ITS RIGHT!!!111". The separation between OR and Attributed text is so clear here that I'd love it to replace the existing policy.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  306. Support--Much clearer, especially for new users. Simplifying this has to be a move in the right direction. Greg 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Support --Belgrano 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Support. While not entirely happy, it seems like a step in the right direction. Magidin 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  309. Support These are three faces of the same coin it can only make this policy easier to comprehend, to revise and simply to discover in the first place if its all under the one title. Jimp 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  310. Support--It seems to me like a good idea to have WP policies consolidated, put together clearly, and summarized on only one place of easy access and reference. warshy 16:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  311. Support for simplification - these do seem to me to be just three angles on one basic concept Quackdave 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  312. Support - I think using a slightly unfamilar term will actually help. It makes it sound technical to the uninitiated, and is less likely to be confused with other common meanings. With the FAQ on sources, t should make it clearer that the point of an encyclopedia is to be a literate index into an existing knowledge-space. --Jvv62 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  313. Fully Support - Most arguments for above are sound. Most arguments below against are trival.--Mike Cline 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  314. I support the merger of these policies. Maelbrigda 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  315. Support - As said above, these articles are three variations on a theme. One page will make finding what you need to immensely easier. -Grahamdubya 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  316. Support as has been said above, these three policies are strongly linked together and it makes sense to have them all in one place. Hut 8.5 18:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  317. I support the merge. The whole "threshold for inclusion" thing makes me a bit nervous and I'd love to see it reworded more clearly, but I understand the intent behind it and I agree with that. With regard to the actual merge, I think it's an excellent idea. The three existing articles are confusing to me, and I have a fair bit of experience with such things, so I can imagine how they must look to a new and inexperienced editor. The three "parent" topics should be preserved as subsections within the new document, but other than that they need to go. The merged information is far clearer and more useful. --edi 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  318. Support There's less to decide on what to refer to. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  319. Support - It makes a bunch of interlinked policies and guidelines easier to maintain, easier to understand and prevents people using policies against each other. Yes, a couple of details may need improving, but how is this different from any other policy?-Localzuk(talk) 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  320. Support - more separate policies mean more confusion for new users. Calliopejen 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  321. Support The merger remedies three evils. First, the name "Verifiability" has given rise to misunderstandings. Second, the fact that V and NOR are distinct policy pages gives rise to the assumption that they are distinct concepts, which they are not. Third, it has occasionally happened that V and NOR do not agree in detail on some issue, or at least appear to disagree. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  322. Support - Strong support, in the interest of clarity and streamlining - and in assisting new editors. NickBurns 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  323. Support- simplification and clarification are good things, makes life easier for wikipedians.--JustJimDandy 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Support - the less pages a new user has to read and remember when coming into the site, the better. Lots of pages terrify newbies - in fact, lots of pages can terrify and confuse established users. Merging and clarification are never, ever bad. ♠PMC♠ 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)"#[reply]
  325. Support - The consolidation in a single page is a good idea. The conflicts between the three prior pages offered a breeding ground in which those advocating various points of view could post choose which venue would be more suitable to their viewpoint. My only concern is that the merger may leave us with four competing pages. If any of the pages are retained to expand the summary at WP:ATT (and I think WP:NOR should be) they should be clearly marked as derivitave and as not having authoritative status. SteveMcCluskey 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  326. Support per WP:ATTPRO. The old set of policies were too confusing. — Pious7TalkContribs 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  327. Support Shane (talk/contrib) 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  328. Support - removes vaguery that edit-vets use against newbies; more clear; centralizing policies and minimizing quantity of pages is a good thing. Much needed change. None of the "against" essay points 'hold water'. -- Tony 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  329. Support because of simple logic: NOT(WP:OR)==WP:V, and WP:OR==NOT(WP:V). We don't need two pages for the two faces of the same coin. NikoSilver 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  330. Support as per above. SolarianKnight (talk|contrib) 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  331. Support More practical and logical than current method Oliver202 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  332. Support: They are closely related policies that are more easily understood as one than as separate, often redundant, pages. Sxeptomaniac 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  333. Support per the above points. Academic Challenger 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  334. Support I'll be honest: WP:ATT is far from perfect, and merging WP:OR into it is going to be quite a can of worms. However, on the whole I see this as a step, even if it's a baby step, toward a more reliable, respectable, and accurate encyclopedia. It might not be perfect, but it's better than nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  335. Support per above Merumerume 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  336. Support - no need to rehash all the arguments. JackofOz 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  337. Support - Very intelligently merged and much simpler to use. Congrats to all those who worked to put this together! Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  338. Support It's all been said. Adm58 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  339. Support I agree that it is a good idea and I am not going to go into deep detail why. But having all of this on one page can prove to be quite useful other than having to boruse around onto three different pages. An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! (talk)(contribs)
  340. Support - simplifies much.--Urthogie 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  341. Support - the pages proposed to be merged are all policies on attribution. The merge will make these policies easier to be understood. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  342. I Support the merge because there is a need to be concise so that users do not have three places to look at to verify their edits are acceptable, only ONE PLACE. If people are used to citing "WP:NOR, WP:V or WP:RS", that's fine. they can do so by adding "ATT#" (such as in "WP:ATT#NOR", etc. --FateClub 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  343. Support - MrArt 07:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  344. Support this merger as it will make things easier to access, espcially for newbies. Str1977 (smile back) 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  345. Support - for new users of WP it's unbelievably confusing to be confronted with so many policies and guidelines. This should just be the start. --Flup 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  346. Support. Nothing more to add. nadav 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  347. Weak Support. That would make things simpler, BUT on the other hand, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V are known pages that can be refered to in order to help new editors. Refering them to WP:ATT will at best submerge them with information, and may confuse them. So if we merge these pages (and I think that's a good idea), I think the other pages must continue to exist to explain to editors the particular points of the policies. Ok, that pretty much defeats the purpose. At least make a redirect to the right section? -- lucasbfr talk 11:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  348. Support - simplification of rules is better. The three separate policies are talking about the same thing anyways, ie. of people using wikipedia as a publishing mechanism for their own views. -- infinity0 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  349. Support - Attribution is a more accurate description of the problem than verifiablity or NOR. Verifiablity tags often imply that the facts are dubious, when in fact the only problem is a missing citation. H Bruthzoo
  350. Support - They seem to be the same thing, only worded differently. Therefore, they should be merged. --Chaffers (talk)/(contributions) 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  351. Support - Newer users will be more prepared to read one article than three - this will help them follow the rules correctly. There's too much bureaucracy on here as it is, so any condensation is a good thing. Alex Holowczak 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  352. Support strongly. This consolidation both strengthens the purpose of articles (informative rather than explanatory or exhaustive, and describing facts versus expounding so much on viewpoints of schools of thought that we tend to re-present them rather than report on them); and encourages across-the-board sourcing for everything rather than widely accepted facts being coincidentally unsupported by a good source. Users will feel less threatened and understand more succintly Wikipedia's unbiased goal. - CobaltBlueTony 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  353. Support - For clarity's sake I support the merger. --Denimmonkey 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  354. I Support the merger because I think it is a good idea but I don't that the process was correct in it's creation. Jon513 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  355. Support -- Unfortunately, I don't have an original reason for support, as they all have been stated already above. But multiple links can get confusing, and its much easier (and much more convinient) to read one article rather than three. --6xB 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  356. Support - useful to have it all in one place. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  357. Support - One policy page on the broad application of attribution makes the policy more clear and concise and makes it easier to follow and maintain on one policy page, and to follow discusion on one talk page. Mytwocents 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  358. Support. One stop shopping helps avoid conflicting interpretations of multiple pages. And I feel that the emphasis on what can and cannot be reliably sourced, instead of what is or is not already reliably sourced, will help avoid deletion of legitimate pages while not really making it any harder to keep the crankery and cruft out. —David Eppstein 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  359. Support. K.I.S.S.. Jdpipe 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  360. Support. Ditto the immediate above. --Mashford 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  361. Weak support - I generally agree the idea to merge the three pages as they're largely correlated. However, the current version of ATT is a bit too concise to represent the utmost detail of the original pages. A policy should be more that this. --Deryck C. 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  362. Support. But this hullabaloo reminds me of that quote about sausage and legislation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  363. Strong Support - all of my reasons have already been very well stated in comments above. - Kiwi 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  364. Strong Support, this was a well intended effort to streamline and merge policies into one. With no intended fundemental change of the underlying polices. How could anybody find anything wrong with those goals? Mathmo Talk 06:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  365. Support - a single point of reference for these very similar policies makes much more sense. Arguments that editors are familiar with the old should not be a barrier to change - if they were, nothing would ever get done. Ever. Waggers 08:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  366. Strong Support. Less intimidating and easier to understand for new users and those unexperienced with attributions. SESmith 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  367. Support. All three policies are intrinsically linked. Merging them into one policy article seems a no-brainer, especially as it doesn't change existing policy. AulaTPN 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  368. Support This is long overdue. The criteria for inclusion per WP:V is verifiability not truth. This merger will support this sound policy and greatly simplify the policies that new editors need to familiarize themselves with. MartinDK 11:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  369. Support KISS. This makes everything far easier Brian | (Talk) 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  370. Support. We need to find a way to prevent policy creep and keep things simple for newbies, and I believe this helps accomplish that. (I liked it better when it was formally one page.) I'd rather point new users who I'm talking to to this, instead of a handful of TLAs/alphabet soup. Grandmasterka 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  371. Support. Simple, concise, accurate. Noon 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  372. Support. simple and coherent. Zeq 14:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  373. Support. "Attributability" makes a lot of sense. I like it. —LestatdeLioncourt 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  374. Support. Simple and convienent. Gamesurf 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  375. Support. Fewer policy pages make WP an easier world to navigate. Superdix 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  376. Support. Just as ≈ jossi ≈, supporter #7, said, it would provide a simpler and more understandable way to present the current Wikipedia policies. Superdix said it nicely (see above).—Michael 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  377. Support. Easier to understand. Ronnotel 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  378. Support. Having three separate policies was confusing, and there were some inconsistencies. We can work on the exact details of the new policy later, if changes need to be made. COGDEN 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  379. Support. It's a very positive policy, it encourages and guides action -- use sources and declare them. Foundational. Also simple and clear as everyone says. Alastair Haines 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  380. Support Basar 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  381. Support For reasons relative to clarity and concision that have been well set forth by others and need not to be recapitulated, I support the merge if not the instant formulation of ATT (viz., its apparent elevation of RS to policy); concerns about the integration of specific details, though, do not militate categorically against any attempt to merge. Whilst it appears likely that the promulgation of ATT in its present form as (overarching) policy does not command the consensus support of the community, I think it is (but may not be) plain that most of those opposing have, as I, objections to certain items but not to the conflation in principle; the idea, then, to be sure, ought not. and surely will not, be wholly jettisoned (that is, I hope that we might eventually arrive at some ATT-esque policy that subsumes OR and V, et seq.). Joe 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  382. Strong support Brevity is the soul of wit. Makes one point clearly and briefly. Ipsenaut 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  383. Support One page is simpler and briefer than three sometimes contradictory pages. I also like that this clarifies that not everything (i.e. "The sky is blue") needs to be cited, just be attributable. I can sympathize with those who oppose this as I liked the old policies too, but this really does seem to be a combination of those without any major changes that I can find. Ruhrfisch 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  384. I support Simpler in one place. keep it to the point! :) ileck 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  385. Support. Properly written and conceived, such a single-page system can hit all the points of the three pages while being less of a cluttery mess. No matter how wonderful and hugely comprehensive three separate pages are, it doesn't matter if the newbies do not read or do not understand them. Lord Bob 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  386. Support. One easy to read policy can address all of these issues Dx87 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  387. Support I was very pleased to see all that policy in one place. It makes it much easier to point a new person to one page instead of saying "well, there's this one policy over here, and another over here, and don't forget to see that other page, and this one, and... etc" The KISS principle is very important. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  388. Support, and further would like to voice my horror at all the "opposes" which claim ATT devalues "truth" - V has always stated that sourcing, not "truth" is the standard, whether that sourcing is colloquially called "verification" or more accurately "attribution" is not the issue. Truth is always inherently subjective due to its very nature. What is utter Truth to a Christian is heresy to a Muslim and vice-versa; we are not evangalists for any cause; we are neither apologists or polemics; and however this particular situation resolves I feel it is vital that we somehow make more clear that we are in the business of accurate information, not truth - although I am perplexed as to how anyone could have read WP:V and been at all confused, or WP:ATT. If nothing else, this effort has highlighted that key point is not being communicated effectively to all our editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  389. Support. As per above.--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  390. Support Anything that makes the wikipedia's guidelines easier to access for new and inexperienced editors is worth having. It is important to ensure that all the warning templates are properly re-linked however. A1octopus 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  391. Support. As per above. This makes a lot of sense.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  392. Support. It will make everything a lot simpler. Abeg92contribs 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  393. Strong Support - This pulls together the most impotant parts of the policies, and removes a nasty hole created by WP:NOR, as any type of publication could get a idea out from under it. That atatements have to be attributable to reliable sources (and preferably secondary sources) creates a higher bar to original research. As someone who is doing original research but who also understands the mission of Wikipedia and respects why OR is not approrpiate, I find the standard being set here to be much more reasonable than that of WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  394. Support The current guidelines are scattered over too many pages, I'd rather be improving articles than searching through pages upon pages of policy. JRWalko 02:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  395. Support All in favour of reducing number of policy pages, therefore agree in principle. Actual execution (current ATT page) seems well conceived and well written. Many object to a "lack of consensus" but what is a consensus remains poorly defined on Wikipedia. I think there has been adequate discussion over a decent length of time. Dr Aaron 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  396. Support Anything to make the policy pages a lot simpler and less confusing. 97198 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  397. Support The intended focus can only prove beneficial. --Futhark|Talk 09:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  398. Support simplification in this case is better. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  399. Strong Support Attribution and No Original Research are some of the most important things on Wikipedia. Anything that makes these easier to read, easier to understand, easier to use, and easier to point people to is a good thing. One page is nicer to point newbies to, and feels - to me - less like biting the newbies than pointing them to a bunch of stuff. Dan Beale 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  400. Support For all the main reasons mentioned many times over above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  401. Support I haven't been very active for the past few months, but I was thrilled when I came here and saw this. It's clearer and more concise than the individual pages. And while it's true that NOR, V, and RS are separate concepts, they are inextricably interrelated, and editors, especially newbies, can see that they're different aspects of one overarching vision for Wikipedia. Three separate pages gives the impression that they're three concepts which are entirely independent of each other, which is not the case. Chuck 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  402. Support, on the basis that no policy changes. Clarity is good. -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  403. Support, as per BillWeiss. Bo-Lingua 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  404. Support I believe original research is almost identical to citing reliable sources. Besides it helps new contributors to learn all those stuff in one page.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  405. Support this poll is ridiculous. If Jimbo wants it one way, he should be around to actually contribute to discussion. Regards, Iamunknown 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  406. Support Anything that makes it quicker and easier for new users to access policy pages, as this would, is good.--Harkey Lodger 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  407. Support - As a newer editor, the change is straightforward. The for essay was concise. The argument against contained a certain amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Wikipedia needs an Elevator speech to describe the sources of the articles and I believe it is a step in the right direction. Group29 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  408. Support - anything that simplifies policies like this serves to disempower the WikiDorks - the Rules Lawyers, the anal-retentives who spend so much time seizing and husbanding their stranglehold on too much of WikiPedia. And that is inherently a very good thing. Mitchberg 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  409. Support - after careful consideration. I started editing a year ago and now make hundreds of edits each month. As a newbie, I found the overlapping policies confusing and hard to get into. Putting them in one place, supported by detailed FAQ, is a significant step forward in clarity and accessibility. As currently drafted, WP:ATT could do with some improvements, e.g. not supporting material based on sources that are no longer reliable, and its emphasis may need tweaking in the light of further experience - there is certainly scope to give more weight to truth. However, these concerns do not detract from the benefits of the merger. - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  410. Support - been off Wiki for a while, but I definitely think the merger is a good idea. I have no object to keeping the old WP:V and W:NOR pages around to provide more explaination. --EngineerScotty 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  411. Strong support - So long as it stays clear and precise. —B33R Talk • Contribs 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  412. Support - I haven't been keeping of with the debates at all, nor have I been editing often I will say first. However, I believe this will make it easier for newer users to get used to Wikipedia. However, I think that the other pages should be kept for historical purposes with a note to ATT. —Jake Wasdin 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  413. Support. — Athænara ✉ 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  414. Support. - Magalhães 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  415. Support WP's policies and procedures are FAR too complicated. Anything that simplifies the spider web of interlocking policies is a good thing, IMO. -- TomXP411[Talk] 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  416. Support Yes, make it simpler.dick 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  417. Support - Wikipedia can be very confusing to new users; this will help simplify policies and procedures.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  418. Support Wikipedia's biggest problem remains the shortage of supporting evidence for the content added. What is needed is a single and concise policy that states what support is needed. WP:ATT does this. The arguments opposing it are weak. Alan Pascoe 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  419. Weak support There are too many different pages with rules, and it would help to have as much as possible on one page. Or perhaps it would make it harder to read and follow. Hence weak support. Wisconsin96 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  420. Support --Zxcvbnm 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  421. Support KISS -- Make it simplier for new users. Pparazorback 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  422. Support, KISS, as long as the policies don't change. Will 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  423. Support Tim Q. Wells 00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  424. Support. Sorry for voting so late. I'd support merging all of them into WP:ATT. They all fall under one blanket, and they should be easier to find all in one place.

