Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Is one source enough to say a fact is verifiable?

Obviously, there is no "correct" answer to this question, as the answer depends on the quality of the source ... but... I think this is a question that relates to our discussions on accuracy, and worth discussing. Ideally, we should encourage editors to triple check information before they add it to an article, by reading what multiple sources say. They would then know whether to present the information as "fact" or as "opinion". If more editors did this, it would at least lower the likelihood of inaccurate material being introduced because they read it somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think in some cases, it may be "enough" if the source is really high authority, e.g. a Nobel laureate writing on their own topic. In other cases, I have always tried to add more than one source and I think users should be certainly be encouraged to add more than one source. But in reality we are lucky these days if we even have a single reliable source. As posted above, a List of self-publishing companies came about the other day and it is amazing how widely they are used. So we could talk about sources, verifiability etc. but in the trenches self-published sources (and even worse blog websites) are spreading all over the place. So we should encourage this but the situation on the ground is far from ideal. History2007 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As long as it is God making the statement. But then you might need to prove to us that its actually God. (and not a space-dwelling imposter) But in all seriousness, if only one source is discussing the item, you need not worry about verifiability, because its probably not WP:NOTABLE yet. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As a side note that debate continues and many people are still trying to figure out what God actually said, and who his original publisher was... kidding, of course. But in the case of solid author, I do not think a single WP:RS reference should be disallowed. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Avanu, I read the question as asking if a single fact can properly be verified by a single source; one or both of us is misunderstanding the original question. If I understand the question correctly, I'd say that the proper answer is "almost always". I counted exactly five situations in which multiple citations were presented for the same piece of information in today's featured article; I might have overlooked some of them, but the large majority of information relies on citations to just one source at a time. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I need to revise my answer a bit as well. You can 'say' a fact is verifiable without even having one source. WP:V explicitly says you can put material into an article without any attribution whatsoever. The problem comes when another editor (or reader perhaps) asks you to verify the item. So, if you say, well, here is ONE source. Ha! I have verified that... case closed! And they say...no, sorry I still don't think that's good enough, then rinse and repeat until a CONSENSUS of editors say it is verified to their satisfaction. So the right answer is, if nobody complains, awesome. Otherwise, get consensus. Also, don't call things 'facts'. It confuses the philosophers. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is best handled on a case by case basis though you could argue that WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE would keep such flash in the pan references out of most articles. Odds are if only one source is talking about this information then you are likely looking at something that is WP:FRINGE--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify ... I am not talking about the number of sources editors should cite ... I am talking about how much research editors should do before they can determine that some bit of information is a fact (as opposed to an opinion, or an unintended error).

This isn't something we will be able to mandate in the Policy... we obviously can not say "You must find X number of sources that all agree that Y is a fact before you present Y as a fact in an article." But I think it would help if we encouraged editors to double check and read multiple sources, and not to rely on just one single source. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Again I must ask how do WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE not currently fit this bill?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they do... but, WP:V could do a better job of explaining how. Remember that WP:V is often the very first policy that new editors are pointed to... thus it needs (I think) to spend some extra time pointing new editors to relevant policies and explaining how those polices and guidelines affect the concept of verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need how WP:V and WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, Etc should work together but is WP:V itself really the place we want to do such things? Personally WP:V should have a little blub basically saying 'you can run into this situation but the details on how to address are provided in x, y, and z)' Let's not go Rube Goldberg on WP:V, ok?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• One source is enough.  In Taquan Air, I could only find one Examiner source that stated that Sen. Ted Stevens (R Alaska) was float-plane qualified.  Examiner is blacklisted, but in many cases established authors write for Examiner, and upon petition, administrators at Wikipedia will remove the specific page from the Wikipedia blacklist.  They did so.  There is no reason to doubt that Sen. Stevens was float-plane qualified, he was a decorated WWII pilot, and float planes represented a valuable constituency as well as a useful mode of transportation.  One source is enough.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• WP:GNG is not a content guideline  The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article.  See also: [WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article] and [:Category:Wikipedia content policies].  Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree: GNG is about whether you can have a whole article about the subject. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can mention a given fact in some larger article.
    And IMO one decent source is plenty for a typical piece of information. WEIGHT isn't going to exclude some basic pieces of information. For example, we always include birth and death dates in biographies, even if one of these dates is only mentioned by a single source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One source is enough, except when exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Idea for a new section about accuracy

This is an idea that emerged from the mediation we've been having about wording of the lede. Some of the people in the mediation were concerned that "verifiability, not truth" has been used (in their view, misused) to stop people removing glaring inaccuracies that came from a verifiable source. Others were worried that a wording which makes it easier to remove inaccuracies can leave the way wide open for tendentious deletes.

Basically the same question has been discussed on this talk page recently in the thread "Not truth example".

An idea that emerged in the mediation, was that the lede may not be the place to resolve this -- it might be better to include a new section in the body of the policy.

We've tried a few wordings on the mediation talk page. Several participants (including the mediator) have suggested we move the discussion back here. Let's see if there is sufficient support for an RfC.

The wording below is an edit by myself, based on earlier ones by my learned colleagues. (That's a general description of everyone at Wikipedia.) Like everything in WP, it's a work in progress... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate. Sources are not infallible. Even very reliable sources may contain simple errors (like the headline Dewey defeats Truman), or may be outdated or superseded on a specific point. Editorial judgment, based on willingness to consider a variety of sources, is needed to decide what material to use and how to present it. If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead. If you find sourced information that you think is inaccurate in an article, it is usually best to discuss the issue on the talk page until a consensus for removal, rewording, or retention has been established. Such discussion needs to address source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight, rather than rely on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not sit in judgment on reliable sources. If they disagree, we note that disagreement. If everything but one source says something, we note the disparity and handle it with appropriate weight. We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance of evidence goes the other direction, not by deciding that minority views that do not agree with the mainstream can be excised from an article.

Other than that, though, I generally agree with the thrust of this. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't read that where WP:V says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources."  If an editor couldn't sit in judgment of a reliable source with an extraordinary claim, the editor couldn't require extraordinary sources.  That also seems to be counter-indicated at WP:IRS, which says, for example, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  A summary of these IRS points exists at WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context.  WP:ELNO #2 believes that editors can know if a website contains "factually inaccurate material".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance of evidence goes the other direction, - this would often end up producing WP:UNDUE weight on the discrepancy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are entirely and definitively wrong. WP:UNDUE expects us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", and includes a caveat that tiny minority views need not be covered at all. My phrasing above is simply a restating of UNDUE, and UNDUE cannot be used against itself: If we're covering a controversy in proportion to its RS prevalence, we're entirely DUE, and that's that. (note: fixed a missing 'of' in my original, and your quotation of it.) Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

By that theory, newspaper retractions might be "fringe viewpoints" that lack sufficient due weight to even be considered.  On 3 March 2012, at least a half a dozen media outlets worldwide reported that a baby was blown 10 miles (16 km) by a tornado.  Editors should be concerned that the baby was blown North while the tornado traveled East, and that the local sources don't mention the story.  The article is March 2–3, 2012 tornado outbreak, and the sentence was quickly removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:

If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead.

• This has the problem that not all errors in published reliable sources are discussed in published reliables sources.  The key word we should be using is "evidence", not "sources".  As stated at WP:Inaccuracy#Approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material, "As with other editorial decisions, editors must consider the forms of evidence that are available."  For example, the personal experience of editors, as reported at WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context for the case in Oslo, constitutes evidence.
• It is also misleading because it leaves the impression that inaccuracy is a reason to exclude material from the encyclopedia.  Inaccurate material may or may not have due-weight prominence, and we have the example Dewey defeats Truman as a case in which we report inaccurate material.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with an editor making content decisions based on personal experience is this: How are other editors (who weren't in Oslo at the time) going to check what that person says they experienced?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRS does not consider this to be a problem.  WP:IRS states, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."  Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I started with Kalidasa 777's version and came up with the following.

Accuracy Reliable sources are usually correct but not always. Sometimes they may be outdated or superseded on a specific point by other reliable sources. At other times they may contain errors that are obvious to all the editors involved. If the accuracy of sourced material is questionable, a consensus of editors can decide whether or not to include it in an article. In reaching a consensus, editors should consider source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight where appropriate. Rewriting how the material is presented is sometimes a better choice than removing it entirely.

I got the four links at the end from Kalidasa 777's version. The first one is policy, the second one seems to be nearly at the policy level with regard to reliability, whereas the last two are essays which I'm not sure about.

BLP considerations may need to be added since the bar is lower for removing questionable BLP sourced material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I like -Bob K31416's version though WP:IAI doesn't address what to do with information that can be verified as inaccurate so I would recommend something along these lines:

Accuracy and Source Conflict Reliable sources are usually correct but not always. Sometimes they may be outdated or superseded on a specific point by other reliable sources. At other times they may contain errors that are obvious to all the editors involved. If the accuracy of sourced material is questionable, a consensus of editors can decide whether or not to include it in an article. In reaching a consensus, editors should consider source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight where appropriate. Note just because sources conflict does not mean that one or more are inaccurate. They can be portraying the subject from different POVs and be essentially accurate within their respective points of view. The Conflict between sources section in the Wikipedia:These are not original research essay goes into greater detail on how to determine the difference between a "potential inaccuracy" (simply a conflict between information provided by sources) and an actual "inaccuracy" (where a statement can be shown by verifiable sources to be factually inaccurate). Rewriting how the material is presented is sometimes a better choice than removing it entirely.

I don't want editors to think just because sources are in conflict that one or more has to be inaccurate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, important point. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Above, JClemens says: We do not sit in judgment on reliable sources. If they disagree, we note that disagreement. If everything but one source says something, we note the disparity and handle it with appropriate weight. We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance evidence goes the other direction, not by deciding that minority views that do not agree with the mainstream can be excised from an article. I think there is very substantial evidence that this position is wrong, and that we very much do sit in judgment on reliable sources, and we very much do suppress them. This is why glucojasinogen is a redlink is controversial even though there are two academic sources for it; it's why our article on species mentions evolution but does not mention baraminology; and it's why our article on the Apollo program has nothing to say about the moon landing conspiracy theory. There are sources that meet WP:RS for all these things, but in the relevant articles, they have been suppressed entirely. I could go on and on, but in fact I think this suffices to show that editors absolutely do sit in judgment on reliable sources, and they absolutely do make the judgment to remove sourceable material from articles, and my position is that they are quite right to do so. We should document this widespread practice more clearly in WP:V.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Judging (and subsequently summarizing) sources is one of the core activities/requirement for writing an encyclopedic article, so yes JClemes line is completely wrong as stated. However that line is probably due to a misunderstanding of the policy (NPOV & Co), that we normally do not judge on different notable opinions or not yet fully established/(within the science community) universally accepted theories, but simply describe them as their are (including notable published criticism). And maybe also from the fact that published knowledge (= content from a reliable source) normally trumps private knowledge and that we do not allow arbitrary private corrections of reliable sources, but we rather require it to be the correction of an obvious error all knowledgeable editors agree on (say a typo, a "simple" calculation error, misquotation) and/or other (more) reliable sources (in that context) backing up the correction.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not wrong. We can assess the reliability of a source, which is what WP:RS/N is all about, but once a source has been deemed reliable, we do not have any basis with which to say "No, wait, that's incorrect". That would be WP:OR, and is the bane of WP:V. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not responsible for getting things 100% right: RS'es, which Wikipedia is not, have an accuracy responsibility. To avoid OR, we are necessarily constrained at being no more accurate than our best RS'es around. Perfection is both unachievable and undesirable; if we cover all of human knowledge to the level of accuracy that the best RS'es do, we will have done something miraculously wonderful. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good; accept that we are constrained and embrace the pillars, because to abandon our reliance on RS'es is to throw us into chaos, where everyone is pushing their own pet interpretation, arguing that certain RS'es are inaccurate, or the like. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jclemens we do have as basis with which to say "No, wait, that's incorrect". I have repeatably given examples of how that can be achieved. If a otherwise reliable source talks about Washington DC in 1785 or something happening in the state of Utah in 1890 we can clearly state "No, wait, that's incorrect" because those places did not exist in those times as demonstrated by other RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. We have a ton of other RS evidence that demonstrates that those typographical errors are nothing more than a "tiny minority", and can and should be excluded without compromising UNDUE. We don't need to state that that RS is incorrect, because the lack of concurring support is already enough for us not to mention it. Judgment of correctness is just not needed--we judge preponderance in reliable sources and, on well-covered topics, that will essentially amount to mirroring the best consensus understanding in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC

Well yes we do. It is more a matter of how we phrase and whether the policy explicitly needs to state those minority cases over there is usually no dispute anyway when they occur. However that doesn't change the fact that we do judge on the reliability and correctness of information in reliable sources and in those "tiny minority scenarios" even correct them as well, but we don't do so simply based on personal opinion or whim, but by carefully comparing and weighing "all" sources available. I agree we need a strong policy to keep editor from going astray and I agree the tiny minority scenarios need not to be covered explicitly. For that reason the current policy formulation is actually fine with me.

Nevertheless we will have a problem, when we get an increasing number of editors taking the policy all too literally in every case (as an absolute thing) without any regard for context and hence conclude that an editor's job in WP does not involve any judging/comparing/weighing of sources (at all) and is simply a "transcription monkey thing". Because then we reach a point where it becomes an obstacle to any intelligible writing and appropriate summaries.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment--While this is all true your examples are less about Verifiability itself and more about NPSA (No Policy Stands Alone). The glucojasinogen example seems to have Wikipedia:Notability issues (what exactly is this? I have no freaking clue and the article that now exists is no help. Heck there is not a single reference reliable or otherwise in the entire thing) while the evolution-baraminology and Apollo program-moon landing conspiracy theory examples are prime examples of WP:FRINGE.

NPSA is the real problem here. We seem to have some editors think that WP:V stands alone--it doesn't. It works (or rather is supposed to work) in conjunction with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and so on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:V does work in conjunction with other policies... I think the proposed new section is trying to highlight this... and trying to explain how WP:V works in conjunction with with those other policies when it comes to dealing with inaccuracy. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the "We do not sit in judgment on reliable sources" statement by Jclemens. If a source is inaccurate, an alternative source "must be found" that says it is inaccurate or one that contradicts it. Else we have a "recipe for a nightmare". And I really mean that: A "recipe for a nightmare". I have seen cases where users have started to judge the contents of WP:RS sources, and one user who wanted to "dismiss a scholar" because they did not agree with him. If Wikipedia users are allowed, or even encouraged to debate the accuracy of WP:RS sources based on their personal knowledge that is a "recipe for a nightmare". A 12 year old user can then begin to argue that professor X is just incorrect without having to present professor Y who disagrees with X. The door to disagreeing with what the professors write must not be opened. The only way should be to find another professor who disagrees with them and use that as a WP:RS source. The only exception is antique sources, say a book published in 1921 which has now been outdated. Those are, however, currently covered under general policy. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

JClemens line is wrong nevertheless. Even if other reliable sources are needed, we do consequently judge on using (or rather dropping) the inaccurate information from the original source. The issue here is that you cannot apply these policy/guidelines in an absolute purely formal manner, but you to consider them within a given context and cooperation with the other guidelines and in connection with the overall project goal (providing accurate information on established knowledge).

In some (relatively rare) contexts you wouldn't even need a separate reliable source, say an obvious typo or a computation error in "simple"/straight forward calculation error, but you'd simply either correct them or drop them from the article. Also we do not allow editors to make (arbitrary) corrections of reliable sources based on their personal opinion, but we do certainly expect editors to use their personal knowledge (and critical minds) to assess the reliability and accuracy of sources. The latter is fundamental requirement for any meaningful selection of sources in the first place.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry I can not agree with that line of reasoning, because it opens the door to debate about the content of WP:RS sources. If professor X says that "John Smith died in 1723" and you and I agree that it is 1732 and he made a typo, we should not be allowed to go and change that to 1732 without finding professor Y who says "John Smith died in 1732". If the year is 1732, there should be no problem in finding alternative sources. The problem I see with this proposal is that it opens the door just one crack to weakening WP:V, weakening reliance on WP:S sources and eventually opening the door to WP:OR in about 3 years. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice the term obvious error above 1723 versus 1732 in too different reliable sources is no obvious error at all (nor can I see a reason why (sane) editors would agree on either figure unless they have other sources). However when writing about a person known to have lived throughout the 20th century then 1932 versus 1032 would be an obvious error (typo), i.e. in that context 1032 is clearly false and should be corrected by the WP editor. Of course you can always construct examples where the WP editor you should not correct typos (because they are not really that obvious) and cases where he should. Which brings me back to my statement further up, that you cannot apply this policy in an absolute and purely manner without consideration of the concrete context. A general policy simply cannot cover all the scenarios that may arise on all the different fields of WP in literally fashion, we are way too diverse for that. You often don't have to cite an additional reliable source to correct obvious typo/error in elementary math or science book, but that is of course something completely different as scholarly opinions say in history, sociology or philosophy, which of course you cannot correct as you see fit.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The real issue is "how obvious is obvious?" If there are other WP:RS sources, then there should be no problem in any case. However, in the absence of WP:RS sources that say otherwise, accuracy should not be disputed. And it is not just a clear cut difference between mathematics and sociology. I have seen that issue happen on Goedel's incompleteness page too. And again, I really see this whole issue as the beginning of a "watering down process" for the verifiability and reliability processes, and an eventual cozy relationship with tolerating WP:OR as the "this source's reasoning is obviously incorrect" argument gets presented again and again by editors who do not like what a source says. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Goedel's incompleteness theorem is not exactly elementary math. Of course you have similar sources in science or math topics as well, where an editor cannot simply correct a presumed inaccuracy in reliable source. The issue is not science versus non science but obvious versus not(so) obvious. And yes the critical question here is indeed "how obvious is obvious", but this issue can neither be resolved by "there is no such thing as obvious" nor "obvious is simply whatever an individual editor", but in doubt it has to be judged based on the concrete case.

I'm very well aware of the "watering down problem", i.e. I see that danger. But formalistic frankly braindead application of a single policy without regard of other policies and concrete context is a real danger as well. Or to put it this way, there are no single "golden policy" which can be always be applied in formalistic absolute and ultimately braindead fashion, that simply doesn't work. You always need to consider (=think) what makes sense in a concrete situation, there's no way around that. However you may very well make an argument, that this is aspect is implicitly covered by WP:IAR and doesn't need to codified here explicitly--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Step 1: You stop using the word braindead to refer to suggestions made by other editors. Understand? Be polite. Now, the "watering down problem" is inherently built into this issue. Wikipedia has enough problems with reliability that it does not need a weakening of policies related to verifiability and original research. If editors who do not like a WP:RS source are given the smallest window of opportunity to use as a method arguing against it based on their determination that "the source's reasoning is obviously incorrect" they will use that window, and point to the policy until they wear down the opposition. That is why the door to that type of argument should not open, for it will certainly lead to the watering down of reliability. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Braindead is not comment on other people's suggestions, but merely pointing out what purely formalistic approach actually is (applying formula without thinking). Using common sense isn't really watering down much nor opening any doors, but it points that a formalistic policy interpretation simply does not work all the time.

Yes, POV pusher or people with an agenda will try to use any (presumed or real) opening, but you are sorely mistaken if you think a formalistic use of the policy would prevent that. On the contrary it even opens door and that is a problem we already have. People will simply argue that any generally (formally) "reliable" source will need to mentioned, because the editor is not allowed to perform any selecting/judging of reliable sources (as indicated in JClement's line further up). So first you make you sure, that your source (publication) is "generally or mostly reliable" (without considering any particular context) then you pick an article in your source (which considering a given context might be extremely unreliable) and claim any "reliable" source must be mentioned in the article and editors are not allowed to assess/judge it, since we it is already considered "generally reliable". Viola - you can push almost any fringe you want and of course you will insist on their formalistic policy approach until the opposition is worn down.

Now the case where you reasonable can correct obvious minor errors/typos in reliable sources without resorting to other reliable sources are so rare, that we do not need to codify them in a policy. the few times they might arise editors are likely to agree on them anyway. However the case where editors may need to discard or correct inaccurate or outdated information in reliably sources based on other reliable sources, is something we may have to spill out explicitly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In the above it was stated: "We do not suppress reliable sources, even if widely believed to be incorrect: we balance inaccuracy by showing the preponderance evidence goes the other direction" I think that is a valid statement except that I think "widely believed" should clarified as widely believed by editors present on a page. That is the idea of WP:V and there is no reason for watering it down by an amendment which would in the end water down reliability. History2007 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That varies from article to article. See Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_10, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_11, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_12, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_13 for an example of just how crazy (as in insane silly stupid) some of those arguments can get.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are too many items on some archive. And I am not sure how that is supposed to influence WP:V. The long and short of it is that no door should open to a process of watering down WP:V, and ushering in WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The dreaded but it is too long excuse followed by the slippy slope fallacy, sigh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Kmhkmh's comment above, "we do consequently judge on using (or rather dropping) the inaccurate information from the original source", dropping any relevant RS is a violation of UNDUE, unless that source is itself (part of) a "tiny minority", however that is determined. By policy, we do not drop things just because we believe them to be inaccurate. We drop them only because the crushing weight of other RS'es demonstrate them to be a tiny minority, regardless of real or perceived accuracy. That is, measuring the accuracy of an RS is itself a wrong metric, already taken care of by UNDUE, and risks putting us into OR territory. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, in the scenario I'm talking about it is rather the other way around, simply stating fringe position that exist in some formally reliable publication is a violation of WP:UNDUE. I agree that doesn't need to be covered here but covering it in WP:UNDUE is good enough, but that is exactly what I was saying above you cannot apply (or correctly understand this policy) without considering the concrete context and related policy. Also it is not just always just an issue of tiny minority versus large majority, but also of ranking sources "fornally reliable" sources. To give another example here. Let's you have an article in the NYT and in American Mathematical Monthly on some new math result, which are contradicting each at some (the NYT reporter obviously got it wrong/misunderstood something), then you should not simply state both versions ("both are reliable sources"), but you toss the NYT article instead as math journals have a higher reliability on math subjects than general newspaper articles.

The problem here that were are looking from different angles at the issue. WP has conflicting goals here: a) preventing WP:OR and POV pushing b) be as accurate as possible and avoid the unnecessary copying errors from source. We want a) and b) but they occasionally conflict in policies.

You are worried, that editors may start to correct reliable sources as they see fit and simply tailor them to the personal opinion or ideologies or similarly bad simply suppress notable opinions disagreeing with them. I completely agree, that we cannot allow editors to do such things and we need a strong policy here. But this is not the only issue we need handle (and as explained above not the only form in which POV pushing can occur). Editors (ideally) need to summarize and compile a large number of reliable sources and they need to be able to prioritize and rank them to weed out fringe position, outdated/clearly false publications. This is exactly the point of WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE and a fundamental part of an editor's job in WP.

There is is also a macro and micro perspective that needs to be distinguished. While editors are not supposed to correct reliable sources in terms of their overall content/opinion/theories, they are supposed to correct minor obvious errors (typos, spelling errors, misquotations, miscomputations) and to avoid copy them into WP. If a reliable source on Einstein (say some journal article) gives his lifetime as (1879-2055), the editor is not supposed to copy 2055 into WP and in fact he can even correct that typo without the need of another reliable source as common sense (the information in the rest of the article, life span of humans) obviously suggests that the correct date is 1955. In other case (the typo would have would 1945 instead of 1955) you might have to refer to other reliable source for his correct date of death, but note as a result you are still suppose to drop/correct the false information bit from your original source. The only case where you actually state different dates (=show the information from original source or all reliable sources), when it is not an (obvious) typo and various (equally) reliable sources do indeed disagree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I think it would actually be good to add "we do not drop things just because we believe them to be inaccurate. We drop them only because the crushing weight of other RS'es" to this page, but in more formal language. That is the central issue really. If the door is opened at all to deletions based on user perspective, nightmares will ensue. Really nightmares in which 12 year olds can disagree with books written by professors. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There I agree, the point is however that in such cases we do drop the inaccurate information. I don't think anybody here has suggested correction on mere belief or personal disagreement, but rather concrete situation where any sane editor (and other reliable sources) would agree that a particular information from an individual reliable source is wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in the present policy that prohibits editors from removing or excluding reliably sourced material that they think is wrong? If so, please give the excerpt and link. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, WP:BURDEN? Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it there. Please give the excerpt as requested. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid question actually, and I do not see the answer in WP:BURDEN either. My guess is that WP:PRESERVE covers that. Is that right? History2007 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it there either. Excerpt? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Start from: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained ... " end with "... instead of deleting text, consider: rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar" That says it. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at that and it didn't prohibit the removal of material that an editor thought was wrong.

• "Preserve appropriate content." — An editor can think material is inappropriate because it is wrong.
• "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained..." — An editor can think that the facts or ideas do not belong in a "finished article" because they are wrong.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the way to read it, per WP:V the criterion for being in an article is not being "right/wrong" but verifiability. Anyway, feel free to apply your interpretation of policy to a few pages and see what happens. Do let us know. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is the way to read it, if you're following policy. However, there are unwritten rules that editors use in practice, which may change from situation to situation, with non-policy based consensus determining what stays or goes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed your addition re WP:V which indicates a misconception. Verifiability is not the criterion for being in an article, but rather a criterion. And being right or wrong is a consideration in practice for verifiable material when it comes to excluding or removing it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No editor wants to include information they think is wrong just because it's verifiable. This is why I believe this whole discussion over VnT is a waste of time. We are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They would if it fit their agenda, such as promoting a point of view or personal long-held misconception that they would rather support with incorrect info than lose face by admitting they were wrong. It's just human nature. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, it doesn't even have to be a long-held misconception. It could be just a position an editor took in a heated discussion on Wikipedia, which gets to the point of wanting to win by any means. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Bob asked whether WP policy prohibits an editor for removing a bit of info the editor thinks is wrong. Actually WP policies seldom either prohibit or compel anything, except where there are legal issues like copyright. In general, WP policies, like the Pirate's Code, are not hard and fast rules but more a set of guidelines. I agree that WP:PRESERVE is relevant here.

What about WP:V? The traditional wording of the intro, which described that VnT as the "threshold", has sometimes been used (some say misused) to mean that you can't remove something that is verifiable even if it is untrue. The current (locked, disputed) version includes the words: "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."

Does that mean you should remove verifiable material only if you have a reason based on "other policies or guidelines"? Or does "no guarantee" mean you should feel free to boldly remove verifiable material for any reason you think fit? It is really quite ambiguous... Which is why I think that more needs to be said. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "Actually WP policies seldom either prohibit or compel anything" — WP:V prohibits adding unverifiable material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the combination of (WP:PRESERVE + WP:V) does provide policy here. However, WP:V by itself is not and has never been enough for inclusion, e.g. the fact that Elvis recorded a specific song may be totally verifiable, but may have no place in an article on physics, etc. But when WP:RS referenced content is relevant, (WP:PRESERVE + WP:V) point to its being kept rather than deleted.

However Kalidasa I would like to suggest that you close this discussion (given that you started it) for I have serious, serious fears of the impact it will have on quality by providing loopholes that may be used to water down verifiability requirements. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to continue the discussion about how to maintain verifiability and quality. Unscintillating has just started a new thread below with Draft 4. I'd suggest that is the place to continue the discussion, and the three drafts in this thread can be considered alongside Unscintillating's new one. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"No editor wants to include information they think is wrong just because it's verifiable." Quest, that is not the problem. The problem is as demonstrated by the examples I have repeatedly given is editors failing to admit the information being given is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: A POV-pusher is not going stop POV-pushing by this section. In fact, this won't have the slightest effect on them. Likewise, this section isn't going to get an editor who refused to admit they were wrong to change their mind.

@BruceGrubb: OK, let's say we have an editor who is failing to admit the information being given is wrong. How is this section going to change their mind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment "No editor wants to include information they think is wrong just because it's verifiable. ", which you apparently admit is incorrect.

Re your recent comment "A POV-pusher is not going stop POV-pushing by this section. ... Likewise, this section isn't going to get an editor who refused to admit they were wrong to change their mind." — If you believe that, it seems that you should believe the same thing about the whole policy. In any case, could you suggest what would be needed for the accuracy section to change your opinion of it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that the words "accurate" and "wrong" are beginning to intermingle here. Is the word "false" not getting invited to the party here? So please see the question in the section below about why "accurate" is being used instead of "true". History2007 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as I tried to show with my Why We Fight example above you can have a source that is both accurate and inaccurate depending on how you want to use it. The kind of "smoking gun" examples I originally presented are very rare but the fact even months later you had editors saying that even in the face of clear and more importantly Verifiable evidence the source was talking factual nonsense that it should be used anyhow showed that VnT was being read in some really bizarre ways.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and "watering down"

Several times in the above discussion, History2007 states that dealing with accuracy would lead to a "watering down" of verifiability. I must disagree with this, strongly. Accuracy is in addition to verification, not against it. Erroneous statements for which a citation can be found ought to be excluded, and this does not imply inclusion of unverified material. Indeed, the insistence upon including patently incorrect material is itself creating original research, because it creates phony controversies and uncertainties. Anyone who has ever looked over the "wealth" of 9/11 conspiracy material can see where relies on citations of statements that turned out to be untrue; there's no problem in dismissing these in assembling an accurate account of events. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that 9/11 is one of the most controversial issues of the last decade, so I can not address who is right/wrong there. However, what I think is that the argument above demonstrates two things:

• With the best of intentions you want to present information that you consider important to get to readers.