In broad opposition to WP:ATT[edit]

See also alternative sections in this survey: In broad support of WP:ATT & Neutral/qualified/compromise/other

Refactoring note: If you replied to someone else's vote, it may have been moved to the talk page, see here.


  1. Oppose on procedural grounds. This appears to me to be a fait accompli. I would like to have been part of this discussion at the start of this process but it was never brought to the attention of ordinary editors at that stage with valid options. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No on WP:ATT. No on any merger idea at this time. Verifiability, ReliableSource, and No personal research are very independent components of high quality Wikipedia pages such as gravity and truth. That is, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than what mere Attributability requires, editors could not trim the gravity and truth pages to follow faithfully just the facts, not the mere attributions, as established by ReliableSources. Similarly, without a standard for "Verifiability" that is far higher than mere "Attributability," editors cannot trim pages on living persons to exclude fully attributable personal attacks that are baseless, false, and unfair. --Rednblu 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I oppose the proposed merging of pages, because I believe it's important to keep policy pages separate, in order to prevent the creation of one excessively large (and thus probably ignored) page. I believe it is best to keep the policies on their own separate pages. Philippe 01:27, 31 March 2007
  4. I oppose this merger, but support, in principle, some other merger between the two policies.
    • I deprecate this poll, as started by suprise, without consensus on the wording. The one thing on which there was consensus was that this was going to start, if possible, on 00:00 April 2. See here
    • I came to this poll intending to support WP:ATT
    • I agree with most of it, at least as I understand it; nevertheless
    • I strongly oppose the notion that WP:ATT has, or has ever had, consensus; any appearances to the contrary are probably the result of the same bullying and reversion which has resulted in this pseudo-poll.
    • I strongly reject WP:ATT as the merger; it will have to be thoroughly considered to be acceptable as such.
    • I recommend that if there is no consensus to merge to WP:ATT, that its separate paragraphs, which do have considerable value, be considered for inclusion in WP:V and WP:NOR. By the time that is over, we will see what is generally acceptable, and they will have the necessary common language so that a merge, if approved, will be a largely mechanical process, not involving significant rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring note: This !vote does not broadly oppose WP:ATT, but of the three possibilities, "oppose" is most correct on the issues presently at hand. This was originally classified, not by me, as neutral; it has also been classified under "Support some merger, but not this one." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I oppose WP:ATT as it exists. I oppose the changes that have been made to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS by people who use the argument "we aren't changing things, we are only clarifying things" while making major changes to the spirit of our policies. I oppose the promotion of WP:RS from a (very good) guideline to a policy. - O^O 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I appreciate the hard work and well-intentioned effort put into this proposal by many editors whose work I respect, I oppose every aspect of this ATT proposal and discussion.
    • More broad-based and open-minded discussion could have occurred before the poll was launched. I also oppose the poll itself, because the presentation is one-sided and the poll itself makes claims that aren't rebutted.
    • I don't support the idea that there was ever consensus for ATT. I was aware of ATT because I work closely with and follow the talk pages of a number of the main "architects" of the proposed policy. I weighed in several times (hence was one of those "300 editors"), but was under the impression that a revamping of fundamental Wiki policies would never happen without broader community input. I didn't see that broad consensus, and was quite surprised when ATT was enacted and core policies disappeared into redirects.
    • I don't agree that ATT merges existing policies, rather that existing policies were molded to ATT before work on them was somewhat abandoned.
    • I strongly agree with Jimbo's statements [2] [3] that each policy expresses a significantly different idea and am opposed to any merger of the core policies. I don't agree that one policy is either clearer or streamlined; I believe it obfuscates important aspects of our policies and weakens each of them.
    • I oppose having ATT as the overarching policy, while still maintaining links to the original three pages, as that creates a maintenance/syncing nightmare. I see no need for any merger.
    • I strongly disagree that ATT did not or will not change in practice our policies, and believe it will and already has weakened our core policies.
      • I am most opposed to the way interpretation of ATT interacts with the "experts" (think, Essjay controversy) scenario. Attributable but not necessarily attributed can be a means of avoiding providing sources for material, while verifiability supports that notion that Wiki's credibility depends upon the ability of our readers to verify that our information comes from reliable sources. Attributable but not attributed opens the door to "experts" to challenge the need to cite information. ATT falls into the "expert" problem by the subtle switch from verifiable to Wiki's readers to attributable to someone, somewhere, sometime, but unless you're an expert on the topic, you don't have the right to ask exactly where it's attributed.
    • My largest concern is that the approach to changing core policy wasn't optimal; while respecting the emotions and hard work invested in this process, I believe the shouting should die down and more voices should be heard before any core policies are changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has come to my attention that I failed to mention one part of the ATT that I do agree with; if ATT becomes policy, I do concur with the elevation of WP:RS into that policy. Strengthening reliability of sources—as well as strengthening verifiability—are my concerns. I feel that ATT strengthens RS but weakens V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I strongly oppose ATT, because it denigrates factuality and accuracy (i.e. truth). Attribution is very important, but not more important than accuracy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. oppose Agree per Jimbo regarding the three being separate ideas. No merge. Navou banter / contribs 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I think it is fine the way it is. There may be deficiencies, but this is not the way to fix them. Each one is a stand-alone principle.Mike Searson 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose - As per others in this section, WP:ATT is not a good idea. The 3 separate components merging into ATT are important on their own, and make up an extremely valuable part of WP's verifiability standards. Merging them will only serve to confuse rather than clarify. Thor Malmjursson 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I agree with Philippe and SandyGeorgia's arguments and feel that this would be a huge mistake that would result in many people ignoring the guidelines. --Bishop2 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I oppose the WP:ATT merger. I feel that I have been forced into doing so after once being neutral on the issue, by the overcontrol, "I know what's best, dammit" and editwarrior behavior of too many of the ATT proponents. These policies have been successfully separate for a long time, represent separate (albeit related) ideas, too many have raised concerns that policy is in fact being subtly changed in deeply fundamental ways, and ATT never had consensus and is being pushed, hard, now instead of being openly appraised and thoughtfully weighed. Just on the process issues alone I must stand against it. This is not how policy is made at Wikipedia. Addendum: I also join others in opposing this poll as bogus. It was launched early against near-consenus to wait, by a minority of 2 or 3 activist editors, with language that has no consensus at all, after over a week of trying to figure out what it should say. By barely mentioning ATTFAQ it misleads poll respondents into believing that this is a 2-into-1 or (with RS) 3-into-1 merger, when in reality is it a 3-into-2 merger or even 2-into-2 (ATTFAQ would exist whether it incorporated RS material or not). Count how many "having 1 is better than 3" !votes you see in the Support section for an inkling of how misleading this poll is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose That was weird, someone removed my earlier comments. Anyways, merging parts of RS in is not a good idea, and the seperate ideas should remain seperate. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose in this form; I do support a merger of WP:V, WP:RS and similar pages (and "attribution" would be a great name for that) but I don't support merging WP:NOR, because the three key content policies operate in different ways, and the best way to reinforce this is to have separate pages. I really don't see the benefit of merging in NOR. --bainer (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose These are separate notions. Merging them will inevitably dilute understanding and even-handed application of all three. Gwen Gale 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose ATT is a monster, really. I was leery when I heard that it was being formed out of WP:V and WP:NOR, but now WP:RS too? No, no, no...okay, in all seriousness, I agree with Jimbo that they are separate ideas that should remain seperate. Hbdragon88 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Separate ideas belong on separate pages. Nice analogy one above too. — MichaelLinnear 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per "Separate Ideas, Separate Pages." oncamera(t) 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I oppose the proposed merge, but feel instead WP:ATT should be marked with Template:Policy Summary and maintained as such. Sdsds 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Articles that encompass too much are tagged with {{main}}, per Summary style. Having these policies merged would create a policy that encompasses too much, and by the same logic, they should ideally be separate. Verifiability and No original research are critical concepts in Wikipedia; they deserve policies that explain them fully, not a bad amalgamation. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (edit conflict) Strong oppose. Our separate policies/guidelines have worked just fine for a long time now. Why the sudden need to combine them? While I do respect the hard work of the editors who attempted this, I honestly don't see how a unified theory of policy could ever come out of this, nor the need really. The separate policies should remain separate, and the whole WP:ATT should just be swept into the trash. ^demon[omg plz] 05:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. oppose Hopelessly naive, I can cite all kinds of controversial or even false things to generally 'reliable sources'. Truth matters, not just attribution. Verification and original research are not synonyms.[4] Derex 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose: the WP:ATT is cumbersome to read. I can't see the justification in having the three separate points on the one page, as they are discrete issues. I think we lose more than we gain as a proportion of editors will not read the new page because of this. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strongest oppose possible ATT chops up and destroyed the policies it in tends to replace some of the core parts of the old policy are completely re-defined and changes the guideline that we have. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. As it was pointed out these two (or three) notions are quite different. WP:Attribution just puts both of them to a single page and I don't see a point there. Alaexis 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I oppose a complete merger.
    I remember first hearing about this and thinking it was odd, because I did not see anything major issues with having those pages separate. However, I am mindful of our instructions creep problems we often have because of the raw number of policies and guidelines we have.
    Having read the concerns, and thinking more about this, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons for keeping those pages split. Just having to cite WP:V and WP:NOR in this last week I've seen the value on being able to send a user to one specific page over the other. We do need to clean up the raw number of guidelines and policies we have, but these pages don't need a merge.
    If you want to have WP:ATT in some form, fine, but the value in split pages is more than enough to not completely merge them.
    Another concern is that we'll lose focus of each concept when it's in a single document, as that document grows and develops, as all pages should do, it will unavoidably mix and combined it's own contents. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. There is not much to add that has not already been stated; however, I cannot help but think that merging distinct but related concepts necessarily has a neutral effect on policy. To merge implies that the different aspects of the different policies are one and the same. The name of the merged policy reflects this. Attributing something and verifying something are quite different things and have clearly different meanings. While a rose by any other name is still a rose, the meaning of words cannot be ignored and the new name says a lot about the impact of merging different concepts. Agent 86 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - In my opinion, these issues are different and should be awarded their separate policies. WP:ATT exists as a nice guide, but this merger is taking it too far. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. These different issues that people need to cite frequently to explain problems with articles. Doczilla 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose WP:V and WP:NOR are different things. Verifiability is merely that something can be verified...it has little if anything to do with NOR.--MONGO 06:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose as resulting page would be too massive and unmanageable. All the acronyms currently used would just link to subsections of the new giant page anyway. Carson 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - I've waxed and waned about this all week. I think the work that has been done is good, and I hope it can be used even if ATT is rejected, but I just don't like the idea of WP:V and WP:NOR being in one policy. They are very different concepts, and this exercise has been reinforcing the widespread misconception that they are merely two sides of the one thing. Eliminating separate W:V and WP:NOR pages will make it even harder for newbies and others to understand that that's not so. If W:ATT does survive, at least expand the "nutshell" comment at the top so that the main aspects of both policies are referred to. Metamagician3000 06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Oppose - Disgusted that attribution is seen as more important than truth. This needs to be remedied before any other changes are made. michael talk 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose as a waste of time. There is no policy change, only endless reorganization of the various components. Let the policy stand as it is so that the culture can evolve around it without a constantly shifting unerpinnings that really doesn't change. Simply rewriting the policy only creates challenges without a strong historical precedent. --Tbeatty 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I don't want to see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, turned into redirects. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose -- While I appreciate the efforts and intention to "streamline" policy, this merger, to me, is not the way it should be done. While sometimes it may be expedient to Ignore All Rules, we really need some "meta-policy" about how sweeping changes such as these should be enacted. We would never have gotten to this point, if not for a few, well-meaning editors who took it upon themselves to effectively strong-arm the form and language of Wikipedia policy they wished to see. I'd prefer to see a working group-- a Wikipedia policy committee-- formed specifically for the purpose of reviewing and proposing what changes, if any, need be made to improve Wikipedia rules. Any such decision-making needs be done with deliberation, open-ness and more robust input from the community. The concerns raised by individuals here should demonstrate that the consensus favours status-quo; unless a solid case can be presented otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.--LeflymanTalk 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Oppose Cjrs 79 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - Agreeing with above opinions --Spebi 07:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - what is the need for merging? Admins will still find themselves breaking it up for the newbies. Its easier for newbies to understand V, NOR and RS one at a time than all in one gulp. And yeah, retain ATT for 'historical' purposes. Sarvagnya 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose on several grounds:
    • Firstly, "attribution" and "attributability" is somewhat ambiguous and carries less clear meaning of the actual intent than the current forms. Many en.wikipedia editors are second-language and we should make it as easy for them as possible to contribute in accordance with policy. (I agree with SandyGeorgia's concerns raised above also on this topic) The chosen name actually seems to promote WP:OR at the expense of WP:V, although the text is neutral.
    • Secondly, I agree that each point loses something if merely a point in a bigger document.
    • Thirdly, there was no consensus for the change, it was effectively foisted onto most of the community - despite being fairly active I first heard about it *after* the change had been made, not before, and I have heard many in that situation. This needs far more discussion.
    However in spite of all I have said (and comments made by others which I agree with), I do agree with the principle that the two policies and the guideline should be treated as a bundle from a policy development point of view, and I would not be opposed to a WP:5 style summary of them being created. However, I believe the pages should remain separate in order to improve clarity, exactly as we do with articles, which may be in three different places but are managed by a task force or WikiProject to keep them consistent with each other. Orderinchaos 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - I do Agree with the above opinions Theturtlehermit 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose - I, too, agree with the arguments of the above wikipedians and oppose this move. Instead of merging, why not expand on the terms so that the user will be better able to determine which to apply? TeamZissou 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strongly oppose: The articles are better kept separate; they are not entirely related and the policies and guidelines would be hard to find. The terms need clarification, not merging. I agree that "In my opinion, these issues are different and should be awarded their separate policies." I think that WP:Attribution deals with different issues than separate pages on Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources or WP:Cite (which are also directly related and aren't even mentioned in the poll); it appears a kind of watering down of long-standing documentation policies and could even lead to confusion. WP:NOR is particularly important concept that requires its own article. I can see cross-linking related concepts, but merging them is going too far and blurring distinctions among them, in my view. I do not think that the current page Wikipedia: Attribution is thorough enough at all and that it could lead to less and poorer documentation of sources in Wikipedia rather than to more and better documentation of sources in Wikipedia. Too many articles in Wikipedia already lack proper verifiable and reliable sourcing. The proposed merger could create even more sourcing problems, especially from inexperienced and/or poorly-educated editors. --NYScholar 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Oppose - I don't think this will solve any problems, I believe that a universal "super-page" may intimidate fresh members; whilst separate pages will allow them to view policies in sections rather then present the need to read through the whole policy in one sitting. Ashnard talk 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I oppose WP:ATT, for several reasons: the concepts of V and OR are similar yet distinct, RS needs to remain a separate guideline, and the term verifiable not true is much more appropriate than attributable not true. The pattern of voting so far also encourages me to oppose, it is obvious that the change does not enjoy support from many in the community. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per WP:ATTCON, especially the manner in which this merger came to exist repels me. The current policy pages are good enough. --User:Krator (t c) 09:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose I agree with many of the arguments above. Catchpole 09:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Absolutely no need for it - why not merge every single policy together, after all they are all relatively related? Clarification, detail and distinction are good - the more of it we have the better - merging policies for the sake of it is just pointless; and actually harmful. SFC9394 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose The current policies are distince from one another. Further, consensus is not determined by vote. Tompw (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose merge and ATT as policy
    • This is difficult to follow and confusing. It may be shorter than verifiability and NOR, but it took me easily twice as long to read and I retained little. Verifiability and NOR are simpler, deal with more than ATT does and while I have not read them much, it is easy to remember phrases and ideas from these policy pages because they are well written and well laid out.
    • This is not, IMO a merge of two policy pages into one page--this is a change of policy in some key areas. It's policy change I'm not ok with, and I'm not ok with how this flew under the radar either.
    • I've only spent a few minutes looking at how the page was put together, but I have serious concerns about it. Opposition seemed to be ignored, and some very bizarre arguments were used at times for not listening to editors. If someone comments on the talk page and doesn't receive a response, that silence isn't a disagreement, it's wiki editors not bothering to comment. You have to show up to make your feelings known, and IMHO, that's pushing WP:OWN on an article, telling users not to edit because unless they get a response, it's a no.
    • Even if this was well done and didn't change policy, these are seperate ideas, seperate policies (while related) and they shouldn't be in one policy.