• Your arguments are well intentioned, but aim at presenting "truth" - whatever it may be, while addressing the topic of accuracy.

So we now have a case where the opening of the door just one crack to deal with "accuracy" will allow the T-word to walk in right behind it. Basically what I was trying to say. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "So we now have a case where the opening of the door just one crack to deal with "accuracy" will allow the T-word to walk in right behind it." — Maybe you ought to explain that remark since it suggests that you want to keep accuracy and truth out of Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am genuinely trying to work out whether each side is totally misunderstanding the other. History2007, your continued assertions that other editors are seeking to "water down" the policy appears to be a major violation of WP:AGF. I think – and for my own part, I am absolutely sure – that what editors are seeking to do is ensure that information which is clearly factually wrong (whether because later research has conclusively proven so, or whatever) is not included in articles simply because some apparently reliable source once said it. It's a matter of common sense that our knowledge of facts changes over time. Bloodletting used to be considered to be a "cure" for all sorts of diseases, as did many other things. I'm absolutely sure that sources which were mainstream-of-their-day could be found which dished out a huge amount of medical information which we now know not only to be "wrong", but to be actively dangerous. We discover new things all the time, and the outdated concepts (there is no particle smaller than an atom, for example) should not be being included in Wikipedia just on the basis that there is a published source for it. Otherwise-reliable sources can be flat-out "wrong". There is no such thing as an infallible source. Generally-reliable, yes; infallible, no. So as and when it is quite clear and verifiable that a source is wrong about something, we should not be including that information. Dewey defeats Truman. Yup, it can have an article on itself, as a notable headline, but we do not include, in any way, the apparent "fact" that Dewey defeated Truman in an article on either Dewey, Truman, or the campaign. That is pure common sense. But, as I've said above, we do seem to have a small population of editors who appear to be inherently incapable of applying pure common sense to such things (no names and no pack drill); therefore we do need some kind of guidelines. And pure common sense is not original research. Pesky (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely, absolutely no AGF question here. As I said I think Mangoe has the best of intentions. I am, however, asserting that the opening of the door to accuracy will lead to the T-word and the watering down of cited scholarship in favor or editor opinion. And yes, I think the policy as is intends to to keep truth subordinate to verifiability i.e. "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia", and I think it should remain that way in view of the previous RFC. My position is clear: I prefer cited scholarship to editor opinion of truth given that a well intentioned editor may not be as familiar with physics or computer science as the professor who wrote the book being cited. And that is what policy states now: verifiability trumps perceived truth. History2007 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" means that truth alone is not sufficient for material to be accepted by Wikipedia. It doesn't say anything about whether or not sourced material that is false can be excluded. You can check this in the current version of WP:V and in any previous version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we do need to bear in mind that there is a certain amount of coverage of "common sense" here. Copying in for convenience:

Reliability in the context is subtly different than inaccuracy, and the difference is the difference between a verifiable source with potential inaccuracy, and an unreliable source that fails WP:V. Evidence of inaccuracy may be used to argue to the unreliability of the source in the context.

The content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources makes these statements:

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.

• Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

• Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.

Pesky (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That link leads to Wikipedia:Inaccuracy which seems to be but a recent essay by a small number of editors. It does not seem to have been subjected to any significant community discussion at all. It seems to be just the opinion of a small number editors and hence has no bearing on issues as such, given its recency and lack of community discussion. Indeed, at first reading the tone of it seems to point the other way from WP:Truth. In fact I might suggest merging WP:Truth and WP:Accuracy given that their overlap may well be unclear to many readers. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation of policy

Please read WP:AUTIE! I'm increasingly sure that a number of our differences in how policy should be interpreted stem directly from the fact that we have people who just interpret things in different ways. For some people, everything is interpreted entirely literally in all situations; for others it's not. It's vitally important that we ensure that what we really mean in our policies is absolutely clear to all editors. Otherwise we end up with heated arguments when both sides are arguing from a 100% good-faith viewpoint, but each side can't understand the other's reasoning at all. North8000 and Blueboar (and probably others who I have forgotten to remember ... ummm, yes, I think that makes sense) have done some excellent mini-examples to clarify policy stuff elsewhere. I think this is an important task. "Please take a chair" doesn't actually mean that. Pesky (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is understood by everyone here (I think). We're just trying to work out how do deal with all of the differing interpretations. There's nothing here that's all that new, really. (although, I guess that I should mention that I'm not autistic at all, since you're bringing it up...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree  Yes, I've seen this before in the discussion of VnT being a figure of speech.  A figure of speech includes both a literal and a figurative component.  In spite of some who say that VnT is intended to deliver a "jolt", there are others to whom it just means something literal.  Ambiguity is the enemy of understanding.  It takes effort to read for ambiguity.  One technique is to read material first slowly and then quickly.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's not just the VnT thing, it applies to an awful lot of things in policy pages which just aren;t really properly clear. Although I'm a high-functioning autistic myself, I also come from a family of writers and so I'm used to all kinds of figures of speech and other stuff. I like to think that I can be functional in the position of "interpreter", as it were, as I can see things (usually) both from the neurotypical viewpoint and the autism-spectrum viewpoint. I can relate easily to where A-spectrum people are likely to come across hiccups in reading and would need to have things slightly re-worded (in a way which would still be totally clear to neurotypical editors). I've also taught quite a lot of autism-spectrum people, and generally haven't had much problem in communicating.

  @ Unscintillating: the problem with ambiguities, for may autism-spectrum people, is that it isn't an ambiguity! It's clear! But it's clear in a totally different way! The usual reaction (internal, once we've learned to control our immediate verbalisation of how we feel, lol!) is "Well why the **** didn't you say what you meant!" Pesky (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Let me try this: the problem is not the fact that "verifiability not truth" specifically is being changed, it's that the statement is being redefined in the process. We've been talking about where we have commonality up above, and the fact that nobody here is really "wrong".
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think I got that bit! But it's currently 05:08, and I have been awake all night! My current problem is that I feel so alone in trying to keep an eye on stuff that's happening in various places, to try and make sure that new changes don't drop us A-spectrum people into a morass of uncertainty! Generally I don't have much of a problem myself, but I can often see why others have real trouble with things, and so often plain, simple misunderstandings are at the root of what end up being major rows. I really am trying my best, but it feels as though there's only one of me, and it's just such a weight of responsibility ... Pesky (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well, you know, the great thing is that this is a wiki. Anything that's changed can be changed again.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Aahhh, but you make it sound so easy! And, as we can see, it's not easy. It's really not easy to get wording in policy changed, at all, to ensure that the Autism-spectrum people here (and I suspect it may be a much higher percentage than many people think) understand it with ease the first time around, without any explanations. We have to go through all this. Fing is, though, fing is ... that if we get it so that the A-spectrum people can understand it first-go, the neurotypicals will too. It's not an either/or situation. One way, everyone understands it easily; the other way, only some of us do. Pesky (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  From my experience with wikis... anything that's changed can be changed again, but to the wrong version. :>) Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  My version is always the right version. You should know that by now! @Pesky, I think that you're giving "neurotypicals" far too much credit. lol
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ohm's Law, the version that Pesky currently endorses replaces VNT with "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Do you feel that this "redefines" the policy? I don't, I think it says exactly what SlimVirgin meant to say back in 2005 when she wrote it. But one of the various issues we have here is that different people say that VNT means different things (often very loudly and trenchantly).—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing ;P

Just FYI, and as a matter of courtesy, I'm informing y'all that I have put up a blatant canvassing message on my talk (which seems to be Autie-central, lol!) for other autism-spectrum editors (with a sound understanding of policy and long tenure) to come in and assist with trying to ensure that whatever we end up with, however we do it, works well for all our editors. We have a lot of autism-spectrum editors here, and Wikipedia is like a honey-trap for Aspies and auties, so I feel that it's of vital importance that the wording of our policies doesn't cause unintended problems for a significant segment of the WikiCommunity. Apologies if this has offended anyone, but I can't carry the can for the entirety of the WikiAutie community all on my own ... it's making me feel ill :o( Pesky (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the section Burden of evidence

Proposal to add the following paragraph to the end of the section Burden of evidence of WP:V.

To remove material that has an inline citation to a reliable source, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to remove it. If the removal is disputed, consensus is required for the removal.

The section would then look like the following.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

To remove material that has an inline citation to a reliable source, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to remove it. If the removal is disputed, consensus is required for the removal.

Notes

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Turns WP:CONCENSUS upside down. It an editor boldly inserts cited content and is reverted because it violated WP:NPOV, WP:BLP or whatever, the burden is on bold editor to gain consensus for the change, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. My error. I withdraw the proposal as is and will think about it some more, and try to find a fix. Or maybe someone else will have a suggestion of how to fix it. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is a burden on the remover, I would say it is to state why they are removing it (in either an edit summary or on the talk page). It's not a "burden of evidence"... but a "burden of explanation" (and if contested, persuasion). However, this is not necessarily a Verifiability issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The situation I was trying to address was where an editor removes sourced material because, according to the editor's reasoning, the information in the reliable source is incorrect. In that situation, it seems like the editor should have the burden of evidence for removal and should require consensus if the removal is disputed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is talking about challenges where someone thinks unsourced material is unverifiable... not challenges where someone thinks material is inaccurate. (yes, it is less likely that someone will challenge unverifiable material that they think is accurate... but it can and does happen occasionally). When someone challenges whether material is verifiable, the only way to counter that challenge is to "prove" that the material is in fact verifiable (by providing a source). Hence the Burden on those who wish to add or retain the information.

The question of accuracy is a different and distinct issue from the question of verifiability. There is no one-sided burden on anyone to "prove" that a source is accurate or inaccurate. Such debates can only be resolved through discussion and consensus (ie persuasion). In most cases, such debates can be resolved by rewording the material (phrasing it as attributed "opinion" and not as accepted "fact".) In other words, by presenting the challenged information... accurately. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is where we disagree. I think that a reliable source has more weight than an editor's opinion or analysis. So if an editor wants to remove sourced material because the editor thinks the reliable source is wrong, then I think the editor should bear the burden of evidence for the removal. If the removal is disputed then there would need to be a consensus for the removal before the material could be removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't actually, disagree all that much. I completely agree that if an editor wishes to remove sourced material, they need to explain why... and if the removal is contested there should be a discussion in which consensus is formed. However, the reason why that is discussed does not necessarily have to be "evidence" based (a good convincing argument without "evidence" can sway consensus after all)..

More importantly, editors should think about options other than removal... Very often "accuracy" debates are incorrectly framed as being a question of whether we should note some fact in the article... when they should be framed as a question of how we note the fact in an article. Before we discuss removal we should discuss presentation... Should we present the information as a blunt statement of accepted fact ("John Doe was born in Chicago in 1894 <cite reliable biographer I.M. Expert>") ... or should we present the information as a statement of attributed noteworthy opinion ("According to Biographer I.M. Expert, John Doe was born in Chicago in 1894. <cite I.M. Expert>). This is what I mean by presenting potentially inaccurate information accurately. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But this goes back to how WP:Weight and WP:NPOV interact with WP:V. I have seen many instances of how weasel words in one reliable source have been used to claim that another source is a "minority" option (often to the point of claiming fringe) With controversial topics (such as Rorschach test) it becomes a real headache if you have POV pushing editors involved (you only have to slug though Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_11, Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_12, and Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_13 to see examples of that nonsense)--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hierarchy of policies idea

The view I have always had regarding Verifiability is that it at the top of a Hierarchy--if you cannot meet it via WP:IRS then logically none of the other policies really come into play. By taking this approach we hopefully can shut down all the nonsensical arguments that we are somehow "weakening" WP:V because we separate the core (which we are NOT touching) of WP:V means that a reference meets WP:IRS from subordinate policies.

Even Wikipedia:Notability and WP:Fringe state you need a Reliable source to meet their criteria. So all this is and attempt as clarify that core not changing it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Partially true (or rather, we're in partial agreement at least). I've always thought of verifiability as being on equal footing with the "no original research" policy and the "neutral point of view" policy. But the reliable sources guideline (I still don't like SlimVirgin's "Interpreting Reliable Sources" title, even a couple of years later :-/) is definitely in a supportive relationship to this document. Likewise, Notability and fringe are supportive as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

oh yea, the main reason that I wanted to reply here is because this reminded me of an idea that I brought up elsewhere, about a month ago: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 87#Policy and guideline classification.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How does one spell gridlock? To be approved, this approach would need to be accepted by multiple groups on multiple policy pages. I wonder if North and South Korea will have united before an agreement is reached there. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically if you look at the wording of the policies and guidelines regarding article content this is the de facto case. Choose any policy or guideline and see how far you get before you hit Verifiability, OR, or Reliable Source. Go ahead do it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay: I picked Wikipedia:Child protection. I got all the way down to the navbox without encountering any of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We are clearly talking about article content policies and guidelines; that is a behavioral policy. Though, thanks for demonstrating the kind of silliness we serious editors have to put up with.

To clarify choose any policy or guideline regarding article page content and see how far you get before you hit Verifiability, OR, or Reliable Source. Odds are it is going to have to be something really obscure not to have any of those.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, an official "content guideline", links to none of those three pages. Ditto for Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, another official content guideline. And Wikipedia:Spoiler. Shall I go on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

All of which would fall under my really obscure category. The Cabin in the Woods movie article is a prime example of how well Wikipedia:Spoiler is known or followed (Ie basically not at all). Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources are simply special cases of WP:NOT and more people are aware of the later then those two (if they are aware of them at).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll say verifiability, NOR, and NPOV are equally important, and form the core pillar of Wikipedia. So it is nonsensical to find hierarchy among these three policies. The last paragraph of the lead of WP:V page put V first, NOR second, and NPOV last. I think making this arrangement in alphabetical order is a much better option. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence on this page that Supernova is referencing is: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy. If there's any order to that at all, I'd say that it's relative to Verifiability, which is in contrast to relativity to the project as a whole. That being said, I don't see any immediately obvious problem with rearranging them if anyone thinks that it's important for whatever reason.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, now I understand your point. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. So NPOV is subordinate to Verifiability because if a source is not reliable (ie meeting Verifiability) then odds what it is saying doesn't qualify for inclusion under NPOV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

SPS section

In my experience, we've typically accepted self-published sources as useful beyond just themselves — we've accepted them as sources for information about their authors. For example, if we have reliable sources talking about someone known as a professional taste-tester, I expect that we'd accept that person's blog as a source for saying that the taste-tester enjoyed one taste more than anything else. Therefore, aside from the bad grammar that I noticed only after making the edit, what do you think of this change? I can't imagine that the point of this section is to say that the taste-tester's blog must not be used to write about the taste-tester and may be used only to write about the blog. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it should apply to both the website/company and the author. Some authors form their own personal publishing company that just publishes their own 3 or 4 books - and at times it is not even obvious that they own the publisher, by the way. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement there; I'm simply attempting to clarify that we're also permitting the SPS to cover the publisher and author, not just the publication itself. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. On that note, there are new lists for that, and it was suggested that they should be linked, as below. History2007 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the key bit is aligned interests. For example, a press kit about a company officer, published by that company is not a "third party" (impermissible) source within the meaning of SPS. While the company officer isn't necessarily the publisher in fact, there's a presumption of alignment of interests--the company will tell the corporate officer's story truthfully, because it is in everyone's best interests to do so. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm not clear how that's relevant to an attempt to say that an SPS may be used to write about its author and affiliates, rather than making it sound as if the SPS may only be used to write about the source document itself. Simply trying to reconcile the wording and our typical application thereof. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read our definition of the term "source" at WP:IRS... the author is included in that definition. So, when we talk about a "self-published source" being acceptable for statements about "themselves", we include the author in the term "themselves". There is no need to change the policy to specify that authors are included. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I think the policy already does what you want it to do, and your proposed change seems to do the opposite of what you want. You changed "themselves" to "author(s)". To me, the new wording implies that it only applies to the author. For example, what if an organization publishes an article credited to a person. The new wording implies that the article can only be used for information about the person, not the organization. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If the credited person is part of the organization, then it's still self-published and the article can be used for information about the org and/or the org's components, e.g., the author.

If the author is not part of the org, then the article is not self-published, so this section does not apply at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is only true if the .org has some form of editorial overview. Case in point, WhatamIdoing seems to have forgotten that wikipedia is wikipedia.org. Blogs that end in .org (such as researchblogging.org) are other example. The point is no connection between the creator of the org domain and the author of the piece doesn't automatically mean the piece is not self published.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Wikipedia, the editors are the publishers. We decide what we want to write, and we cause what we write to be made public ("publish"). We are each of us part of the organization ("the community", as we call it).

The internet address is irrelevant. The nature of the relationship between the author and publisher do not change if publication happens at a .org or a .com or on paper. If, for example, a software company's CEO thought that his next-door neighbor's kid wrote a great poem, and he decided to include the poem in the next user manual, then that poem is not self-published, even if there's nothing like what we would consider typical editorial control going on here. This is really "publisher's control": someone unconnected to the author decides whether or not to make it available to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you realize all this then WHY in the name of sanity did you say and I quote "If the author is not part of the org, then the article is not self-published, so this section does not apply at all"?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's true and relevant to Quest's concern.

"Org" is an abbreviation for the word organization. If I had meant the generic top-level domain commonly called ".org", I would have said so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How many essays are there on related topics?

A link that Pesky added pointed out the existence of a new essay, and I have started to wonder how many others they may be. I am aware of:

• WP:Truth
• WP:Accuracy
• Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

Are there others? Are we helping a newbie figure out his/her way through the maze of policies, guidelines and essays by having multiple pages that do not necessarily say the same things?

Mergers? Ideas will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are that all relevant essays should be linked to (very possibly in footnotes). I think possibly that merging everything would be an all-but impossible job, but we do need, somehow, to ensure that nothing is directly contradicting anything else. Pesky (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll say essays are not policies and guidelines. So merging the essays in WP:V page is not advisable. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not thinking of merging them here, but merging them out there. But do we know for sure that these are the only three? A new user would be surprised to find out that just a handful of editors can write an essay and it will just sit there and newbies may consider it a guide. There are thousands of active editors out there, and each of these three essays seems to have been written by less than a handful of people. So can any of these three essays have an impact on anything? What if a few users write 3 more, say "error avoidance", "quest for quality" and "guide to a better encyclopedia" etc. next week? To be ufront with you this all reminds me of walking into a large bookstore and seeing a table with a large number of health and diet books each of which points in a different direction. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

While these essays do discuss overlapping issues... I think they are each approaching those issues from slightly different angles. So, while I don't object to the idea of merging them... I also think there is a benefit in keeping them separate.

As for the concern that they only represent the views and advice of a "handful of people"... that's exactly what essays are for... From WP:Essay:

• Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.

As for the worry that new editors may mistake these essays for official policy - that is a possibility with every essay... and it's why we place a great big tag at the top of the page that explicitly says they are opinion pieces (that may represent a minority view) and NOT policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right on those issues, of course. Yet, can we somehow try and breath some order into this somewhat confusing issue by asking the community at large to get involved and speak their collective mind? History2007 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few more:

• Wikipedia:Conflicting sources
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources
• Wikipedia:Inaccuracy
• Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged
• Wikipedia:Reliable source examples
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flagged sources
• Wikipedia:Truth
• Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue
• Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue
• Wikipedia:Avoiding untrue text in articles
• Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. My guess is that they get used by editors who may know about 3 of them and not the others. How about WP:I am getting confused by all this! as another? I am half kidding of course, but this is just too chaotic and now it really seems that some type of clarity should be sought from the community at large. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Essays break1

• Here's the thing: Different people interpret different policies in different ways, depending on the situation. This isn't a bad thing! The reason that all of these essays exist is because there are all of these different situations that come up, and different people who deal with them. Unless we're ready and willing to merge all of these essays into a single policy page, with much more explanatory text to make them all fit together, I don't see how it's possibly helpful to continue along the path that we're currently headed down here. Let's turn around, simplify this policy, and get to work writing more essays. Heck, let's link to the essays in the policy! And, by the way, did I mention "different"?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  My merge suggestion was for the three of them, not the much larger list that was uncovered by Quest. I see no immediate hope of merging these, but I would suggest much more clear indications atop all of them that they mean nothing as policy for they may be just what some user typed one day based on some situation they encountered and hence can carry no weight given the lack of community comment. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  What does "much more clear indications" entail, exactly? I'm not averse to that suggestion, but the devil is in the details, as they say. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is already pretty clear on what essays mean I think, but there's no reason not to discuss it.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  I am just unhappy about this chaos of essays. I would hope for more clarity, somehow. For instance, consider "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints." at the top. It is so softly worded that may lead some users to think these are "widespread norms" of some type. I am not at all sure that newbies (or even users at large) are goinig to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in any detail. Then "Consider these views with discretion." is just too soft. Having seen these, my view is: Unless at least 20-30 users have commented on an essay, it should have no applicability at all to anything. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  I can understand your point. I think we should have this conversation, but we should take it to a more appropriate venue. I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines or Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy). I'd like to point out that most users, and certainly most readers, do not read any of our policies, guidelines, or essays at all, let alone in any great detail. I don't see that as a significant problem, however. as for the "20-30 users" comment, I'd say that it depends a whole lot on the context.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs)

  The reason it came about here was that one of the essays was cited here, and a link to it was suggested. I think you understand that I see the situation as confusing - to put it mildly. And given the references to some essays, either they should all be linked or none at all. My preference would be none at all, given that after the link some essays may change overnight anyway, given their transient nature, and the implications from the link from the policy page may no longer apply. Policy should be somewhat more stable than these "let me type this up" type of essays and not dependent on them. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well, an "all or nothing" approach seems like a bad idea, pretty much reflexively. I haven't seen anything said that would convince me that it's a good idea to take in this instance specifically, either. That being said, I do sympathize with your position, I just think that the solution is discussion rather then some sort of axiomatic imposition of rules, new or otherwise. I think that some links to essays would be very helpful here, while links to others would clearly not be. I don't think that it really makes the policy itself dependent on the essay(s), especially if a handful of essays with differing viewpoints are offered. It helps with the interpretation of the policy, without causing bloat (hopefully).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But given that these transient essays may change as we type this, any link to them from policy pages may well lose its intended effect, requiring a new discussion. Policy can not depend on transient items. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The same is equally true for policies, guidelines, help pages, and more. In fact, it's probably less true for essays, since if you disagree, you just write a new one. For example: I've heard that the official advice back in the day was to not include any citations in list-articles. But if you wrote an essay on that point, you'd have written "Wikipedia:Omit citations from lists", and if you disagreed, you'd just write a new one, "Wikipedia:Include citations in lists", rather than changing the old one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Essays break2

Linking them all would be inappropriate, but we could ==See also== to Category:Wikipedia essays about verification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the category is the natural link hub. But I must say that as I glance at the articles there, I just can not look at them any more - it is utter, gut wrenching chaos there. One might say: "so what"? But I think as is well known in other circles, chaos begets a reluctance to invest. Whenever chaos comes in through the door, investment flies out through the window. And I think the same applies to the investment of time in Wikipedia. If new users feel that their contributions are to be ruled by chaos, that does no encourage them to contribute content that may be subject to transient and haphazard future decisions. Investments (of time or money) are encouraged by stability, not haphazardness. This type of chaos can not encourage new content contributions. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

...is "transient" just a personal opinion, or is that supported by something specific?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there was an IMF-funded multi-year study (kidding) that showed that unlike policy, anyone with a modem and a heartbeat can modify any of those essays. That is, of course, also applicable to content, but policy related issues need a higher standard, to encourage investment in content development. History2007 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But, that's not unlike policy. Anyone with a modem and a heartbeat can modify any policy or guideline, as well. Just because someone modifies it doesn't mean that said modification will stick.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 1,400 people who watch this policy page, and who knows about those far-flung essays - the key difference. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Essays have proportionally fewer readers as well, though. More importantly, those that do watch essays tend to watch them at least as closely as they watch policy, and they tend to have quite a bit more latitude in "controlling" the content of those essays. Have you seen any actual examples of an essay being edited... er, "nefariously"? I'm genuinely curious if this is about a real problem, or the perceived potential of a problem. To me, this mirrors the usual reliability concerns with Wikipedia's articles quite a bit, and I think that essentially the same answers could be used.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the editors who wrote (or majorly contributed) to the three essays in question, pointed out to them that there is some overlap, and asked what they think about merging? I think doing so would be an important part of the process. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hugz to Blueboar - you have such a knack of coming up with intelligent, insightful and obvious suggestions! You amaze me, constantly.

I think the category link is a great idea; probably combined with links to essays (anmd specifically, in some instances, to particular sections of essays) in footnotes. Our Aspies and auties are generally very, very grateful for pointers to other pages which clarify things, and for the opportunity to get several slightly different viewpoints. There's as much variation in the A-spectrum understanding as there is in the neurotypical population, and (fortunately) the Aspies and auties who will find a niche here are likely to be the sort who will read extensively (obsessively, even!) to make sure they've really got it. So, in many ways, the more links in footnotes, the better, and the category link so that we A-spectummers can read to our hearts' content around the subject. (Note: if you want a truly fanatical obsessive researcher for obscure sources, recruit an HF autie! We can stay focussed on source-hunting for stretches of twelve hours at a time ... ;P ) Pesky (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I also like Blueboar's idea. How about forming a task force of some type to leave messages on these pages, 2 or 3 pages at a time, asking them to either merge or explain etc. and somehow starting to introduce some order into that category. As is it is a potluck dinner, and not really a way to decide on encyclopedic content. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

May be it is time to make changes in WP:NOESSAY. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, in that WP:NOESSAY is an essay itself, and hence has no bearing as policy on essays, including itself, of course. History2007 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, probably we should create a guideline on writing essays. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we write that guideline before or after we write the guideline on writing policies?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There actually is a policy: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It covers essays as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably also worth reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays and WP:PGE if you want to know more about how essays work on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Essays break3

OK... I have notified the editors who have been involved in writing all three essays of this discussion, and have asked them to swing by and comment. (clarification: I have not notified every single editor who made one tiny change to one of the three essays, I limited myself to the the editors who made significant - or at least numerous - contributions. These are probably the editors who will care what happens to the essays). Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it had not occurred to me that this discussion was about WP:Inaccuracy.  You may be correct that there is an error in the first post, but the conversation up to now has not been about WP:Inaccuracy.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that WP:Accuracy isn't an essay (it's a redirect to WP:V) and that WP:Inaccuracy is an essay... I thought it was obvious that History2007 simply typed in the wrong pagename in his/her original post. Perhaps I was wrong. History, would you clarify? Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moi? Inaccurate? Never. Confused. Often. I am still confused as to why accuracy points here, inaccuracy elsewhere. These issues really need to be clarified, given that a user would naturally expect accuracy and inaccuracy to be somehow discussed in the same place. But in any case, I simply confused these pages. And that means other people may confuse them too. There is serious need for clarity not just among those 3 pages but perhaps 2 or 3 more. I suggest inviting 1 or 2 more pages as you guys see fit. History2007 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ok, I skimmed the two essays.  "WP:Truth" and "WP:Verifiability, not truth" have been proposed for merger since August 2011.  They are written to be essays, they each use the word "truth" in the satirical sense of Truth^TM.  The summary of "WP:Verifiability, not truth" is the epistemological, "there is no such thing as truth, so it is impractical to discuss it".  WP:Truth is a more hardcore attitude opposed to fringe viewpoints. 

WP:Inaccuracy is purposed to be a content guideline, not an essay.  In this sense, I suspect that it is still missing structure, for example, the article at New Pekin, IN treats an inaccurate story in a way that is not identified at WP:Inaccuracy.  To repeat a comment made above last week,

By that theory, newspaper retractions might be "fringe viewpoints" that lack sufficient due weight to even be considered. On 3 March 2012, at least a half a dozen media outlets worldwide reported that a baby was blown 10 miles (16 km) by a tornado. Editors should be concerned that the baby was blown North while the tornado traveled East, and that the local sources don't mention the story. The article is March 2–3, 2012 tornado outbreak, and the sentence was quickly removed. Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We now know that there is a Reuters explanation for the story of the baby being blown ten miles, but WP:Truth would consider the retraction a minority "fringe" viewpoint that could be ignored.  WP:Inaccuracy would give more WP:Due weight to the retraction than any other individual source.  Although it has an appendix about WP:IRS, WP:Inaccuracy is about "reliable" material, so it is related to WP:NPOV, rather than to WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that you would oppose the idea of merging WP:Inaccuracy with with the other two? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking for material in the two essays to add to WP:Inaccuracy, but WP:VNT punts by saying, "mistakes, when found, should be ignored".  By the WP:VNT essay, we must remove Dewey defeats Truman.  The bigger picture is, "how do the essays co-exist?".  We don't want to weaken WP:V because editors mis-interpret it—no one questions the need for the constraint.  A two-word summary exists at WP:Editing policy, with emphasis added, "Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable."  We just need to get on the same page that at Wikipedia, "verifiable" is not a synonym for "reliable".  Two of those essays focus on "verifiable", while one focuses on "reliable".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the story with Wikipedia:Avoiding untrue text in articles? And then there is Wikipedia:Reliable sources are never neutral, which says very surprising things... History2007 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The story is... They are both essays, and as such reflect the thoughts of an editor or group of editors on a particular subject. It is OK if they say surprising things... As essays, there is no expectation that they reflect the consensus of the community. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing surprising in Wikipedia:Reliable sources are never neutral to someone who is familiar with Horace Miner's deeply satirical 1955 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" paper, James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed, or Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters. The bias of scholars holding to their models to the point they can't realize they are doing something totally ridiculous has been known for over 50 years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be headed in the direction of the conversion or creation of a guideline about the interpretation of the Verifiability policy (in ta simialr vein as Wikipedia:What Ignore all rules means). Is that what's actually desired here? (Probably not an actual guideline, but at least a more "official" essay)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• @History2007: one of the reasons why an essay may have very few contributors, or very few other comments, can just as easily be that everyone who reads it agrees with it and feels no need to tweak it around, as that nobody has noticed it! It's almost impossible to work out which side of the divide any particular essay comes on. It may be that the essay is exceptionally good, or exceptionally unread ... Pesky (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to differ, but given Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue it seems unlikely that everyone who reads those two agrees with both. Regarding how many people read them, the history files suggest 600-700 a month which is high for those types of pages. I can not guess the intentions of others who do not bother to modify them, but the reason I would not even consider touching essays such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources are never neutral is that it includes statements such as: "The fact of the matter, however, is that no article written in any decent journal has ever been "neutral" in the bizarre sense in which Wikipedia uses that word." That type of statement can be presented in essays without any basis whatsoever and is just a personal opinion. I would not want to spend time discussing that type of personal opinion. So silence on the essays may not necessarily mean much. History2007 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That was my point, really. It may not mean much, or it may, depending. The point of those two essays (and yes, I have re-read both recently), is that in most circumstances you don't have to give a citation for the sky being blue, but in some specific and limited circumstances, you do! There's an awful lot of "it depends on the situation" stuff. In most cases ... and that is where we really do need pointers for the A-spectrum people to be able to go to and get a deeper understanding of exactly which rules apply where, when, and how. And how they all interact. Pesky (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ESCA now has two sections relevant to this policy ("the truth does matter" and "The bot model of Wikipedia editors"). Count Iblis (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, does WP:ESCA consider economics a field of science or humanities, or both? History2007 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends, there are probabably subfields that are more analytical. The essay applies to subjects where aguing from first principles is appropriate. Within physics, you can find some fields where it is actually less appropriate to do so, e.g. experimental physics. If someone has found a controversial result, then it is a judgement call on how much weight to give that result; on Wikipedia we then need to stick to what reliable sources write about that subject without much analysis from our side (you can e.g. think of the OPERA results suggesting that neutrinos can travel faster than light). Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the boundaries are not clear, as I expected. Anyway, ESCA is an essay and as a scientist, I will note that I do not agree with the opinions expressed there, and leave it at that. No further comment. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Small expansion of existing section "Neutrality"

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed wording in bold)...  ===Neutrality=== Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Even when information is verifiable and backed by a citation, it must also be presented in a way which complies with the Wikipedia neutrality policy (WP:NPOV), including what that policy says about due weight. The NPOV policy requires all articles to represent fairly all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Notes:

• This proposals is intended to clarify how the two policies, WP:V and NPOV, work together.
• I've tried to avoid any problematic language, or any new terms that might require definition.
• This proposal is not meant to end discussion about whether or not WP:V should mention accuracy, inaccuracy, error.
• What it says is (I think) obvious to anyone who has read through both WP:V and NPOV and thought seriously about the principles they contain.
• Even so, it can do not harm to spell this out... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I like this... good suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support This helps clarify the relationship between how verifiability and neutral point of view relate to one another. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean that it belongs in an article; weight must also be taken into consideration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012

Well that's three of us who've expressed support for this smallish clarification, with nil objections! See also the thread above "A less Herculean proposal", where Diego and Jclemens expressed support for a similar-in-principle suggestion, while History2007 raised concerns which have been taken on board in the wording of this one. Would someone with admin rights like to make the edit now? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you make that somewhat shorter please? As you said, given that it does not say anything new, there is no big deal and there were no objections. But as policies get longer, the number of readers drop. I will not try to reword it, but I suggest you do that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How's this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed wording in bold)...  ===Neutrality=== Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Even when information is verifiable to a reliable source, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policy and due weight. Neutrality requires all articles to represent fairly all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Not bad, but perhaps it can be even shorter... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed wording in bold)...  ===Neutrality=== Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Even when information has reliable sources cited, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and due weight. Neutrality requires all articles to represent fairly all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Yes, that's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to weigh in here? I know that it's a minor change, but I want to be sure before placing an {{edit protected}} template. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, am I missing something, or is the only part that really needs to be in bold (in other words, the only part where a change is proposed) the beginning of the first sentence, before the first comma? In other words, the proposal is to change "is verifiable to a reliable source" to "has reliable sources cited", with nothing else changed, right? If that's all, it's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but I can see how that can be confusing. The part is bold is new content. IOW, we're proposing that...

“ Even when information has reliable sources cited, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and due weight. Neutrality requires all articles to represent fairly ”

...be added to the beginning of the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then it's still confusing (or maybe I'm easily confused), because the part after the bold is mid-sentence, so the bold must be replacing something else, not just being added to what is there already. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Never mind, I've looked at what the page says now, and what the "Herculean" thread says above. I'm not strongly opposed to it, but it strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. Although it has the virtue of naming the related policies more clearly, it loses some of the clarity of saying that "all articles must adhere" to NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem this proposal is meant to help solve? Well, Bruce Grubb wrote a few days ago on this page (in the thread "Idea for a new section about accuracy"): "NPSA is the real problem here. We seem to have some editors think that WP:V stands alone--it doesn't." This proposal is meant to make things just a little clearer for those editors who don't understand NPSA.

Here is a tweaked version, which keeps the clarity of saying "all articles must adhere". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded to read as follows (changed wording in bold)...  ===Neutrality=== Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Even when information has reliable sources cited, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and due weight. All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "Neutral point of view" (NPOV). This means fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

Any further issues?

Here is the most recent tweak of the proposal in "from-to" format, so you don't have to click anything to see exactly what it does...

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded as follows

From:

“ All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

To:

“ Even when information has reliable sources cited, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and due weight. All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "Neutral point of view" (NPOV). This means fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

Any further issues with this? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, and my apologies for what will sound like being picky. In part, let me suggest:

To:

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy requiring neutrality and due weight. All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "neutral point of view" (NPOV). Neutral point of view means fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

I don't think I've changed the meaning, but I've tried to make it clearer and more grammatical. I have no objection to making this change. I also don't have a strong sense that we need to do it at this time, given how it has been lost in the noise of this talk page (obviously, there hasn't been a stampede of editors saying they support the proposal), and given that maybe it could also come out of the mediation and planned RfC. So, it's OK with me, but not an urgent need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your changes. Whether or not you'd call it a stampede, quite a number of editors have supported this over the course of the drafting, and no-one has opposed it at all strongly, except perhaps History2007 who questioned early drafts but later said "OK, fine". I can't see why this small uncontroversial change should be further postponed, so am putting an "edit protected" on the latest version, including your changes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

{{edit protected}}

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded as follows

From:

“ All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

To:

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy requiring neutrality and due weight. All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "neutral point of view" (NPOV). Neutral point of view means fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

Notes for administrator:
What's it about? This is a small change, intended to clarify existing policy by spelling out as clearly as possible the way WP:V interacts with NPOV. We began drafting it on this talk page on 24 April 2012 in the thread A less Herculean proposal.
Who supported it? The following editors have supported this proposal during the drafting:

• 24 April 2012: Kalidasa777, Diego, Jclemens.
• 25 April 2012: Blueboar,
• 26 April 2012: A Quest for Knowledge,
• 27 April 2012: History2007.

Who opposed it, or expressed concerns?

• 25 April 2012: History2007 raised questions about early drafts. After drafts were reworked, this editor said "OK, fine" (27 April 2012).
• 27 April 2012: Tryptofish said "weak oppose". After further work on draft, Tryptofish said on 29 April 2012: "no objection... OK with me, but not an urgent need".

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You can add me to the list of people who consider it an unimportant but benign change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I want to make it clear that my ambivalent comments before should not be construed as really objecting. I'd say go ahead and make the change, with thanks to Kalidasa 777. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral. Probably actually a very mild oppose.....not a good idea to go deeper into trying to paraphrase a different policy. But happy to go along with what others who feel more strongly than I prefer. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of misunderstanding of Verifiability (and this time NPOV)

Over at Chick Tracks the sentence "Some of the examples of the "deceptive and misleading" distortions, misrepresentation, and fabrications presented in Big Daddy are "Nebraska Man", "New Guinea Man", and the implication that "Cro-magnon" man is different from Homo sapiens" (Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624.) was removed with the comment "Nebraska Man was not corrected in a year - not sure what "Home Sapiens" is - again, simply state that its nonsense and move on - non-NPOV fluff is unneeded (especially when it is incorrect))" ([[1]]) even though everything in that sentence was supported by the reference sited:

"A quick look at some of the creationist pamphlets and books shows just how misleading and dishonest their presentations are. Typical of the genre is the little pamphlet Big Daddy, published by creationist Jack Chick." pg 334

""Nebraska man," as we outlined already, was the mistake of one scientist and was corrected within a year." pg 334

Clearly this editor believed what was stated was "incorrect" never went to check what the source and removed what were in reality stuff referenced to a Columbia University Press publication. Now on top of that nonsense one editor is changing the title of talk page section under WP:TALKNEW. Ok, I have to ask just WHO thought implying that WP:NPOV with its reliable source requirements to talk space was a good idea?!?

It seems controversial topics are a magnet for this type of stuff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Verifiability policy is silent regarding conflicts between reliable sources"

Ok "The Verifiability policy is silent regarding errors in reliable sources" section above is ignoring one key point--how do we know something is in "error"?

The answer is that we have other sources meeting Verifiability that tell us otherwise. In other words it is not so much an error but a conflict. Most of the time these conflicts are POVs--Capra's Why We Fight series saying WWII started September 18, 1931 while most modern sources say September 1, 1939 is a good example.

But there are those rare time where the conflict is more than as POV--it is at odds with known facts. We are getting way too bogged down in the "error" side and ignoring the bigger picture.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the bigger picture here exactly?

To me these are simply 2 different scenarios that require different treatment and even somewhat indepedent of the fact whether this policy is mentioning them explicitly or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are reasons why we sometimes need to be able to include (or at least mention) content we know isn't accurate, and then we note (using better sources) why it's not accurate. Let me provide an interesting example of erroneous information about one matter in myriad RS: Try Googling "Kate Winslet" + "The Reader" + merkin and see what you get. You'll find abundant RS which state she used a merkin in the film, but she didn't! How do I know? I sensed that it just wasn't like her to do that, so I studied the sources and discovered that they often quoted from an interview with her, but stopped short of quoting where she denied using it. I then fixed the matter and her article is now accurate on that point. This is a clear example of many RS being wrong because of sloppy quoting. The reference in the Kate Winslet article deals with that matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point and something to keep in mind for all "low level" reliable sources. Many of those formally reliable sources may still be notoriously sloppy regarding certain aspects, so it is always a good idea to verify them against primary sources when that's possible and then pick those who are not in apparent contradiction to the primary sources and drop the rest or explain the situation in a footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly how I chose to deal with that particular situation, and how I hope we can deal with a similar situation in the Jessica Chastain article, where we have multiple sources documenting claims for three different ages. We KNOW that they can't all be right, and when we get clarity about her real age, we'll likely drop the RS (which happen to be wrong). In that case, we could mention the matter in the footnotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  Re:,

  Ok "The Verifiability policy is silent regarding errors in reliable sources" section above is ignoring one key point--how do we know something is in "error"?

  No, not only is it not ignoring the point, that is the point.  WP:V doesn't know and doesn't care that "Dewey defeats Truman" is inaccurate.  Wikipedia cares, but not WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does WP:V not care? Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you maybe suggesting that it should care?  We can go that route, but I think we can solve the problem more simply by stating the obvious, that it has never been the intent of WP:V, and that other policies are working without needing WP:V to care.  (Are they?)  It seems to me that editorial judgment goes into deciding if a source is reliable, but that reliable sources can make mistakes.  Verifiability does not judge the sources, it simply verifies that they exist.  We have WP:DUE, WP:NOT and WP:COPYRIGHT that reduce the quantity of verifiable material.  WP:DUE is what cares about inaccurate material.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think the essence of WP:Verifiability is that it would care. If you have two 'reliable' sources that conflict, you know what you do? GET MORE SOURCES! As the WP:V policy itself states, you don't even need sources mentioned/attributed in an article, you just need to be able to prove/verify/research when the time comes that someone says... "Hey, this doesn't seem quite right." WP:V isn't silent about conflicts, it says 'go find sources!' -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should care because right now the methodology that exists tend to result in one Verifiable source being used to argue another source is not resulting in one big mess and a lot of wasted time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: consider each WP:RS source as providing a degree of support for a statement, then see Dempster–Shafer theory as one approach to how conflicts and agreements may be handled. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Due Weight isn't just a matter of counting up reliable sources... the quality of the sources matters as much as the quantity. One really high quality source can be given more weight than dozens of low quality sources. All the sources may fall on the "reliable" side of the line, but the high quality source is more reliable than the low quality ones (this is what I call "relative reliability") So... while "get more sources" is good advice... doing so does not always resolve the conflict between the sources. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With emphasis on the words "Due Weight", which is not a part of WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, as I said long,long ago, this whole issue of "agreement and conflict" among sources is nothing new. Really nothing new. People such as Dempster and others have been working on this for years. There is no need to "invent a conflict handling method" anew. The only reason for an invention here would be overlooking existing scholarship. History2007 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about inventing a new conflict handling method? I think the question is more basic... should the policy discuss the issue of errors and conflicts. We need to answer that before we talk about what we should say. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And again the definitions of error and conflict are yet uncertain. Given the defect diagram above, these are not independent discussions and there is already indirect (and at times almost direct) discussion of conflict in the policy. Anyway, I will stop for 3 days, let you guys talk, then look on here again. See you in 3 days. History2007 (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on History2007, this "definitions of error and conflict are yet uncertain" claim is ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "error" and replace it with "conflicting information". I don't think it is our job to judge by the perceived quality of sources what is right and what is 'in error'. Judging things on the basis of quality of sources can become a slippery slope, and not rarely it is the "lesser quality" source that turns out to be on the right side of conflicting information. The more subjective the field, the more unreliable even our quality reliable sources become. All sources are "unreliable" to some degree, and very few sources are completely independent of "outside influences". I think we should just report on what we find and if there is conflicting information in reliable sources then we can just report on both sides of the story. Then one of two things will happen: 1 - the truth comes out and our sources report on the latest findings or 2 - it remains controversial. In neither case we have a problem. Only for plain "factual" information and in some scientific fields that work with clear proof, there is a possibility of rejecting something as an "error". In that case we will normally have sources that prove it to be an error. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, even high quality sources con drop the ball and sometimes the only way to shows this is with so called lower quality sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can just agree that "conflicting information" is a more neutral wording that fits a wider variety of possible situations, while "error" is too hard. Two conflicting sources may actually both have some part of the story right. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict between sources doesn't necessarily mean either is not reliable or unreliable. Two rationale people can come to different conclusions about the same thing and in some cases they may both be right, or they could both be wrong. Point is, as editors we give reasonable time in an article to all viewpoints if they are reasonably sourced, and if there are conflicts, we try and resolve that by finding more sources, maybe sources that explain why there is a difference even. -- Avanu (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh I have addressed this before per this:

New section, to come after the existing section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, as follows: == Source Conflict and Clear-cut inaccuracy == Verifiable sources in of themselves can present certain POVs and there are times when they will conflict with each other. Such conflicts do not automatically mean that one or more sources are "inaccurate" and are best handled via WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and (when applicable WP:RECENT. However there are rare occasions via criteria very similar to WP:DUCK where an otherwise Verifiable source can be proven through other reliable sources to contain factually inaccurate information. This can range from things like the famous Dewey defeats Truman headline to typos that create historical impossibilities such B52s (first flight in 1952) existing during General MacArthur's occupation of Japan (1945-1951) as presented in the book American Shogun. In such cases simple belief that verifiable information is inaccurate is not enough to justify its removal. Evidence in the form of reliable sources that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, through Clear and convincing evidence, or via Preponderance of the evidence that the information being sited is factually wrong must be presented in the talk pages. This is so discussion regarding source reliability and due weight, rather simply deciding on the personal views of Wikipedia editors can occur and a consensus reached. This consensus can range from rewriting how the material is presented (preferable) to the removal of the demonstrably factually incorrect information. For more information, see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia, Inaccurate information, When experts disagree, and Conflict between sources.

Been there got the freaking T-shirt and am really tired of the dancing mouse.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. This looks very reasonable to me. But afaics we are simply talking about certain information being rendered "obsolete" (e.g. by new discoveries or by more recent factual information as properly evidenced in recent reliable sources.) In that case we must rewrite our article on the basis of earlier reliable sources now being demonstrably wrong. That's what it's all about, isn't it? A simple example would be a species of plant or animal widely believed to be extinct (and described as such in ample reliable sources), suddenly being found, filmed and published in an academic journal. Then this renders all older sources about this species obsolete on that point and we have to rewrite our article. I would suggest you reserve the shortcut WP:OBSOLETE for this (quite amazing that it is not taken yet), and try to use the word "obsolete" in the section as that will make it more clear. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability in the context is a section in WP:Inaccuracy which probably deserves its own link. It covers cases where a source which is usually considered reliable has just made a mistake about something, and so is not "reliable" in that instance. Pesky (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should and does care about accuracy. The best that wp:ver can and should do is to stop doing harm by clarifying or eliminating the easily-and-commonly mis-interpred "not truth" statement. With less harm done by that, the other processes of Wikipedia would be free to handle the topic better. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to go there. There have been long and bloody battles about that phrase, and there are some good reasons for keeping it. We have numerous editors and newbies who come here to right great wrongs, and that phrase can be used to stop them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

All our policies need to be clear at first reading for the (probably higher than global-average proportion of) autism-spectrum people we have as editors. What is a "jolt" for the neurotypicals is highly likely to be totally misunderstood by Aspergers and other autism-spectrum editors. So, if we're going to include a "jolt" at all, we also need to explain, clearly and precisely, exactly what we mean. The phrase "please take a chair" may seem simple enough to neurotypicals as meaning "please sit down". But what it says is actually "please take one of these chairs away". See this. Pesky (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.  All figures of speech, such as VnT, contain both a literal and figurative meaning.  A counter-force I have seen is that of a preference for Wiki-policy ambiguity, enabling an experienced editor to argue from either side of the ambiguity.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User topic ban

Someone has proposed a topic ban for BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. It all seems to revolve around the Christ myth theory. Since he's been pretty active on this page, and since comments from people who aren't involved in that dispute (but are familiar with him) would be useful, I thought I'd post a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that while BG can come across as irritating, it's generally because he has something sensible to say and nobody's listening. I (think I) can see both sides of the problem here. Bruce has an excellent mind and (check his user page) background / qualifications. He's not an idiot. But ... BG, you can be a bit over-intense and over-verbose, even though you have good points, and people rebel against that. Hugz, anyways, and I hope that whatever happens is a sensible and constructive way forwards. Adding: I;m actually goinmg to copy that over to AN, with added extras. Pesky (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Pesky summed it up well. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was trained in technical academic writing for anthropology--that field is generally intense and verbose as a general rule. Read some Binford and Dunnel sometime.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices,

*Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

Unscintillating (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Verifiability policy is silent regarding errors in reliable sources".

Bob K31416 started a discussion above and I replied that we needed to get a baseline for where we are.  Is the title of this section substantially correct?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree

•   Unscintillating (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• ... but it shouldn't be ;P Pesky (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see it anywhere. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• The Verifiability policy is also silent regarding conflicts between reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• True enough. Our use of the word "reliable" in this policy is not identical with the common use of the word, but refers more to "verifiable", "stable", "established", "notable", etc.. We need to address this in the policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Question is somewhat vague

• Depending on the definition of "error", as mentioned below, I could give a different answer. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

According to m-w.com, mistake (noun) definition 2 is "a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As a few sections above the Wiktionary's more detailed definition of "error" (which is the subject of this question) was discussed. The equation "mistake = error" may or may not not be always accepted. Further please see the "defect diagram" construction reply to Blueboar below. History2007 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have given you a dictionary definition of "error", please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/error definition 2a,

Error, 2a : the quality or state of erring

and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/error?ref=dictionary&word=err#

Err, 2a : to make a mistake

You said you could answer the question.  Please answer the question.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition has 3 separate cases "faulty judgment", "inadequate knowledge", or "inattention" in the first two cases, as Blueboar stated below there may be an indrect link, and the answer would be "perhaps yes", in the 3rd the answer is "no". But these are not the only 3 cases, as discussed below in the defect diagram. Hence I will discuss it further in that case when teh diagram expands. The Webster definition of error is incomplete and the Wiktionary is actually better in my view. Anyway, I prfer to discuss in the section below. That is getting interesting. History2007 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think the statement is correct as far as the current state of the policy is concerned... ie, the policy is indeed currently silent regarding errors in reliable sources. This does not ask (or answer) the next question - whether the policy should remain silent on this issue or not? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now, to run another lap in the Indy500 discussion on "what is an error", the dictionary definitions mentioned above, etc. what is the difference between "error", "error as perceived by several users" "absolute error", etc. Until that issue is clarified, the discussion will remain as vague as above. And the equation: "error = not true" or "error = deviation from truth" need to be addressed. Until that has been clarified, the issue of error can not be handled, for it may appear as a variation of "inaccuracy" which itself is a variation of "deviation from truth", leading back to the unmentionable T-word. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• As it currently stands, yes, that's correct. But in order for our autism-spectrum editors not to fall into the yawning editor-trap that exists there, we need either to cover the subject here, or (as above) point them to where they can find adequate coverage of the subject elsewhere. This is vital! It's a bit lacking in insight not to give clear pointers, within the Verifiability policy, of what to do with published-but-wrong information. Why have to explain to each and every individual editor, when we can point, from a central area, to the answers? Pesky (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Ambiguous question, could you clarify? First (although a sidebar) you need to clarify whether you are talking about wp:RS's vs. real world reliable sources? Those are two very different criteria. Next, are we counting the common misquotes of VNT which it lends itself to? VNT is commonly mis-quoted to say that discussion of errors in reliable sources is illegitimate, and that any attempt to leave out errors that came from wp:rs's is forbidden. If we ignore the latter then I'd say wp:ver is otherwise silent on errors in wp:rs's. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that editors can either agree or provide a quote from the policy of where the policy is not silent.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason I did not say agree/disagree is that as I said the term "error" as used is somewhat vague, hence depending on how it gets defined I could give a different answer. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hist, could you elaborate... for which definitions of "error" does the policy discuss errors in reliable sources, and for which definitions does it not discuss errors in reliable sources? Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I could answer more below, but it would be best if the definition of error is provided in the question. So let the question provide the definition, given that I did not pose the question. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You've had the opportunity to define error any way you want and answer the question, but you apparently have refused. Your messages seem obstructive. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Obstructive? Never. Lazy? Maybe. There are 50 different ways, and I did not start this discussion, so not up to me to define it. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say lazy since you have spent more time here not responding than others who have responded. Seems like it's something else. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are really many ways to define it and to do it justice would take several days. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you at all concerned that people may simply start ignoring your messages that involve definitions, since they don't seem to go anywhere useful? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My comments come with a 30 day refund. If you do not like them, I will issue a refund... kidding. But seriously, you will encounter the definition issue eventually - you will see. I will leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with that in terms of the ambiguity, and relationship to VNT. But as an example, if a well known economist writes a book that states "cutting interest rates usually results in an increase in the the balance of trade" and a few users consider that statement to be in error, is that an "error", an "incorrect" statement, or....? In the end how does one stop that from a decision of what "correctness" may be in stating economic policy? The issue is the clarification of the application of the term error to what a WP:RS source may say. History2007 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My general answer would be to let the other processes of Wikipedia handle that, without interference from mis-quotes of mis-quote-prone VNT. For your particular example, I think that those other processes would determine that the question at hand is a matter of opinion, not fact. And then, for that particular case, wp:npov would kick in and dictate that opinions from both sides be covered as opinions. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd regard any statement in economics an "opinion" (short of misquoting a statistic and an obvious computation error). However if an individual claim is at odds with most other (more) reliable sources, I'd probably use editorial discretion to silently drop it, unless it is clearly notable dissenting opinion. Also in particular on economic issues the ranking of reliability (and reputability) is important. There's a big difference between some "reliable" newspaper publication or "reliable" "think" tank publication on one hand and a peer reviewed journal publication or a book by some distinguished scholar on the other hand.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

An attempt at definition

OK... let's consider five basic forms of "error" (or "potential error"):

1. Obvious typos and similar unintentional mistakes (sometimes corrected in later editions, but not always)
2. Incorrect statements of fact that were thought correct when included in the source, but later turn out to be incorrect (especially common when using "breaking news" media reports)
3. Outdated sources... the facts were considered absolutely correct when originally written, but subsequent events/discoveries have made them incorrect (not uncommon when using older academic sources)
4. Statements of fact that the author believes to be correct, which are contradicted by most other sources.
5. Statements of opinion or conclusion the author believes to be correct, which are contradicted by most other sources.

There are probably other forms of "error" that we can discuss... but lets start with these five for now. As I see it, WP:V is (currently) silent on forms 1, 2 and 3... while it makes indirect reference to 4 and 5 by discussing neutrality and pointing to WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A good beginning. Now please see Ishikawa diagram, and rework. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that #5 is an error. If it were my opinion that nicotine isn't addictive, then that would remain my opinion, no matter how many people disagree with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right of course. That case (as well as item 4) can have unintended consequences where the T-word can piggyback on the E-word, eventually diluting scholarship. History2007 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My point still stands... #4 and #5 are addressed indirectly through the link NPOV (whether you want to call them "errors" or not)... while the policy remains silent on #1, #2 and #3 ... correct? Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with that, with the caveat that these are not the only cases and the defect diagram needs expansion, as in the link suggested. The T-word piggy back, is thus a serious issue. History2007 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to ask this same question as an RfC question

I have found the result here to be useful.  The question arose from Bob K31416's question above about accuracy, now archived in Archive 57, WT:Verifiability/Archive_57#Should_the_Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources?.  But that question did not produce clear direction, and this one did.  The same thing happened with a related "Scope" proposal at the mediation, the proposal did not produce clear direction.  But an analysis of objections shows a strong correlation between objections and lack of concurrence on the question here.  So the theory is that the next step for moving forward is to get a broader consensus that the verifiability policy does not now address the issue of errors in reliable sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the see also section

I was going to add a link to Wikipedia:Good faith Googling, but this page is fully protected, so I've started this section.