    • One last note, I'm suprised that this has a policy tag. It doesn't have approval from Jimbo, IMO this does not have real consensus, and that means that it fails grounds for policy. Btw, Tjsrf neither number of editors nor edits has anything to do with consensus Questions have been raised about whether the page should exist, and users have tried to put dispute tags on the article and had them taken down, being told that there is no dispute, and I'm disappointed that consensus is being lauded and this merge is being presented as a merge of canonical policy. ATT needs community consensus to keep its policy tag, but having the policy tag during this poll, means that the changes between ATT and verifiability and NOR are brushed over, because, after all, they're all policy. But while verifiability and NOR actually meet the standards for policy and having that tag, ATT doesn't--not right now anyway--consensus may have been lauded, but I couldn't find it. If the policy tag was put on, and consensus fell by the wayside, the policy tag should have been removed and replaced with proposed policy, or at least a dispute tag should have been placed on it. Having a poll asking what editors thought of merging verifiablity and NOR to ATT and ATT becoming policy would have been much more appropriate and would have made up a bit for not letting the general wikipedia population know about the ATT page and proposed policy changes earlier. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strongly oppose per Jimbo's initial comments (here and here.), and the way this merger was conducted. -- Vision Thing -- 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose These has been seperate policies for a long time, and are more concise as seperate Af648 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose as per Af648 sbandrews (t) 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Oppose No keep the seperate pages and send a clear message to those editors who want to rule over the rest of us and feel the need for a little power trip. --Fredrick day 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose as per SandyGeorgia (Caniago 11:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  56. Oppose 3 clear seperate distinct policies are better than a merger. No need for this merger to take place. Davewild 11:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose With the vast amount of redundant guidelines/essays littering the WP: space, I can't fathom why it was decided to merge these two, which tackle two separate issues. This merger will make it much harder to tackle the acres of pop culture original research as it will retain the misguided defense that articles can be entirely "attributable" to a single primary source while making it harder to point out that articles based entirely on primary sources are contrary to the goal of an encyclopaedia, which should be based on secondary sources, and tend to involve novel syntheses. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong oppose - 1: They are, to a large degree, distinct policies. There may be some overlap, but that is not a negative, given the importance of these policies. 2: A large article (which would be too large in this case) is harder to follow and digest, and therefore less likely to be observed. 3: Attribution may be considered by some to be a de facto parent policy (it is not quite like that, in my view) but it would not function well in that rôle. When I was new to these policies, I found ATT - in comparsion to the other policies - to be the least helpful. 4: This seems to be being pushed through - it is not a well-considered, thoroughly thought out proposal. 5: We cannot risk diluting the existing NOR and Verifiability policies. Adrian M. H. 12:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strongly oppose. WP:V and WP:NOR are overlapping slightily in principles, but they are simply not the same thing - and each rule has its own quite distinct raison d'être and context. Here the masses are being asked to vote on something already-decided by what seems to be a few - if you would involve the masses in the developing the idea perhaps you would get a more refined - and practical - one. I suspect that this vote is counting on the "sounds good" crowd to see the motion through - and depending on such sometimes 'easy' input to see such a major change through is not a good thing. With all due respect, I consider it even to be a form of manipulation. THEPROMENADER 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Nah, I like it the way it is myself. Though I can see some similarities, and the reasoning to merge I'm the type that likes to leave things as they are. Fr0 12:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - Verifiability and No original research are different bunnies, and the one is weaker without the other - one can cite verifiable sources with a conetntious reading that amounts to OR.--Red Deathy 12:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Oppose - you can attribute anything. Verifying is much harder. BillMasen 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose I am in general opposed. WP:NOR in particualr is a policy which prohibits particular kinds of content, and is only partly a matter od sourcing or attribution. Something like WP:ATT might be a good joint summary, particualrly for new editors, but the separate polices should, IMO, remain separate. DES (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Quite apart from the concerns that people have presented above about the change in Wikipedia policy (as a result of merging two distinct policies and one guideline into one policy), I think there's also the risk that this new page combines several ideas into one, making it more confusing for new users. RobbieG 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose merging WP:NOR. Everything else could probably live together, but WP:NOR is a distinct concept. --BigDT 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose the merger. Also, not thrilled about the evilness of voting here, either. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - I don't mind if WP:V and WP:RS are merged, as they could easily cover the same material; but WP:NOR must be kept separate; No original research is a focus that defines an encyclopedia and Wikipedia itself, in that it is the publication of a compilation of work from other people, and that needs to be stressed in its own article. Verifiability and reliable sources are important for stylistic reasons, in that for people to write good articles, they need to reference correctly and use the correct type of sources required for a good encyclopedic article. They are different things. This keeness by those few users on WP to merge and wreck every bit of policy is not right - there must be two separate policies for these two things I have mentioned, and ATT doesn't adequately cover either of them, or separate them out enough. JRG 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree that NOR is distinct enough to need its own page. pfctdayelise (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strongly Oppose - The issues in both policies and the guideline are not fully thought out yet, in my opinion. Merger will only compound the problems inherent especially the WP:RS policy which globally skews very many articles WP:NPOV(Sarah777 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  70. Oppose merge. Raystorm 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strongly oppose. Merging the three distinct policies into one is an excessively broad-brush approach from both a practical and conceptual standpoint:
    • Practically, the policy pages’ most important role is as a guide to settle content disputes, which requires tools of precision. Policy components need to be formulated in bite-sized concepts in order to be of value to users;
    • Conceptually, the merger misses the mark by blurring important distinctions and placing undue weight on peripheral issues, notwithstanding adherents’ assertions that it reflects the existing policies. In particular, the resulting product (‘Attribution’) suggests that the fundamental test for inclusion at Wikipedia is one of form rather than substance.
    To be specific, attribution was originally designed to ensure a representation of the variety of views that exist on any given subject. Whilst this is a laudible goal (particularly on controversial topics), placing it up front and centre creates the impression that the existence of a source for information is more important than its quality. Whilst all at Wikipedia agree that ‘truth’ is an unachievable standard, the purpose of the policies is to try to get as close as possible to an objective presentation of the facts, i.e. to make sure that Wikipedia is an high-quality, reliable information resource. That central aim is obscured by the current proposal. -- Really Spooky 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strongly oppose, particularly with regard to WP:NOR (which I think needs to be more flexible), they are distinct, key content policies whose merger would only make them more difficult to evolve further as new problems need to be addressed. The best way to keep them adaptable to new situations, as well as to keep them easier to understand, is to keep them separate. --Jim_Lockhart 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong oppose. These need to remain separate to be a vital Wikipedia resource. I agree that one large policy will easily be ignored. GreenJoe 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose I also agree that one large resource will be more easily ignored. Bmg916SpeakSign 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong oppose Something can be attributable, but not verifiable, due to reliable-sources concerns. Everything can be boiled down to NPOV, but that doesn't mean we should. Xiner (talk, email) 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose merge and keep all. Carlosguitar 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose I don’t think combining WP:V and WP:NOR into one policy is a good idea. WP:NOR stands on its own very nicely. I also agree with Miss Mondegreen's input entered above. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. The existing policies were working, even though there were arguments. This is a huge policy change, not a combination of existing policies. For example, the "unpublished synthesis of published material" section is new policy, not in WP:RS. This "Attribution" page suddenly become policy, just from commentary on its own talk page, which is wierd. --John Nagle 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Opppose the merge. Two reasons: first, "no original research" needs to be retained as a stand-alone policy because of its usefulness in communicating our purpose to cranks and POV-pushers (and its conceptual distinctness from mere "verifiability" and "attribution," which both seem like broader ideas in scope, but also weaker and less specific). Second, as I have said since it first appeared, I strongly oppose the apparent attempt to make WP:RS into policy, since I believe it is a misguided attempt to enforce reliance on (what seem to Wikipedians with all our general systemic biases) majority opinions and mainstream sources, and hence would be a major and undesirable change to policy. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose, not everything can be attributed. Truth is more imporatnt thant attribution and these policies and guidelines should be seperate. They are all different concepts and merging them will only cause havoc and some confusion at first, especially with some editors who are newbies or edit Wikipedia occasionally. WP:RS as policy is a no-no for me. Terence 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. An emphatic No: We are talking of different principles evolved over a period of time to be merged into one. In my opinion, it will create more confusion than bringing into any cohesion. Simplicity is a nice attribute, but for the sake of simplicity and popularity, we should not merge things which are different in nature. I am reminded of these words: Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together [5]. --Bhadani (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. They stand strong on their own, and no longer having them distinct may, over time, weaken how they are viewed. Combining the policies may also discourage further evolution. --Czj 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong oppose. Works fine as it is... -- xompanthy 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Two different principles, should remain separate. --Bookworm857158367 16:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose per Jimbo and other comments here. NOR is a distinct principle from V. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose I agree with all other comments. They are different principles and should be kept seperate. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose, as per all other comments. --Releeshan 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose for the same reasons as everyone else ^^^^. Smomo 16:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong oppose. The arguments above say it well enough. --Sable232 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose. Shmuel 17:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose It is too much to put everything in one policy. Clarity is better served by keeping thi sbroad spectrum in separate parts.--Runcorn 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose benefits if any don't justify the upheaval --BozMo talk 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Attribution is attribution. It is not a neutral point of view and a verifiable whatever-you-like and anything else remotely connected to it. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose - I think the present policies are fine. --BenBurch 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong oppose. This is an obvious attempt to weaken our verifiability, notability and reliability rules to allow unsubstantiated crapola into the encyclopedia. If this goes through, soon we will be citing 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones as a worthy source!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose - We have been referring to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS separately when dealing with newbies, content disputes, and AfDs. Why are we going to change this? I have mentioned this before: the consequences of this merge could be bad. The cons, in this case, outweigh the pros! There will be massive confusion among editors that are currently on vacation, wiki-break, military, semi-retirement, and busy users! They probably don't have the slightest notion that this is happening. Also, we will also have to reinstruct our newbies. Many users use the adoption program, and AFAIK we have taught our newbies the principles of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Would this merger not cause chaos within the little confused minds of these newbies? (I was confused myself the first month I came here). The results of this merge simply does not help the community.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose for reasons I stated above (comment beginning "Agree"). Kasreyn 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: my above comment was moved to talk. My reasons were: that I feel far too many WP editors have never bothered to fully read the relevant policy pages in the first place. Combining them into an omnibus will only increase the learning curve and serve no useful purpose. Kasreyn 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose what is the *need* for a change and what are the benefits? this has never, ever been explained in a satisfactory way. to me it seems like change for change's sake, and the result is going to result in worse edit wars and more inaccurate content. if anything that is attributatable to a reliable source is allowed in, then any random gossip which happens to be printed in a reliable source somewhere can be stated as fact. current policies prevent this and I would hate to to see this go. with the media scrutiny on Wikipedia right now I think we should be trying to make the encyclopedia more rather than less accurate and the KISS principle also applies. I was a newbie only a few months ago and the form of the current policies was very common sense and very easy to understand. I agree with many of the other comments above. DanielT5 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose, just because I think it is unnecessary and I don't think we should reward people who dick around with policy for fun. The policies are mostly fine as they are, let's change them less and not more. Recury 18:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and also think polls like this are awesome and we should actively do more to try to get people involved in discussions about policy. Recury 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Strong Oppose, it is completely unnecceary, and basically, I strongly agree with everything in Wikipedia:Attribution/against_the_merge#Reasons_not_to_merge_the_pages. — Ian Lee (Talk - Contribs - Sign - Gimme!) 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong Oppose I don't see the point to the merger in the first place, and I still see issues with how the wording actually changes the meaning of things like WP:RS. Part of WP:ATT states that you can use any source you choose, not just reliable sources. This is a problem, as I could just put something up on the internet and cite myself. Bad idea for several reasons. Not the least, is that I can allow the link to get hits, and google traffic, then fill with adverts, and remove the content. (this has been done before, see this. So I oppose this based on the fact that it is changing the meaning and spirit of WP:RS, and I still don't understand why this merger is at all needed. Whats wrong with the original 2 policies and 1 guideline?
    • In addition I don't like how my above objections were glossed over, and talk about how to meet my objection did not even happen. I just got one post saying that spam is nolonger a problem due to nofollow, but as I stated in this spam is a problem, and that type of spamming has been done before.
    • In addition here is something rather disturbing, though this is not my reason for opposing, I do feel that it makes this poll biased. (see this) —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose. Saying that the entirety of Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable sources can be reduced to Attributability seems overly reductionist. The V/NOR policies may have had problems, but editors are misinterpreting Attributability in new ways. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Gimmetrow 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. It's a good idea to have the ideas of each all in one place, but it's a poor idea to do so for the purposes of making new policy. If we wanted, we could merge all of Wikipedia's policy into one concise page, but it would be ridiculous and thus it's the same thing here. It's fine as it was. └Jared┘┌talk┐  19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose over-merging these essentially different ideas. Andre (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose I think the counter-arguments outweigh the arguments in favor. --D. Webb 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Strong oppose. Everything can be attributed, and as such, this policy will weaken the already sometime miserable quality of wikipedia further. Although it looks like a simple merger at this time, over time, people will go by he word itself and it might very well become a perfect tool for POV pushers. We need a strengthening of policies, not weakening. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose. The policies proposed for merger are not similar; there is a fundamental difference between WP:V and WP:NOR. A lot of original research which is found in Wikipedia articles is of the "synthesis" type, and is perfectly verifiable; it is the putting them together which constitutes the original research. In general I am attracted by the argument of simplifying things, but here what is proposed is a simplification by ignoring these fundamental differences, and that is damaging. Sam Blacketer 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose per Wales and other arguments against merger. Distinct and separate policies are to remain as such. ~ UBeR 19:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose. The policies are more intuitively and easily understood as separate entities, especially WP:NOR. Wasted Time R 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose. Links to WP:NOR should not also be links to, e.g., WP:V. Sdedeo (tips) 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose WP:V was originally about the use of sources to enable fact checking, and for most editors still is. This merge into WP:ATT is another step towards abandoning any sense of aiming for accuracy in articles, leaving the accuracy of attribution as the only issue. And that would be a bad thing. --Audiovideo 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose - They may seem the same initially, but there are differences, even if they're subtle. Sources can be verifiable but not the most reliable; you can have verifiable information that's still original research. I prefer things as three separate, clear pages. Crystallina 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose. Partly because the ideas are different, partly because Verifiability != attribution, and partly because you could attribute something that will violate NOR but pass V/RS. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose all. Under the current policy they would become, I think it would too confusing for many users, both new and old, to tell someone they are "out of line" when doing something. Telling them to keep going back to the same policy again and against will probably earn the person who warned them an "eff off" and continue doing so, thinking its just some elitist policy and that they don't give a ... crap. To me, all three ideas are different and do not deserve to be merged together. Disinclination 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose I see no benefit to collapsing the three items into one, and I can see a few negatives. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose It has been said that people are more likely to look at one page than three. However, people are far less likely to get the message from one huge concatenation.--Brownlee 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. OpposeI feel that there is a distinct difference between the concept of "Original Research" and "Attribution" that may be lost in the merge. I am not actually opposed to all original research either. But I think for controversial issues, the distinction should be maintained. But I also should say, some of the work in the new article should make its way BACK to the others. I also think RS should be better in giving a sense of priority with regard to the quality of sources. --Blue Tie 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose mergers. The merge into WP:ATT is exactly opposite of what should be happening. Simplifying and condensing multiple policies/guidelines into one policy only dilutes the policies and makes it harder to defend Wikipedia against editors who do not have high standards for citing reliable sources. We should go back into the history of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and revive all of the good examples that were previously provided for how Wikipedians can work towards finding and using reliable sources. These policy pages should provide good examples of how to make the distinction between doing the work that needs to be done to evaluate the reliability of sources and accurately express the meaning of sources without allowing unwanted original research to slip into Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strongly Oppose I think that the "contradictions" need to be cleared up, but that merging the policies is a step in the wrong direction. Clarity is one thing and so a combined policy may need to be implemented above these pages which is much less specific, but these pages need to remain seperate. Adam McCormick 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose I think the clarity, readability, and ability to comment upon these policies is better served by their remaining separate. Lastly, the ability to easily point to a reason why a change was made in some other article is improved by having the pointers be more specific. --LDC 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose. The three distinct ideas behind these three policies are best reinforced when kept seperately. Italiavivi 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. I Oppose. What does No Original Research have to do with Verifiability & Reliable Resources? Original Research is Verifiable. Two different policies here, not three.Niubrad 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose. Much of the above, plus I object to the "reasonable adult" clause being dropped. Azate 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose WP:OR and WP:RS provides many additional useful detials as to what is and isn't a reliable source that WP:ATT simply doesn't cover.--Sefringle 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose. Wikipedia's policy and structure are an anarcho-tyranny: law without order, a constant busybodying about behavior that does not derive from a shared moral consensus. Nothing here changes anything. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose While it may be nice as a guideline or an FAQ, the policies it attempts to merge are different enough that they deserve to remain seperate. -- Avi 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose Three distinct ideas are distilled in these three policies, and they seem to be effective.Fconaway 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose. The way I see it is that WP:NOR is the fundamental principle and must be kept. WP:V (or WP:ATT) is a quasi-mechanical means to that end. Allowing the means to replace the end, or supercede the end, or obscure the end, is not a good idea. Bucketsofg 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose If wikipedia is to maintain ideals such as verifiability, etc. then these should be individually listed and explained. Merger only makes sense if "attribution" is the new standard; which encompasses far more possibilities than these three parts, not that I am opposed to this as some current standards are too strict, but if one wishes to keep the same strict standards then one must keep the same specific delineations and explanations of policy. --Belg4mit 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose. I'd be happier if the policy of reliable sources had the flexibility of a guideline. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Strongly Oppose. It is important to have the specificity that the separate policies offer. Stating that a page fails to achieve Attribution does not have the same power as specifically saying violates NOR or RS. It hampers effective communication that makes for better editors. --Robb0995 05:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose Shouldn't be jumbled together as such but would keep "Attribution" as a general short summary of the three policies to help instruct new editors. - Patman2648 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Strongly Oppose. "Reliable sources" needs to be kept a guideline. And '"attributable ... not whether it is true"'? No way. --Lukobe 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose, per the excellent points made by the first comment, User:Rednblu. The policies should remain separate. If anything, the individual policies should be separately discussed, expanded upon, and allowed to evolve each in their own right. Smee 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  135. Strong oppose Merging separate policies into one page will make it harder to see the distinction between the different, and very important concepts. cyclosarin 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Strong oppose Even as a relatively new editor, who has nevertheless created several articles, I realise that WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS are some of the core policies of WP. Lumping them all together in one will weaken them and I see no reason for this. By all means discuss and modify the three existing policies if necessary, but do not take away their importance by merging them together under a new policy.Ivygohnair 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose with proposal I have been thinking about this for about a week now, and I don't think there should be a merger as such. The trio of codes - WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are clarified enough, and as in any legal-type debate they may be interpreted slightly differently by different users. No code in history of mankind has ever been free of interpretation, so why this sudden urge to clarify? Well, WP:ATT may serve as a starting point to the trio, as in an introduction or summary, but the original needs to be kept and should ideally supercede the introduction or summary. These codes may be organized in a portal-like format (Wikipedia:Tutorial may be a good example) for better access, along with cross referencing. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 08:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Oppose Keep the policies seperate. Merger would eventually lead to inclusion of all borderline cases as such will contribute to the pollution of Wikipedia. FelisLeoTalk! 09:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose merging guidelines and policies together is just that. A bad thing.  Grue  09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose merge seems to obscure different, relevant, ideas for good editing. -- Craigtalbert 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. I oppose the merging of three separate and distinct codes into one, on the basis of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "Keep it simple!" Creating one "super-policy" will tend to confuse and confound, rather than to soldify and simplify. I applaud their efforts, but I must state that I believe the basic reasoning for this merge to be faulty. In order to recover from "Essjay" and all the other controversies lately because of attribution, original research, or reliability, I believe we should indeed redefine and possibly rewrite what these standards mean to us, but not to combine these codes. Just my two bits.... - NDCompuGeek 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. I Oppose the replacement of No Original Research" and "Verifiability" by a single policy of "Attribution". I would not mind if the policies coexisted as different formulations of the same basic principles. I do not believe that any kind of reformulation of the basic principles for using sources and references will cause new editors or editors without academic training to suddenly understand it all at once. No matter what the policy is called we will have to explain it in detail everytime a new editor joins us, and in my eyes it is to explain it on the basis of the existant policies than it will be with the new one. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. I Oppose the replacement of No Original Research" and "Verifiability" by a single policy of "Attribution" if you want to keep your Attribution page, keep it, but don't crop the three into one lone page.--The Joke 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Oppose - It is simpler as different policies and since the people who violate the policies tend to be on the "slow" side, the policies should be as simple as possible. Also, it is confusing to have no original research grouped at a policy called "attribution". -- Kjkolb 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose as per SandyGeorgia, entry number four. --Ministry of Truth 12:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. No on WP:ATT. No on the merger idea at the moment.--Klimov 12:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Oppose i think that the system is working fine currently, dont mess with something unless it doesnt work. Twenty Years 13:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Sure why not? --StevenL 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying ‘sure why not’ do it, or ‘sure why not’ oppose it? -- Beobach972 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose The merger of these guidelines under a blanket policy called "attribution" waters down the individual policies. Editors inexperienced with conflict are much less likely to understand "you've violated the wikipedia attribution policy" than they are "you've violated the wikipedia policy prohibiting original research." --Sixtrojans 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose; SandyGeorgia and others bring up good points. There is no good reason to do this, as far as I'm concerned. This poll is also quite one-sided in its presentation at the top; there are no points given against the proposal. Ral315 » 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose -- The current policies should be clarified into stronger policies not merged into a weaker one. --PTR 15:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose -- The existing policies do appear to have some overlap, but that is because they deal with the same subject but from differing points of view. The existing policies (and the one non-policy that somehow got promoted while the smoke was thickest) are sufficient. — SWWrightTalk 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Mildly oppose -- A combined page would have its uses, but would be large and unwieldy. I can almost see the newbies' faces as their scroll bar shrinks rapidly at the sheer size of a page like that. We're not doing ourselves any favours by putting off new users, especially with such an important page as this. Besides, look at the server load! CarrotMan 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose -- I think that they are much clearer for new editors when separated out into three individual policies. —Jeremy (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Strong Oppose Oppse because something can be properly attributed but still be original research thus violate policy. Clearer when seperated as they presently are. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Oppose. The old titles are much clearer and can clarify the exact reason for wanting deletion on WP:XfD. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose – Separate policy pages make linking to the relevant policy easier, and strengthens the (IMHO very helpful) three-pillared approach (everything's better in threes). Lexicon (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose-these are all different things, as you can have an unreliable source, but that is different from doing your own research. Also, three pages (it is three right?) will be much more concise and easier to understand than one long article. Patar knight 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Oppose. Keep the old guidelines clear and separate. Enough said already. NVO 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose. The ultimate effect of the new WP:ATT policy will be to lower the quality of sourcing in Wikipedia. Chapeau D'If 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Strongly oppose. - In controversial topics (not just scientific ones, either), RS is essential to prevent nonsense, or anonymous IPs posting so-called "reliable info" from their own websites. OR, RS, and V answer three very different questions: OR says "Did you find this or do it yourself?" RS says "If a group with an agenda on a topic says something outrageous, is it appropriate to add?" and V says "Did someone make this up or is it real?" ATT seems to be "It's OK if it came from someplace, we don't care where." The original three policies do not apply equally in all cases (a souce can pass V and OR and still not be RS). Therefore, they should be separate. ATT undermines the encyclopedic process. MSJapan 19:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Oppose - agree with MSJapan above. -- Jeff3000 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Oppose - I'm relatively new here and I find the separate policies helpful. WP:ATT is encyclopedic itself in scope, and a daunting barrier to entry for new contributors. Not broken, don't fix. -- Townlake 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oppose. (1) In my opinion, never has there been given a clearly stated, good reason why the policies should be merged. I do not like the "less words are better" argument and "a different name is better"; I think a better policy is better. (2) I think the reliable sources part must be hashed out more. The wording in the old reliable sources policy is much stronger in my opinion, and I worry that the new policy makes fending off POV-pushers more difficult. That some think the reliable sources policy is strengthened while some think it is weakened concerns me. It should be obvious to all that this is an improvement. (3) Finally, it should not be ambiguous as to whether policy has changed, which it seems to be by reading the discussion. Olin 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. OpposeThere are serious doubts regarding the merger, and no convincing reason for it. Merging the pages will serve no purpose other than to increase confusion of diseperate concepts. Nathanww 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Oppose Allof them are very different. Also, all of them are lenghthy alone. To merge them, a ton of information eould have to left out for the WP:ATT to be readable. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Oppose The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Done in good faith, I'm sure, but leading to bad results... muddling up exisiting policies that were clearer as separate documents, making changes that seem likely to loosen standards, potentially compromising the work of many hard working editors.zadignose 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Oppose Keeping these three principles separate is the best way to ensure that these essential ideas clear for everyone. --sony-youthtalk 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Oppose. "No original research" is an oft-forgotten rule. It will forgotten even more often if it is demoted to a subsection of a larger page. Additionally, I strongly oppose having an ATT page at all, unless it's just a "nutshell summary" which clearly states that the individual NOR, V, and RS pages contain the official policies. Otherwise, I foresee endless confusion when one editor accuses another of violating the NOR subsection of ATT, and the second editor says No, I am obeying the NOR policy as stated on the NOR page. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Oppose The three separate pages are long in themselves, and the merged page is simply gigantic. I don't think WP:Attribution could be reduced to a manageable length without losing something important. Also, the pages' titles summarize their meaning; with WP:Attribution, we would have to visit the link to know what we were being referred to, and the referrer would have to put an anchor in the link. --Brilliand 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Strong oppose Each of the topics is sufficiently important and nuanced to deserve a focused treatment. I think WP:ATT is well intentioned, but in the end such a broad-brush approach is apt to cause more confusion than it resolves. Raymond Arritt 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strong oppose Merging these is completely pointless and takes away from the importance of each specific policy. —Sarcha 45 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Strong oppose—I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of merging these pages before each of them is thoroughly rationalised. The arguments presented by the proponents ignore the psychological effect on editors (particularly newbies) of a large amount of information in one place. Nothing wrong with links. Tony 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Respectful Oppose. I don't think the merger will make life simpler in the long run, and the ideas behind each existing policy are distinct. GChriss <always listening><c> 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. weak oppose, while I see the benefits of merger but I am worried it makes it more complicated for editors while refering to them as they can't be clear which part of those 3 they mean.Farmanesh 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Oppose per above→LzyGenius 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Oppose These are separate concepts, they often, but do not always overlap. Grouping distinct problems into a single monolithic category will promote confusion and abuse. This proposal sounds superficially reasonable, but the briefest reflection proves it is unwise. I hope some of the supporters listed above will reconsider the matter. --Osbojos 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Oppose There is no "right answer" here. One could argue for merging all policies into a single document. But Wikipedia, young as it is, has developed a culture and I believe that culture is a vital component to its success--more vital than the exact wording of its policies. The terms V, NOR, RS, NPOV, AGF, etc, are part of the language of that culture. We have thousands of pages of discussion where those terms are used. Merge the terms and over time those discussions, where various boundaries have been hammered out and consensus formed, become meaningless to newcomers. Absent a compelling problem with the existing structure that can't be solved any other way, I think the importance of retaining our traditional policy structure weighs against a merge.--agr 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Opposed formerly supported this, but after reading this my mind was changed. Chris M. 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Oppose. (1) I disagree that all of the relevant information survived the move from the original policy pages to WP:ATT; (2) in the case of revision to WP:ATT such that everything did survive the move, this would become a merge for merging's sake. Dekimasuよ! 03:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Oppose It is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to create an overarching word like "family values," or attribution, for policy that we can apply to all concerns. Frankly, I don't see any solid arguements regarding going against sticking with specificity. -- Wikipedical 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Oppose, keep the different concepts separated. (SEWilco 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  183. I oppose this proposal. Neither the verifiability nor the NOR policies are broken; the problem lies in the existing policies actually being applied and enforced. Why waste all this time combining the things we have now, when we should be focusing on using those things? --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Strong Oppose The three separate pages clarify the separate ideas, and I think we can afford the bandwidth. As has been said, Original Research can be both verifiable and reliable, while verifiable non-original research sources can be biased and therefore not reliable. I see no reason for this merger. -User:Umdunno 04:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Moderate oppose. In the discussion phase, I distinguished between "no original research" and "verifiability" because you can have one problem without the other, and the overlap is not clean. Specifically, I believe the "synthesis clause" (WP:SYN) as a subset of WP:OR should not be lumped together with fundamental verifiability. First cite your references (WP:V and WP:RS); then we can worry about scenarios where there is WP:OR even with the references. Note that I am willing to merge WP:V with WP:RS; I just think WP:OR needs to stay separate. YechielMan 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Oppose Things are fine the way they are. Let's keep the policies seperate. Raj712 06:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Oppose. A good idea to move to simplification but will only lead to confusion. If it ain't broke don't fix it. —Moondyne 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Oppose. A merge would make it more difficult to those less familiar with wikipedia to understand policy: the current names are clear, but attribution will not be clear or apparently relevant to many users. Drmaik 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Oppose. I like the way it was, separate pages. 99of9 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Oppose, on ethical, substantive, and procedural grounds:
    1. No compelling rebuttal has been adduced to Jimbo's observation that, "While policies like WP:V and WP:NOR are interrelated (as all of reality is interrelated), they are significantly different ideas and radical reductionists who see them as really being the same thing are, in my view, badly mistaken. When I say that something is original research, and when I say that something is unverifiable, I mean different things by those statements, as I am focusing on a different kind of deviation from good editing."
    2. People resort to and rely upon an encyclopedia in search of what is correct -- not merely what has been "attributed to a reliable source". Therefore, Wikipedia's standard of inclusion must trace back to truth. WP cannot be passive toward sourced but patently mistaken content, nor need it be aggressive toward undersourced but undisputed content.
    3. WP:ATT's consensus, as Jimbo noted, has been assumed rather than demonstrated. WP:OWN has taken root; dismissing input and inquiries, refusing to engage dissent, mischaracterizing disagreement as misconstrual or incomprehension, and peremptorily locking out non-cabal editors. Worst of all, in the consolidation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, changes in emphasis and prevalent divergence in practice somehow went unnoticed so that these official policies got reified, perhaps unintentionally, into something that strikes too many of us as foreign to how articles in Wikipedia are actually edited. No changes may have been intended, but changes are perceived nonetheless -- yet furiously denied. Lethiere 08:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Oppose I'd prefer to keep them separate. Quadzilla99 08:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Strong Oppose:These three pages deal with entirely different aspects of WP's articles. Merging these topics into one does not seem appropriate. Bowsy (review me!) 08:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Oppose It may do no harm to combine all three policies but there is no clear benefit to doing so to me and it may lead to muddying the waters in some cases. - Dan D. Ric 08:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. No', they are different concepts and I don't see that there is anything to be gained from putting it all into one page. Existing policies should be improved and reworded if there are issues with understanding. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 12:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Oppose I think it would be better not to keep them separate. - Kleinzach 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Oppose different concepts, no clear benefit to merging them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjohnson (talk • contribs) 13:11, April 2, 2007
  197. Oppose They are different, keep them separate. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Oppose Although these are related concepts, they are different, and having seperate policies/guidelines enables a much more nuanced look at the issue. Combining them all together results in a confusing mess, replacing clarity with murkiness. As the usual argument - why fix what isn't broken? These policies have a successful history - no deficiency is obvious, or even articulated with any significance. Consensus for the change only appeared to exist because those of us who'd oppose weren't watching - many of us would, could never imagine anyone screwing around with those policies. WilyD 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Oppose per Dan D. Ric -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 14:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  200. Oppose I think it would be better not to keep them separate. Ulflarsen 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Oppose: As was said before, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Simplification is good, but such important and distinct policies (and guidelines! Mixing of policies and guidelines = bad idea) shouldn't be considered as one. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Oppose - I applauded and even presented a barnstar to SlimVirgin for proposing an attempt at simplification, but it just didn't work out well. Too many people see subtle differences between the pages. Too much history, too much confusion over whether it was promoting RS to policy instead of guideline status. Too much detail lost in trying to merge them together. Not worth it really. File the whole thing away as an interesting learning exercise. Archive WP:ATT, and progress as we were before. Johntex\talk 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Oppose Like most experienced wikipedians, I can see that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are 3 sides of the same stone. That said, I would prefer if they were kept as seperate and distinct policies rather than merged into one metapolicy such as WP:ATT on the basis of the following arguments:
    1. If WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are demoted to subsections of WP:ATT, they lose a great deal of their punch.
    2. Although it is obvious to experienced wikipedians that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are interelated, it is not so for newbies. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS better help newbies understand wikipedia as they are more accessable and to the point than WP:ATT
    3. I have a feeling that this proposal has been foisted on wikipedia without there being any real WP:CONSENSUS that it is needed. The support that the proposal is gaining now is more to do with bandwagonism than consensus.
    4. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are here to stay as long as they are distinct policies. Make them subsections of a metapolicy such as WP:ATT, and it suddenly becomes a lot easier to get rid of them at some point in the future.
    5. Jimbo Wales seems strongly opposed to the proposal, and no convincing rebuttal has been made to the concerns he raises here--Fergie 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Oppose: Merging NOR, V, and RS makes it more difficult to say in an edit summary why an individual edit is being rejected or called suspect. I really like the ability to say in an edit summary: 'Edit fails WP:NOR (No original research)'. 'No original research' is a semi-obvious phrase that a casual editor who doesn't spend all their time politicking and reading policy can understand, and may not require a round of 'But it isn't original research!'. I think a policy's title should nutshell what the entire page is about to reduce editor misunderstandings. Rejecting an edit on 'Attribution' grounds is only semi-obvious if something isn't "Attributed". Original research can be "Attributed". This is going to cause confusion over and over again to editors that aren't familiar with Wikipedia.
    On a related note, I had no idea that WP:ATT had become policy until this debate went public a couple weeks ago. How many Wikipedia editors have been using WP:V and WP:NOR in edits and talk discussion without actually knowing that the policies were defunct? This strikes me as a problem. I understand that this was considered to be a public debate, but it certainly appears to me that major policy changes do not disseminate reasonably to the community when put in place, much less proposed. I would oppose this change on the grounds alone that I didn't know that a major foundation policy changed without my knowing, and now an attempt is being made to retroactively ask for the community's approval. The fact that I don't check policy pages daily is not my problem. This is something that the admin level (where changes are proposed) might take into consideration. Skybunny 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Nope. --NathanDW 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Oppose - supporting many of the objec~tions above, and simply because instructions or objections which are not even specific is too easy, in fact we could rather consider getting more detailed, not less. Arcarius 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Oppose: Perhaps we should just merge the Bill of Rights the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution into one document. I mean, they're the same principles of equality, liberty and good governance. I happen to like compartmentalization.--Patrick 17:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Strongest possible oppose -- WP:NOR has nothing to do with attribution. This merge would be akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole simply because the hole is there. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Oppose Insufficient time to consider alternatives and ramifications; apparently this has been discussed for months, but I only became aware of this in late March when things were set in stone. (This may not be a popular view, but) Multiple guidelines promotes ambiguity, which promotes inclusion. We are losing good material because people are too quick to delete others' hard work, instead of helping to research and improve existing articles. Avt tor 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. I oppose the reduction of a complicated three-page tripod to an unstable monopod monster. Like Armed Blowfish, I believe WP:ATT has value as a summary/essay page, but not as our guiding policy on this subject. -- nae'blis 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Oppose: Short, simple policies are more effective when communicating with other editors. Longer overall guidelines like attribution can be useful for discussion, less so in the day-to-day, and is not appreciably better. NOR is particularly important, and is stronger on its own.--Gregalton 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Strongly oppose. Each individual policy has merit on its own, just because they are loosely related, doesn't mean they belong together. A talk page link to WP:ATT does not clearly express the point of policy "violation." On the other hand, I support ATT being factored into a guideline page. In this case, an WP:ATT link can cover all the bases for a newbie who is unaccustomed to the whole, and linking a string of three policies in a row could scare them away. Also, strongly oppose the "vote."—Twigboy 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Oppose two very different concepts that don't link well--Lepeu1999 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Oppose it will add confusion and serves no purpose to merge two entirely different concepts. --Dr. WTF 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Oppose Each individual policy stands on its own, is important, and likely to get brushed over and overly simplified in one, larger, clumsier policy. If UNIX has taught me anything, it's to appreciate the philosophy of 'Do one thing, Do it well'. The merge will only hinder the project in the future. -Mask 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Oppose - trying to combine too many distinct things into one policy will make it confusing. I think it works fine how it is now. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Oppose The existing policies are separate and need to be kept separate to make it clear what form of correction is best. While broadly related to attribution, it's much clearer to explain, especially to newer editors, when we can point to a more narrow and specific policy. Also, as other editors have pointed out, there are substantial procedural issues with how this is being done. --Wingsandsword 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Oppose. Separate, focused policies are clearer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Oppose. Separate, focused policies are more useful for explaining to new editors why we have altered or rejected a sentence. No advantage to combining. Stupid idea. alteripse 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Oppose. Although I'm unhappy about the way this has been handled, I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of streamlining the existing policies. However, I'm not convinced that WP:ATT is strong enough yet to stand as a better alternative, and as this poll demonstrates it certainly doesn't have the consensus of the community (at the time of writing the vote ratio stands at about 5:4 support/oppose). I think we collectively need more time to ensure that the strength of our policies isn't compromised and that we have a sound consensus on this issue. -- ChrisO 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Oppose. I feel that the individual policies and guidelines need a few more years of organic growth. The proposal would fundamentally decrease the flexibility of the individual documents. HausTalk 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. I oppose the general merger of the documents. I'd support a proposal like the one Pengo put forth (at 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)), but for the purposes of this poll, my vote is one of opposition to the merger. -- Beobach972 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Oppose - while this merger makes a neat little ideological package, it also makes the individual concepts from which it was merged less accessible in actual use. GracenotesT § 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Oppose. Unfortunately, this huge, important concept on Wikipedia cannot be adequately explained in one page. The three concepts are separate (though they may be interrelated) and can only remain so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Opppose No original research, whatever its pros and cons, is a useful meme and is distinct from the concept of Verifiability. Whiskey Pete 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Oppose. While I see small amounts of overlap in what WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS cover, I don't think merging them into a single page makes things any easier on editors wanting to learn about how Wikipedia works. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because this has been calamity from the beginning, WP:ATT appeared as a completed merge of 2 key policies and a guideline. Jimbo then stepped in to slow the process and allow broader discussion to be followed by a poll. The last piece I read in the discussion as to when the poll was starting was major technical details this which has a coloured box stating that the poll was going to commence on April 2nd 00:00 UTC, and that another discussion about wording of the poll wasnt going to end until 23:59 March 30. yet inside 24 hours of that discussion this poll had been commenced, given that the closure/archiving/commencement of this occured so quickly I find it impossible to assume good faithin those actions Gnangarra 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) compromise position see below Gnangarra 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Oppose - I agree with Jimbo that it is helpful to keep distinct policies distinct. DickClarkMises 04:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Oppose - Different ideas, different pages. Eclecticology 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Oppose - Each of the seperate concepts are unique and should not be merged. It is much easier for editors to deal with the seperate problem. In this case, combining them will make each weaker and the combined result weaker as an editing flag. Argos'Dad 04:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Oppose No original research, whatever its pros and cons, is a useful meme and is distinct from the concept of Verifiability. andyman 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Oppose - I don't see the point of the merger. It also seems to move away from the concept of truth, to a weaker concept that allows disinformation and propaganda to not have to be labelled as such, but rather passed off with a back-handed "gee, there was an article about in the paper, so lets just blandly accept it here without bothering to be critical". linas 05:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  232. OPPOSE TO ALL, for the reasons cited by SandyGeorgia regarding the "expert problem", and Bainer regarding the "three key content policies operate in different ways", and also Rednblu's point regarding "verifiability vs. attributability". I also point out the confusion of those who voted in support such as Walton, Tewfik, Josiah Rowe, and Dysmorodrepanis, as additional reasons to question the measure. Mark Faraday 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Mark FaradayMark Faraday 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  233. Oppose - Keeping them separate keeps their messages strong. Midnightdreary 05:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Oppose. Combining it lessens the impact, and would end up either causing an extremely long page or a rather undetailed page. It has more risks than benefits basically.--Wizardman 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Oppose - The page would be to long and would combine policiy pages that are not directly related and should be kept seperate.--E tac 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Strong Oppose Having two distinct articles will be useful in clearly defining the two distinct rules. Merging will add to nebulousness and will enable admin whim-rule. Madhava 1947 (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Oppose - Separate ideas should be on separate pages. And this gives too much focus on "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth" which doesn't sound like a very good idea as it's possible to find a source for almost any claim. Vints 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Oppose - The seperate policies are easier to navigate around and are far more specific to their topics, they give greater clarity Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Oppose per differing subjects of the policies involved and belief that truth>attribution. -Seventh Holy Scripture 09:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Oppose – although I can live with the merger, I don't think it is an improvement. I like to see WP:RS remain just a guideline. That said, I think much of the wording in WP:ATT was an improvement and can be used to make WP:V and WP:RS clearer. Also, I prefer the term "attributability" over "verifiablity", and if the merger is rejected I hope "Wikipedia:Verifiability" can be renamed to "Wikipedia:Attributability".  --LambiamTalk 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Oppose NOR and Verifiability are different concepts dml 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Oppose they are two different concepts, one can do verifiable original research, but then it's stil original research and vice versa. C mon 11:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Oppose Blurring the distinction between the policies is in no way going to benefit Wikipedia. GizzaChat © 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Oppose Easy access to editing, and well thought-out, more complex policies is one of the things that makes Wikipedia what it is. While it's true that WP:ATT may make things more accessable (a good thing), it comes at the cost of the latter. It's better we have a bunch of new editors that don't adhere to policy, but have a clear policy for allowing articles to fall in line with Wikipedia policy as they evolve, rather than blurring seperate policies. Fact is, if you're on WP long enough, you're bound to learn the guidelines no matter whether they're a bit more "complex" or not. --CA387 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Oppose If I say that an edit violates WP:ATT, what does that mean? Is it completely fabricated? Is it something that nobody could possibly verify? Does it cite a dubious source? How does anyone know what part of the policy I had in mind or what I think needs to be fixed? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Oppose The WP:NOR is a quite clear directive in itself and can be almost universally applied. The extra burden WP:RS does not require the same level of strict adherence. If no doubt on validity is raised for a paragraph, the content can stay. −Woodstone 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Oppose. I think it's a great idea to trim the policy pages where possible, as I think one of the reasons Wikipedia isn't so approachable is that it's complicated -- politically and semantically -- to edit. Here, I don't think it's possible. The involved topics are independent, and merging them does a disservice to the requirements they support, and to the overall quality of the corpus. -- Mikeblas 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Strongly Oppose - The current rules are not confusing. And if an editor is in fact consfused about them, they can be educated during discussions. these are 3 issues are essentially unrelated and combining them is arbitrary. a source is either reliable or not (in a certain field), and that is seperate from whether a particular statement cited from it in a certain context is actually taken out of context and thus OR. A fact is either attributed or not. research is either advancing a position or not. having it as 3 seperate guidelines/rules keeps arguments between editors focused on the specific flaws in an edit. And making reliability something of an absolute rule may tend to exclude good information outright (such as reports of eye witnesses) or grant reliability to sources on the basis of technicalities rather than common sense and reason.TheDarknessVisible 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Oppose all. All "streamlining" smoke screens aside, this is a policy change designed to disfavor inline citations & favor attribution in the References section. --Ling.Nut 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Oppose. Separate policies are easier to understand and explain to newcomers. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Oppose Policy is already too conservative here. A merger is going to require that we make the policies very rigid. Frankly lots of areas on even major policies are badly explored by cases and case law. jbolden1517Talk 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Oppose the proposed WP:ATT. It's merging different concepts. --Wtshymanski 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Strong oppose all. Although idea behind it is a good one (simplification and unification of rules), too many serious problems were expressed in comments, essays, and discussion pages. Implementation of ATT in my oppinion would encounter many difficulties. It would be an interesting experiment to make a few clone pages of examplary articles edited under existing policies, and then edit them under ATT policy. That would give more insight into the possible issues of the proposed policy. I think that this kind of experiment should be essential before making such a significant change as is a merger of above mentioned policies. In particular, I see a problem with some wording in the policy, and that itself is a strong enough reason for opposition, as debate and changing of wording would effect in a way all 3 current policies, as they would be merged. Also, a merger of 3 policies into a single policy page is not really succesful as there is also a second page Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, so essentially, there will be 2 instead of 3 pages - at what price ?. Finally, the 'newbie' argument at first seemd resonable to me, but after reading WP:ATT, I realized that actually it would be much more confusing to me to be refered to that page that is overvelming with info, than to specific separate pages as I was refered to in past, and easily have learned specific rules. Lakinekaki 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Oppose of the dangers wikipedia face original research is a far greater one than lack of citations. The merger would weeken our protection against insertion of crank material. If a crank inserts material saying No Original Research is a clear message that the material is not suitable for WP, saying we only allow Attributed material allows them scope for argument. --Salix alba (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Oppose The merger totally wipes out any ability to use a primary source as verification. Verification and attribution aren't the same thing. Further, it elevates parts of WP:RS to policy that are heavily disputed. I'm not opposed in the future, it's a worthy goal and I see the advantages, but this version isn't it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Oppose There are currently huge differences of opinion about what is a WP:RS, depending on the subject matter. WP.NOR is similar in concept but I much prefer to keep WP:RS over WP:ATT. Chrisbak 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Oppose I oppose the merger - the pages are clear as they stand now. However, if the majority vote is positive and the pages are merged, WP:RS and WP:V should have distinct, easily-linkable sections within the new page. Kat, Queen of Typos 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Oppose. These are all broad, distinct concepts, and should not be merged into one. An overall explainatory page would be okay, but the policy pages and the policies themselves should remain distinct. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Oppose per Derex. --Tsunami Butler 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Oppose. I don't see why we need this. The current setup works just fine to weed out false information, and enforce attribution where needed. However related these three policies are, they're all distinct, separate guidelines, and are needed separately. Truth is more important than attribution, since the goal of any encyclopedia is to provide accurate, true information. --...Wikiwøw 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Oppose. Keep them as separate policies. Rsheptak 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Mild opposition. I can see why people would like it, but I don't see a reason for it; it's fine the way it is. thesublime514 (Talk) 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Oppose. I've refrained from commenting on this poll until now, and was initially tempted to abstain or cast a neutral ballot. I have no strong opinion on the merger as such, but have decided to oppose it on procedural grounds, and also because of lingering concerns that the switch from "verifiability" to "attributability" will not be as straightforward as some have suggested. CJCurrie 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Oppose Epistemologically incompatible concepts. The original pages should be kept as definitive policy and ATT can be kept as a thumbnail intro to the relationships among the concepts (which is valuable) but not definitive policy (too confusing). ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Oppose per above. --Peta 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Oppose The three pages represent distinct concepts and should be kept separate. -- Scratchy 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Oppose for all the reasons mentioned. Tuf-Kat 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  268. oppose for reasons mentioned --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Oppose - WP:V and WP:NOR are clear and distinct concepts that become muddied in WP:ATT.BRMo 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  270. I completely oppose ATT, because attributability is not the same as truth, and there is a necessary and distinct difference between the two. I favor the idea of a summary article, but find ATT inadequate and innacurate for such a purpose. I also believe the procedure to initiate such a controversial change has been poorly done- if the proposed change is accepted, then proposed edits should be considered between the two parties. If the proposed change is rejected, then enough distaste has been shown for the current guidelines and policies that change should be considered outside of ATT.(I respect Jwolfe's, Lethiere's, & SteveBaker's opinions). Lackinglatin 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Oppose per above arguments.--cj | talk 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Oppose The three pages that were established made the policy clear. WP:A in my current opinion seems to weaken the entrenched polices. WP:A is better suited to summarize the 3 policies, not to replace them. -- RiseRobotRise 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Oppose these policy pages need to remain as 3 seperate pages, needless to say this means keeping them 3 seperate policies. WP:V doesn't even really have anything to do with WP:NOR. Might as well be saying WP:NCR is official declared policy if you want to merge those two. Stormscape 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Oppose
    I conclude that the proposed changes will lead to a decline in the quality of Wikipedia, in such a way that readers will conclude the encyclopedia is unreliable because it is sloppy with the truth. Others who are also strongly opposed have already stated my reasons for this conclusion so I will not repeat them again.