I think it would be a relevant link to add. The basic message is that often the only thing wrong with an unverified edit is that an easily available source wasn't added at the time, and that a ten second check for a source is often worth the effort. It wouldn't be appropriate to codify this in policy, but a soft nudge in that direction via a link to an essay would be a good thing, in my opinion. —WFC— 09:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the policy already gives a "soft nudge" in this direction... WP:BURDEN states: "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." This would include doing a quick google search. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, my main motivation for creating WP:GFG was the sheer level of emphasis that WP:BURDEN places on the person adding material being responsible for sourcing it. For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't propose a change to policy because I agree that the burden belongs with the person adding material. But given how strongly BURDEN is worded, and how frequently material that would otherwise be fine is removed when anyone could have sourced it, I felt an independent essay with carefully-chosen language was the best way of promoting the aforementioned good practise. —WFC— 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you read our WP:Editing policy? The section with the shortcut WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM may address your concern ... and in a way that is more than a mere "soft nudge". Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Also... I know you are not the first to think this way... It may be that someone else has already written a (more detailed) essay about this subject (It would not surprise me). Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote GFG because there are a lot of people Wikipedia who (for whatever reason) actually need to be told that spending ten seconds Googling for a source is a good idea. The less text people with this level of common sense are asked to digest, the better. —WFC— 05:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

GFG is for all intents a stub. That one sentence blurb could be added to WP:GOOGLETEST which I have done.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Burden of evidence for verifiability

In the section Burden of evidence, does the sentence

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

mean

"The burden of evidence for verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

or does it mean something more? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean anything more than that. If someone adds an unsourced content to an article and the material is challenged, then the burder of finding a supporting source lies with the editor who added or restored the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, it's considered "good form" for the challenger to put in at least a little effort to see if they can find a suitable source. Pesky (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

---

How about adding for verifiability as indicated above? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Actually, we don't want "evidence"... we want a source. So perhaps we should be more specific: "The burden of providing a source lies with..." Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think leave it as it is. What happens if it is more than one source? and source has more than one meaning ... . I think the meaning is clear and making it more verbose may make it more precise, but the meaning will not be enhanced. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The meaning isn't clear as it can be interpreted as requiring the burden of evidence relative to any type of objection to an addition. In the past, I myself have thought that was what it meant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please give an example -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did, me. Maybe some other editors will remember from their past if they ever misunderstood it to mean more than it is supposed to, and come forward too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: From Unscintillating's message below of 12:50, 6 May 2012, "I've seen editors at AfD use this sentence to claim that there is a burden of proving WP:N notability, see Shifting the burden of proof." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It has always seemed clear to me given the page title and the context of the section title. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What it means is that if you want to have some bit of content in Wikipedia, you are responsible for properly sourcing it. You can't add something and expect someone else to do the work of verifying it. So unless you are willing to put in the time to defend some material, another person can remove it. All its saying is don't expect others to do the work for you. (It doesn't stop other people from being helpful however, if they choose to be.) -- Avanu (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• This diff is a real-world example of a "citation needed" tag being removed, the editor who added the cn tag claimed that it was needed because, "...I have been unable to verify this as it is behind a pay-wall...".  The point is that claiming that a citation is needed doesn't automatically mean that other editors will agree that a citation is needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The WP:PAYWALL subheading under WP:V proper is quite clear on this: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." This is IMHO yet another example of the WP:TLDR mentality I have seen way too much of late. Instead of actually going to WP:V and seeing if it addressed accessing you have an editor slapping "citation needed" and effectively ignoring part of the the very policy (WP:V) they are citing!--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps something like :"The burden of providing an inline citation to a reliable source that supports the material lies with the editor who adds or restores material" would be clear to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with Unscintillating: we don't want to prejudge that every request for an inline citation has to be satisfied by literally adding an inline citation. For an extreme example, suppose I added cn tags to every uncited sentence of today's FA. Often enough people add cn tags for things that already are cited, but the person only read one sentence rather than reading the context. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "burden of evidence" includes the idea that the editor adding or restoring material doesn't need to provide inline citations in all cases.  The burden is satisfied if no one challenges the material.  Another problem with making this sentence longer is that it is used as a quotable quote, and the third point is that the missing context that this thread is considering is found in the very next sentence.  Fourth point is that "evidence" includes more than "sourced evidence" (c.f., WP:Inaccuracy#Examples of forms of evidence regarding potentially inaccurate material), so keeping the word "evidence" on the policy page actually is related to other current conversations here on WT:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating, Re your comment, "Fourth point is that "evidence" includes more than "sourced evidence" (c.f., WP:Inaccuracy#Examples of forms of evidence regarding potentially inaccurate material)" — Does that mean that you interpret the sentence to mean more than just the burden of evidence for verifiability? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry nothing in WP:Inaccuracy (an essay) can be the basis for a conclusion in my view. With apologies, I should say that in my view, that page is aptly titled. I am sorry but these essays get written, and the links can often be confusing because they seem like guidelines/policies but they are not. I think WP:Burden works fine as is. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First response @Bob K31416  I thought that everything I said ties together the existing words in that section.  So, no, in point 4, I'm seeing a pattern of having both "editor-opinion evidence" and "sourced evidence", which relates to our accuracy-section debate, which pattern is documented in the essay WP:Inaccuracy#Examples of forms of evidence regarding potentially inaccurate material.  The "burden of evidence" is more than providing an inline citation on demand, but not a lot more—the "burden of evidence" for unsourced material includes convincing other editors that no inline citation was or is needed.  The "burden of evidence" includes writing whose referenceability is so clear that other editors won't challenge it.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Second response @Bob K31416  Regarding your first question, "Does it mean something more?"...this is not quite the same as, "do editors use it to mean something more".  I've seen editors at AfD use this sentence to claim that there is a burden of proving WP:N notability, see Shifting the burden of proof.  Maybe if you provided an example it would help.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about AfD, which is an example of how editors interpret the burden of evidence sentence to mean more than it was intended to mean. Anyone else care to mention similar experiences? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Read Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Weston_Price_cautious_about_focal_infection_theory.3F and Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#arb_break_2 for examples of where IMHO WP:BURDEN has been pushed to ridiculous levels.

Griswaldo, Ocaasi, and I agree that there are some serious problems with the evaluation of Weston Price's work regarding focal infection theory as all modern comments seem based on how others are currently using it rather than anything Price himself said.

The situation has gotten to the point that efforts to include direct quotes by Price himself in peer review sources (Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261. and Price, Weston A. (1939) Nutrition and Physical Degeneration Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) have been blocked. I tried to address the issue in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_109#Direct_quote_by_subject_of_biography_.28Weston_Price.29 where I spelled out I was NOT dealing with NPOV (which would include WP:UNDUE and the like) but rather WP:IRS and low and behold we got WP:NPOV issues being brought up in the wrong blasted noticeboard. As I said at the end of that mess "this raises the accuracy issue that in some quarters makes Wikipedia regarded as a bad joke and in part made "not truth" such a hot button issue over in WP:V.

I would point out that the Weston Price article as it stands fails to explain in the lead just why Price is important now. Also, in terms of reliability the references to Stephen Barrett and Weston A. Price Foundation are total train wrecks--neither should be in an article about Weston Price as neither really qualifies under RS."(18 November 2011). So we have two peer reviewed quotes being kept out while what amounts to two blogs being kept in. WHY?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, Where in those places that you linked to, do they refer specifically to WP:Burden? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking they don't mention WP:Burden per say but the theme of what can be recognized as burden is throughout the second link. Take the statement that "there is no "old" and "modern" FIT" I make where I cite a 1922 textbook and a 2000 journal article that define it the same way as proof. Now read Yobol's responses and see the 'well you don't have a source connecting the two so the BURDEN is on you to prove they are the same thing' attitude. In fact, if you slug though Yobol's comments you can see BURDEN as the undercurrent even if it is not directly mentioned.

Ocaasi's comment about the quality (ie accuracy) of modern material is dead on--they are NOT discussing what Price himself actually said but rather what one 1923 book by Price seen through some distorted 1994 prism said. Yet we are told via what essentially amounts to BURDEN that unless we can find some modern source using Price's later works we cannot use those works (primary get thrown around a lot here).

Certainly Price's direct statements of "In my search for the cause of degeneration of the human face and the dental organs I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues." and "The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues" while directly referencing that 1923 work which was essentially about nothing but Focal infection theory are relevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bob K's observation. If "they don't mention WP:Burden per se" then it is not a WP:Burden issue. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I collapsed Bruce's off topic remarks using {{hst}}[2] but he reverted that.[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that, and that was why I commented, but did not want to start a revert ping-pong here. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded as follows

From:

“ All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

To:

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy requiring neutrality and due weight. All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "neutral point of view" (NPOV). Neutral point of view means fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

Notes for administrator:
What's it about? This is a small change, intended to clarify existing policy by spelling out as clearly as possible the way WP:V interacts with NPOV. We began drafting it on this talk page on 24 April 2012 in the thread A less Herculean proposal.
Who supported it? The following editors have supported this proposal during the drafting:

• 24 April 2012: Kalidasa777, Diego, Jclemens.
• 25 April 2012: Blueboar,
• 26 April 2012: A Quest for Knowledge,
• 27 April 2012: History2007.

Who opposed it, or expressed concerns?

• 25 April 2012: History2007 raised questions about early drafts. After drafts were reworked, this editor said "OK, fine" (27 April 2012).
• 27 April 2012: Tryptofish said "weak oppose". After further work on draft, Tryptofish said on 29 April 2012: "no objection... OK with me, but not an urgent need".

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You can add me to the list of people who consider it an unimportant but benign change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I want to make it clear that my ambivalent comments before should not be construed as really objecting. I'd say go ahead and make the change, with thanks to Kalidasa 777. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral. Probably actually a very mild oppose.....not a good idea to go deeper into trying to paraphrase a different policy. But happy to go along with what others who feel more strongly than I prefer. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This request was archived while still pending a response from an administrator. Apparently there is a backlog of requests for edits to protected pages. Anyway, I thought I should put it back here, to remove any doubt that it's still awaiting action.(Kalidasa 777talk) 04:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Also for anyone who wants to check the background of this... Please see the archived threads Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_57#A_less_Herculean_proposal. Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_58#Small_expansion_of_existing_section_.22Neutrality.22 Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the expansion looks like unuseful bloat, except for the beginning phrase, "Even when information is cited to reliable sources", which could be incorporated in the beginning of what is already there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would second the suggestion of simply adding "Even when information is cited to reliable sources" to the beginning of the relevant section. —WFC— 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The change is important because there are editors who think that just because something is verifiable, it belongs in Wikipedia article. All major content policies must be considered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I echo that sentiment, whilst at the same time wanting the section to be as concise as possible. With Bob's wording we will be linking to all of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, just as we would with the original proposal. —WFC— 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Bob K31416's suggestion of adding "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, ". It's a very common misconception that because it is verifiable it has due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the above comments, which seem to form a consensus, would the following version be acceptable?

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, so that the article fairly represents all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Sorry, no, this last change is a deal-killer for me. Please see the now-archived talk about the part that was pruned out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• With respect, it's not remotely clear which proposal you are vigourously opposing. Indeed, it's not clear what has changed your mind from the archived discussion, in which you went from weakly opposed to "So, it's OK with me, but not an urgent need". —WFC— 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: I second WFC's post. I can't tell which proposal you're opposing (Kalidasa 777's or Bob K31416's), nor can I tell why. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The point Tryptofish made earlier was that we need to keep the words "all articles must adhere", which are in the current wording of the policy, but were not in some of the drafts. Bob K31416's proposal is nice and simple, but does not include those words "all articles must adhere". I've removed the "edit protected" template from the top of this thread while we sort this one out. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion folks, my fault for not explaining more clearly! Yes, Kalidasa has it right, and it's an adverse side effect of the archiving. I support the proposal at the top of this talk thread, but I oppose the modification of the proposal immediately above my comment, and my intended meaning was to indicate opposition to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How about putting back the words "all articles must adhere" as a separate short sentence at the end of Bob K31416's proposal?

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, so that the article fairly represents all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "neutral point of view" (NPOV). ”

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can shorten it further:

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, all articles must adhere to the neutral point of view policy, fairly representing all reliably sourced majority and significant-minority viewpoints in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

—WFC— 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kalidasa, How does the part you suggest adding,

"All articles must adhere to this policy, known as "neutral point of view" (NPOV)"

differ in effect from the part in the draft,

"it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality" ?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My answer to Bob's question is that the first wording makes it clearer that this is a "must"; the second essentially asks the reader to figure that out. The effect of this further discussion makes me question how much we really need to change anything. What led me to (clumsily!) express opposition to the idea above comes from my view that we don't need to fix things in a core policy if they aren't broken. I think that what's on the page now is perfectly adequate. The proposal at the top of this talk thread is a very small improvement. It comes down, now, to how important it is to make things shorter. If we can just go with the proposal at the top of this talk thread, great. But if there really are serious concerns that it's too long, then maybe we should just leave things unchanged. It depends on how big a deal the shortness issue is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, a couple of days ago you suggested that the words "Even when information is cited to reliable sources" could "be incorporated in the beginning of what is already there". Were you aware that what is already there (in the existing policy) actually includes the words "all articles must adhere"?

Tryptofish, how would you feel about a wording which kept the words (from the current policy) "all articles must adhere", and added in the words (from the draft at the top of this thread) "Even when information is cited to reliable sources", but without otherwise rewording what is in the policy now? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please write out that version as a full cquote? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Initially I had trouble with the wording when I just added the new phrase to the beginning and kept "adhere" etc, but now I just noticed that it is easy to substitute "adhere" in my previous version. How's this?

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, so that the article fairly represents all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposal at the top of this talk thread much better, for the reasons I've already said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. After I included "must adhere" as you wanted, I don't see any reasons left. But hey, maybe you just like a bloated style of writing. That's OK. To each their own. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I agree with you that the proposal at the top of this thread is more wordy than it needs to be. I also think that Tryptofish has a point -- the words in the current policy "All articles must adhere..." are good and clear, so why not keep them? Your latest draft says "it must adhere", which I'm afraid is less clear... the reader may be left wondering whether that "it" applies to individual pieces of information, or to the overall presentation of info in an article? An earlier draft of yours (20:00, 9 May 2012) began with a more concise version of the 1st sentence of Tryptofish's preferred draft: "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality". I like that wording, because it makes it clear that it is the presentation of the information that has to be neutral. Why not add that wording to the existing policy, keeping the words "all articles must adhere"? Like this...

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And to me too! Thanks! My advice: open a new "edit request" thread, with the "from/to" quotations of the existing wording and this newest wording (without all the intervening discussion) – and do it quick, before someone else shoots it down (kidding about that last part)! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'll do that now. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2012

That the existing section, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality, be expanded as follows

From:

“ All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

To:

“ Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ”

Note: This is a one-sentence addition to clarify existing policy. To verify the discussion about it, and the consensus for it, see the thread above

• Edit_request_on_29_April_2012,

and the archived threads

• A_less_Herculean_proposal
• Small_expansion_of_existing_section_.22Neutrality.22 Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The reader

There's a conversation over at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Non-english_citations that is largely about NONENG. A user asserts that WP:V's current introductory sentence, by specifying "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check cited sources..." means that all cited sources must be accessible to any or all readers, not just somebody somewhere. Since he can't read every language that is used in cited sources on the English Wikipedia, and since some subjects have no (known) sources written in English, he seems to think that non-English sources should be banned or at least discouraged, and that subjects without easily accessible English sources should be deleted. (This is just an approximate summary of what seems to be his views at the moment; feel free to read the whole long thread.)

I realize that there's a bunch of work being done on the lead, but like removing the erroneous "nothing is verifiable unless it is already cited" claim, we should probably at least change the definite article the to the indefinite a to eliminate this source of confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone refer them to the Verifiability FAQ? Items 2 and especially 3 apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Masem did. I think the user's primary problem is that he can't bring himself to believe that people actually want the policies and guidelines to accept non-English (reliable) sources so freely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely possible for the reader to verify published non-english sources... For example (intentionally extreme to make the point), the reader can spend some time learning the language so he can understand the source. As a more realistic option... the reader can call upon someone who understands the language in question to verify the source on their behalf. We don't require that Verification be easy... we just require that it be possible. Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP:SOURCEACCESS clearly states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries."

If it were up to me, the word reader would not appear in the sentence at all, but all I care about right now is making it clear that this is not about all readers, because, despite Blueboar's assertions, it will never actually be possible for all readers to verify the information in all sources in all articles. Not every reader will have either the money, skill, or time to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Blueboar simply said "We don't require that Verification be easy... we just require that it be possible" which is what WP:SOURCEACCESS is saying. All we as editors need to do is provide reasonable information someone can find the source. One would hope if one goes from reader to editor that they at least devote some time and develop some skill.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about FAQ

Again, how did Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ come about? Is it an essay? It does not say essay at the top. Again, it looks semi-official, and is probably subject to WP:Invitation to confusion for new users who are still trying to figure out the difference between an essay and a guideline etc.... History2007 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WT:V/FAQ is a duplicate of the FAQ at RS. I've done most of the maintenance on it, but items are generally discussed (e.g., see the most recent in the archives here) or otherwise prompted by questions on these pages.

Have you read WP:NOTAG yet? Wikipedia's advice pages do not form a deterministic, hierarchical system. They just don't. They work like the British constitution, not like the American one. Like any other page, and like comments from editors, the FAQ is "official" exactly to the extent that it accurately reflects the community's current views on any given issue. And so far as I'm aware, we've had exactly zero new users indicate that they are confused by the FAQ. I suppose that the lack of rigid characterization might disturb some of our autism-spectrum users, but I haven't heard any complaints from new users. New users seem quite accepting of FAQs and seem to understand how FAQs work without any difficulty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As to how the FAQ came about... if I remember correctly, it was started by taking statements from this policy, and reformatting them in FAQ form. As for its "status"... I do remember that the FAQ was originally considered a sub-page (ie part) of this policy, but that may have changed. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WT:V/FAQ is a transclusion of WT:RS/FAQ, which I started about a year ago. It was prompted by getting the same set of simple questions over and over and over last spring. I don't believe that it was ever considered truly part of the policy page, although all it does is repeat what the policy says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "published" has the same Latin root as the word public. 

"Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability" --> "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability"

Was there consensus for this change?  Was there a discussion?  The only think I see here is the proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see much difference... but if you do, change it back. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an admin[4] bypassed the normal consensus building process and unilaterally decided to make the change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we actually have anyone who objects to it? Unscintillating inquires about the change, but expresses no opinion on it. Quest asserts that the change was made without a significant bureaucratic process.

"Consensus" isn't a matter of obtaining written documentation that a certain number of editors agree or disagree with a given bit of material. It's about whether we agree. So far, anyone who has commented on the actual change has agreed or didn't really care. Does anyone actually disagree, i.e., think that the current sentence is materially worse than the previous sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have all kinds of ambivalence about the change. I certainly don't have any major problems with it. My gut feeling is that it provides a small improvement for a small subset of users (those for whom English is a foreign language, apparently), while being a trivially small worsening ("a reader" makes me wonder "which reader?", whereas I understand "the reader" to be a generalized concept) for the large majority of users. On balance, no big deal for me. At the same time, I'm not too happy with the process. Much less than a day passed from the time the proposal was made here in talk, and the edit was made to the page. We are talking about the lead sentence of a core policy, when the policy page is full protected because of all manner of disagreements about even minor changes in wording of the lead, and we have an active mediation in progress that is examining those issues. Full protection gives what I think is an important responsibility to administrators: with the ability to make edits when the rest of us cannot comes the responsibility to do so only when there really is consensus for the edits. Otherwise, administrators make themselves the proverbial "big deal". I don't much care about this particular edit, but I think there should have been more time for discussion before it was made. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove "under discussion" tag

Can we remove the [under discussion] tag in the lead? By having it follow the sentence "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable", it gives the impression that we are discussing whether to allow unverifiable things to be added to the article if the editor is convinced it's true. This is just wrong. Also, the discussion about VnT appears to have died down, and the lead is now largely acceptable to most. So, consensus on removing the tag (or at least changing it's placement)? LK (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion is still very active on the mediation pages.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Those of us who have been working at the mediation page are almost ready to present an RFC (which will be done on this talk page)... please be a bit more patient re the tag. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Another RFC? Breathtaking... The excitement never ends here... But seriously, at some point this has to stop. Really. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion to my fellow mediation participants is to take what History2007 just said very seriously. It's all too easy to lose sight of what members of our broader community may be thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a procedural remedy of some type that would stop a "self-replicating RFC" from operating here for ever? History2007 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Short of deleting WP:CCC or instituting a dictatorship, probably not. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So which option do you prefer?... kidding. History2007 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm available for the dictator position. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If there was, the pending changes RFC wouldn't keep coming up all the time. We're doomed to repeat that until PC gets in, you realise.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

History2007, I can quite understand your point, but the last RfC showed us all very clearly that a large percentage (majority) of the community aren't happy with the current version, and would have preferred the other option at that time. We do have a duty to the community to come up with something that the vast majority are happy with, and would prefer, as opposed to leaving in place a version which most people wanted to have changed. (If you're bored with it all, you could always stop reading! </kidding>) Pesky (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a saying in software engineering: "It works don't touch it". That is how I feel about the current version. It has worked so well, for so long. History2007 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a strong argument against pending changes, or any other trojan horse containing a big package of flagged revisions in its belly. It's not exactly overwhelming in support of VnT, which is genuinely broken and has never enjoyed much real support except among a small, if vocal and sarcastic, minority.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not sign off on that analogy, I am sorry. Anyway PC will close in a few hours from now, so we should let that be a separate issue, given that it is a process issue and not a policy that determines final content of a page, say a technical page. I am reminded of the value of WP:V every day: just a take a look here. I will not even enter that discussion, but they are arguing about physics from first principles! The discussion is like a discussion at a conference... How many references have they cited in that discussion as of this writing? Zero. Yes, a discussion based on their views of the principles of physics, with zero references. One of them is a respected professor, but the debate is still based on facts there and had the shadow of WP:V not been looming there, they would have eventually "invented their own physics" for sure. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your message didn't support the phrase "VnT" but rather it supported WP:V, a policy which I think everyone here agrees with. If anything, your message about the physics discussion suggests that the phrase "VnT" didn't help get across the message of the verifiability policy. Who knows, maybe if the policy didn't have the weird phrase "VnT" in it over the years, the participants of that discussion might have paid more attention to the policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I said WP:V is that I meant "all of it", all of it as is. Now, if that physics discussion does not end up being supported by sources, I will go there and read them WP:V aloud a few times. But without WP:V (VnT included) I would not have been able to do that and would have had to participate in a discussion based on first principles. That is the value of WP:V (VnT included). History2007 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To read your post, anyone would think VnT was the best way to express the principle. Or that flagged revisions would be a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Misleading categorization

I take issue with the current categorization of types of sources. The categories seem to reflect a normative bias or assumption as to which sources should be included, nevermind their actual reliability or lack thereof. (Section headings are indicated in bold).

First off, why are Newspaper and magazine blogs grouped under the same heading as newspapers / magazines / journals? That suggests they are of equal reliability. Clearly that is not the case; an article printed on the front page of The Kansas City Star would be considered reliable, while the "KC Pets" blog on the newspaper's web site contains posts by the mass public that would not be considered reliable. The particular newspaper has won eight Pulitzer Prizes and has the potential for reliability, but its web site contains material of varying reliability.

On a related note, we need to make clear that newspapers / magazines / journals and the like are not universally reliable; they are instead "usually" or "almost always" reliable. The section header of Reliable sources suggests that papers and even blogs are unquestionably reliable. Note that Reliable sources is immediately followed by Sources that are usually not reliable, suggesting a dichotomy and thereby endorsing all the contents of Reliable sources at the expense of the other section.

I was also surprised to see Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves included within the Sources that are usually not reliable section. Whereas Questionable sources and Self-published sources are described as usually not reliable (with a few exceptions), [...] sources on themselves are described as reliable "so long as" certain conditions hold true. The former two sections deny or negate reliability using words like "largely not acceptable" and "should be used only" while the latter affirms it positively using the words "may be used". We should either change the wording to lessen our endorsement of [...] sources on themselves, or place [...] sources on themselves in the a section that reflects their true level of reliability. As it is, there is a confusing mismatch between a forbidding Sources that are usually not reliable section header and a more affirmative description within [...] sources on themselves.

I think the categorization we currently use misleads readers as to the relative merits of different types of sources. I suggest re-categorizing the types of sources. Here are the categories I propose:

• Sources that are usually reliable
  • What counts as a reliable source
• Sources of questionable reliability
  • Newspaper and magazine blogs
  • Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves++
• Sources that are usually not reliable
  • Questionable sources
  • Self-published sources
  • Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it

++Alternatively, this section could be rephrased to indicate a lack of reliability and included under Sources that are usually not reliable

Note that newspaper / magazine blogs are "demoted" in the hierarchy while sources about themselves may be "promoted", if they are as reliable as the policy page indicates.

The key here is that paper / magazine blogs, and potentially sources on themselves, may or may not be reliable sources. We must decide on a case-by-case basis. Thus, we cannot generalize to all of them, and should make clear that it is more difficult to decide reliability in such borderline cases. Whereas a New York Times A1 article is clearly reliable, and a dog lovers' blog with one post is clearly unreliable, a Tweet by Britney Spears about Britney Spears requires more careful analysis.

Any thoughts? CaseyPenk (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is off-topic. Please take it to the policy page you are criticizing, which BTW you didn't mention in your message. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is off topic... Casey is questioning what we say in the WP:V policy, and this is the right page to discuss that.

Now, to reply to Casey... Reader replies to newspaper and magazine blogs are essentially the same as the "letters to the editor" column in the print version of the paper... ie not generally reliable. However, the original blog posting itself is on par with the articles and columns that appear in the print version of the paper... indeed they are often exactly the same material. This material is just as reliable in electronic format as it is in print format. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. Somehow when I accessed this from my watchlist I mistakenly thought it was on another page. I was in the process of reverting myself before anyone replied when it was corrected by Blueboar. Thanks and regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Bob. Blueboar, I understand what you're saying and I agree in the case of national newspapers - I read NYT blogs regularly because the quality is high and the posts seem likely to have undergone a review process. I can't remember seeing anything outlandish on one of their blogs. However, the same does not apply to the very large number of newspapers and magazines in the lower 90%, if you will. Using the Kansas City Star example again, we're talking about a notable newspaper that would in most cases serve as a reliable source. But check out their Crime Scene blog, which presents decidedly tabloid-y reporting. Yet it's written by one person, who is presumably employed by or contracted with the KC Star to write this blog; his is just as much a newspaper blog as the NYT David Brooks blog. This is just one instance; you can find a great number of blogs that fit a similar description. The Kansas City Star has over 20 of varying quality.

Therefore, I would not say that newspaper blogs are in most cases going to reliable sources; most newspaper blogs are authored by non-professionals / non-experts / the general populace. Print column-quality blogs are exceptional on the whole. To me, the policy text stating "may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution" suggests a lower level of reliability than the papers and journals and magazines themselves. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed link to the Wikipedia list of self publishers

There are now two lists: List of self-publishing companies and WP:List of self-publishing companies that help users identify self-published books. On the village pump it was suggested that links be added to those lists from the relevant policy/guideline pages. I am therefore proposing a link to those lists from the self-publishing section here. If there is no opposition, could someone else add that link please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise against it... we would run the risk of someone arguing that WP:SPS only applies to sources published by the companies on those lists. By the way... why do we need two lists? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the WP:RSN talk page here you will see how it came about. The internal list includes the items not notable enough to be in the main page. Regarding the "only" concern, I added it to the lists that these are only "some" self-publishers and the list is far from exclusive, so that should no longer be a problem.

My main goal for adding a link here is to make people aware of the fact that the list exists at all, so they can reverse search for these publishers, avoid them, etc. Else the list will remain hidden and we will get 10,000 more references from these books. If you reverse search from these lists you will be surprised how widely they are used - and many people who find them on Google books do not even know they are self-published. Vantage Press sounds like an impressive name after all. History2007 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had to guess, most of the time that a self-published book is misused, it's the result of one of two situations:

• A newbie editor who simply doesn't know better.
• A dedicated POV pusher.

In the first case, the newbie probably won't even be aware of WP:V or notice WP:List of self-publishing companies. So, I don't think that's much of a concern. In the second case, the issue can be resolved at WP:RSN and the company added to the list.

WP:List of self-publishing companies is pretty extensive. There's already 166 companies listed and I hope to add another 30 by the end of the week. If there are other companies not on the list, they can easily be added.

The hope is that by keeping such a list, editors will more easily be able to spot a self-published book.

The reason why we have two lists is that the one in article space is for notable companies and the one in Wikipedia space is for any self-publishing company regardless of notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had used a couple of them when I was not a newbie. I just found them on Google books and used them. I think I have changed hem all by now, but can not even be sure. And I know a very good editor who used one from Google books and changed it to another after I pointed it out. So all kinds of users can use them. Users just need to be informed.

By the way, as I just looked back as the Vantage Press page I had quickly built the other day, I saw that someone had added a Primary tag, I did another search and guess what: Vantage paid $3.5 million in damages to authors it had defrauded... So these people are worse than might seem at first if you look at their website... History2007 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

History2007, your example goes into the fact that many people don't know how to fully use Google. Say I wanted to heighten my chance what I got was reliable. I would use add inpublisher:"University Press" the end of whatever I was looking for. Sure its not fool proof but it will limit the search results to those publishers with "University Press" in their name. Another less successful limiter is inpublisher:journal. Too many times people just throw stuff at google book and put where ever they find into articles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As I recall a user called Bruce once used a self-published book and had to be informed about it... In any case, I do not see what that has to do with the link. If people do not know use Google or not (present company included) the link helps. So what is your objection? History2007 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I likely thought the source qualified under WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."(sic).

There is a world of difference between the self published works of Jon Taylor and Robert L FitzPatrick (which have been favorably sited in articles appearing in the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, a double blind peer reviewed System Dynamics conference paper, McGeorge Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 83 and a Juta Academic publication) and those of Leonard W Clements and Robert Kiyosaki (which AFAIK haven't been favorably sited in any reliable source) Something that Insider201283, Icerat, or whatever name he uses couldn't understand.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters at all, but you just missed that the book was self-published. But that is really beside the point and no one is infallible. But I do not at all see what your objection to the link is. You seem to be "objecting to the list", not the link. If you have objection to the list, you need to discuss it there. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: We've added {{Expand list}} to the top of WP:List of self-publishing companies and modified the text to make clear that the list is incomplete. Can you please take a look at it now and let me know if these changes address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The tag definitely helps... and I can see how the lists are useful when it comes to combating inappropriate use of SPSs. My hesitation (and that is all it is... a hesitation, not an objection) is not to the existence of the list, but to linking to it in this policy. Is the proposal to place the link prominently in the SPS section of the text, or to place it in the "see also" section? Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, actually. A couple ideas spring to mind. Under Self-published sources where it says,

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources

we add it there. For exampe:

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources, and Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies

Another posibility is to work in the link in the text itself. For example, the paragraph begining with "Anyone can create a personal web page...", we could add a sentence at the end of the paragraph that says, "For a list of self-publishing companies, see Wikipedia:List of self-publishing companies." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure... My initial "knee jerk" reaction is that I am more hesitant about incorporating the link in the main text, and less hesitant about placing it into the "See Also" at the end of the policy.... but I am not sure why I feel this way. So... unless I can pin my hesitation to something more concrete... I will abstain from further comment on it. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, please look at the issue again in a week or 10 days. Now user:DGG who is very experienced in these issues is looking at the lists, and has said that he needs a week or so to comment. So by then there may be a better overall perspective. History2007 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've unarchived this discussion. @Blueboar: It's been 10 days. Do you want to take another look at it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No change in my reaction... If we do link, I would prefer it as a "See Also" link rather than in the text... but I still can not put my finger on why I feel that way. It isn't enough for me to oppose or object, so see what others say, and go with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One of these days (I hope this week) I will find time to auto-generate those reports of where the self-published items are used in specific projects, e.g. geography, elements, etc. That may clarify things. History2007 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As I hinted at over at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Essay_unworthy_of_mention this is symptomatic of a deeper problem. Take a hard look at what WP:V actually says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Over there History2007 commented "these publishers are very careful about their own reputation" but if you compare say Wiley with Random House you quickly realize just how different that reputation is.

Wiley for example has a reputation with regards to high quality academic and science books that they even apply to part of their lifestyle division.

But just what is Random House's reputation? Given they have a fiction publishing arm it can't be with regards to "fact-checking and accuracy" as that is the the very antithesis of fiction so logically it is with regard to how readable the works are and how well they will sell--not the kind of criteria that WP:IRS is really looking for. So saying that Three Rivers is comparative to Wiley-Blackwell it terms of WP:RS is not a apple and orange comparison; its more on the level of an apple and a bowling ball.

In short just being third party published doesn't mean that a source is reliable. Instead of creating what based on Publishers Weekly (04 April 2010) "Self-Published Titles Topped 764,000 in 2009 as Traditional Output Dipped" is going to be an ever increasing list of self publishers-vanity presses we should have a list of platinum-gold standard publishers (this is just a stub list so you get the idea):

• American Anthropological Association
• Massachusetts Medical Society (New England Journal of Medicine)
• University of Chicago Press
• Wiley-Blackwell

If a publisher is NOT on this list then the WP:BURDEN would be to show that that the publisher (or at least the relevant printing divination) met the "fact-checking and accuracy" requirement of RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As your example on the other thread regarding the rejection of the Wizard of Oz manuscript showed, there are deep problems in logic in the arguments you presented therein. I will not address them for they are just too deep in some sense, but too obvious in another, and I am not competing here for the "longest talk page post contest". So leave it there. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have died down but no one seems to oppose this. If no one objects, I'll post an edit request to add a See Also link to the top of the section. I've never filled out one of those edit requests before, so if someone wants to beat me to it, please do so. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I was about to post an edit request but when I reviewed the discussion, it's not clear to me where we decided the link should go. I thought that we agree to put it at the top of the section named Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources (right after the link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources). However, I now see there's also talk of putting it at the bottom of the page in the See Also section. (Sorry, I missed this!) Does anyone have any preference to where we put it? To me, it makes more sense to put it in the SPS section where editors are more likely to see it. If it's at the bottom of the page, lots of people won't see it. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above... there is something about the idea of adding it to the section itself that is setting off little caution warning lights in my brain... but for the life of me, I can not figure out what that "something" actually is. All I can say is that those caution lights don't go off when I think about adding it to the See Also section. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not afraid to experiment. How about we put it at the section level and if it causes any problems, we can move it to the bottom? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, if no one objects in the next couple days or so, I'll place an edit notice to add the link to the section as discussed above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria #1 of SPS changed?

I just noticed that the first criteria for self-published sources has a new requirement which is apparently new. It used to just say:

the material is not unduly self-serving

It now says:

the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature

Regardless of the merits of this requirement, WP:V is not in sync with WP:RS. So, I guess my first question is does anyone know when or why this change was made? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the March 29 edit that inserted that material; User:Wifione's edit summary read "provide intra link." So as to why, I don't know for sure. I guess it's to provide directions to one key problem with exceptional claims from SPS. But aren't exceptional claims sourced to SPS allowed if they're backed up by other RS? CityOfSilver 17:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit kind of makes sense, as you wouldn't mind sourcing unexceptional yet self-serving claims, such as that an musician produced X, Y and Z albums and performs at X every year. It's self serving, even advertising, but the SPS is reliable for the info. B^e——C_ritical 18:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...The problem I see is that WP:EXCEPTIONAL includes the following:

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them

When it comes to WP:FRINGE theories, we do cite self-published sources in article about (or closely related to) the fringe theories. (Whether we should, of course, is a separate question.) As an example, can we cite David Icke's website in the article about David Icke regarding his claims of reptilian huminoids from outer-space invading the Earth? (Let's ignore the question about whether reptilian huminoids qualify as a third-party.) The previous wording said we could. Now, it seems to say we can't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The effect of the change is newly to exclude self-published "exceptional material". "Reptilians exist" is an exceptional claim, but "Icke says reptilians exist" is not. (Albeit the latter is contentious and requires strict primary/secondary sourcing.) Per A Quest, the change should not imply that the latter is "exceptional material" simply because it states a minority POV holder's belief. So I would change "exceptional" to "an exceptional claim" to clarify. JJB 21:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

When I was working for a bit on the Astrology article, I thought it was wrong that the Astrological claims were censored because they were from primary sources. If we are going to write about a subject, we should also include what the subject says about itself. B^e——C_ritical 21:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Affirm, you're not the first or last person to observe that. JJB 00:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically with astrology the issue is that primary sources may not be representative of the views of Astrologers so the use of primary sources could be misleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? It was my impression that the censored material was from a so-called peer-review journal of Astrology, making it the equivalent of a scientific journal were this a scientific subject: so the best in-universe source. B^e——C_ritical 00:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the specifics of what you are referring to but I've seen the lack of consistency (beyond the rough core beliefs) amongst the primary sources on astrology mentioned at FTN during discussions before (I've not edited on astrology extensively so I am not overly familar). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A primary-source astrologer has always been permitted under SPS as an RSOPINION in minority-POV articles for his views as an astrologer (not of other astrologers of course). Thus the need for my amendment or a reversion. But I don't think I'll do that right now per other pressing edits. JJB 01:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• On the purely pedantic level, shouldn't the new language read "or exceptional in nature" (disjunction following negation)? Sourcing "H. Wolfowitz was raised in a barn by talking cows" to my personal website would otherwise be allowed, since it is merely exceptional, not self-serving and exceptional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid, and not purely pedantic issue. Different users are likely to interpret the operator precedence differently here. The issue will be the difference between:

• not(A or B) = not(A) and not(B)
• not(A and B) = not(A) or not(B)
• not(A) and B

And one can not expect the typical 15-17 year old user to work through that. So I suggest a more clear statement, e.g. it is "not self serving or not exceptional". That will make it clear. History2007 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim JJB 05:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That would be clear. History2007 (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and implemented. Let's see if it sticks. Jclemens (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated WP:RS to match the wording of WP:V. However, there are still 3 minor differences between the two.

1. The opening sentence of WP:V's section is longer. It contains the phrase in the case of self-published sources which is repetitive since the sentence already states that this is about self-published sources. I think that the repetive phrase in V should be removed so that it matches RS.
2. Criteria #2 in RS also includes an additional phrase, (such as people, organizations, or other entities). I have no strong opinion on which is better.
3. Criteria #3 in V says not directly related to the source whereas Criteria #3 in RS says not directly related to the subject. I think that subject, not source is the correct and V should be modified.

Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Good analysis. #1 is not completely repetitive because QS are also involved, but the shorter version isn't a significant change and reads better. #2, the longer seems necessary as neither "third parties" nor the paren can be dropped without changing the meaning. #3 keep "source" because, if Fringe Source speaks on events related to Fringe Subject freely, it might include unattributed undue-weight POVs not about Fringe Source; but, if Fringe Source speaks freely only on events related to Fringe Source (including the "event" that "Fringe Subject has Fringe POV", a due-weight attributed POV), then undueness is precluded. JJB 20:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence is a nonsense

The current opening sentence is a nonsense. Verifiability is a property of the article text; it is not and cannot be a property of the reader. "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources..." means that it is different for every reader, depending on his or her degree of literacy, computer/internet skills, proximity to or membership of a library etc. It is clear to me (as a reasonably literate reader) what the sentence is trying to say. That does not alter the fact that it is wrong. Scolaire (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)}

I agree that it sidesteps the reality of what verifiability is. Whatever it says, the reader should not be held responsible for this property because verifiability hinges on the article text, and therefore on us the editors. Here's a clunky alternative: "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the property of an article text that allows a reader to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." Or, "An article of Wikipedia is verifiable if it allows a reader to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." Do you have any other phrasings in mind? CaseyPenk (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is all part of the mediation. Personally, my preferred draft reads "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source." Your mileage may vary, but in any case it's widely agreed that the whole first paragraph is deeply unsatisfactory in many ways, which is the reason for the mediation.—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Casey's second alternative or S Marshall's phrasing would be equally acceptable. If I had to choose, I would go for S Marshall's. Either way, I think that first sentence should be changed ASAP and not wait for other aspects of mediation to be resolved. It is wrong that a Wikipedia policy should begin with a statement that is a nonsense. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the details of the mediation (and I am glad I have not) but if that is part of their discussions, then changing it might be rocking that boat, and out of respect for that process should probably wait, I would say. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Respect for the process? Hmmmmm. When you see some of the sh.. that's been talked over the last several months. Anyway, whoever put that opening sentence in should have waited for the outcome; they're the ones that are rocking the boat. I just want it to go back to being something that makes sense. This is a Wikipedia policy, after all. Scolaire (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant respect for the process. One may not agree with the traffic laws, but one has to respect them. I am not sure how that sentence came about, but if it is subject to a community-based process then the process should be respected. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As nobody seems to disagree that the opening sentence is facually incorrect, I am requesting that "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." be changed to "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia readers can check that information comes from a reliable source that directly supports it." Scolaire (talk) 08:45, May 25, 2012‎

• Although I do not oppose this request, because a mediation is in progress, I suggest that the admin who reviews it should liaise with the mediator User:Mr. Stradivarius before making any changes to the first paragraph.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall, and do not see a big difference either way, but think it is best to interact with whoever is handling the big picture discussions. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Well, I oppose this change. It strikes me as false that it's correcting nonsense. It also strikes me as wordy and clumsy. And the place to discuss these kinds of changes is through the mediation process, so making this change outside of that process is unhelpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strikes you as false? That strikes me as very vague. Can you respond to my specific criticism of the sentence please? Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Your criticism is that verifiability is a property of text, rather than of persons. With the latest changes, it's a change from "a reader's ability" to "the" ability. That doesn't really address your own criticism. And I think that a plain reading of the existing language is the verifiability is being described as a property of an edit as well as a property of the text that results from that edit. No one would think that it's a property of the reader as a person, but rather that it is something that the reader can do because of a property of the text. Consequently, your opening premise is false, sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• The proposal is a bit clunky. In particular "people reading and editing the encyclopedia" adds nothing compared to "readers". Editors are readers too (we hope!). So, it would become "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers can check that the information comes from a reliable source that directly supports it." Zero^talk 02:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting that the article's opening sentence, "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article", be changed to "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article."

I was unaware of the mediation when I opened this discussion, and since nobody bothered to link me to it, it has taken me a while to find it. Having now done the research, I see that the edit that changed the opening sentence was done after the start of the mediation process, but before full page protection. It seems to me something of a double standard to say that a change made outside of mediation should not be reverted outside of mediation. I am therefore proposing a return to the status quo ante while mediation is in progress. Per S Marshall above, I suggest that the admin who reviews it should liaise with the mediator Mr. Stradivarius before making any changes. Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That change appears to makes sense as it is a more precise explanation of what verification is (i.e mentioning explicitly that the source must be reliable rather than relying on editors clicking the link). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that there is any consensus here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The "wrong version is protected" is not a good reason to change this sentence, given the mediation about it (and its not so "wrong" that people don't understand it, as the initial comment concedes). If any user wishes to participate in the mediation, they should contact Mr. Stradivarius. Although, I am sure you would have to agree to jump in at the present point and not ask to back up that process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: There does not appear to be consensus for this change at this time and several editors have pointed out that it would be better to engage with the mediation process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Subscription needed-tag

I have a question about the {{subscription required}} tag. An editor at DYK seems to feel that the tag is required on all sources that are avaiable at online databases that require subscription (e.g. Jstor and Springer) whether or not the sources are also available as paper sources. I don't think this is reasonable - and believe that per WP:PAYWALL the tag should only be used for sources that are only available through subscription and cannot be ordered through a library. What is the policy on that tag? If anyone wants to look at the article in question it is Maya ICBG bioprospecting controversy - one of the sources is a paper book edited volume that is also available for download from Springer, but which can be found in public libraries and research libraries.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your general trend of thought. If we follow WP:AGF we assume that editors do not in general fake their sources (and most do not). The few who invent/distort sources are usually identified pretty quickly, and show up on WP:ANI or WP:AN as featured guest stars sooner or later. And if a user pays the $35 for the online edition, s/he should not be "suspected" of inventing a story per AGF. The larger problem is, of course, the unknowing use of WP:Mirrors and self-published items. Jstor has not been a serious issue in my experience. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I may not be understanding the issue... but if we are citing a website that requires a subscription, I would think it would be helpful to add a simple "(subscription required)" parenthetical to the citation - so that those wishing to check the source know that they might have to pay to review it on-line. I know I would appreciate knowing that right from the start... (since I don't want to pay, I would know right from the start that I either needed to schlep down to the library, or find some other way to verify the information.) That said, I see adding such a parenthetical as being a courtesy, not a requirement. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well my problem is that it is not strictly true. You don't need a subscriotion to jstor to access its conten -you can also get access through libraries. I thought the template was only for sources that are exclusively available to subscribers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation, but I'm fairly certain the template was meant to be used for all sources that require a subscription, whether you can access them or not. Now, you do raise a good point about whether we should even use the tag. My personal opinion is that I find it helpful during the verification process, as it facilitates a WP:PAYWALL verification request for content I don't have access to at the moment, even though as you point out, I may be able to get access in the future. From a big picture POV, it is a bit of template-creep so you may have a slight argument for removing it, but I think it helps readers more than it hurts. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template creep was exactly my issue, since it was posed as a requirement for DYK (it is not to my knowledge a requirement for GA or FA (yet?)). But also it was annoying because if I had simply not included the link to jstor but cited the same article as a paper source the question wouldn't have arisen. Basically I just add the jstor link as an extra service to those who have access - but everything that is available on jstor is also available as paper sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think a subscription-needed warning is appropriate for any content that is not widely and freely available to anyone with an Internet connection and reasonable faculties such as a PDF reader and Flash. Whether you subscribe, your educational institution subscribes, or your lobal library subscribes, JSTOR / ProQuest / etc. are still subscription-based services. Someone is paying for their usage, and your ability to access such services can be terminated without notice. So I would say, for me, the question is not so much "are there ways to get around the paywall?" But "is there a paywall in the first place?" You do point out an important exception, that I think is germane to this issue. Some content on these research services is also available on the web sites of the respective content providers. For example, the Wall Street Journal does offer some of its articles to the mass public, but they are also all archived on ProQuest. Personally, I used newspaper archives to write about Virtual Boy without checking for the articles on the public Web. That's something I should do, and I encourage everyone else who cites a non-specialty source to do the same. Giving the readers and fellow editors access to the sources helps to increase transparency and reduce "faking." CaseyPenk (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A problem with BURDEN

For several months now editors have been telling me that, after I have sourced material, they do not have to tell me what is wrong with the sourced material. They only have to vaguely wave their hands at a section with many sources and say there is OR or SYNTH, and it is up to me to prove them wrong. Yes, this is exactly what they do, they don't tell me where I may have gone wrong and they point to BURDEN to support their position. I wish BURDEN could have some text or a footnote added to prevent this. "However, the burden of proving the verifiability of text is met by the provision of reliable sources, and it then becomes the burden of the editors who wish to exclude material to state reasons why the sourcing and text does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion." B^e——C_ritical 02:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern especially after my recent experience with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Why_We_Fight_series_reliable_source_for_views_of_US_1942-1945.3F.

Three hours is nowhere long enough for a reasonable discussion to determine if Prelude for War (produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government) is a reliable for the point of view of the US for the time in question (ie 1942-1945) especially when the Sept 18, 1931 date is supported by modern sources such as

• Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

• Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7 ((referenced by Cheng above)

• United State Holocaust Memorial Museum

• Robert Niemi's History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 discussed the overall accuracy of the film and the series in general.

When the the very process of even determining if a source is reliable can IMHO short circuited like this there are problems with not only BURDEN but WP:IRS itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here as to what WP:BURDEN says, and where WP:BURDEN applies and does not apply. WP:BURDEN applies specifically to verifying unsourced material. All it says is that, when unsourced material is challenged, it is the editors who wish to add or retain the material who must "prove" that the material is verifiable by providing a reliable source. Once a reliable source has been provided, WP:BURDEN no longer applies.

WP:BURDEN does not apply to other forms of challenges (examples - WP:BURDEN does not apply to challenges as to whether the material is OR... or to challenges about the POV of the material... etc.). These other forms of challenges carry no "burden of evidence" on anyone (neither those who are challenging, nor those who are responding to the challenge).

Should the challenger explain clearly what they think the problem is?... Yes, or course... but there is no "burden of evidence" involved in doing so. The discussion might start with a simple statement along the line of "Placing X and Y together like that is a form of WP:Synthesis". The reply might be: "I disagree, I don't think that is what WP:SYNT is talking about"... then everyone discusses the situation, asking for outside opinions if necessary (perhaps taking the dispute to the NORN notice board) until a consensus is reached. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice explanation. I wish we could have a footnote saying that so people can't be beat over the head with it as I have been for months :P B^e——C_ritical 12:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would solve the problem we are actually talking about as WP:BURDEN states "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." The key word there is "reliable" ie not that whatever is being referenced has a source but that source is "reliable". A key difference.

As Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Why_We_Fight_series_reliable_source_for_views_of_US_1942-1945.3F shows one editor can shut down any reasonable effort at determining if a source is reliable by claiming there is no consensus and archiving the thing even though only three hours of actual discussion has occurred.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In a previous discussion in the archived section Burden of evidence for verifiability there was a simple proposal of adding two words "for verifiability" to WP:BURDEN. The point was that editors were interpreting WP:BURDEN to mean more than it does, which seems to be what is being discussed in this section. Would that simple change help? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary, but I do not object. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just want to end my participation in this thread with a final comment: let's take the following situation... There is an unsourced statement in an article... someone challenges it and demands a citation to a reliable source. You think the statement should be in the article, so in accordance with WP:BURDEN, you go out locate a source and cite it. From your perspective, WP:BURDEN is met. But then the challenger comes back and says "NOPE... WP:BURDEN says you have to provide a reliable source, and the source you gave is not reliable". What do you do?

You could spend weeks and weeks engaging in fruitless and frustrating argument in an attempt to "prove" that your source is, in fact, reliable... or... you could simply go and find another reliable source that supports the material. Having to meet BURDEN twice may be annoying... but it tends to be less annoying, far quicker and much less stressful than arguing... and it usually shuts the challenger up. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think adding "for verifiability" would help. I mean yes, they are interpreting BURDEN to mean more than it does, but not in a way those words would fix. What they are doing is waving a hand toward a whole section which has lots of sources, and saying "it contains OR" and then saying I should prove it doesn't by going over each word/sentence. People can use BURDEN as justification for being too lazy or stubborn to even say "This is the statement I think isn't supported by sources." What would help is to make it obvious that BURDEN is the initial starting point of a conversation, where the person who wants to add material gives sources, and then is able to answer whatever specific challenges people come up with about whether those sources are appropriate and support the text. BURDEN shouldn't be a license to sit on one's throne and say "We are unconvinced" without giving any specific challenge or argument. Just as in science, when a new study comes along it's the burden of those who don't believe it to say why they are not convinced in very specific terms. They don't merely state they are unconvinced. B^e——C_ritical 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If the source isn't reliable then BURDEN still applies, You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. If you believe the source is reliable then argue your case on the talk page and maybe take the issue to WP:RSN and then restore the content once the issues are resolved. If you believe the objections have no substance request more opinions to get a feel for the greater consensus. BURDEN doesn't mean that the content has to be removed that instant, it only indicates that if you don't verify it as the restorer it may be removed at a later date once sufficient time is given. The example of a science study is a bit of a red herring because on wikipedia we would ignore typically ignore new studies as being undue unless it is demonstrated that they have been well recieved. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not even that. It's that BURDEN is being used as an excuse not to state why text has been removed or why it is SYNTH or OR. To place all the burden for everything on the person who wants to add text. Literally, they take a passage with many sources and say "It has OR." They then expect me to defend it even though they didn't say what part of the text is OR. They say "It's SYNTH" without stating "The sentence where you put together X and Y" is SYNTH. They are making it my burden to prove the text without any specific challenge, saying it is not their burden to have to state why they think there is a problem. B^e——C_ritical 14:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, often see BURDEN used in ways for which it wasn't intended, and it can be quite annoying. I just went back and re-read it, to see if I could suggest a revision, and I didn't come up with anything. It seems to me that it already clearly says that it's about material that lacks an inline citation. I would hope that improper invocations of BURDEN could be rebutted by a simple statement that there was an inline cite, although I realize of course that some POV pushers won't be satisfied with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's because it's an absolute statement "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It can be quoted as an absolute without any reference to what comes after... which is after all talking about removal, not the burden of evidence. It should say The burden of providing appropriate citations lies with the editor who adds or restores material. B^e——C_ritical 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not bad. We can try it for a while and see if it helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool (: If you think so could you put it in? I don't want anyone to be able to say I changed policy in the middle of a dispute. B^e——C_ritical 17:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be "The burden of providing appropiate reliable inline citations...". IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think "source" is more appropriate than "citations". How about The burden of providing appropriate sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems important that they be inline rather than someone pointing to the sources used in the article generally. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Source" is the general term, so that's better than my version, and "inline" is probably better too. So either "sources" or "inline citations" if it's necessary to be that specific. B^e——C_ritical 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I think I prefer "sources" to "inline citations" but either works for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources is good. I do think I prefer it to "inline citations" simply because that's how it is most used in the policy. B^e——C_ritical 21:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand if they say it's a synthesis without providing further details (they may think it is self-evident), but they are required to elaborate on their reasons if you ask for them. I don't think there is anything wrong with WP:BURDEN as it's currently written though, more some editors being unhelpful. I would still advise trying to attract more editors then to get clear consensus as anything else may lead to edit warring if there is a tendentious editor present. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but the phrasing of BURDEN allows it. If we can make a minor change like above which will eliminate the problem without changing the actual meaning we might as well. B^e——C_ritical 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note... editing BURDEN will probably not resolve the dispute in question... the challenge apparently isn't a WP:BURDEN issue... but a WP:NOR (WP:SYNT) issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, yeah... B^e——C_ritical 22:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think this revision is worth a try. (I even remember a fairly recent AfD that was closed as "delete" with the rationale that BURDEN applied to comments in the AfD.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed off topic discussion.

Just a comment that I did not read the above discussion because the large signature (and the contrast) makes it too hard to read.... History2007 (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC) IMHO that is just a sign of being too lazy to do the job required of editors here. I for one have no problems with the signature as I have seen a lot worse.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No job is required of any editor. History2007 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC) The job I am referring to is reading something you admitted not doing with ANY of the sources related to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BruceGrubb.27s_disruption_of_WP:RS.2FN you decided to chime in on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we please stay focused? The suggested text is The burden of providing appropriate sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material.. This seems like a minor change in wording that might help minimize editors taking this sentence out of context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That particular language strikes me as ill-advised. There are already too many editors who believe any source is allowed until proved unreliable; this will only reinforce that bad idea. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How is "providing appropriate sources" an invitation to provide bad sources? In any case, how is it worse than "burden of evidence" in that respect? In any case, the immediate following sentence talks about "inline citation to a reliable source" so the suggested wording is consistent with the actual policy text. I support changing the text. Diego (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said, rather plainy. As written, the burden of evidence applies, across the board, to the editor seeking to add/restore material. That includes the burden to show that the claimed sources are reliable. The proposed revision doesn't say that, and there will be editors who deny they have any burden to show their sources reliable, even more than there are now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would favor keeping "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." in that it is somewhat more emphatic, and general. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Regarding your comment "As written, the burden of evidence applies, across the board, to the editor seeking to add/restore material. That includes the burden to show that the claimed sources are reliable." — What do you mean by "across the board", i.e. what else do you think that includes in addition to showing that claimed sources are reliable? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If the sources are "appropriate" then they necessarily must be reliable. If they weren't reliable, they wouldn't be appropriate. Remember we're writing this inside the V policy. But we could just say The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The policy is being abused in such a way that editors refuse to say what they think is wrong with proposed text/sourcing, instead saying that they see problems and it is the BURDEN of the proposing editor to prove no problems exist... even though they didn't say what they thought was wrong. So you propose something and give it a reliable source, but the other guy reverts you and when you ask why they say that there are problems but it's not their burden to list them, it's just your burden to fix them. So you don't know what to do. That's what's happening, to me anyway. B^e——C_ritical 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So if that last suggestion, The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material meets all the potential problems people have foreseen, shall we request it be put in? B^e——C_ritical 04:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support It looks good to me. The goal here it to prevent misuse/misunderstaning in case this sentence is taken out of context. The proposed change doesn't change the policy meaning. It's a slight verbiage change to clarify that the evidence that we're looking for is reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:24, May 23, 2012
• I Support it too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clarifies and does not change the intended meaning. Prevents wikilawyering. LK (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is the job of the original editor to provide citations, not irrefutable evidence. If we truly put the "burden of evidence" on an editor we would require him or her to defend claims as if they were his or her own and thus engage in original research. Ultimately the "burden of evidence" falls on researchers and scholars outside of Wikipedia, anyways. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — You're almost there with a correct change, but not quite. For example, if an editor supplies an irrelevant reliable source, then the burden has been satisfied, according to the proposed version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because part of the definition from the lead is "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." If it doesn't directly support, it isn't an RS. Also, you have WP:OR. In other words, yes a completely disruptive editor could argue that, but the argument is easily and simply refuted, and I don't think that needs addressing here. We aren't writing a legal document, we're giving direction. While it takes some discernment to notice that the current version of BURDEN doesn't mean there is no burden on an editor who is critical, it takes a true malice to say "I provided an RS on ice cream to source an assertion about physics." B^e——C_ritical 03:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the same type of arguments you are using can be used to keep the original wording. Also, the counter example that I gave seems to have held up since your response that no one would be that malicious does not refute it, although I would agree that sometimes it's not worth taking into account very unlikely situations. Anyhow in that regard, we can consider the more likely cases of someone adding a reliable source that is somewhat relevant and close to supporting the info but not quite, or a relevant reliable source that only supports the info through Synth. In both those cases the person adding or restoring material can argue that the burden has been satisfied, according to the proposed version. Why not add something that mitigates this reasonably possible misunderstanding, which is the motivation for the proposal in the first place, i.e. to mitigate a reasonably possible misunderstanding of the section? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to adding something to clarify. But in the case you describe where the source does have something to do with the subject and is reliable, then the original BURDEN has been met. At that point, it's the burden of other editors to point out that the source is not in fact reliable or otherwise flawed. Anyway, I'm interested to hear what tweak you have in mind. I can't think of one myself, partly because the problems you're talking about occur because of violations of other policies, not this one. And it's always going to be the burden of other editors to point out SYNTH and OR etc. But how about adequate reliable sources? B^e——C_ritical 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not comfortable with it. This is what happens, I'm afraid, when a proposal gets revised after some of us have signed on to the previous version. I've put a strike-through through "adequate" as a rather clumsy way of putting the brakes on for now. The reason "adequate" might not be, well, adequate is that it can be wikilawyered to death. "It's adequate!" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" ad nauseum Maybe there's a better word, but I'm not sure what it is. Can a source that satisfies WP:RS really not be adequate, as we are discussing it here? In other words, Bob's example of an irrelevant source wouldn't really be reliable for the intended use, would it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree really. I took it out below. What I think is that we plugged the main hole in the dyke, but we can't plug every pinhole. But we can afford to leave open some holes because it will be obvious that squeezing through them is disruptive, whereas, if there is an iffy case you can't see the disruption as easily. I think Bob's cases are those pinholes which can be identified as disruptive. B^e——C_ritical 01:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:RS it looks like you may not even have "some holes" because of the following excerpt from that guideline.