    I have been very active in the short time I've been a registered editor, and studied the various pages (V, NOR, RS) being discussed to improve my skills; I did NOT see any serious deficits in those pages. I am VERY ANGRY that at no time was I advised this change was being perpetrated. That situation serves to reinforce and harden my opposition! Badly Bradley 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Oppose It's better to be specific with the policies. I don't like the merger. --Mardavich 10:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Oppose. I agree with all of the above comments. The three existing policies served their purpose quite adequately. Combining and condensing them in such a way loses some of the original meaning and makes the policies less clear. I also do not like the use of the word Attribution. What's wrong with the word Verifiability? Dahliarose 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Oppose Citing sources, although desirable is not a good substitute for facts or truth - look at Creationism as an example - this implementation would lead to a fuzzier and weaker encyclopedia which cares more for pluralism and subjectivity than the truth.Breed3011 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Opppose I agree with having three distinct and separate policies. I do not consider them to be directly related. As a result I do not see the benefits of a borad encompassing policy. Additionally, we are all creatures of habit. Having a new policy will confuse many people, from long time editors to new editors. Finally, I am mildly annoyed that the first mention of this proposed change only appeared as a little box on my watchlist. I would have liked to have participated in the initial discussion. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Oppose The three policies concerned are quite distinct, and I can see nothing to be gained by merging them. Robmods 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Oppose - Oppose for the following reason: Virtues ought not to be conflated. --Knucmo2 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Strong Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Jpeob 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Oppose -- this would not be a disaster for Wikipedia, but it's a bad idea. Reducing instruction creep is a laudable goal: by all means, let's reduce the endless manual of style pages and huge variety of notability/inclusion guidelines, but these are THE critical core policies of Wikipedia and the need to be accurate about them overrides the need to simplify here. WP:NOR and WP:V are not the same thing, though they may be related.. and I agree that WP:ATT needs to embrace the importance of truth a little more strongly: truth may not be the critical test for inclusion, but neither should truth be ignored. Mangojuicetalk 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Oppose -- Keeping these separate makes it easy for Wikipedians, especially new Wikipedians, to simply and quickly learn what they did wrong without going through the entire Attribution article. Attribution is linked to from all three sources, and serious Wikipedians will read it anyway. --FeldBum 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Oppose --As per above. I agree that all three have uses, and keeping them separate keeps them simple to learn and enforce. --Bobak 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Oppose -- without reading any of this page... I would say leave it as is. One look at the title, and the contents of the page is clear. --Leon7 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Strong Oppose As proposed, this seeks to do too much in one action. If there are clarifications to be made in the wording, then they should be made in the individual policies. If the articles are to be merged, then that should be done without changing the meaning or context of the current wording. The two cannot be done together without limiting the necessary debate on each of the changes proposed. Jim Miller 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Strong Oppose Three distinct topics that apply to three distinct situations. The "simplification" comes at the expense of nuanced exposition. --Javits2000 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Oppose in this precise form at least. I think an overall attribution page is no bad thing, but it should broadly summarise the other three pages (which remain the main policy/guidelines), with Template:Main links to them. Not only is the topic simply too big for one policy page, very often one of the old guidelines is more relevant to a particular dispute than others; it's highly advantageous to have one self-contained article explaining the issue from that angle. --Scott Wilson 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Oppose Policy change in this manner is unacceptable. Wikipedia policy can not be written by a small group of people pushing their own agenda. The old policies should be reinstated ASAP. Rtk28 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Oppose deprecating old good policies, Attribution can be a summary of those policies, but they must remain in power. --Jannex 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Oppose as per the arguments outlined by User: TheDarknessVisible in his/her 16:49, 3 April 2007 post. Nightscream 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Strongly Oppose and agree with the lengthy analysis given by fellow opposing voter SandyGeorgia. It just going to muck things up and make it ever so much harder to introduce these policies and concpets to new editors. LiPollis 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Oppose for the same reasons as oppose vote #96 by Ed at 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC) SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Strong Oppose - WP:NOR alone is vital enough to deserve its own discussion and not be diluted. I disagree with any degradation in the clarity or strength of the key policies here. Having these three separate allows for important discussion on them that is lost in a more-inclusive document. Of course, we could also just take the minimalist tack to heart and just have one policy - No Jodas (vulgar Spanish for "Don't F*ck Up"). This would be similar to m:DICK: No definition of No Jodas has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are screwing up the project, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. --Justanother 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Strong Oppose The three policies proposed to be merged tend to come up in quite different situations -- OR is not really the same thing as using an unreliable source. It's much more user-friendly to direct people to a specific page rather than a section of a larger one. Reducing the number of pages is not really "simplification" when the single page is long and cumbersome, with a over-abstract summary, while the original three pages each clearly address a specific point in the first paragraph. I'm also disturbed at the removal of "verify" from ATT, as argued in the statement against. Dybryd 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Oppose NOR and V are different concepts. Also, I fear that one large document is more likely to be ignored. --HJensen, talk 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Oppose. The current three pages are much more user-friendly than the new huge one. Wikipedia:Attribution also has to have a section to introduce what a reliable source is. Then why not keep it separately? --Neo-Jay 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Oppose. I think they should all be kept separate. When helping a new editor understand policies, it's easier just to direct them to ATT as a summary rather than to OR, V, and RS; however, when an editor is making edits that go against a particular aspect of the policy, it's easier to direct them to a page that deals only with that particular aspect. --Psyche825 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Oppose. Comprehensibility trumps a monolithic link. --Ancheta Wis 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Oppose. New editors need something specific. Directing them to a large page explaining multiple (even if they are somehow connected) policies and telling them to read the whole page and find then apply the part that is relevant to the situation won't get a result. Bennie13 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Oppose - I really see no good reason to proceed with a merge. Things work as they are and there's no need for such a merge, per reasons above. There's not much more I can say that others already haven't. WP:ATT should remain as it is. SMC 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Oppose - The article ATT is lovely, clear and easy to understand, but it is quite different from the existing policies. I might be in favor of some sort of merger of the NOR and V policies because as a relatively new editor I have found their inconsistencies confusing, BUT, ATT does not just merge it changes. --Tinned Elk 01:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  303. Oppose - K.I.S.S. too much information on one page. there is a reason for abstracts, executive summaries, and subpages. abstracts, executive summaries, and subpages exist to emphasize key facts of a particular document, and deemphasize detail that may be distracting or overloading. it takes me about thirty seconds to entirely refresh THIS SECTION UNDER THIS HEADING ONLY. if readers need detail, then turn to the pertinent section. example: simplify this straw poll and make three headings:
    Support
    Oppose
    Other
    παράδοξος 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  304. Oppose. Separate concepts. --Benn Newman 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Stronge Oppose. I think these are three seperate concepts and should be kept seperate. I think this is a case of it not being broken, so it shouldn't be "fixed". Kolindigo 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  306. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. I too believe that these are separate concepts, and that they have each been changed by their merging. Risker 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Oppose. I'm with Rednblu (comment #2) on this one. While WP:ATT doesn't necessarily change policy as broadly as some might suggest, leaving "attribution" as the only standard opens Wikipedia articles for a whole slew of false and misleading information that would otherwise be considered vandalism. Some say verifiability was never about "truth," but how can we expect editors be bold in removing even sourced and attributed statements that provide undue weight to one side or another or are libelous to a living person? WP:ATT means that these kinds of statements must remain and be given equal weight in an article as long as they are sourced. Some say ensuring equal time adds to Wikipedia's credibility. I say it detracts when if WP:ATT winds up giving every little crackpot point of view or rumor a platform by including them in articles. I may be over simplifying things, but the passion this debate has engendered on both sides should make us step back and rethink this process.Dcmacnut 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Oppose each of those articles is already too big and combining them would just make it harder to find information you might be serching for. J.L.Main 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  309. Oppose While the idea of a one-stop article is good, it should have followed the wikipedia:Summary style: the "merged" one to be a summary, rather than the "core" policy. Still, a good work has been done in streamlining the merged policies, so the efforts are salvageable. `'mikka 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  310. Strong Oppose Oversimplification of our core policies will lead to a bohemian policy that will most likely either get ignored by the masses (overly complex) and probably a target for nuanced interpretation by new users. I also oppose on the grounds that WP:V becomes less important, especially with regard to truth vs. verifiability. /Blaxthos 05:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  311. Oppose Two separate issues, not using wikipedia to publish your own research, and remembering to cite and verify sources. Two topics, two articles. TaigaBridge 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  312. Strongly opposed, per Jimbo Wales and numerous other comments above. I would support it as a synthesis page, but strongly oppose WP:ATT as a policy page. BlankVerse 07:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  313. Oppose, per many of the comments above, in particular the excellent summary by SandyGeorgia, as well as the comments by Navou, Thor Malmjursson, O^O, Gwen Gale. Merging the separate policies risks the loss of the organic elastic interaction between them, as users quote the pages in their discussions. This resilient structure absorbs, contains and inspires deep explorations of how the various aspects of policy interact, resulting in unique forms of consensus that are not possible to predict or summarize. Merging the separate principles into one document, makes them hierarchical, over-simplified and less lively. Quoting ATT could imply an understanding of the whole set of interactions between the previously separate policies, even though such a deep and complex interaction is a process which is continually growing and improving. The interplay between the separate policies is expansive, positive and valuable. By keeping them separate, we continue the organic evolution - that takes place especially on the article talk and user talk pages - more than on the policy talk pages. By merging them into one "monolithic" policy page with sub-pages or sections, the resilient flexible structure is at risk of becoming stiff and brittle. See tensegrity for an analogy of this. Parzival418 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  314. Oppose, per above - YuanchosaanSalutations! 09:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  315. Oppose Many above have stated this eloqently but for me, the key issues are: Different topics, but related and that guidelines and policies differ. --Dweller 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  316. Oppose I just don't see why they all need to be merged to one. Each one has something a little different to say and makes more sense linking to than the Attribution page. The Placebo Effect 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  317. Oppose The status quo maintains three separate concepts - they are easy enough to locate and to understand - there is no reason why WP:ATT should be a catch-all leading to an inevitable diminution of valid debate. Strider52 | (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  318. Strong Oppose -- Stingray23464
  319. Oppose — So what do you tell those POV-pushers who misrepresent a source to suit their own needs? "No Original Research" (or NOR). Telling them that it's a WP:ATT violation is a much weaker statement.--Endroit 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  320. Oppose Sam Staton 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  321. Respectfully Oppose I came to a conclusion that the two policies in question are not one thing, despite the appearance, and to conjoin them is unnecessarily restrictive. I started to write an essay about "truth" in wikipedia with my reasoning (pure logic, basing on other principles of wikimedia/wikipedia), but unfortunately had no time to finish. Mukadderat 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  322. Oppose Without saying the existing pages lack problems, there are too many subtle changes in the new page & I'm not sure combining them into one would be easier to work with. Johnbod 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  323. Oppose Merging these important polices into a single page has no real benefits. Instead, it will just make quoting specific policies in any given debate more difficult. Grokmoo 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Oppose I am of the disposition that, though an interesting proposal, the merger may prove counterproductive in terms of the retention of readability, clear distinction of separate ideas, and article length; it may ultimately detract from helpfulness which must be avoided at all costs for aspects of policy. Sifting through the quagmire of policies can be difficult enough as it is, and with all due respect I feel the size and amalgamatory nature of the resultant page may prove alienating, especially for relative beginners such as myself. The Geography Elite 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  325. Oppose While I respect the efforts by so many editors to produce a unified and clarified policy-level statement of fundamental and interrelated core Wikipedia principles, I find that WP:ATT is neither that desired Holy Grail, nor a suitable replacement for the policies and guidelines it seeks to supersede. My objections are several:
    • I agree with Jimbo Wales that each of the impacted [6] is an ingredient unto itself and they are not reducible to a single, flat-earth perspective. Further developed, ATT could serve as useful summary (à la WP:5P) that describes the unified objective that they seek to uphold and how each separately contributes to that whole, but as a unified policy, it does serious damage to its parts.
    • It seeks to elevate RS from guideline to policy – but in a form that I believe is actually harmful to the intent of RS. In particular, I agree with SandyGeorgia’s observation disagreeing “that ATT merges existing policies, rather that existing policies were molded to [fit] ATT...”. “Attributability” actually greatly waters down WP:RS and, to a degree, WP:V.
    • I concur with szyslak that RS should be strengthened, but it is unclear to me that the guideline “seed” should become a policy “oak” – or whether it is even an achievable goal.
    • While a great deal of work by numerous editors went into formulating ATT, the proper process was circumvented, which it should not be for the “revamping” of such a cornerstone concept of what Wikipedia “is” – and that should begin with whether something like ATT is desirable, needed, and just what it should/should not cover.
    • I further deprecate this poll in that it is both misleading (in intimating that only a simple consolidation of existing policies is being contemplated) and had no consensus before being activated. As SMcCandlish points out in his objection regarding this poll’s rather cavalier handling of ATTFAQ, “it misleads poll respondents into believing that this is a 2-into-1 or (with RS) 3-into-1 merger, when in reality is it a 3-into-2 merger or even 2-into-2 (ATTFAQ would exist whether it incorporated RS material or not).” A “consolidation” or “condensation” of scattered policies ATT is not. The sense one gets is that some few “activists” intend for the whole thing to be ramrodded through an illusion of “due process”. There’s a reason so many editors are being “surprised”. If ATT is worthy, it will – and should – go forward on its own merits.
    That said, there has been considerable good work and deep thought to much of the material found in WP:ATT and I would hope relevant parts will be migrated to the “heritage” pages for their improvement. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  326. Oppose. Concepts need to retain their distinction. -- LeCourT:C 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  327. Oppose. I cannot see the point. Life is confusing enough as it is. This change just makes it worse.--Toddy1 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  328. Strong Oppose if the words "not whether it is true" are included without sufficient qualification. "Verifiability, not truth" was fine. "Attributable" is fine by itself. But the new wording which says "not whether it is true" without qualifying those words changes the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia in a way which is far more fundamental than whether the policy is written on one page or two. Just because some people see the new words as meaning "the same thing" doesn't mean there aren't quite a number of us who see an important distinction; the connotations of the dictionary definition of "verifiability" are not necessarily completely removed when its meaning is clarified in a later sentence. Many alternative wordings have been proposed and have received little or no discussion. This needs to be resolved before there can be consensus for a merge. "Wikipedians do care about the truth", as WP:ATTFAQ says; "not whether it is true" would contradict that in a discouraging and dangerous way and puts Wikipedia's reputation at stake. ...... As a lesser issue, I dislike having the words "Wikipedia is ... not a publisher of original thought" prominently placed as the first sentence of the page. These words disparage the creative processes by which Wikipedians regularly transform collections of facts into original, flowing narratives; the words are negative and discouraging. Having them at the top of a No Original Research page is not as discouraging as seeing them first every time one looks up a detail about attribution policy. --Coppertwig 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  329. Oppose Has been pretty much stated above over and over agains. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  330. Oppose. While there are some legitimate reasons offered for merging the articles, it seems that the methods and mechanics of creating the merged document and assuming its acceptance have harmed its credibility. For the good of community cohesiveness we should not allow this go forward. The benefits do not outweigh the negatives. JBEvans 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  331. Oppose per several of the good reasons above, first and foremost easier navigation and better specialisation. Totally unnecessary is also very true. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  332. Oppose. These policies need to be differentiated so new editors can remember each of them, and are important enough to have separate pages. --Galaxiaad 01:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  333. Oppose All of the policies of WP:ATT are fundamentally different and should not be merged. Lacking a very good reason why the policies should be merged, it serves no purpose but to cause confusion to merge them. It is important to note that there is no tangible problem with the policies as they are presently, and thus the confusion of changing them should be avoided. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  334. Oppose Something is lost in most mergers, and the result will be a watered-down policy. While the word "verifiability" should be replaced with "attribution" (a more neutral term), there is no need to merge "No Original Research" into it. NOR is a completely different concept.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  335. Oppose Kicking out the stable yet brilliantly flexible tripod of V, NOR, and RS and replacing them with a less flexible monopod isn't a better foundation, though I agree the effort was a well intentioned simplification. Easy to understand is different from easy to use. —EncMstr 04:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  336. Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, the three ideas are different from one another and the merger gives inappropriate emphasis to attribution. Keeping the ideas distinct makes them easier to explain to newbies. Buddhipriya 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  337. Oppose They are three different things 'not' one big thing, there is no need to change it.--Wiggstar69 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  338. Oppose Agree with Wiggstar69. WP:ATTR can be a short summary of V, NOR and RS, but should not replace them. They are each unique in their own way and need no replacement at this time. --SoWhy Talk 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  339. Strong Oppose I've run into problems with editors who scream to the high heavens that just because something is in an RS, it auto-qualifies it for inclusion. I see this merger as a weakening of the guidelines for ensuring truth and accuracy in Wikipedia. Tarc 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  340. Oppose. The argument: "Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia?" is conclusive for me. "Verifiability, not truth" is a much clearer, more accurate and more elegant expression than this clumsy "attributability to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" monster. I appreciate the effort to streamline Wikipedia procedure for new eds, but the ATT page throws up a whole host of much more serious problems for established eds by conflating issues that should remain distinct. -- TinaSparkle 13:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  341. Oppose but concededly for reasons tangential to the change. Since "[t]he core of the [WP:ATT] policy ... [is that] [t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true," I must oppose any change which further imbeds a view that I consider to be profoundly misguided. I believe that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia should be accuracy resting on facts "attributable to a reliable published source." Facts should always and in all circumstances be attributable, but in my view, provided that articles conform to NPOV, arguments not only need not be externally attributable, but requiring them to be so gives POV editors a sword to wield against attempts to correct plainly wrong information. In short, NOR suggests that WP would rather an article be attributable and wrong than accurate. That is a poisonous doctrine, and an open invitation to POV. While I'm not necessarily opposed to unifying various policies into a single statement, I oppose any policy change in which "no original research" - as a term or animating premise - has ongoing vitality or lacks an exception for clear accuracy. Given the above-stated views, and because I think this merger will make it yet harder to change a requirement which sounds reasonable on its face but is profoundly harmful in fact, I must vote to oppose. Simon Dodd 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  342. Oppose In my experience, the more specific the constructive criticism (and the individual tags used for this purpose) the better the remedial action subsequently taken.Wikityke 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  343. Oppose merger of WP:V and WP:NOR. I think both policies are weakened by merging them.--Malepheasant 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  344. Oppose for many of these reasons stated above. Most compelling to me:
    • "Verifiability", "Reliable Sources" and "No Original Research" are better names than "Atrribution"; as someone put it: "merely citing them makes the point." This is especially true working with editors that have <300 edits.
    • It's unrealistic to expect a newcomer to really read all of WP:OR+WP:V+WP:RS…or a longer WP:ATT. I suspect perhaps 5% really do this initially. The Simplified Ruleset is a much better place to send them to start -- you might get as many as 40% skimming or at least reading a chunk of it. (Note: shrink the preamble at WP:RS and you might get 50%).--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  345. Oppose. Simon Dodd says it clearer than I could. Dr Zak 18:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  346. Oppose for the reasons stated by Scott Wilson (no. 288) above. Deor 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  347. Oppose for reasons stated by SandyGeorgia —Dave101→talk→contributions • 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  348. At work, we try to keep functions doing just one thing. A function named "show_cat" can't show every cat race. On the contrary, a function like "show_animal" would be extremely long. Therefore, I oppose a merge. I agree with some opinions that Attribution should stay as a summary, but as it was done, it covered just too many topics to be effective in all of them. -- ReyBrujo 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  349. Oppose, not because I don't like WP:ATT, I think it's a great policy and would unreservedly support further work aimed at reducing the number of policy pages, but ultimately as noted above I like having a single, solid, easily understood, easily assimilated page which says no original research, and I view this concept as fundamentaly different from attribution. You can do original research and still attribute every word of it. Yes, I know, the attribution guideline does make that point, but I feel that merging NOR does serve to dilute its impact. I could, over time, possibly be persuaded otherwise, and I certainly see V and RS merging into this and becoming redirects, but NOR is crucial and should not be weakened in any way, even if that weakening is only in the eye of the beholder. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  350. Oppose. WP:ATT is a great page and SlimVirgin put a lot of hard work into it but I feel like it is just summarizing two separate topics, "no original research" and "use reliable sources". Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  351. Strong Oppose. When Jimmy Wales says that this is "a monumentally bad idea," I think we should take heed. —Brien ClarkTalk 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  352. Strong Oppose. WP:ATT would be a good guideline or easy catchprase to remember. But as Einstein said, "Make your policies as simple as possible -- and not simpler!" WP:ATT makes it too simple. if users remember the catchphrase, they may be tempted to neglect reliability. Note, that's not the best reason for rejecting this policy -- it is merely a distinctive one that Wikipedia:Attribution/against_the_merge did not sufficiently address. The best reason may be that though WP is not paper, it is an institution, and as such, core policies should not be changed -- better to modify V and OR. There are problems with V, but replacing it with A is not a good solution. --Otheus 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  353. Oppose. Separate concepts, deserving separate policies. Captain Infinity 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  354. Oppose, though in all honsety, I can't describe the reasons why. ---- DanTD 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/qualified/compromise/other[edit]

See also alternative sections in this survey: In broad support of WP:ATT & In broad opposition to WP:ATT

Refactoring note: If you replied to someone else's vote, it may have been moved to the talk page, see here.


  1. (Refactored)V-Man - T/C 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I oppose Wikipedia:Attribution being policy. I support Wikipedia:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, should people choose to maintain it. Otherwise, it can be marked as historical. In such a summary, I support Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research being kept in the summary. However, I strongly oppose Wikipedia:Reliable sources being part of WP:ATT. Firstly, I believe WP:RS is more of a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, issue than a WP:V/WP:ATT one. Secondly, this blurs the distinction between policy and guideline. Thirdly, WP:RS has been historically controversial when it comes to the details, and it is best if it has it's own page for us to attempt to reach consensus on. I am neutral about whether this poll is in fact open or not. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC), 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there have been comments on the talk page about the justifications given, I'd like to expand on my reasoning. A summary page may be good for newbies who prefer to do as little reading as possible, but these are separate concepts. Many people find it easier to focus on one concept at a time. Consider the size of the working memory. It is often better to break things up, but have more text total, than throw too many ideas at a reader at one time. Being separate concepts, it is also easier to discuss them separately. In addition, people trying to reach FA status, or who are in a concept dispute, may want as much advice as possible, and hence might prefer the more in-depth policies. Also, perhaps it is just me, but I find some aspects of the writing of ATT confusing, e.g. the multiple different kinds of "attribution", only one of which is what is meant by the word in NPOV.