Context makes a difference

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. ...

So this may satisfy my previous concern and your change may be OK in that regard, and I would tend to join you in agreeing with Tryptofish's remark, "Can a source that satisfies WP:RS really not be adequate, as we are discussing it here? In other words, Bob's example of an irrelevant source wouldn't really be reliable for the intended use, would it?" --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to BURDEN

Per the above discussion, please change

This

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

to This:

The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material

• Strongly oppose per my comments in the discussion above, which reached no consensus. The burden of evidence for demonstrating a contested source is reliable should remain on the editor who asserts the source is reliable. A change of this significance to a core policy should not be made without a full community discussion, rather than comments from a handful of editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's used for disruption and needs to be fixed. A full community discussion is possible but this is not a change to the policy but a clarification of existing policy. It would be better not to make such a fuss over a clarification. B^e——C_ritical 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's rather clearly a policy change, and it doesn't reflect community consensus as expressed in the many, many discussions over sourcing that have taken place over years. It's equivalent to changing the policy language to "All sources are presumed to be reliable unless a consensus otherwise can be established". It conflicts with BLP requirements. Your definition of "disruption" seems to be "keeping me from making edits that I want to make." There's much more disruption out there from editors who add poorly sourced, but published, claims to articles, then insist that their sources be proved unreliable or that a consensus from removal in contested content is necessary. This change would be disastrous in terms of fringe science, of politics, and similar matters. Consensus is always going to be imperfect, but it's obviously better to be a shade too strict in terms of contested sourcing than to open the door to a wide range of dubiously sourced material. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh what nonsense, how could you misread it like that? You expect extreme wikilawyer behavior, but that cannot be changed by changing policy. What I'm suggesting is to correct a misunderstanding, what you are suggesting is trying to make policy airtight. People have tried to do that with laws to little avail, and WP policy isn't law. B^e——C_ritical 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that this is helpful but: the basic burden is bringing the source when challenged unsourced. The secondary burden is establishing or consensing toward reliability for that source; in bigger disputes we have WP:RSN. If your insertion is ganged up on and RSN is ambivalent, do you still carry the burden through WP:DR? Maybe as being the first party to speak, but the gang doesn't get to stonewall forever; at some point the burden is met, or failed, in the eyes of consensus. BURDEN is used for "disruption", meaning greater presumptive protection for the deleter (who, it's true, should have slightly greater protection) leading to systemic risk and abuse of that protection. I'm not sure that BURDEN carries all this meaning and sufficient protection for the inserter yet; maybe more focus on RSN would help.

In my wikiyouth I argued at this talk that after providing RS the burden should shift; but I was (in part) rightly told that I don't get to judge it's RS by myself. I still favor some inserter assistance along the lines of this OP but less blatant, but I don't know what would work. Here is the first such thread for historical note. JJB 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Followed by this. JJB 17:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed change does not change the burden to source properly. But it does make it clear that once sourced, it is the burden of others to find any problems. This is not a policy change, but does correct a misunderstanding.

Do people want to do a community wide RfC on this? It's a lot of trouble for something that does not make a material change. Hopefully people won't try to do too much, as with Hullaballoo, or misunderstand it as a change. B^e——C_ritical 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think I've got your finesse now. Later in the policy, after "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement," insert "as when there is not consensus whether the burden of evidence has been carried by reliable sources,". This makes the reliance on RSN an explicit result of nonconsensus about RS, rather than a generic recommendation, and indicates the inserter's faster track to resolution in ticklish cases.

Beyond RS, BURDEN does also apply to OR/SYN, because editors commonly appeal to BURDEN by saying (their interpretation of) the material doesn't appear in the source therefore the burden was not met. (There's also "I can't find it, quote it for me" as a stall tactic.) To prevent stall tactics, going back to BURDEN, a second change might be, after "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references", insert "or if you neglect to explain why the burden has not been carried". Some dose of Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing is necessary. Both these can be tweaked, but I think they're headed in the right direction of reining in the status-quo sticks-in-the-mud without giving inserters any advantage or unnecessary leeway. Add: Looks like we have critical mass to get a consensus version without RFC. JJB 21:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone back and re-read Hullaballoo W's concerns carefully, and I want to take those concerns seriously. To me it comes down to whether the proposed new language could open the door to misuse of WP:RS, which, by the way, I think we should blue-link in the proposed new language, as I am doing now. It seems to me that establishing what is or is not appropriate sourcing is not the role of WP:V, only that the sourcing is verifiable. The sourcing must be verifiable, but, once it is established to be verifiable, it still has to satisfy WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and various other policies and guidelines. It seems to me that consensus has long been that WP:V should reference those other policies and guidelines, rather than attempt to restate them. For that reason, I actually think that the old wording of "evidence" is too vague, whereas a specification linking to WP:RS makes for an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is,

It's the burden of the adding editor to

provide sourcing which meets all our policy criteria

and

respond to/correct any criticism of the way those sources are used

but

It is not the burden of the adding editor to anticipate all possible problems or to do a perfect job.

Those opposed to the addition have the burden to at the least give explicit criticism so the sourcing or text can be corrected, or explain why it cannot work. Or better they should collaboratively edit the addition till it works within policy. This is a significant and sometimes onerous burden, but it's necessary for WP to be able to work.

So it's wrong to try and put all the burden of "evidence" on the editor who adds material. The burden of the adding editor is to do their best and improve anything that needs improving, but the adding editor doesn't bear the entire burden. "Evidence" was meant to mean "sources," but has been corrupted sometimes to mean that the adding editor has all the burden. JJB, "might object" isn't strong enough: it is the burden of editors who don't want material inserted to say why. It isn't an option. B^e——C_ritical 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Added "by RS" above. "Might object" is a polite way because not giving editors time to reference is "not an option" either, so I think it carries the meaning; we could change this to "are free to object" or "have objected when material is removed" or something, but that would be a bigger change. JJB 22:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you can remove material till it is properly sourced and problems are fixed. Anyway, what about this version?

The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The editor wishing to add the material has the additional burden of correcting any violations of Wikipedia policy which other editors point out, although in Wikipedia's collaborative editing environment those who object to material may choose to simply fix it themselves.

B^e——C_ritical 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we need that additional language. The added sentence is sufficiently circular that it doesn't really add anything, and I'm not convinced that it's a problem to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Eek... I'm trying to please everyone... The added sentence adds the burden of responding to claims of OR and SYNTH, and also makes it clear that other editors have a burden too. I think it adds a lot. B^e——C_ritical 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a solution to a nonexistent problem. I'm yet to see a use case where an inappropriate definition of "evidence" has worsened our articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Evidence is the right way of putting it. Reliable sources are not a full answer because they can have mistakes in them.< seem below for my thought out reason and reaffirmation. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, I'm interested in what you think the current sentence in policy means. For example, do you think the sentence means something more than the burden of evidence for showing that the added information complies with the Verifiability policy? Here's the sentence for reference.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it through properly but I can see that the proposal is to put more hurdles in front of people sticking stuff into Wikipedia. Personally I am very happy indeed if some ip sticks in something and actually gives a citation even if it doesn't eventually turn out to be a reliable source. The original complaint was of OR and SYNTH problems which have nothing to do with this at all and don't show a problem with BURDEN. What actually happens is someone sticks something into Wikipedia. If it is uncited and seems wrong we're totally in our rights to delete it straight away under BURDEN. However if they have provided a citation our next step is to check it really is a reliable source and the text summarizes it reasonably. I think we've gone beyond BURDEN then. If the cite doesn't seem to be a reliable source but what is said seems of weight and is what is said we might just stick in citation needed after removing the citation. Is BURDEN really in fact saying again that any text which is uncited may be removed or is it really talking about the insertion of text? If it is about insertion of text I cannot support putting reliable sources into the statement and therefore reaffirm my oppose. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be having a problem with people not understanding the problem. Here is the problem I'm trying to fix: BURDEN puts all the burden of evidence on people who want to include. As interpreted by disruptive editors, that means they don't have ANY burden besides to say thumbs up or down. That's as simple as I can express it, and yes it's unreasonable. We need to make it so BURDEN can't be interpreted that way. This IS a problem, one I've been having, and one that editors stick to because of the phrasing of BURDEN. I don't care how this is fixed. A footnote explaining the process of editing and when the burden shifts would be fine. But let's get the problem understood first okay, because I think the opposing editors here don't get it. That's mainly because they're reasonable and expect the same of others, so they don't see how the problem could arise. B^e——C_ritical 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is 'It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.' which does not really apply for newly inserted material that isn't obviously verifiable and has no sort of citation which is where I think BURDEN was intended to apply. We need a different name or separate paragraph for anything that has been there a little while where the editor should do a google before removing it or should stick in citation needed. Dmcq (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's yet another problem. I've seen it too. What do you think about doing footnotes? It seems impossible to actually change the text of this article, but the Talmudic approach might work- creating footnotes that explain the text. B^e——C_ritical 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong direction, sorry Becritical. Any comments on my two recommendations above or should they be better presented? JJB 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

See above... my comment was that it wasn't strong enough. I edit controversial articles, maybe I get more exposure to disruptive editors? See post just above yours here. B^e——C_ritical 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

One reason for my apology was that I was typing it too fast. Saw your comments and was angling for more. I do know what you're going through editing controversial articles. But if mine is a step in the right direction it might gain consensus as a partial solution. Your last proposal above I felt created a new, unpracticed burden, that of "correcting any violations of Wikipedia policy which other editors point out", which is even worse for letting people thumb down from the bleachers. The footnote idea has merit and I think something should be done, but I don't know that I'll have enough time to analyze fully and assist with full resolution. JJB 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote

Okay... how about a new direction here: it's hard to suggest changes to the actual text of policy. But it might be easier to suggest a footnote which explains various misinterpretations of policy. This could be added to as needed. If this seems like a good idea to people, I could suggest text which addresses the misinterpretation I want to fix, and others could suggest fixes for theirs. Is that a good idea? B^e——C_ritical 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea, and I also want to thank Becritical for raising the issue – I think it just needed more discussion before being ready for an edit request. But the footnote idea is, in my opinion, a good one. As I see it, the problem is when people over-interpret BURDEN to mean more than what it is intended to mean, and to mean what they want it to mean. An explanation of what these misinterpretations look like (sort of reminds me of WP:ATA) would be helpful, and would avoid the issues that come with actually changing the wording of the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(: B^e——C_ritical 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Tryptofish's remark, "As I see it, the problem is when people over-interpret BURDEN to mean more than what it is intended to mean, and to mean what they want it to mean." — Yes, although it can all be in good faith. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I really do realize that it usually is good faith. But it still would be constructive to explain how to understand BURDEN correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote: The burden of evidence is the initial obligation of an editor to provide reliable sources which are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being added. If a good-faith effort has been made to provide such sources, it is then the obligation of editors who do not wish to include the material to articulate problems which would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. This begins a consensus-building dialogue wherein potential problems with the text or sourcing are expressed, and the problems are fixed prior to inclusion of the disputed text.

B^e——C_ritical 16:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A minor comment: there are a couple of places where "which" should be "that". A more substantive comment: it seems to me that this simply elaborates on what the main text of BURDEN already says. I think it would accomplish more in terms of clearing up misunderstandings if, instead, we make a footnote about what the "burden" is not. I'll give some thought to how to say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, this would have saved me weeks of trouble (; But this is only intended to be one of several footnotes or one part of the footnote. B^e——C_ritical 05:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A splitting proposal for BURDEN

With this wording BURDEN more obviously applies to newly inserted or reinstated material. I have inserted the bit " Any new material is liable to be deleted without further checks if it is not obviously verifiable and has no indication of verifiability. Otherwise"

Does that conform more to what people want? Dmcq (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

---

You can make any edits to this text which you think improve it somehow. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN|WP:UNSOURCED}}

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.

Newly-added material is liable to be deleted if it is not obviously verifiable and has no indication of verifiability. Otherwise whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Notes

---

Yes, I think it is helpful, and it also is not mutually exclusive with the footnote idea just above. (Note that they address two slightly different issues: overuse of BURDEN, versus distinction between new and old material.) Suggestion: revise "Any new material is liable to be deleted without further checks if..." to "Newly-added material is liable to be deleted if...". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just made that revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is good. At the least, we are accumulating a list of problems that people have found, and we'll know what needs to be addressed. With the distinction between newly added and longstanding material, wouldn't you also have to consider how much traffic the article has? If it has hardly any traffic, then the idea that you give longstanding material more respect doesn't apply? B^e——C_ritical 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the person who wrote the stuff is probably still around they can be told they should try and provide a reference when they stick stuff in. And in fact that can help with improving their later editing rather than always searching for references after them. If the material has been around a bit longer though I don't think we should have an automatic presumption it is liable to be removed without some extra checking like a google lookup. So I'd have counted new as being within a couple of days. Dmcq (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The current wording of this splitting proposal seems to have some support as far as I can see. Anyone against me requesting an admin sticking it in? Or would someone like to add in something from the footnotes idea above first? Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No objection from me (but just wait – someone else will). I still would like to look further at the footnote side of this (apologies for not having gotten to it yet). But there is no reason why we couldn't start with this, and edit footnotes later. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I object to the proposed change. It is not just new stuff added to an article. Let us suppose that an editor comes across an old article that contains lots of unsupported stuff, most of which is probably true then it can be tagged with {{citation needed}} or whatever. But the article also contains controversial statements based on OR. There is no reason why those should not be removed immediately in which case the burden lies on those wishing to restore the text. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This policy is about verifiability not OR. But even so I would have though exactly the same applied, if someone stuck in something new that seemed OR you'd remove it if you had reasonable doubt, if it had been in there for a while then unless it really was very obviously wrong you'd put in a tag as a first step or check your facts further. That's covered by 'Otherwise whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article;' Similar considerations apply too in that the original editor is probably there if you remove stuff soon after they put it in and they can learn to put in the evidence properly. After a while though really there is more of a burden on the person removing stuff, saying the burden was on the part of the person putting it in and not checking properly is just unconstructive. Dmcq (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OR is relevant here, a major reason for removing un-cited text is because it is suspected of being unverifiable which often means OR. It is up to the person who wishes to restore the text to show that it is not OR by including inline citations. The point of the sentence is that when there is a disparagement over content that this gives us a fail safe position as it is better to have no information on a subject than wrong information. Over time the requirement for verification has grown. There are lots of articles that have been around for years that do not contain any references or if they do they are only general references. I spend quite a lot of time looking at articles with a {{1911}} template without any parameters (there are about 10,000 of them). These articles started out as a copy of an EB1911 article but often over time text has been added to them. Once the EB1911 article has been identified, it is possible to place inline citations against the 1911 text (and any other general reference that is there). But for the additional text if I judge it to be likely to be correct I place a {{citation needed}} marker on it. But if I judge the text to be OR or unlikely to be true, I remove it with WP:PROVEIT as justification. It burden is then up to the person who wishes to restore the text. As we are talking about text in addition to the original EB1911 text it is likely to be peripheral to the main content of the article. I disagree that "After a while though really there is more of a burden on the person removing stuff", as this type of checking is what I would do with an article whether it was on my watch list or is one I have found through the error category like Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that may need Attribution. The only difference is that if it is on my watch list the aricle will already have inline citations previously added by me or by others, it is only old articles (but new to me) where I come across cases where there no inline citations. In such cases WP:PROVEIT is as useful as it is with new additions of uncited text to an article on my watch list. -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What the change to BURDEN would affect is newly inserted text. It makes absolutely no change to the stuff you are looking through. The new clause if before the 'Otherwise'. For newly inserted text it means people can remove it with fairly cursory checks whereas for older stuff one should do more checks. This is in line with what people do anyway. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"This is in line with what people do anyway" Speak for yourself! I take the same care over both. The major difference is that the articles on my watch list tend to carry lots of in-line citations (and where necessary {{fact}} templates), while those I find thorough the 10,000 do not. At the moment the paragraph is simple to understand and follow, every qualification such as "otherwise" brings complexity and that complexity brings wriggle room for wiki-lawyering. For example this proposed change is wrong for two reasons. The first is that there are times when {{citation needed}} is more appropriate than intimidate removal, and secondly someone can argue that immediate removal only applies to new material (otherwise why highlight it in policy)" REVERT. "no it does not" REVERT ... editors are now arguing about the meaning of the policy not the content of the edit, it is an unnecessary distraction. Much better the the rule in the policy is kept simple, as guidelines can be used to expand on the meaning if necessary. WP:PROVIT is more useful for the removal of old information than new as the speedy removal of new information is covered by WP:BRD, while WP:PROVIT turns WP:BRD on its head:

• Insertion of new material, REVERT (BRD)... material remains removed while discussions take place and there is a consensus for insertion.
• Removal of old information REVERT (BRD), REVERT (PROVIT) ... without the second revert using PROVIT the information would remain in the article unless there was a consensus to remove it.

-- PBS (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you seem to have taken against it so it will have to wait for whatever RfC comes by on this whole business instead of just going in. You have said that you take care over both, I really think that is a bit of a waste - one should take more trouble over something that has been in for some time, and for stuff that has just gone in the editor is probably still around and should be prompted to stick in basic require information in the first place rather than doing all the work for them. There's no point wasting time on silliness and peoples own ideas they stick in, but we should take more care if stuff has been in for a while. As to wikilawyering this is already subject to wikilawyering and it should be phrased in a straightforward way that reflects reality. Anyway I will not be pressing any futther with doing anything immediate as I see no prospect of changing your mind. Dmcq (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

In case this is still a live discussion. I am against the changes. I think "evidence" is better than more specific "reliable sources". This is because there are other non OR ways to provide evidence than just using reliable sources: Eg. the size of a billiard ball is 52.5 mm (source provided) conversion to inches done through a routine calculation (actually using {{convert}}). Evidence for this conversion does not have to be provided through a reliable source, but can be provided on the talk page of the article to meet OR requirements.

If there was a consensus to change the burden of evidence statement then if a link is to be provided for "reliable sources" it should be to WP:SOURCES not WP:RS. This is because SOURCES is a policy and RS is not: "In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.", linking to RS under reliable sources in Burden is likely to muddy the waters. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you interpret "evidence" to mean more than evidence that the material complies with the Verifiabilty policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have made that clear, but to supplement it I refer you to the last paragraph of the lead into this policy. --- PBS (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you haven't the foggiest idea what it means. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what's clear here is that we are not going to be able to change the text. But we should be able to explain it. For myself, I want to write a short description of the proper process, which makes it clear that only the initial burden is on the shoulders of the person adding, and it is the burden of those who don't want to include the text to say why they don't want to include it. Dmcq and others may want to write their own short explanations. I don't see why that kind of thing couldn't find consensus, but changing the text is pretty much out per WP:POLICYBIBLE (lol) B^e——C_ritical 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just put a header called "Discussion" here, because the "splitting proposal" is not about changing "evidence" to "reliable sources". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ability and the first sentence

This is a continuation of the discussion in an archived section Opening sentence is a nonsense. That discussion ended essentially because it was thought that it should be discussed at the mediation first. The discussion at the mediation has been completed.[5] We can now consider whether the change from mediation should be made in the first sentence of WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Change first sentence from

"Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

to

"Verifiability on Wikipedia means that readers can check reliable sources that directly support the information in an article."

---

Comments

• I do not have time to read through the long details, but my guess is that 99% of the readers (mysellf included) will not notice a difference. Is there a one paragraph "what is the difference?" item that can be added above before asking for comments? History2007 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The text appears to remove the focus on inline citations which I think is a fundamental part of verifiability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I went back to look at the edit history of "cited" versus "reliable". In fact, it was I who originally made the edit that made it "cited", as you prefer (although I have to admit that I didn't remember having done it!), and it was pretty recent [6], so that language hasn't been long-standing. However, subsequent discussion here came to the conclusion that it needs to be "reliable". I think that discussion reflects the most recent consensus, although the full-protection of the page prevented it from being implemented; instead, it has been followed at the current mediation discussion. For what it's worth, it's a link to WP:IRS, not WP:INCITE, and inline citations are discussed a few sentences later. Can't fit everything into the first sentence! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bob K, you can see from the comments just above that what stands out to people, when you pose the question this way, is not the critical point that you actually intended. It's probably best not to try to get this edit done now, but rather to wait for the upcoming RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The version of the lead that is in WP:V at the time of the upcoming RfC will be one of the choices for the RfC. The present first sentence has been criticized as nonsense. (See Opening sentence is a nonsense.) BTW, Tryptofish was the one at the mediation that proposed the same version that is being proposed here. Not having the present version of the lead of WP:V corrected before the RfC, will put the version of the lead of WP:V at the time of the RfC at a disadvantage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually I do support this proposal. I was just pointing out why the initial reaction has been rather unsupportive. People are objecting to it for reasons unrelated to what it actually proposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people such as yours truly are still trying to figure out what it proposes. This sounds vague and risky to me. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Yes the change does describe what verifiability means. The inline citation bit is what to do if people dispute verifiability, not whether the stuff actually is verifiable. What's there at the moment just causes a horrible mess with 'All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable'. I think everything has to be verifiable, that does not mean I think everything has to have an inline citation. Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the confusion over this sentence is with the word "information"... what has to be verifiable is the exact statement we (Wikipedians) write and include in our articles, not the underlying information within that statement. For example, the statement "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is not a verifiable statement... however the statement "According to Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is a verifiable statement (since we can point to sources that say this is Christian doctrine). Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification is needed: Please let me try to understand this again now, in view of the above.

• Does "can check reliable sources" require that said reliable sources be already cited? Would it not have been better to have said: "can check the cited reliable sources"? The way I read this, it could also mean that "can check reliable sources" by going to a library. This seems vague to me.

• If we have to discuss what this means, have we not lost already? If there is any need for discussion on what it means, then it is not clear.

In any case, I think the "can check reliable sources" part is quite risky because it does not explicitly require said sources to be cited. Does it cost more to make it explicit? I do not think so. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not require that statements have inline citations unless the verifiability is disputed and is not obvious. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, where does it say that "We do not require that statements have inline citations unless the verifiability is disputed and is not obvious"? And in that case, say good bye to verifiability. That would be a "huge mistake". If it is totally obvious, it does not have much place in an encyclopedia. If it can just be entered without inline citations this will be a serious quality degradation and I would strongly object to it, in the name of encyclopedic quality. In any case, if we have to clarify it in this discussion, it is far too vague to be used. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see second paragraph of WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I know the 2nd paragraph. The point is that the word "obvious" does not appear on the page and verifiability has already been defined in the current 1st paragraph. Again, after the discussion I see this as one more possible step to a "weaker encyclopedia". I will be upfront with you, for the life of me I can not understand why verifiability has to be weakened. And I do not see what this change buys at all. What does it buy for the encyclopedia? Nothing that I can see, apart from increasing debate and diluting verifiability. It buys nothing of value in my view, and I must strongly oppose it. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If people keep sticking in tags asking for citations where unnecessary because it is obvious they don't fulfil the 'likely to be challenged' as far as normal sensible people are concerned they get banned. The policies describe good practice as generally done in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, please let me try to understand this new issue. Are you stating that a side effect of this will be to discourage the placement of "citation needed" tags? Is that so? History2007 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the discussion that led to this proposal, and I'm very sympathetic to you and other users who are now confused because you weren't familiar with the same information. Unfortunately, the proposal above is complicated by the fact that those discussions in the mediation included all kinds of stuff unrelated to the change proposed here, because the change proposed here is in relation to what WP:V says now. So, let's start with what WP:V says now:

"Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

Now I'll reformulate the proposed new sentence, in order to not change anything from what the page says now, except for the change that is actually being proposed, and nothing else:

"Verifiability on Wikipedia means that readers can check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

Does that help clarify what is being proposed? It's actually a small change, I think, one that is directed at the illogic of saying that verifiability is an "ability" possessed by readers, when it's actually an attribute of the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That helps in two ways:

• One it is becoming clear that the original proposal was vague, because we had to have this discussion to clarify it.

• I had actually had suggested "can check the cited reliable sources" saying it would not have cost any more to print that on the page. So that seems much better to me.

But by virtue of the fact that I have now received explanations, it is not certain that I would not have found it vague as a start. But, be that as it may, the clarification "can check the cited reliable sources" will certainly help. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As for your first point, yes indeed, sorry. As for your second, I can point to the last time this issue was discussed here, for whatever it's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed how you remember all these archives. But this page should really be within WikiProject archeology, there is so much buried in the archives and so much is dug up all the time. But in any case, I think we agree that the initial statement was just too vague, given the discussion. History2007 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I try to be amazing. ;-) Actually, I'm just repeating a link from my comment to IRWolfie above, but I spent an obscene amount of time finding it the other day. I'm doing that because I have good wishes for the mediation process that's going on, and I'm trying to put out potential forest fires before they ignite. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

History2007, Just so I know where you're coming from, would your criticism regarding removal of "ability" and not using"cited", also apply to the following familiar first sentence that was previously in the Verfiability policy.[7]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

which, like the proposed sentence says "readers" instead of "reader's ability", and also doesn't refer to "cited". For convenience, here again is the proposed sentence for comparison.

"Verifiability on Wikipedia means that readers can check reliable sources that directly support the information in an article."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But what you have is again missing the "cited" element. That was/is the source of the ambiguity that resulted in the long discussion above. I do not know how many versions you guys have permuted now, but I have stated the problems with the vagueness and weakness of this directly above. History2007 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to argue but rather to make sure I understand your point, according to you does verifiability mean that there is an inline citation in the text to support the material, and if there isn't an inline citation in the text then the material is not verifiable?

For example, an inline citation in the text would look like this, "The earliest known butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, between 40–50 million years ago." And if instead the sentence was without the inline citation, i.e. "The earliest known butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, between 40–50 million years ago." then, according to your understanding, this material would not be verifiable? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the "according to me/you" part assumes that me/you are somehow experts on something. The problem here came up, again, because I actually could not even understand what it meant, so I asked and after discussion it became clear that ambiguity existed. What I do not understand, really do not, is the reason why this new item is an improvement. What is gained by avoiding the "cited" word? As I said, it does not cost anything. Does it? And Dmcq's point that this may have the side effect of this will be to discourage the placement of "citation needed" tags has really complicated the matter. Again, what I am not getting is what the deletion of the "cited" part buys apart from diluting the reliability of the encyclopedia. What does it buy for Wikipedia apart from Weakening its content? And again, given that we have had this long discussion by default the item is vague. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From your response, you don't seem to understand what verifiability means and you don't want to know. I tried to help with my last message but you chose not to directly respond. I think a direct response from you would have helped bring our views closer together. Talk pages are not just a place for intransigent arguing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That was utterly kind of you. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that you SV? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI Bob, I took your comment about my not understanding things as somewhat of an insult, so I just thanked you, but I hesitate to respond to you further, lest I receive another. I do not respond well to those. I have expressed my concerns above, several times. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Expand?

If we really want to be clear, and spell all this out in full... perhaps we should expand it into more than one sentence. I would suggest something like:

• "Verifiability, on Wikipedia, means that any statement included in an article is able to be verified by our readers. Our readers should be able to check that what is stated in Wikipedia accurately reflects what is stated in reliable sources. Where necessary, editors should assist the reader by providing citations to reliable sources that directly support the statment."

Yes, this is more "wordy"... but sometimes it takes more words to make what we mean clear. Something like this whould clarify what needs to be verified (the statements we include in the article), who needs to be able to verify it (the reader), why (so they know that the statement is accurate... or at least accurately reflects what is said in the sources), and finishes up with what editors must do to assist in the process (provide citations to sources - when necessary). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is already expanded by the second paragraph of WP:V. If anything, your comment is a digression into rewriting the second paragraph.--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK... so think of my suggestion as a way to combine and clarify what is currently said disjointedly, in several paragraphs - and restructure/rewrite it into one coherent opening paragraph. The point being, we are currently struggling to come up with a one sentence "definition" of verifiability to use in the first paragraph... and I am suggesting that things might be easier and clearer if we try for a multi-sentence "definition". If clarifying the definition in the first paragraph means we end up also re-writing the second paragraph... well, what is wrong with that? If it clarifies the policy that is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a domino effect issue here? History2007 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The importance of verifiability

[8] 99.40.225.19 (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Replacements for VnT

Jehochman:

One standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Material in Wikipedia must have been published by a reliable source. Editors may not include content merely because they think it is true.

Becritical:

Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information. Whether editors personally believe the information is true or false should never determine Wikipedia content. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citations. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed without further discussion, and unsourced contentious material about about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

Blueboar: (This is a re-working of the entire lede section)

Verifiability is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia. Our readers must be able to verify that the information presented in an article has been presented accurately. This is achieved by citing reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Editors should not add unverifiable material, even if they are convinced that the material is true. In this context, the initial threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth.

However, Verifiability is not the only threshold for inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines that influence what information may be included in an article. The fact that information is verifiability does not guarantee its inclusion.

Note that the policy requirement is for verifiability, not actual verification. It must be possible to attribute the information in a Wikipedia article to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged (see below).

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Wer900:

Verifiability is required in order to assert that a particular fact is true or that a given person holds an opinion. Should a statement of either opinion or ideology, or of fact, not be verified to a reliable source, another editor may remove it.

One thing that is read into VnT, but which seems to be downplayed by these proposals, is the corollary that editors don't get to remove something just because they personally believe the content of its cited source to be untrue. (This is an issue that continually crops up in articles that happen to be topics of ideological views and, as we can't check the expertise of editors anyway, we want to ask that they desist in this behaviour until after such time as they can cast shadow on the first source by means of a verifiable source supporting their counter-view.) By simply renouncing concern for truth, we can minimise conflicts and focus on the primary task of sorting out the significant threads from all available learning and narrative. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The verifiability RfC is here

• Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC

It has been a long time coming, but the RfC about the verifiability lede is finally ready to be commented on. In this RfC we have included a few specific drafts of the policy lede for you to comment on, and we have twelve general questions to find editors' views about how the lede should look. All editors are warmly invited to join the discussion at the RfC page. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Increase awareness via MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? Leaky Caldron 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, but I think that that that is in the plan per the discussion at the top of the RFC. Mr. Stradivarius said they have gone to bed and asked for assistance in getting the advertisements posted. I plan to try to help on that but that will including looking for a "approved" advertisement / one that he wrote, or making up a neutral one. If you can help I say do it. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've re-worded most of the adverts and added it to WP:CENT. I've also made a request for a watchlist notice, but it might be a little while before that happens. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to the mediating and mediated parties in coming this far! Fifelfoo (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It only took us four months, but we got there. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012

I would like the "under discussion" tag at the end of the first paragraph of the policy to be updated to point to the RfC page. The new code would look like this: {{underdiscussion-inline|talkpage=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally, something to point that to. Good work to the whole crew. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I trust this will be uncontroversial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ...but, d'oh! I've gone and messed up the link in the code I pasted above. So now the link is not pointing to the RfC page, but the RfC talk page, which is currently blank. The correct code should of course be {{underdiscussion-inline|talkpage=Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC}}. (Very sorry about this - trouts should be directed to my talk page...) As for it being uncontroversial, it was one of the ground rules for the mediation, so all the mediation participants have agreed to it. The participants consisted of almost all of the regular editors here back in February, although the regulars now may be different. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, trouts are out. I can only offer some fillet of pollock right now. I'd recommend the plaki [9]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Landscape as document

The idea of the existing, present landscape as a document that can be read is a concept in geography, topography and urban planning (also in history and archaeology). Concerning this article on verifiability, the physical landscape is/as a document can be read by one and verified by another. But the idea of document here is limited to written documents where someone can construct a document about a landscape (e.g. by written description, graphic representations such as maps and photos) and this one-step-removed written/graphic source would have more credibility than the landscape itself. In terms of verification, the constructed document of the landscape itself appears to carry more authority than the actual landscape. In every sense, the writer/author source can be misleading, but the landscape exists on its undeniable self-merit, no matter what is said about it.

How do WPers view the idea (policy?) of the present landscape as document as a reliable and authoriative source that is verifiable, upon inspection, without the need to reference any intermediate constructed document about the landscape?

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You've looked directly into the heart of the TARDIS, my friend, but without examples of what you've seen, nobody will be able to follow you and we will be left scratching our collective heads. While we are waiting for your forthcoming examples, let me entertain you with a relevant quote from "The Machine Stops":

Advanced thinkers, like Vashti, had always held it foolish to visit the surface of the earth. Air-ships might be necessary, but what was the good of going out for mere curiosity and crawling along for a mile or two in a terrestrial motor? The habit was vulgar and perhaps faintly improper: it was unproductive of ideas, and had no connection with the habits that really mattered. So respirators were abolished, and with them, of course, the terrestrial motors, and except for a few lecturers, who complained that they were debarred access to their subject- matter, the development was accepted quietly. Those who still wanted to know what the earth was like had after all only to listen to some gramophone, or to look into some cinematophote. And even the lecturers acquiesced when they found that a lecture on the sea was none the less stimulating when compiled out of other lectures that had already been delivered on the same subject. 'Beware of first- hand ideas!' exclaimed one of the most advanced of them. 'First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by live and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element - direct observation. Do not learn anything about this subject of mine - the French Revolution. Learn instead what I think that Enicharmon thought Urizen thought Gutch thought Ho-Yung thought Chi-Bo-Sing thought Lafcadio Hearn thought Carlyle thought Mirabeau said about the French Revolution.

Through the medium of these ten great minds, the blood that was shed at Paris and the windows that were broken at Versailles will be clarified to an idea which you may employ most profitably in your daily lives. But be sure that the intermediates are many and varied, for in history one authority exists to counteract another. Urizen must counteract the scepticism of Ho-Yung and Enicharmon, I must myself counteract the impetuosity of Gutch. You who listen to me are in a better position to judge about the French Revolution than I am. Your descendants will be even in a better position than you, for they will learn what you think I think, and yet another intermediate will be added to the chain. And in time' - his voice rose - 'there will come a generation that had got beyond facts, beyond impressions, a generation absolutely colourless, a generation seraphically free from taint of personality, which will see the French Revolution not as it happened, nor as they would like it to have happened, but as it would have happened, had it taken place in the days of the Machine.'

I hope that helps. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the complexity of "reading" the landscape as a "text" all such readings will be acts of original research, and should not find their first publication in wikipedia. Persons who through expertise read the landscape, and publish their opinions and findings in suitable locations (human geography journals, etc.) would of course meet our verifiability policy if their work otherwise was a reliable source. In this, as in all things, the best sources to seek are generally secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The expected and typical answer, but sadly, untrue. The best sources are not secondary, for many of the reasons described above. However, Wikipedia has created a cultural construct that sets up secondary sources as the best. But, the cultural construct is just that—a construct. We accept it as true for convenience, but Benyoch and Forster remind us that it is and always will be a false dichotomy. The cultural construct is not reality, and I can think of any number of innovations that may supplant it in the future. What "Enicharmon thought Urizen thought Gutch thought Ho-Yung thought Chi-Bo-Sing thought Lafcadio Hearn thought Carlyle thought Mirabeau said about the French Revolution" is not the French Revolution. One can, using current technology "read" the landscape as text, and technology like Google "Backpack" will soon take us one step further into that new realm. It's not original research to "read" such a landscape at all, as the landscape becomes a primary text that can be interpreted in real time, visually confirmed, measured, tagged, and encoded with data, information, and statistics. It's a nascent Galaxia, where the landscape and the information about the landscape become one and the same. It may sound like science fiction, but it is happening right now. Real estate buyers might browse homes by driving by them with an app to pull the data by location; diners already make decisions based on user submitted reviews while standing outside a new place. Take a photo of a tree and an app will return species and care information. The landscape has become the document, whether you admit it or not. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want the encyclopaedist's episteme forced roughly onto your post-humanity then exercise your right to vanish—we are an encyclopaedia, not the publisher of your original thoughts about the French Revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Another narrow, yet predictable response. Obviously, primary sources about the French Revolution are the best sources on the subject that we have. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, they are the best sources professional historians have. The best sourceswe have are professional historians.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue. A professional historian writing about the French Revolution from that time is a primary source, just as a play by play news report of O.J.'s highway escapade is a primary source for us today. When we're writing a synopsis or a plot section, or quoting a statistic or a transcript of an interview, a primary source can help us remain true and accurate. They are the best sources we have. As a tertiary source, we rely on secondary sources to guide us to avoid editorial bias, but that doesn't make them the best sources. That's just an artificial cultural construct put in place to regulate human behavior. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When you're looking at a topic, the secondary sources help you decide which bits of the primary sources are important (and if there are no secondary sources then it's probably not important enough to have an article). But in cases where a secondary source directly contradicts a primary source, then the primary source is probably right.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas is talking about an example of the French revolution or Human Geography—neither of whichs' primary sources can be "read" in a clear and direct manner. Basically, Viriditas is supporting replacing V with a policy that explicitly favours OR, and replacing reliance on external scholarly and professional authority with personal invention. Doing so is not encyclopaedic, and falls outside of the pillars of the project. Attempting to revisit the verifiability component "what is an encyclopaedia" in a discussion on WT:V is pretty damn IDHT behaviour and damn close to disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm not proposing anything at all. I'm merely discussing Benyoch's idea in his absence, having little to nothing to go on. Outside of totalitarian dictatorships, discussion is not disruption, Fifelfoo. As S Marshall reminds you, primary sources may be used with care and are quite helpful and important. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Good Lord. I come in peace! I was just making a general remark about the relative usefulness of primary and secondary sources to the encyclopaedist,—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And, I agree with you. However, I disagree with Fifelfoo's contention that primary sources about the French Revolution are not clear. There is sufficient distance between us and the event that the secondary sources of that time are now considered primary, and are part of the "landscape" that composes the event known as the French Revolution. Secondary sources of today will certainly interpret those historical, primary sources in unique ways, but it most certainly is not original research to read the "landscape" of the French Revolution today. What Benyoch is essentially talking about is how we use primary sources, and one can use them carefully without ever being accused of OR. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion thus far, and the tension between the identification and use of primary and secondary sources clearly evident in the production of the WP encyclopaedic project. My thanks to all who have contributed.

I do need to clarify what I have in mind when I first thought of landscape, and subsequently, given this discussion. I interpret ‘landscape’ to is both observed and read (read literally and/or figuratively) and heard, in the present.

This ‘landscape’ could be:

• The land-scape and street-scape we are all familiar with in everyday life; think of your rural area, neighbourhood, even your own street (no identification other than signage identifiers). Let’s say, for this example, the only tangible description is a map where the only text is names of places.

• The screen-scape of the television with a great variety of shows (identified by title, series, episode, etc.).

• The page-scape of the book or document (identified bibliographically)

For WP, the citation for the last is easy: the page-scape is observed, and what is seen and read is interpreted - and the WP article is edited and citation given.

But what of the first and second?

For the second, consider ‘Leonard and Penny's relationship’ in the The Big Bang Theory article (take a look - it is simply an example). It refers to series and episodes. However, essentially, the reading of the ‘screen-scape’ all gets down to OR, does it not? I have observed entries like this challenged, seeking citations in support of the different elements of the discussion in order to verify. Some reply by saying, series number and episode title have been referenced; so the content is verifiable and no more is needed. Essentially, this methodology also gets down to observing the screen-scape, what is seen and heard is interpreted - and the WP article is edited. (In passing, I note that the number of ^{citations needed} is quite staggering).

For the first, the same methodology applies: the landscape or streetscape is observed and read and heard and interpreted - and the WP article is edited. But such an edit has the potential to get the boot because of OR, despite its content being clearly veririfiable and very useful - what is missing is a piece of someone else's printed page. Consider the 'An inventory of enterprises and their locations, as at April 2012, shows the following ...' in the section 'Retail, commercial and community-based enterprises' in the Jannali, New South Wales article, for example.

For me the tension between accepting a third party's secondary source (about a landscape) while rejecting observed, concrete realities demonstrates an inherent weakness in the quality of WP articles because the landscape as document cannot be read and presented as a verifiable source (primary or secondary is not the issue, nor should it be). This means, for example, your observations of your street or neighbourhood cannot get a look-in unless some outside, third party 'authority' prints a page with words on it, to which you must reply upon which you must rely.

I am reminded of the Michael Leunig's sunrise cartoon where the dude is sitting watching his television showing the sunrise, all the while ignoring the very same sunrise that could be seen through his very own window. Does this hapless dude have to read a book in order to edit the benefits of looking thru windows article in wikipedia? Is this as good as WP will get?

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Now this takes me back to my university days, and to Christopher Tilley's lectures on the interpretation of landscape - for as he would point out, if the landscape is a document, it is a document that must be interpreted, rather than merely read. Per Wikipedia policy regarding original research, we must then ask whether an interpretation of this 'document' by a contributor is a valid source for inclusion - and, I suspect, answer in the negative.

Incidentally, I find the phrase "observed, concrete realities" problematic, in that it takes as read that 'observation' is all that is required to determine 'concrete reality' - something that observation itself suggests is often demonstrably false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nope. Everything in the world is a "document" that can be read by people qualified to do so. The evidence that someone is qualified to read such "documents" is that they publish their readings in peer reviewed journals.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One does not require qualifications to use primary sources carefully, and we do everyday. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. You can use primary sources very sparingly to infer information that is obvious to anyone. And only if there is also secondary sources to guide you. Policy is quite clear - we are not going to throw WP:V out like that and introduce OR anarchy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy that says we have to use primary sources sparingly. You can write an entire article based on primary sources without ever introducing OR or anarchy. I haven't seen anyone propose throwing out this policy. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. You need to reread WP:PRIMARY.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with PRIMARY, and there's nothing there preventing anyone from using primary sources to write an article. Telling editors that they should avoid doing so is not the same as saying they can't, and we've got plenty of good and featured articles that rely on them extensively. Policies serve to help editors write articles, not to impede them. That most editors are unable to use primary sources carefully is why we tell them to avoid them. The nuances here are really important to recognize. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar enough apparently: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've said nothing of the kind, and you are quoting completely out of context. To repeat what I said again, "There is no policy that says we have to use primary sources sparingly. You can write an entire article based on primary sources without ever introducing OR or anarchy." Is that making sense, because it sounds like you are missing the nuances again. Furthermore, there is no policy that says you cannot add material from your personal experience. What we say is that you have to find sources for it. Get it? I write from my personal experience all of the time, as do the majority of editors. You just refuse to acknowledge it. For example, I wrote Lahaina Banyan Court Park from my personal experience. The fact that the sources support my personal experience is great. I think you keep missing the nuances in favor of an authoritative approach because it gives you a feeling of safety and comfort to fall back on a policy or guideline like a parent. The fact remains, we can use primary sources as much as we want without ever engaging in original research, and as editors, we do all the time. And, as I've repeatedly said, we can use our personal experiences to help craft articles. Nobody here has said that sources are not required, nor has anyone said that when using primary sources, one should forget about the secondary and tertiary framework supporting their use. Nuances. Black and white thinking is not conducive to discussion. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia is not "everyday" nor is it epistemological anarchy. We respect disciplinary systems of knowledge here. This isn't the wild west of early 1970s postmodernism. I suggest you keep on movin' pardner because the folks around here ain't buyin' your moonshine. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There is nothing wrong with using primary sources carefully, we don't need any qualifications to do so, and editors use primary sources to write articles every day. Anyone who says any different is lying or confused. Benyoch raises some good ideas that deserve discussion. Policies and guidelines exist only to help us write better articles. They are not intended to be ideological prisons. Nothing I've said contradicts any policy or guideline and is in fact best practice. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Bullshit. If you want to change V then launch a proposal, but this is soapboxing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
          • There is no "bullshit" in anything I've said, nor have I ever proposed changing this policy in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reading the landscape is a skilled practice best left for experts. If we want to say something about the landscape, quote an expert. That the landscape exists is obvious; saying something worthwhile about it is where we need reliable sources making a comment. I think nothing needs to be changed—certainly we cannot let a simple satellite view of the land tell us something about the ancient earth or about past civilizations. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What is it exactly that the OP has proposed changing? I'm not seeing anything. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Citing WP:OR# (Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources). Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Viriditas, Maybe this is because you don't have the expertise to look? ;-) Actually, the OP seems to be proposing that the 'observations' of contributors be treated as 'reliable sources'. A huge writhing can of worms if ever there was one. I could go outside, and 'observe' that this part of the London suburbs has a great many large trees: a statement that relatively few of us might dispute given the chance to make the 'same observation' - unless of course we were inhabitants of say the Brazilian rainforest, who might argue that not only were there few trees, but that they were puny specimens, and little more than shrubs. And this is without going into the complexities of what a 'landscape' is, and what is or isn't 'part of it'? Is the advertising hoarding down the road part of the landscape? And if so, is the graffiti scrawled on it also part of the landscape? Or the upturned wheelbarrow on the adjacent building site? Or the crushed remains of a plastic water bottle that lies in the gutter? Come to that, am I part of the landscape too: a beacon of light from a window and a clattering keyboard in the otherwise sleeping suburbs, indicating that chronic insomnia lurks amongst the avenues of suburbia, possibly kept awake by the fears of what lurks hidden in the (arguably puny) forest outside? The last observation is of course utterly subjective, and probably not worth taking seriously, but where do we draw the line? The answer has to be, we don't. We leave this to others to do for us. Yes, not being able to include 'concrete observations' of our own is a restriction - but one that we must live with if we are to avoid the post-modernist disaster that allowing 'personal observation' a free rein would seemingly imply. Wikipedia's rules on sourcing are unquestionably arbitrary, demonstrably inconsistently applied, and from a philosophical point of view untenable. On the other hand, we can observe for ourselves that they work in that people (our readers) seem to find them useful, in spite of the illogicality of it all. I'd suggest that before engaging in as drastic a remodelling of the Wikipedia 'landscape' as the OP seems to suggest, we take a look around and ask whether we (and more to the point, our readers) don't prefer it as it is: a little ramshackle, threadbare in places, and clearly not the result of any consistent planning (or 'intelligent design'?) - but still a useful place to go if you want to 'find things out', as opposed to finding out what all and sundry think about it - particularly when the noisiest 'sundry' tend to be (unless constrained by arbitrary and illogical rules) intent on putting the most peculiar 'observations' of the 'landscape' to the fore. We apply our own arbitrary rules regarding sourcing to allow only such material that meets similarly arbitrary rules elsewhere, and end up with something that seems to work. And if something works, don't fix it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I followed the OP's landscape model and I wrote Xylocopa sonorina while observing them in a field of Chinese Violets. There's a to do list on the talk page indicating incomplete coverage and an apparent naming convention dispute in the literature. Aside from those two things, the article exists. BTW, I know nothing about bees. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You evidently know something about them now ;). Actually though, the article seems to cite a number of what appear to be 'reliable sources', and at no point does it cite 'Viriditas: personal observation' - do you think it should? If your observations are legitimate sources, why aren't they cited? Are you proposing that we should name the sources of personal observations, or that we should pretend that there aren't any, even while we make use of them? Serendipity having played its usual role when one least expects it, I was looking at Maurice Maeterlinck's 'Life of the Bee' earlier (in translation), and have to admire it for its poetic qualities, but as a source on the Apoidea, I'd hardly rate it as the most reliable in terms of a modern scientific appraisal - but that isn't the point. It tells us a great deal about how Maeterlinck sees bees, and arguably a great deal about how Maeterlinck sees the world (bees being a honey-pot of potential metaphors ;-) ), but relatively little about 'bees' as such. That is how most of us see 'the landscape', most of the time. And that is why I can appreciate personal observation as the only 'truth' that we can ever experience, and why I can say that I still prefer the arbitrary and illogical set of rules that Wikipedia applies to arrive at its own 'truth' than the unfiltered alternative that unfettered 'personal observation as a source' would imply. Yup, it undoubtedly sneaks into Wikipedia articles unannounced rather more often than we'd like to admit, but at least while we are maintaining the pretence that it isn't there, we are applying a little restraint to it. Like I said, if it works, don't fix it. And what exactly is it that you are proposing needs fixing anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • To me, Benyoch seems to be describing the writing process before publication on Wikipedia. In other words, everything he says is an acceptable way of choosing a topic and writing about it. That's how I started expanding upon the stub in the first place. I was sitting in a field of Chinese Violets experimenting with my camera when I began to explore the landscape with my eye, noticing bees darting to and fro. Later, I would discover that this particular field of flowers and bee species was at a steady state due to a number of recent storms. I have never again seen this particular field of flowers and bee community in this area at this level ever again. In fact, as I write this, this particular community is gone: the flowers were pulled out and the bees moved on. In any case, I was at the right place and the right time, and I decided to write about it from my direct experience. And, here's the important part: we should encourage all editors to do this. However, when they get ready to actually publish what they've written to Wikipedia, editors needs to compare their notes with the primary and secondary literature and make sure there's a direct match. In conclusion, Benyoch's method is more about the initial writing process. When it comes time to take those observations to the next level, then editors need to add layer upon layer to this "landscape". For example, I directly experienced and photographed the bee behavior described in the "Behavior" section. I was also able to find a journal article published in the Florida Entomologist documenting exactly what I had observed. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Um, Yes. We get ideas from personal experience (where else?). We don't currently cite 'personal experience' as a source in Wikipedia though - and you don't seem to be suggesting we should (though I suspect that the OP was arguing exactly that). So what is it you are suggesting we should change? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Again, I'm not suggesting that we change anything (nor am I stupid to think anyone can—major edits to policies haven't been allowed for years, so it's a trick question meant for the rubes). What I'm saying is, the approach to responding to editors like Benyoch needs to change. Instead of replying with the same negative smackdown that serves no purpose other than to drive people away, one can reply in the positive and achieve the same result (not driving people away, but informing them how policy works). In other words, based on my example above, we can cite personal experience if and only if your personal experience can be supported by independent sources. This is a win-win scenario. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
            • But if there are other sources then why would you cite personal experience in the first place and not just the sources like you're supposed to? And how would you cite personal experience anyway? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
              • I just finished explaining why. In the example of Xylocopa sonorina, I described how, completely by chance, I found myself in a field of Chinese violet (Asystasia gangetica) with dozens of carpenter bees (X. sonorina) foraging on the flowers. I was able to snap a photo and later contribute my direct experience to the article, by supporting my personal experience with sources (Villalobos et al. 1996). In regards to the article, I might never have known about the foraging behavior if I had not seen it for myself, and I might never have proposed its creation (another editor created it after I brought it up) and added the photo of the foraging behavior if it wasn't for my direct personal experience. Is any of this making sense? Personal experience is an attribute shared by all editors, and they can draw upon it to improve the encyclopedia. I realize this threatens your paradigm of cleanroom objectivity, but that's always been bullshit, since every person brings their cultural bias (familial, tribal, political, religious, societal, anthropocentrism) to everything they do. But when you can take your personal experience and compare it to the world (in this case RS), a stronger objectivity will arise from the interaction and the relationship between the individual and the subject. This is in stark contrast to the abstract, cleanroom objectivity that discards personal experience as worthless, while describing the world in a way that isn't reflected by reality. (Note: this is an interest of Adam Curtis. For example, see All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. While it is easy to disagree with his hasty thesis, his point of contention is that attempts to model reality have warped our perception of it due in large part to ignoring direct human experience in favor of what machines "tell" us, a false version of reality that is then upheld as "true".) Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Benyoch, Re your first sentence in this section, "The idea of the existing, present landscape as a document that can be read is a concept in geography, topography and urban planning (also in history and archaeology)." — Could you give a link to where this idea is expressed, i.e. your source for this statement? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Gday Bob. Regretfully it has been some time since my post-grad in local family and applied history and unfortunately I cannot identify the basis for my original comment. However, Andy the Grump has benefited us with a reference to Christopher Tilley's lectures on the interpretation of landscape; from thence I suggest you read that articles's link to Phenomenology (archaeology) which will give some flavour to the idea. Hope that is useful. I onlywish I could provide more.

• Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One would assume (or hope) that Chris Tilley gave lectures on the relevance of phenomenology to the interpretation of landscape with the intention of making those who attended better interpreters - which is to say qualified interpreters. He has never argued (at least as far as I'm aware) that all and sundry can wander around 'interpreting' willy-nilly and then expect their interpretations to carry any academic weight. As with any other subject, we should leave the interpretation of landscape to those recognised as experts in their field. This is how Wikipedia works. It isn't going to change just because a few of us have a vague idea what the word 'phenomenology' means, have had the misfortune to meet academic post-modernist pseudo-relativism at its worst (not from Chris Tilley, I hasten to add), and are thus equipped to argue that reality is all subjective, and that our own opinions on subjects we know f-all about are just as valid as those who have spent half a lifetime studying the relevant subject. If you want to interpret the landscape, fine. If you want Wikipedia to use your interpretation as a source, then study the relevant subject, sit through Chris Tilley's lectures furiously scribbling notes while trying to avoid having your brain explode through having to deal with too many difficult ideas at once (a Tilley lecture seldom offers the opportunity for a surreptitious forty winks in the way that others do, and is a sensory experience all of its own...), sit the exams, get the qualifications, and publish your interpretations in the appropriate place. If your opus gets noticed, and gets cited by your similarly-qualified peers, maybe Wikipedia will consider citing it as a source, at least for your opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add Galician interwiki link: [[gl:Wikipedia:Verificabilidade]]. Thanks! --Toliño (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Goecoding

Opening a disscussion here because of various other disscussions elsewhere.

There have been some concerns expressed about my bold move to ask for inline sourcing of coordinate data.

So what are peoples views on this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• What source would you find acceptable? 70.72.215.252 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• My thoughts are: why is another thread being started? No links to ongoing discussions are provided above, yet I am aware of three already; and I am certain that Sfan00 IMG is also aware of those, having raised two of them and posted to the third. For the benefit of others not aware, those three are: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Wikimapia (started 13:08, 8 July 2012); Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimapia (started 12:49, 8 July 2012); Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Thoughts? (started 02:40, 12 July 2012). Per WP:MULTI we only need one, although notices may be posted at appropriate places directing users to that single ongoing thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tweets as reliable sources

Much as I hate Twitter and everything it stands for, it is now increasingly used as official outlets for announcements and information. Not just from individuals but from companies as well. At the moment, tweets are not listed as reliable sources, but I hate to say it but I think that needs to be updated. Likewise Facebook and certain blogs, too. Maybe back in 2005 we could get away with disqualifying such things, but it's 2012 now and those 146-character nothings are often as official as they come (and as most are publicly accessible in archives for years after the fact, they can be verified). The move away from newspapers, magazines and other traditional media sources needs to eventually be dealt with here otherwise there could be an entire class of article topics (there probably already is in some of the more technical or pop culture areas) for which the traditionally defined "reliable third party sources" may or will simply not exist. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's really more an issue for WP:RS than here. To a large extent, it's a function of who is making the post (the actual subject of a biography page – or just a random person with no particular knowledge but lots of opinions), and also how readily we are able to verify that the person signing the message is actually the person they claim to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Reliable sources noticeboard can help you on a per tweet, per claim, per article basis, and is very good at it if you follow their simple instructions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How to handle broadcast "publications" without inline citations

On one of the American Idol (TV program) pages someone requested an inline citation for a statement about what the host said on the show. Everyone who watched the show knew that the statement was correct, and recordings of the show provide the proof. Is it really necessary for an inline citation to refer to the show date, even when the statement itself indicates which broadcast is being referred to?

The current wording of this verifiability policy does not seem to answer this question.

This question is the beginning of a larger issue that I talked to Brandon Harris (jorm) about at OpenSource Bridge last week, namely that Wikipedia wants expert editors, yet some editors add requests for inline citations that make it frustrating for expert editors to participate on Wikipedia. VoteFair (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

template:cite episode is well suited to the task. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "in-line citation" is the link between the material in the text and its source. That everyone who watched the show "knows" the statement to be true and correct is not adequate (memories being imperfect, inconsistent, and impermanent). The basis for inclusion is verification, which generally means some kind of record. You have a recording of the show? Great. The citation is where you give enough information so someone else can find that recording and verify the statement.

This is the most basic requirement of Wikipedia, and foundation of WP's credibilty. No matter how expert you may be on a topic, your information is useless if you can't document where comes from. For sure, the citation tools can be frustrating (we're working on it), but to relax the requirement of documenting sources — to let editors proceed with what they know simply because they know it — would make Wikipedia just another blog.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I just added a note to the American Idol season 11 discussion page about the template:cite episode type of citation. Thanks!