    To expand on my objection to including RS in ATT, or getting rid of any part of RS that wasn't already in V or NOR, I'd like to point out that this increases the discord between WP:V/ATT and WP:NPOV. To be brief, ATT implies that reliability and inclusion are binary, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." (second sentence of WP:ATT) "Threshold for inclusion" and "whether" make this a binary condition. NPOV implies that reliability an inclusion have degrees. "divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources." Also see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
    Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WP:RS should not be promoted from controversial guideline to core policy. People shouldn't make changes while saying "We're just clarifying what was there!", and then turn around and claim that nothing at all was changed. And all opinions which are not "Yes, every part of this idea is good" or "No, every part of this idea is bad" shoudldn't be lumped in this section as they are. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I, liked Armedblowfish, support Wikipedia:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, but I do not have Armedblowfish's qualms about including WP:RS in the summary. Thus, I think WP:ATT should summarize WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS but I'm unconvinced that it should replace any or all of them. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Jersyko on that. WP:ATT can be used for general reference on the broad policies regarding attribution, while it will still be useful in the future to be able to refer to the individual WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Even a brief mention of WP:CITE would keep it in context. Having this system will keep Wikipedia organized and familiar in the same style for those who are navigating WP:PAG for the first time. V-Man - T/C 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I Moderate SupportOppose WP:ATT -- Merger is nice to help clarify these policies into a more definitive one. I do believe the merger shortens the definitions down too much however. Their current form does not represent the former policies and all that they entail. MrMacMan 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try to clarify my views -- WP:ATT is a great thing. The summary of the 3 policies is very nice to have... but it shouldn't replace them. I don't believe in this 'poll'. Keep it separate, you can have this as a guide... not policy. MrMacMan 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I support the concept of merging the articles, but I do not support putting attributability above truth. False content should not be included just because it is attributable. Jwolfe 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I do not care what happens. I think there's too much fuss over exactly where the information lies. It shouldn't matter where it is, so long as it exists in an easily accessible location. The page isn't important; the content is. --clpo13 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Erm... Neutral? While I do agree that WP:RS should definitely remain separate from WP:ATT, I don't object to the union of WP:NOR and WP:V in WP:ATT, provided there is broad concensus to do so. -Jeske (v^_^v) 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. weak abstain Salad Days 06:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I strongly protest this poll. I can't even tell what "merge" means, which is why I'm "voting" everywhere. El_C 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I like the wording of WP:ATT, I think it is an easier read for new users, which I'm clearly for, and lays out good ideas for an encyclopedia. I'd probably support it in some form as wikipedia document. In the end, both WP:ATT & (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR) reach for the same goal but use different terms to achieve that goal. Whether or not we should replace one set of terms for another is a question that I'm not so sure about. I'm concerned about consistency as far as old discussions go, but wikipedia is a constantly changing document so that would work itself out shortly. In the end, I don't think either option will effect things much as long as we a lot of smart people working together who are friendly enough to bring new users into the fold. —Mitaphane ?|! 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Partial opposition towards merging in RS. I'd also strongly prefer merging WP:NOR into WP:V name, rather than pulling out a new policy. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Partial opposition due to the merger of large portions of WP:RS into the policy, since this would promote that material to the status of a policy even though it is currently a guideline. A determination of whether WP:RS should be promoted to policy, and what form that policy should take, should be a wholly separate issue from what has been purported as a procedural merger of WP:V and WP:NOR into a policy that is equivalent to the two policies in their separate forms. --DachannienTalkContrib 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Partially oppose because adding WP:RS into WP:ATT changes the essential balance of V+NOR with NPOV as "twin pillars". The ATT treatment of "reliable sources" is far too simplistic without mention of bias. Issues of systemic bias have not been answered in discussion. I could support ATT now if the RS material in it is stubbed while work on that aspect continues; or in future I could support a bigger, more balanced reworking with NPOV too. VSerrata 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose the poll. It does not serves to build consensus; it just splits the "population" into two blocks. There are supporters of WP:ATT that might include WP:RS and those that might keep WP:RS (like me). No, totally biased poll that I won't be part of. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Qualified Support
    • Given that policy is scattered... without a doubt the structure of wikipolicy is generally scattered and untransparent, where most users don't even know how to tap in to reading all the wikipolicy - in fact I don't even know of a complete wikipolicy directory! and
    • Given that policy is untransparent... admins and editors alike constantly refer to policy without linking - especaially in AfD discussions - where once again policy is unreachable, unfamiliar, scattered, etc
      • Therefore I support in principal a merge (if it will help policy centralisation and policy transparency) -
      • With the following qualifiers:
        • 1) The existing policy articles are kept intact for an extended period of time (e.g. 6 months) before they are remove, if at all,
        • 2) The existing policy articles are to remain part of policy - even if this means amending the policies with community consensus.
        • 3) The WP:ATT article is to have anchors such as WP:ATT#Reliable_sources
        • 4) There must be shortcuts or redirects to anchors, so that
        • 5) Any and all policy must be ratified by community consensus
    • On those terms I give a Qualified Support Rfwoolf 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Qualified support per Rfwoolf. Berserkerz Crit 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Qualified support - the original three policies were partially overlapping, rather long, and IMO three sides of the same issue. A compact attribution policy page would be easier to digest, especially for newcomers. Some objecters make valid points about the new policy being different from the three old ones together. So an Attribution policy page would be better a reasonably short summary rather than a replacement of the three old policies. Boundary cases and more esoteric examples can stay on the V/NOR/RS pages. Han-Kwang 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Keep all, have ATT as a summary-style policy of the other three, allowing people to refer to any one or all three together easily. I don't see the need to only have non-overlapping policies. —Pengo 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Partial Support For merging especially Verifiability and Reliable sources. Although IMO, No original research seems a bit different then the first two and probably should stay separate. --JForget 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support with qualifications I like the idea of consolidating and simplifying the regulations where it would seem to contradict itself. However, I'm still a little concerned about it being an official policy. That's too strong for me. It should instead be a guideline. The reason being is that policies are too rigid to handle each individual case. For example, I could find sources to say that African-American people are feeble minded. I absolutely abhor that notion and think it's totally untrue, but it could be cited as such nonetheless. I think this brings up a huge issue that is beyond the scope of this discussion concerning Wikipedia. Do we want to be correct or do we want to be verified? We need some way of weaving out the fiction, published though it may be. I certainly don't have the answer to that.--Analogue Kid 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Keep all per Pengo - ATT could well sum up the basic principles of these different areas, but they also need there own more extensive discussion. We're not limited in our ability to provide space for each. bd2412 T 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Compromise/Neutral" section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Apathetic Who cares where the policies are written? Hardly anyone will read them anyway, let alone follow them. More to the point, people should stop wasting time on policy debates and get on with writing the damn encyclopedia. Modest Genius talk 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Compromise/Neutral" section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Wikipedia editors could be having discussions over whether the content of the various articles on WP was, in fact, factual or not. Instead they are being diverted to these omphaloscopic discussions. Why? RandomCritic 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Compromise/Neutral" section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Marginal support I'm not opposed to the idea of a restructuring of these pages, and I don't feel that the arguments against it hold much weight, but I'm not convinced that all of the concerns relating to these policies are satisfied even by the merger. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring note: This vote was originally added to a now nonexistent "Support some merger, but not this one." section. See diff. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Keep all and rename WP:ATT. Some points WP:ATT makes, particulary in the expanded FAC, are useful - I certainly support expanding and clarification on existing policies. However merging WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, per Jimbo, is a confusing and bad idea, not to mention that the very name - 'attribution' - simply furthers this confusion, as new users think more of 'authorship' than v/or/rs issues.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Keep all, at least for a year. That would be most convenient and actually least confusing for new users. Let's be careful, especially since there is no clear consensus.Biophys 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Neutral. I think the merger is harmless. It may be helpful to consolidate core policies in the area of attribution, but I am not sure it is necessary. It actually may be better to use our own summary style here: WP:ATT for a broad overview, retaining specific explanations in the other three pages. —ptk✰fgs 21:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I'm NEUTRAL It didn't matter. [The previous unsigned commented was posted by Risteristevski (talk · contribs), 22:15, 31 March 2007]
  30. Not interested This is really boring, lets just write the bloody thing the best we can and to heck with policies. Excalibur 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Merge the general idea of all of the polices into ATT, but keep the original pages as detailed information. Merging all of the above policies into one page seems feasible, but I have a feeling that merging everything into one ATT will tend to confuse users. This ATT concept is unrelated to the Heredity concept, where the topics there are so close together that they just cannot be separated, whereas ATT can be spread out in a few pages.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Merge but Keep Shortcuts. The idea of having all the information together is a good idea, but it's extremely useful to be able to have a shortcut such as WP:NOR which goes directly to the information relevant to that particular problem. --Tim4christ17 talk 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. None of the above. Excessive policies are the opposite of what wikipedia stands for, and the more details used when defining them, the less productive of an encyclopedia there will be. Stick with general overviews and guidelines. Not policies. Bushytails 02:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Compromise. I like the idea of WP:ATT being a summary page, à la the five pillars. However, a full on merge seems like a solution to a nonexistant problem. There's too much detail on the individual pages to neatly merge it all to a single page, and it would cause unnecessary confusion with the hundreds of thousands of links that point to the individual pages. -- NORTH talk 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Neutral, oppose as complete merger. Like many, I believe that attribution can exist as a summary of all three as a broad policy, but each one is integral and deserves a seperate article. bibliomaniac15 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Incredibly Strong Neutral per Borachio. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Don't Care This is so pointless. --Thankyoubaby 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Neutral --Nitchell 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I disagree with the way this poll was forced on the community. I think this action is polarizing (not the vote, as VIE advocates believe—but the mandate!). It may have the effect of making users who marginally care about the issue at hand comment on it, which makes conclusions even harder to glean. The boss also confuses me with this action, because I have been told over and over again that WP is not a democracy. When you advertise something very broadly and many users show up to chime in, you have all the appearance of a vote—regardless of how anyone suggests the results might be interpreted (and I don't think anybody has suggested anything; all the rosier! Let's see if a poll comes out the way we'd like; then we'll tell the voters how we'll respond to it!). I'm tired of semantics: the semantics of whether or not ATT changes policy; the semantics of whether or not this is a "vote". It's the kind of thing that would make Orwell roll over.
    My main concerns with ATT are pragmatics related to transitioning to a new policy page, and the possible loss of clarity in being able to point to this or that part of the concepts involved. The short version is that I would support ATT with a stronger emphasis in its "lead" on NOR, RS, and undue weight (linked to NPOV); and with new, simple, shortcuts (WP: style) to the traditional parts of it. –Outriggr § 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Couldn't care less. Doesn't matter - V and RS probably belong together, maybe not OR, but who cares? This is such a waste of space. And voting is very, very evil - but once Jimbo stepped in like that we were going to wind up with a vote, inevitably. What a waste of breath this has all been. What's the difference? Moreschi Request a recording? 09:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I protest this poll because it's been forced on me when I don't care. -iopq 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Makes little difference in the grand scheme of things... Moseeki, 13:42, 1st April 2007 (CEST)
  43. Waste of time Why are we always splitting hair like that over questions like this, instead of writing an encyclopedia? At this rate, soon we will be discussing which is the correct side for peeling boiled eggs! --Itub 12:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak qualified support per Rfwoolf. When giving people advice, particularly those new to the project, I think it's extremely important to be able to give them a direct link to the exact part of policy that is relevant. Therefore I think that anchors and redirects to them are very much necessary if the community take the decision to go ahead with a merge. I do agree that the merge will be a good thing if it succeeds in making the policy simpler to understand and more coherent. Will (aka Wimt) 16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose RS being promoted to policy Would support if that single issue could be addressed. RS suffers from not measuring relative reliability of sources. It's promotion to policy would be a serious error. Jd2718 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Neutral. Good and bad to both. But there's clearly no consensus to merge. --JayHenry 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Merging WP:V and WP:OR makes a lot of sense to me. I oppose merging in WP:RS; policies should state the concept of relying on reliable sources, with the operational definition of RS left to guidelines. Also, as others have pointed out, WP:RS has as much to do with WP:NPOV as it does with the rest of WP:ATT. Kla'quot 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Keep all, ATT as overarching summary guideline. Non-contradictory overlap is good, see Pengo above. steventity
  49. Oppose both the status quo and ATT proposal The V/NOR/RS troika is flawed for the reasons stated, but I don't like ATT because it doesn't do enough to keep out of date information out when new information contradicts it. BenB4 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. As per j e r s y k o, I, like Armedblowfish, support Wikipedia:Attribution being kept as a summary with a status like WP:5P, but without qualms about including WP:RS in the summary. WP:ATT should summarize WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS, but it should not replace any or all of them. SmokeyJoe 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I favor merging WP:V WP:OR and WP:RS for the time being. On the one hand I've not seen how it works. On the other Simple is better. Jplatt39 10:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Neutral On this due to the fact that I'm new here and haven't really had time to use or refer to the policy. But, I would like to just comment. I can see the point for putting all the key points in one policy/page, though I feel that for detailed understanding, would it not be wise to keep the pages that exist? By this I mean have a special easy to read and follow page for a quick guide line of the other three, but for detailed scrutiny go to the relevant page?Artypants 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Neutral, the idea of merging this stuff to reduce the number of policies was good, but given the large opposition, it should be dropped to save everybody from spending more and more time on a good, but doomed, idea. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Neutral, I concur with Pengo, Steventity, and Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). Overlap is not evil. Ezratrumpet 13:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Neutral, I concur with previous writers that preferring attributability over truth is evil! The guidelines as presently set up militate against being able to take advantage of knowledge that is only within the memories of living people. This is how invaluable knowledge gets lost. Until this issue is resolved, I don't really care whether the guidelines are in 3 pages or one. Jpaulm 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Haseo9999 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Neutral As long as the pages clearly inform Wikipedians on the set guidelines, it doesn't matter to me.Ultima22 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose incorporating WP:RS, mostly neutral otherwise - WP:RS has no business being involved in a policy merger, other than being linked to. It is a guideline for a very specific reason, as it is highly likely for there to be exceptions, special cases, etc. As for merging WP:V and WP:OR, as far as I understood it WP:OR was essentially a derivation of WP:V. After all, each policy essentially boils down to the same thing: "if you can't point to a source for a (given piece of information/conclusion), it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article." I think WP:OR is a specific enough example of unverifiable material that it should have its own section or policy article, but so long as the concepts are clearly communicated either is fine with me. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Neutral The important thing is that the policies be clear. I agree that the term Attribution better reflects the policy than Verifiability, but that issue could be addressed by renaming the one policy without merging the others. RayGates 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Partially oppose: the first time I read WP:ATT it didn't seemed equivalent to the other three rules. All the previous rules were distinct, important concept. If they must be merged, the merge should mantain all the concepts. Given that, it seems to be a good idea to have a single "big rule" to point people at rather than three - it is just easier. MaxDZ8 talk 07:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. "Use reliable sources" is and should be policy, but this does not mean the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page should be elevated to official status. There are far too many gray areas between "reliable" and "unreliable" to officialize exactly how we define reliability. Doing so would open the door to further instruction creep and legalistic squabbles as people feel driven to take literally what was intended to be flexible and situational. To this end, I propose that we rename and refocus the page to Wikipedia:What is a reliable source, Wikipedia:Guide to using reliable sources or something to that effect. In that case, WP:ATT, with or without the accompanying WP:V and WP:NOR, would say "Use reliable sources", as the refocused WP:RS helps the community decide whether this or that source is reliable, which is the page's purpose anyway. This would accomplish two key goals: It would help resolve the complexity and steep learning curve of Wikipedia policy, while furthermore settling a point often brought up by those who advocate merging WP:RS into WP:ATT or elsewhere: that WP:RS as a guideline doesn't fit in with the policies that demand the use of reliable sources. I think WP:RS serves a similar purpose as, say, WP:CITE: it's a guideline that helps illustrate, explain and put into practice a policy, and should stay that way. szyslak (t, c) 08:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. With transclusion we can have have our cake and eat it too. Everyone can have what they want. The Attribution policy page can consist of: {{:V}} {{:NOR}} {{:RS}} and the talk pages of V, NOR and RS can redirect to the ATT talk page. See Flu research for an example of trabsclusion. WAS 4.250 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Partial Support: I support the merger of WP:V and WP:RS into WP:ATT, but I think WP:NOR is too strong of a principle on its own to be merged in such a way (though, arguments could be made that having WP:ATT and WP:NOR are redundant). However, I would find that having WP:ATT and WP:NOR to quote and cite violating users of as two statements to be easier than one big statement, and certainly the existing three, where WP:V and WP:RS already have overlap. --JohnDBuell 11:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Hierarchiality: I agree generally with Armed Blowfish (specialty pages with an overall gloss page) and WAS 4.250 (transclusion). Important ethical and scientific doctrines should be vividly isolatable for open discussion and reference, but it's also good to have a single point of entry for newbies. The particular implementation of hierachiality is not important to me; I'd prefer the overall page have abstracts with links to specialized pages, personally, but transclusion might better protect internal consistency. Pete St.John 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support Wikipedia should be accessible to all, and new users should read the rules before editing. You might as well make it easier for them to do so. Telepheedian 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Abstain I abstain -Roofus 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Though I would support creating an overarching statement regarding attribution which makes reference to specific and separate policies on original research, verifiability, and citation. --Dystopos 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Neutral I don't care. What difference does this make to ordinary Wikipaedia users? This kind of stupid beurocracy just makes Wikipedia look like a joke. What difference does it fucking make anyway? Stop arguing about irrelevent things and make Wikipaedia into a better encyclopaedia. Xanucia 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Qualified Support or Neutral - While centralizing and simplifying policy is generally a good thing and very much in line with WP:BITE, this change must be well planned. Firstly, the existing pages should be kept intact until WP:ATT is accepted by consensus, and probably protected during that time. When they are deleted, they should rather simply be changed to redirects to WP:ATT, so that old conversations are not corrupted by broken links. Assuming those conditions, I think that it would be a reasonable change. Otherwise, I am neutral - this change shouldn't affect me much, and new editors usually manage to understand the system, sprawled as it is. Nihiltres 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Qualified support Keep WP:ATT as policy. Keep the others as guidelines subordinate to WP:ATT, and resolve any inconsistencies in favour of WP:ATT. Merge any parts of WP:V that are not already in WP:ATT into WP:NOR and WP:RS. Joeldl 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Oppose Availability of information is more important than it's reliability. I see Wikipaedia as a place where a new knowledge can be found. I'm comfortable with this knowledge existing only on Wikipaedia and not attributable to anything at all. I will make my own judgement. Touristo 3 April 2007
  72. All of the above? Well, what I mean is that I don't want to vote, but I do want to support the idea of keeping policy simple and clear, while not having horrendous votes like this. Simple policies, clear examples, good practice from editors, and editors working together to educate and learn from each other how to attribute, fact-check, use sources, etc, is the way to go. Oh, by the way, has anyone noticed that the bit under the edit window (you know, the bit no-one really reads) says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." - yes, folks, there is a link to Wikipedia:Attribution sitting right there in the boilerplate Wikipedia framework! I wonder if we need a poll on how to word that bit of text? Carcharoth 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. .At this point in the poll, it should be obvious that there is no position having community consensus. I don't think this should then default to a "keep", because i think there is overall consensus that some change is necessary. :What I think is the root is the total disagreement about what the fundamental standards are, and that we will not achieve a compromise here about detail under we first establish a compromise about the important things, such a whether the use of RSh as become too rigid, . DGG 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Mixed per Armed Blowfish.—Dylan Lake 05:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - as stated in corresponding previous section. Really the three sub-guidelines we're speaking of here all are meant to accomplish the same thing - accuracy through sources. No original research - since you are not a reliable source, required verifiability (word?) since if your content can't be verified there's no way in telling whether it's accurate or not, and of course you need reliable sources because according to the National Enquirer, George W. Bush and aliens have met 3 timesIronic that I don't cite this.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - it seems that insufficient consensus has been reached to make such a radical change as this. I am not convinced that the new page conveys the same information as the old ones. Zatchmort 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Mixed as the Blowfish - I like the fact that at present it is possible to make a relatively specific criticism by quoting a proportionately specific rule. There are a limited number of conceptually distinct rules, so it's also an easy "mental checklist" to tick my own contributions off against while I'm editing. Indeed, since there are three clearly conceptually different approaches to "attribution" it makes sense to parse through a text (mine or somebody else's) thinking about all three to see whether it conforms. I'm not sure that it's so easy to bear in mind and work through such an all-encompassing not-quite-so-sharply-pointed conglomeration. Perhaps it's because in the years I've been here, I've had the 3 rules ground into my inner editing being, but I don't believe either that a new editor nurtured only on the new policy will discover problems in an article and cry out "aha, a malattribution!" - far more likely that the red light of wikidoubt will illuminate with the realisation that "hey, you can't say that, there's no way to prove it! (V) / you've composed this argument this yourself! (OR) / no way does quoting a post in Joe Bloggs' blog prove that John Doe is dead! (RS)"... at any rate I'd be strongly opposed to turning the "replaced" pages into redirects. Which is sad really, because this exercise in reducing red tape would effectively just add another page to get familiar with without actually replacing any of the supposedly redundant ones. And the gray area of the status of RS means that it's not a moot question whether ATT counts as policy or just a "summary of other positions". Fiddly. There are some things that I do like. The rewrite is well rewritten - it's very clear (always a plus if it's a page that new editors are going to be referred to) even if I don't find it so conceptually sharp. Having said that, sharpness is just as important as clarity: I fear that new editors may be able to understand the words, but not get the point because really, it's several points and they've been blurred. I do love the fact that there is more emphasis on active attribution over theoretical possibility of attribution (which often seems to come down to "somewhere in the Universe, hidden in a subterranean library, is a book I may or may not have read, which may or may not substantiate this claim...alternatively, it's possible that it's an idea I'm pretty sure I once read in a newspaper, some time, perhaps around page 17 of the Bild, possibly whilst dreaming..."). As for concerns about unusual or fringe beliefs it's important to bear in mind that what we have always done is to describe and attribute the belief - that isn't changing as a result of this. The critical issue is occasionally verifiability and sourcing (the groups furthest towards the fringe are often badly documented since 3rd parties may not treat them seriously enough to produce a reliable source about them) but often it is not. Whether to mention "fringe" beliefs in the context of a "mainstream" article, and whether to incorporate well-attributed sources that support their views, is essentially a matter of relevance, NPOV, and not giving "undue weight". That's rather more subjective and requires tougher balance-calls than sourcing issues (though these are not 100% objective themselves, particularly regarding what counts as a "reliable source") and certainly isn't something we should expect ATT to cover: we will always need to rely on the wiki-editing process, and the good sense and "collective subjectivity" of editors. Similarly, some "fringe" beliefs may deserve their own articles to describe them, but at least in theory that is quite likely to depend on notability issues (fuzzy territory again) rather than purely source-based ones (I suspect the "weight" in "(un)due weight" really denotes a combination of notability and pertinence). Having said that, on AFD, the lack of reliable sources is often used as a measure of notability, so boundaries are blurred. It seems reasonable that in future this may be superceded by talk of "lack of reliably attributable information" so I can't see that the ATT change will have a particularly deep effect. Arguably we might hit unanticipated problems with classes of semi-reliable sources which, with its policy status, ATT is too inflexible to work around while RS could have done. On the whole the wiki system has shown great flexibility, so that seems unlikely. While I am divided on the merits of the proposal, I think that the way it came here (the path it took to fruition and the way it has been presented) has not been helpful, for the obvious reasons that voting is generally anti-consensus, a divisive poll is almost certainly not helpful either for the community or the policies it affects, but also that many contributions in this strawpoll have been devalued: they contain useful suggestions and commentary but these are rendered useless because it is too late to take action on them. This third section essentially consists of self-declared "dead votes" which can't influence the result (though they may used as evidence for the general consensus, or lack thereof). Many views expressed in all three camps are quite subtle and not suited to a dichotomy of choices. A presentation of a variety of possible options would have been welcomed; perhaps alternatively a mass-input into earlier stages of the decision-making process on the scope of the proposal, e.g. whether to incorporate RS, whether to make it a policy per se or just a policy summary, would have been nice. Some editors clearly believe they have been presented with a fait accompli and are understandably unhappy, especially those who believe it is potentially better than the present situation but at the expense of incorporating novel flaws which will prove hard to iron out later. As for the unpleasant length of my "vote", I hope it can be excused (or at least interpreted) as an expression of my resistance to being forced to dichotomize without having to post statements of support/objection/neutrality in three different stacks of votes!TheGrappler 11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Partial Support - I support the idea behind the merger proposal, though I think this debate has needlessley taken on a "all-or-nothing" tone. WP:ATT is a good idea, as a summary and starting point for editors, with the old pages left intact for more in-depth discussion of specific concepts. I also do not fully support merging WP:RS into a merged page if this is an all-or-nothing result. - Masonpatriot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. I don't care either way if this page is just three other pages stuck together. --Deskana (ya rly) 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Partial Oppose If this page was an article, it would be ripped as being too long. If someone does original research, sending them to NOR is easier than then telling them to read through ATT. If ATT gets them easily to NOR, Verifiability, and all the other rules, then it helps. If it holds the same content, it will not be long before it gets split as being too large. I approve of it being the parent article, but leave the rules and content in the detailed places rather than remove them. IMO, CodeCarpenter 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Keep all - But keep WP:ATT as a short summary of the guidelines—an introductory page (for beginners) and a quick reference (for others). A page at "level 0" so to speak. The other articles can continue to contain more specific information about the respective guidelines, including examples and so on. "Level 1"-pages so to speak. The WP:ATT page should have a Main article:-link directly under every heading to the more specific page. This will make WP:ATT the root of the tree. (And I think that all guidelines should be attributed a level of abstraction/importance and arranged in a tree-like fashion and not in a spaghetti structure as I sometimes feel it is currently.) iNic 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Neutral. I support keeping WP:ATT as a summary, but oppose merging other articles into one big long monstrosity. -Amatulic 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support with reservations the way I read WP:ATT, if an editor finds a "reliable source" that says "X" and another that says "not X", an editor may choose between the two and include whichever that editor fancies. In many of the articles dealing with controversial subjects, an editor will without difficulty find "reliable sources" for both sides of the debate and for "facts" supporting each. The synthesis of contrary reliable sources is always original research or POV to some extent (even the ordering of the arguments, whose is first is original research or POV). So I wish that we use WP:ATT as a general policy that articles need source, let WP:RS tell us what sources are considered reliable, and let WP:NOR and WP:SYNT tell us what constitutes impermissible original research or POV pushing. So hierarchically, putting WP:ATT on the top, but keeing the nuances for the other pages. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Abstain. It is not wise to implement a strategy of restriction on the philosophy of community. --Theeuro 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I don't care so long as nothing is lost. A lot like Deskana, it really doesn't concern me. James086Talk | Email 03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Partial support as long as stubs on all sub-policies are kept. As Jimbo himself noted, there are zillions of links leading to WP:NOR or WP:VERIFY and I believe the links should be left intact. They might become particular aspects of such uber-policy though. //Halibutt 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Neutral. Frankly, I am so new as a Wikipedian that I don't know enough of this issue to make a responsible choice. Tellervo 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Neutral, leaning toward support I support the idea of the merge and think that ATT is good, but the current form leaves too many ideas out. Mainly, truth is still important. Just because some fringe magazine with a wide following says that "the sun will die in a year" doesn't mean it should be added to WP, it's clearly wrong, but still attributable. Also, there should be something near the top or the main core of ATT that says something along the lines of "The sources used to write an article should be reported in the article." While sources aren't required, they should at least be strongly recommended. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. I support the merging of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into one page at Wikipedia:Attribution. However, in my reality working with indigenous communities, oral sources are very, very common and are considered a reliable source if there is verifiability from reliable sources (often also oral in nature). However, verifyable oral sources are still considered "original research" in the world of Wikipedia so the policy of Wikipedia:No original research must remain distinct from the others, without a merger. CJLippert 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Neutral: While I do see why a support would be good for organization and helping bring together Wikipedia policies by leaving them as seperate pages it shows these policies are each different are at least slightly different. They may be harder to manage however I think we should just leave the situation alone and keep all pages.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Keep all and keep the redirects WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR to their own respective pages. Users may then continue to refer to any of these or WP:ATT/WP:ATTFAQ as alternate summaries of sorts. Personally I have cited each of them in recent discussions, as they are useful in different contexts. As long as the standards are conveyed accurately, there should be no problem with all these pages coexisting. Minimize any potential confusion for newcomers with see also links and tags at the top that express the redundancy. It's okay if policies and guidelines overlap with each other; this is already the case with some other ones, though I refuse to accept that there should be such long (and directionless) discussions for those as well. –Pomte 05:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Partial opposition: a merged page would be a very good idea, but in order to keep it short and readable, the contained information have to be compressed, so that the resulting merger would either be overly technical and hard to read, or some points must be rationalized away, so that parts of the message get lost, and the resulting merger is hard to comprehend anyway! I instead propose:
    • a heavily summarized page, pretty concise, but dealing with "synergic" information,
    • links to the relevant subpages that already exist.
    Thanks for asking! Rursus 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support but keep old pages for reference. A simple and BRIEF explanation of policy is essential for newcomers to understand and not be turned off by a lot of Byzantine exegesis on what the policies mean. However, the old pages might be useful for those interested in more detail. (Edit: Tried to fix item number formatting -- don't know what I did wrong.) --Bluejay Young 09:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose while I still opposed the outright merger into the WP:ATT even more so because of the recent processes involved. I think its time to move forward and to that end I suggest that WP:ATT be retained and run parrallel with policies WP:NOR, WP:V and the guideline WP:RS. To this I think attribution should be about growing up taking these foundation policies/principles and building on them. Wikipedia needs to address issues about sourcing; political idologies, historical falsehoods and new developements. It should address "truth" in its many forms what it shouldn't do (which I currently read ATT as doing) is providing inclusion for lies/falsehoods as factual providing its attributable. Ultimately ATT will/could grow and encompass NOR,V and RS. We have the time do this right Wikipedia will be here for 100's of years, yet if the change is such that editors dont understand or trolls can use it push agendas. Gnangarra 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support It's one of those things that should have been done ages ago. Timeshift 13:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support I think that each should be within a combined page, but with more brevity devoted to each. Furthermore, I think that this, along with many other wikipedia style pages needs to put a tag reference right at the top. (How to tag articles).
  97. Support with an important reservation I think that verifiability and no original research really can be merged and I think the attribution page did a good job of it. I particularly like the strong simple concept that if it is not attributable to a reliable source, it is original research. However, I don't think it was wise to try and merge so much of reliable sources into a policy page. Having a policy that says that all material must be attributable to a reliable source is a good idea. Having a policy that defines what a reliable source is or is not is a bad idea, especially considering how fast various media are evolving today. Sometimes editors are simply going to have to reach a consensus value judgement on whether a particular source is reliable or not for a particular purpose. Having a guidline for such decisions is helpful, but having a hard and fast policy is not. Rusty Cashman 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support per Fayenatic london. By merging these policies, we ensure consistency throughout, make it easier for newer users to view and follow policy, and lay out our stances on these policies in a unified, concise, and clear manner. Michael 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Qualified Support. Were I to be teaching research methods to a group of graduate students (which I have done regularly), the concepts of Attribution, Reliable Sources, and Verifiability would all be treated as aspects of the same topic. They all deal with the obligation of a scholar to build upon the knowledge of others, to use reliable sources, and sources that can be tracked down by others and verified as saying what they were said to say and meaning what they were interpreted to mean. I'm not sure that "Attribution" is the master term here; I might choose "documentation," but "attribution" works as well as any other. It is vital that all 3 aspects (attribution--the indication of who/what the source is, reliable sources--the quality of the sources, and verifiability--the ability of others to access and check the existence/quality/reliability of the source) are included., which does suggest a need for some revision of the current Attribution description. What I am strongly opposed to is the bundling in of No Original Research. Firstly, the whole description of NOR seems off base. The very notion that Attribution of Sources and NOR are in opposition is ridiculous. If I have a student or a professional colleague working on a research project, it danged well better be original and it danged well better be documented out the wazoo. By their very nature a thesis or dissertation is supposed to provide original conclusions, but it better be based on a significant knowledge of all related research and exceptionally well documented. Much of what is in Wikipedia is by definition at least in part OR; the very act of writing a factual description is by definition original research, unless one is plagiarizing. It involves synthesis and analysis; otherwise it would be just a list of facts. Source-based research is not the opposite of Original research. Any good research will be documented well and clearly grounded in the facts. Perhaps the problem is a confusion of original presentation of facts with presenting original theoretical claims that are not grounded in currently accepted interpretations of facts. Finally, the notion that this issue isn't of truth, but of verifiability is appalling. An encyclopedia is about truth -- facts that are true, events that are true! The facts/events/descriptions/explanations, of course must be reliable and verifiable as well, but reliability and verifiability are NOTHING without truth, accuracy, and integrity!! One can find lots of sources out there to support things that are absolutely false (such as the Holocaust denials) and definitely POV, but I would hope this is NOT what Wikipedia is all about.
    Comment: So you would be in favor of, say, writing an article about tobacco smoking, including all the facts about it and then ending the article with, "In conclusion, tobacco smoking should be banned both publicly and privately as a health risk."
    The problem with your reasoning is that these articles are not supposed to be dissertations or thesis papers. It's not that truth isn't important, it's that if we say that the ultimate goal should be truth, then everyone out there with an opinion on the subject will go ahead and insert their own "truth" about the subject into the article and we'll have endless debates on what everyone's opinion of the truth is. That's why verifiability is the ultimate requirement.
    Aplomado talk 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. I support the idea of combining the policies, but oppose the current effort, as it seems to lack WP:Consensus. Mdotley 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Like many others here, I would not object to WP:ATT being kept as a summary of policies. I don't see the need or the value of removing the original pages and policies. Combining them seems forced and makes the concepts harder to understand and communicate to others. It is pretty obvious what "No original research" means. It is not clear what "attribution" means. -- Samuel Wantman 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Who cares. I fail to see how this improves the encyclopedia. If new editors can't take the time to read three policy pages, I doubt they will read one either. The real problem is giving other editors and admins the tools needed to clean the cruft, spam, non-encyclopedic content, and vanity pages for individuals or their pet projects off the encyclopedia. This three month effort of hundreds of editors would have been better spent elsewhere. - Aagtbdfoua 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll&oldid=1147967380"