Next related question: What happens if the article is about notable software and the source of information is the documentation that comes with the software? In this case the documentation that accompanies the software would verify the statement, but if the documentation is not available online, how can that be cited? VoteFair (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Cite the pamphlet. It has a title, corporate author, publisher, presumed publishing date, page number, section headers (if no page number). If you have to purchase the software to get the object, then you need to indicate that as well, BarSoft (1998) "Foo" Manual of Baz Paragraph starting ¶"Place the whingdangler on the fozzlepot;" available as documentation to BarSoft (1998) Baz UPC:1234567890. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowadays software documentation is supplied in digital form, not in a pamphlet. As such it does not have page numbers, it does not have a title, and the corporate author and publisher (which are the same entity) and the publication date (which matches the software release date) are already specified in the article. Are there any plans to create a citation template that allows for this (new) reality? VoteFair (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If the help file is a db (man) cite is like a reference work containing many subworks (such as an encyclopaedia): "Debian, (yyyy) "ls" man Version content found at paragraph starting, "This that and such...". If the help file is a single coherent work, which contains internal functional references, then cite it like a book, "Microsoft, (yyyy) Excel found within program help at p. "Function reference: SUM"". This is verifiability, if you need help with the CS1 template series, then try the talk page for CS1. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the MS-DOS_commands article and note that it does not contain a single inline citation, yet it would be foolish to request adding such citations, which, alas, is what some Wikpedia editors would request based on the current wording of the Verifiability rule. Those of us here who are writers do not want to take the time to find the digital equivalent of page numbers; we don't have time. Remember that experts often can recall established facts (such as relationships among trigonometic functions, and MS-DOS command syntax) without recalling where they learned the fact (yet we know how to prove the fact). And it's ironic that an employee who works at the business that created a software tool must anonymously edit an article about the software because that would be regarded as a conflict of interest (instead of being regarded as an expert on the software). And it's ironic that if an expert (such as an eyewitness to an important event) were to say something to a news reporter and the fact gets published, that's an acceptable (and desireable) inline citation, but if the expert writes the information directly into Wikipedia their contribution is removed (or threatened to be removed) because the person is "too close" [I forget the correct term] to the subject to be objective. I very much agree that facts in the areas of science, mathematics, healthcare, etc. must be verifiable (and with reputable sources). Yet Wikipedia has grown beyond those areas into articles about notable TV shows where viewers become experts, and dancing where older people recall historic trends, and important news events where eyewitnesses report to Wikipedia rather than waiting (to no avail) for a "newspaper reporter" to interview them. I'm simply saying, let's use common sense so that experts do not get crowded out of Wikipedia by "editors" who semi-robotically apply rules that are always going to be ambiguous. Note: This discussion overlaps the one I'm now responding to at the top of this page. VoteFair (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:V is central to Wikipedia's credibility. If you can't accept that perhaps you can find some blog that is more congenial. At any rate, I don't feel like arguing it with you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be editing with a Conflict of Interest and denying the Verifiability policy. You cannot do this. "Experts" must show their sources, just like everyone else, because on the internet nobody knows you're a dog: we are all simply encyclopaedists when we add content. You may be interested in the concept of "General references". These are often acceptable for articles in an early stage. You cite the containing work only at the end of the article, or, if inline references are used, you cite inline with the containing work only. Thus, "ls is the command to get a list of the contents of a directory (Debian (yyyy) man [command])." "Yet Wikipedia has grown beyond those areas into articles about notable TV shows where viewers become experts, and dancing where older people recall historic trends, and important news events where eyewitnesses report to Wikipedia rather than waiting (to no avail) for a "newspaper reporter" to interview them." No, just no. Go read or attempt to change WP:V. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposed wording in the top section (of this page) should make it clear that I fully support the requirement that information be verifiable, and that exceptions are not allowed. My point is that some articles clearly state a "published" content that is directly verifiable, without needing someone else (in a separate source) to also say the same thing. Specifically, the American Idol series of pages refer to specific TV episodes, so there should be no need for an inline citation -- because someone can watch that episode and verify that the article's statement is correct. Similarly, a statement about widely available software should not need an inline citation when anyone who owns that software (assuming it is not owned by just a few people) can run the software and verify the statement. Of course if the statement cannot be verified this easily, then -- and only then -- is there a need for an inline citation.

I admit that one of my sentences above got a bit philosophical, and that seems to have been misinterpreted. I am not suggesting that verifiability be weakened. I simply want to reduce the number of times I see editors request an inline citation when there is no need for an inline citation -- because the statement can be verified directly (rather than indirectly). VoteFair (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Direct verification" would be referring to the original (primary) sources. You seem to think that reality always presents itself directly, obviously, even simply, such that everyone viewing it will immediately comprehend a single, consistent, and accurate "truth", no argument possible. That view is itself not true (else we would not be having this discussion?), and would seem so obviously so that I wonder at your naivete.

The criterion for requiring (or not) a citation is not whether you think it is plainly "obvious", but whether anyone else questions it. That's the rule. Arguing does not change it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Following up J. Johnson; the use of PRIMARY sources varies from field to field. In medical articles the use of PRIMARY sources is illegitimate, as medical scientists and practitioners have an agreed way of producing knowledge from PRIMARY sources, and agree that PRIMARY sources are data, not knowledge. In relation to History, most uses of PRIMARY sources are illegitimate, but some rare uses are acceptable. Historians have an agreed method of producing knowledge, but the encyclopaedia accepts the manifest benefit of, for example, citing a 19th century newspaper whose credentials are beyond compare, for a simple matter of direct fact only where the existence and importance of such a fact is supported by secondary sources; this despite the newspapers relationship to "history" being that of a PRIMARY source. Finally, in some areas like US pop culture, we accept that, for example, the announced winner of a pop contest can probably be reliably sourced against a PRIMARY article. I would become more and more reluctant, the more "analysis" or "opinion" derived from the primary source is involved, including the quotation of opinions expressed on the show unless the people expressing the opinion genuinely meet Uninvolved and Expert criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In the above context I used the word "directly" to refer to verification such as watching a TV recording to verify that the host did, or did not, make the statement that is claimed in the Wikipedia article. This means that anyone of normal intelligence who has access to the recording can verify the fact. As Fifelfoo has pointed out, in academic and professional fields (such as medicine and history) the word "direct" has different implications. Certainly I am well aware that two people can look at the same situation, or read the same words, and come up with multiple conflicting "truths" about the situation, and what it implies. The discussions here are a good reminder of that. VoteFair (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How to cite a certain site

Okay, I want to use this website's "Bio" section as a primary source on Jill King. However, I can't find a way to link directly to the "bio" tab, since it's a popup. How can I accurately work this into a citation? Put "Click on 'Bio'" in the footnote? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

|url=http://www.jillking.com/bio/ --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.jillking.com/know/bio/ appears to take you to the exact place.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but the HTML for the front page doesn't have the "/know" part in the link:

<a rel='shadowbox;width=829;height=580' href='http://www.jillking.com/bio/' >BIO</a>

The website redirects http://www.jillking.com/bio/ to http://www.jillking.com/know/bio/ after you click on it. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Cat fact vs. Bob Cat fiction

Until now I sent my children to wikipedia for "facts". That stopped today when researching bob cats for my autistic son. It was stated that bob cats have been around for about 1 million years. This is a wild guess, presented along with known scientific facts as if it had somehow been verified. It is important for children to know the difference between established fact & someone's personal idea based on thier own imagination. As a parent I want to send my child to an expert in any given field. By doing so I tell my child this person KNOWS the facts & the information they give can be trusted. When personal opinion is mixed in with facts it should be clearly stated when the "expert" is stating an opinion.

There is not now, nor has there ever been reliable verifiable scientific data that can tell us anything beyond the 10,000 years of written recorded history that we know exists. Everything beyond that date is based on imigination. To state as fact anything beyond this time period is pure fiction. To dream up a random number in your head & throw it out there as fact is irresponsible deliberate mis-information. A perfect example can be found when researching the "Age of Planet Earth". For every 10 "authorities" on the subject there are at least 5 different answers. The earth is 85 trillion years old...135 billion years old...120 millon years..etc. etc. Each "fact" cited by a different "expert" in the field. This is confusion. And it results in ignorance. Much like the ignornace man labored under for "9000 years-7500 years-8200 years- (You decide)- believing the earth was flat. Leading experts of the day declared it so. Now we know it was never true.

How many years will we accept as fact THIS mis-information? Swallow your pride and do the unthinkable. Just say "I have NO IDEA how long this rascal bob cat has been around. A long time, for sure. But for how long we may never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.21 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, if you directed your children to a written encyclopaedia, say Encyclopaedia Britannica, what does it say there? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding inline citations

Per the policy, "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." There is a footnote also saying "See the section Using sources of the policy No original research, that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources."

My question is this: does the first quotation simply mean that inline citations are only needed for quotations contentious or likely to be challenged material, however, it must be verifiable in the sources? Often times, I or others quote this sentence to mean a citation is only needed at all for contentious material. However, I think the use of the word "inline" implies that the information must still exist in the sources but an inline citation pointing to the exact source is only required...per above. Which way of interpretation is correct?--v/r - TP 14:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Everything must be verifiable. Only material that's (1) challenged or likely to be challenged, or (2) direct quotations, is absolutely required to have inline citations. In all circumstances, inline citations are always best practice.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So does that mean that every sentence must have a source listed in the bibliography, or that it can be verifiable off-wiki as long as it's not contentious or likely to be challenged?--v/r - TP 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • • It can be verifiable off-wiki if it's not contentious or likely to be challenged.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Is that the common interpretation? I've seen it go both ways. For example, GA and FA criteria requires each paragraph to have a source. In this example, inline citations would be used for contentious material and all other material would be found in the citation at the end.--v/r - TP 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
          • S Marshall's statement is a reasonable interpretation; this policy as written does not preclude it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I should have been clear that it's the minimum standard for a start-class article. If you're not yet disillusioned by Wikipedia's audited content processes and are trying to put badges on your articles, then there are different standards to meet at each stage.—S Marshall T/C 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't recall at the moment, if there is even an MOS requirement for a bibliography, but if bibliography is a substantive requirement of content policy, it should say that explicitly in the content policy somewhere, like here, as you maybe suggesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Sticky wicket. IMO. I think the reason for the lacuna is 1) we embrace that you are adding verifiable information to articles, thanks for helping out. 2) We really would prefer you go whole hog and do the hard (and sometimes tedious work) and actually provide the source, in case someone has a question or they want to know some more about that bit of information (because you really are in the best position to do so, in the first instance, and it is more likely to help what you write). 3) quotations do need to be cited. I fall on the more citations the better side, but I can see where other interests are involved. I don't think I answered you question but maybe this helped (or not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TP, Regarding your original question, "does the first quotation simply mean that inline citations are only needed for quotations, however, it must be verifiable in the sources" — Maybe the sentence would be clearer in this regard by moving "for quotations" to later in the sentence, as in the following?

"However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged, and for quotations.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a mistype, "quotations" wasn't meant to be there at all.--v/r - TP 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what the other editors have said here, and my understanding is that this is generally the way that inline cites are regarded: required if there is a likelihood of people wondering if the material is correct, and good practice but not insisted on for start-level pages when the content is unlikely to be challenged, but it still needs to be verifiable even then. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've generally seen it that way. But the way it is written implies that although an inline citation pointing to a reference is required for contentious material, a source is required for everything. So my question was concerning non-contentious material: does the source have to be in the article somewhere to be verifiable, or can it just be somewhere out in the world?--v/r - TP 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Re TP's comment, "But the way it is written implies that ... a source is required for everything." — Here's the sentence along with the one preceding it in the policy.

"It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged."

It starts out by only saying it must be possible. Then it says in practice only challenged etc info. In other words, it implies that information that is not challenged etc does not need to be sourced. I don't see where it says or implies that all info must be sourced, i.e. provided with an inline citation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Would it be clearer if the second sentence was changed to the following?

"However, inline citations are only required for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged, and for quotations."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone but S Marshall clearly understands the question. You all are making "inline citations" synonymous with "sources". They're not. An article can have sources without inline citations. So my question, as I've asked several times already, is does the use of "inline citations" in that sentence imply a source must exist, or that a source must be available in the article but not necessarily as an inline citation. You've all answered something plainly obvious that I didn't need to come here to get. I'm not retarded. I'm asking a more indepth question. Look at the sentence with a little more literal interpretation. It says "inline citations". That is where the question lies. WP:V says all material must have a source. A source does not have to be an inline citation. It further says that in practice, contentious material needs an inline citation. I have seen this interpreted as "In practice, non-contentious material does not need a source listed". Which way is the proper way of interpretation? S Marshall says that a source must be available, but not neccessarily in the article, for all material but only contentious material needs an actual inline citation. Please, pay more attention to the question. I'm getting tired of getting the exact same answer for a question I didn't even ask.

This is not a question you can just quote policy on. I am questioning the wording of the policy. Quoting the words I am questioning does not answer the question.--v/r - TP 19:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is an inline citation there is also source. The citation must come from a source. If the content is sourced this does not mean it has to 'have an inline citation. The policy in the line you are citing means that contentious content could and should be cited inline. What is explicitly implied and understood is that inline citations are also sourced.

What this also means is that if a request is made we should be able to locate a source for anything an article even if that content is not formally sourced in the article at the time of the request. There are a few exceptions as S Marshall mentions below.

PS. I know you feel frustrated at not getting the answer you need but remember editors here are trying to help out of the goodness of their own hearts. They like you are volunteer and this is their time, so easy there.(olive (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Yes, your right and I'm actually frustrated about something else and I let that spill over. So I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• In fairness, I think Tryptofish understood it the way I did. I want to say that now that I see you repeating back to me what I said, I can think of a few exceptions. The biggest one is that I can perform trivial calculations: if I have a source that says the area of a particular island is 100 hectares, then I can say without further evidence that the island is about 270 acres. Generally, any calculation that can be checked with high school maths is okay per WP:CALC. (By custom and practice rather than according to any rule that I've ever seen written down, certain articles within the scope of Wikiproject Mathematics are allowed some leeway on WP:CALC; editors can perform undergraduate-level math in those cases.)—S Marshall T/C 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Sure. But my question was more about non-controversial statements. I realize the contentious ones need inline citations. However, do non-controversial statements (common knowledge, let's say) need a source in the references section, in another citation, a bibliography, what have you, or are we within the letter of WP:V if someone can verify it on their own? I am trying to be as clear as I can. Maybe I need to produce an example in my sandbox.--v/r - TP 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• TP, Sorry but you're too unclear for me, and your questions seem to be changing, when your messages suggest that you think they aren't. The first occurrence of this may have been when you changed "quotations" to "contentious". No hard feelings, but I'll end my participation here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The question has been the same, that was just a typo. But I'm sorry nonetheless for being aggressive. It was uncalled for.--v/r - TP 20:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, my! TParis, I think it's enough for a source to exist "out there". The source doesn't necessarily have to be visible somewhere on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's fair enough. I've thought the same but I wanted to make sure because the topic has actually come up thrice this month alone.--v/r - TP 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think people are trying to talk it through and be helpful. We all seemingly agree with S. Marshall's statement of the policy. Where do we go from there? Is there a latent ambiguity in the policy? I don't see it, but that does not mean it cannot be there. Does the question (or the policy) equate "sources" with listing of sources? If people understand that a "source" is a physical thing that exists, whereas an "inline" citation is a very specific writing convention for referring to a source, than it does not seem they would disagree with S. Marshall. On the other hand, endnote-listing-of-sources (eg. bibliography) does not appear to me to be addressed by this policy, at all -- that's a different (more general) writing convention for listing sources, which is not mentioned or required by this policy. However, if people (and the counter-interpretation) somehow equate (physical) "sources" with "list of sources" maybe there could be a communication problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this may help:

• You may not—not, with absolutely no exceptions—include information that has never been WP:Published in a reliable source.
• Four kinds of information require WP:Inline citations.
• All other material can be added without naming your source.

There are four types of material that must be followed by an WP:Inline citation. They're listed in the table at WP:MINREF along with the name of the policy that requires the inline citation. If you have one of those four types, you must (eventually) supply an inline citation.

For all other types of material, it must be possible to verify the material in a published reliable source. "Possible" means that a source containing that information has been published and is still available, somewhere in the world, in any language, in any media format, at any price, so that at least one Wikipedia user (out of millions) could, with sufficient determination, hard work, trips to the library, etc., find a reliable source that makes whatever claim is in our article.

To meet the requirement that it be "possible" to verify the information, no bibliographic citation is required at all. You do not need an inline citation; you do not need a WP:General reference. You may have a 100% {{unreferenced}} article here (so long as that article has no WP:MINREF material). But it must be possible for some user to find and add references to reliable sources for every single claim made in the article.

In short, unless an inline citation is directly required by a policy, then you are not required to type up the name, author, date, etc. of your source ("citation") at all. But even if a citation is not required, the rule about never including information that cannot be supported by a published reliable source still applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Application

Many Wikipedia policies clearly apply only to the Article namespace. This is a policy that could also be applied to non-original content in the Wikipedia namespace, including information cited from sources within and outside of Wikipedia, but excluding synthesis and opinions in essays and other similar pages. In particular, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (3rd nomination) has shown a desire to consolidate information about inactive users, which could have negative privacy implications if the information was not already verifiable under WP:ABOUTSELF. Does anyone want to suggest a wording of a proposed change to WP:V, stating that it applies to certain information in Wikipedia namespace, that would have a snowball's chance of achieving consensus? G. C. Hood (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Having written Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Not part of the encyclopedia to stop silly wikilawyering over whether the community was allowed to set rules in the absence of third-party reliable sources saying that the community agreed to set a given rule, no, I don't want to do this.

But if you oppose that list, you might read WP:BLP, which explicitly does apply to more than the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2012

This place is only for edits to the Wikipedia Verifiability policy, not for edits to individual content articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have submitted an update on your Wikipedia verifiability of Karl O'Callaghan. I fear that I may have not included sources on my information; On 11 October 2008 Colleen Egan of the Sunday Times reported “Lack of police response angers Mallard”, CCC to release O'Callaghan bushfire report by: Anthony DeCeglie: O'Callaghan cleared over bushfire claims, but 'could have been more transparent' Save this story to read later by: By Anthony DeCeglie From: PerthNow June 15, 2012 2:59PM Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ccc-to-release-ocallaghan-bushfire-report/story-e6frfku0-1226396800465#ixzz21vfcRbxv: http://www.ccc.wa.gov.au/Publications/MediaReleases/Pages/MediaRelease15June2012.aspx; Barnett airs concerns over CCC report on Karl O'Callaghan credit card spend Nicole Cox, police reporter PerthNow July 26, 20123:58PM;Premier 'concerned' over CCC report Gary Adshead and Luke Eliot, The West Australian July 26, 2012, 6:11 pm: Quigley attacks police commisioner Karl O'Callaghan over Spratt Taser case Save this story to read later by: By Josh Jerga From: AAP February 17, 2011 7:14PM Read more: http://www.news.com.auhttp://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/quigley-attacks-police-commisioner-karl-ocallaghan-over-spratt-taser-case/story-e6frg13u-1226007669336#ixzz21vgl7HWF: Spratt didn't want police charged: Commissioner Date April 19, 2011 Read later Aja Styles Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/spratt-didnt-want-police-charged-commissioner-20110419-1dnbu.html#ixzz21vh2A3jY; Spratt conviction thrown out AMANDA BANKS, LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR, The West Australian February 24, 2011, 3:23 pm; Lockup man tasered three times in one week GABRIELLE KNOWLES and AAP, The West Australian October 18, 2010, 1:51 pm; WA policemen could face Taser charges By Lloyd Jones, AAP April 16, 2012, 4:48 pm; Daniel Emerson, The West Australian April 17, 2012, 5:23 am;Court of Appeal quashes Spratt conviction Date February 24, 2011 Read later Aja Styles Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/court-of-appeal-quashes-spratt-conviction-20110224-1b6h7.html#ixzz21vjlz5Hf; Police deny 'dirt file' on Taser victim Date October 18, 2010 Read later Aja Styles Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/police-deny-dirt-file-on-taser-victim-20101018-16qfd.html#ixzz21vkqdrbA;Top cop 'lied' to justify Spratt Tasering: MP Date February 17, 2011 Read later Fran Rimrod Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/top-cop-lied-to-justify-spratt-tasering-mp-20110217-1axjr.html#ixzz21vlDVPDR Sonnyjimsfacts (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC in progress

There is currently an RfC open at Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC about how to word the lead section of the verifiability, including discussion of the phrase "verifiability, not truth". Editors are invited to comment over at the RfC page. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the suggestion to simply blow it up and rewrite it entirely? It is an incredibly damned shame that a bunch of editors have been snaggily clustered around such a simple bit of text to argue every last drop of nuance out of it, when it is reasonably decent and understandable. If you are going to spend years debating it, why not simply crush it all and start out fresh? I think the entire lot ought to be blocked for being so unbelievably nitpicky beyond belief. Please add the Verifiability RfC to the pile of giant time wasters on Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice North8000 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion and did not see any wordings that I like. They all fail to be both clear and unambiguous. To repeat what I said in person to User:jorm, it doesn't look like it's worth my time to get involved in such discussions. My role is to share my expertise. I am also a professional writer so I understand the difficulty of writing clearly. From my perspective the "editors" are winning and the "writers" are losing, and this accounts for why Wikipedia is losing so many expert contributors. VoteFair (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

VoteFair, Re "My role is to share my expertise." — Would you care to write what you think would be a good lead and share it here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've printed out the proposed wordings (and original wording) with the intention of writing a version that combines the best of each version, with the addition of an important concept that is missing from those wordings. Then if I like what I come up with, I'll post it here. Thank you Bob K31416 for asking! I did not find anywhere at Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC to offer such feedback.

The missing important concept is that verifiability involves different considerations for different articles. For example, an article about dancing has very different verifiability needs compared to an article about mathematics. For perspective, I'm an expert in some aspects/kinds of dancing (35 years experience) and an expert in some areas of mathematics (I have a degree in Physics ...), so the different needs of different articles is obvious to me. VoteFair (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "I did not find anywhere at Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC to offer such feedback." — For each version there is a section "Support with revisions" which would allow you to give feedback there. In principle, you could revise a whole version in one of those "Support with revisions" sections : ), but it seems like there are parts that you like in each version that you could keep. So you might choose the version that has the most acceptable parts and revise it there. Or you can post your version here, which I think would be of interest. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As requested by User:Bob_K31416, here is a suggested wording for the Verifiability intro. It combines what I think are the best characteristics of the five proposed wordings, plus it incorporates wordings and comments from User:Batard0 whose wise comments about option A are on the [10] page, and it incorporates the concepts that I've mentioned above.

Wikipedia does not allow articles to contain information that cannot be verified. In cases where the information cannot be verified based on the information in the article itself, citations to reliable sources must be included for the purpose of allowing a reader to trace the information to the specified reliable source.

Quotations always must be cited by a reliable published source. Statements that involve academic and professional fields such as science, mathematics, medicine, law, and engineering must be supported by published, peer-reviewed articles written by experts in the field. In cases where reliable sources of information contradict one another, a neutral point of view is required, as specified in the Neutral point of view policy.

Citations to published sources are essential to support statements that might be controversial. Such citations allow a skeptic to verify support by multiple experts, or exposes the reader to information that reveals the statement to be true.

The verifiability requirement is intended to exclude:

• Arguments about what is true and what is not true.
• Mistaken statements.
• Opinions, unless they are cited notable opinions from notable people.
• Original research, which is also excluded by the No original research policy.
• Ideally, any departures from Wikipedia being a reliable source of true information.

If a statement is not verifiable, either the statement must be revised to make it verifiable, or else the statement must be removed.

The verifiability requirement interacts with, and may sometimes seem to contradict, other Wikipedia policies, especially Neutral point of view and No original research. In such cases, the resolution must be based on common sense and a desire to support Wikipedia's goal of being a trusted source of factual and notable information.

This verifiability principle is sometimes summarized by saying that "verifiability, not truth" is a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I am posting this suggested wording here because the RFC page does not allow a full wording replacement.

Notice that this wording eliminates the current (redundant) requirement for in-line citations in situations where a statement can be verified in other (obvious) ways, such as watching the specified television episode or running the specified software, which is the point I've made in the section below titled "How to handle broadcast "publications" without inline citations." VoteFair (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not interested, particularly in the pointed snub of humanities and social sciences. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I didn't interpret it as a snub , and I think that "snub" is not a very constructive way to describe it. Wouldn't it have been better to simply suggest that the humanities and social sciences should have been included, if that is your opinion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A STEM only list that isn't a deliberate snub raises immediate questions about the breadth of verifiability issues that have been considered by the author of the proposal. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

VoteFair, Re "It combines what I think are the best characteristics of the five proposed wordings" — Could you list those characteristics and note which of the proposed wordings they came from? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Here's what I can see as issues with the proposed version. I want to say, however, that it is indeed well written.

1. I'd lose the bullet list of the purposes. I don't think it accomplishes much, and it will always be argued that something else needs to be added, ad infinitum.
2. To some extent, the new wording about academic fields is creating new policy, and is unlikely to gain consensus without getting into a verbose differentiation between content that really is based on scholarship, and content that is non-scholarly commentary. In other words, as written it seems to disallow citing a New York Times article about climate change. It also preempts WP:RS and some existing guidelines such as WP:MEDRS.
3. It's never a good idea to say that one policy contradicts another, without seeking to fix the contradiction.
4. The appeal to common sense and shared goals is going to crash into POV-pushing etc. by users who lack common sense or shared goals and who will gladly wikilawyer the issue.
5. I'd like it to be clearer about when verifiable material does not need to be included just because it is verifiable.

• I suspect that there will be some sort of discussion following the closure of the RfC, and I'd encourage VoteFair to take part in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence in VoteFair's version, "In cases where the information cannot be verified based on the information in the article itself, citations to reliable sources must be included for the purpose of allowing a reader to trace the information to the specified reliable source." — This statement allows unpublished original research. For example, suppose the information is an unpublished mathematical theorem of an editor and the information in the article that verifies it is the editor's own unpublished step-by-step proof. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A mathematical theorem/proof/whatever that is only posted on the internet does not qualify as a "reliable source." A later sentence explicitly states that in "academic and professional fields" the statement "must be supported by [a] published, peer-reviewed [article] written by experts in the field." (Careful wording is needed because a copy of a peer-reviewed published article might be posted on the internet.) Peer reviewing is vitally important, and this suggested wording does not (and is not intended to) reduce that importance.

In response to the comment about a presumed "snub of humanities and social sciences," note that the words "academic and professional fields" are followed by the words "such as," which means that the listed areas of "science, mathematics, medicine, law, and engineering" are not intended to be a complete list of all academic and professional areas. Also note that "social sciences" clearly fit within the area of "science," and note that "humanities" (as well as "social sciences") clearly fit within the category of "academic fields." No snub was intended; I was just trying to keep the list short and readable. VoteFair (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment pertained to the first part of the sentence, i.e. to "In cases where the information cannot be verified based on the information in the article itself". What did you mean by "verified based on the information in the article itself" ? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That wording refers to articles about something specific -- such as a TV episode (think American Idol) or a well-known software package (think Adobe Photoshop) (and many other subjects...) -- for which that specified published material can be viewed (for TV) or executed (for software) or otherwise directly experienced, and then the statement can be "directly" verified by anyone who readily understands the other content of the article. Apparently the words I chose are not clear enough as they are, so the wording needs to be improved. Yet the concept needs to be included. Otherwise (if the subjective issue of being controversial were not also involved) the existing policy could be interpreted to mean that a statement such as "if a rock is released from one's hand, it will fall to the ground" needs an inline citation. If the reader can experience for themselves the validity of the statement, and the context makes it clear how to achieve that experience, then an editor who blindly follows the existing policy may -- inappropriately -- request an inline citation, which is something I see too often in non-academic and non-professional Wikipedia articles. I am not attempting to weaken verifiability for academic and professional articles. (I have a degree in Physics so I understand the importance of verifiability in those areas.) VoteFair (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "Apparently the words I chose are not clear enough as they are, so the wording needs to be improved." — Seems that way. You might look at the second paragraph of the current version of WP:V for ideas, especially the second sentence.

"However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged."

Also, you might look at the other versions in the RfC regarding this aspect of the policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen editors request the addition of inline citations for statements that could have been verified if the person bothered to watch the specified TV episode or read the online documentation that accompanies the software product. Those are "challenges," yet they are based on apparently not wanting to be bothered by going directly to the source, and instead imply a desire for someone else to "publish" a statement that attests to the accuracy of the statement.

In other words, what is "likely to be challenged" is ambiguous. I think the Verifiability policy should remove that ambiguity. VoteFair (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd need to know more specifics about your examples before I could comment on them, for example how the links are presented, and how the reader knows to look in the source for the statement. Anyhow, an inline citation lets a reader know that the statement can be verified in a reliable source, and helps the reader access the reliable source to verify it, if the reader wants to do that.

Re "In other words, what is 'likely to be challenged' is ambiguous." — Seems like it's a matter of judgement, rather than ambiguous. If there is a difference of opinion about whether something is likely to be challenged, then it can be decided by consensus. I think the basic idea is to reduce uncertainty in the reader's mind about whether or not a statement in an article is correct. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked for "specifics." One example I have referred to was on the American Idol (season 11) page, but that page is revised so often that the challenged sentence is not there (that I could quickly find). The context made it clear which episode contained the statement by the host. Whichever editor requested verification apparently did not watch that episode; all of us who watched it could verify that the host made that statement. I believe the "challenge" (request for inline citation) was removed (and the statement stayed), yet it illustrates that one editor who doesn't want to view the episode currently can invoke the verifiability requirement and claim that the statement is controversial, even though directly viewing the material (a TV episode in this case) easily verifies the correctness. As for the examples about software, nearly any software article can be used as an example in which anyone (including a competitor) can request an inline citation about statements that easily can be verified by running the software. Admittedly this is not a complete answer to your question, but the archiving bot has a short 7-day fuse, and as I said originally I don't have lots of time to spare for Wikipedia -- which gets back to my point that one explanation for experts leaving Wikipedia is that they/we get frustrated by editors who insist on verification for some information that is easy to "directly" verify (as opposed to the indirect approach of reading what someone else writes about the subject). VoteFair (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the American Idol example that you mentioned, is there currently a link available to the video of the episode so that any reader or editor can now view the video to verify that the statement was made by the host? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No. That is the problem. If such a link existed, a request for an inline citation would be easy to satisfy. A similar problem exists for software. The information (or source material, if you prefer) -- which is copyrighted -- is not posted on the internet. VoteFair (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the problem here is different than what you previously wrote, "I have seen editors request the addition of inline citations for statements that could have been verified if the person bothered to watch the specified TV episode...". In this case, it's not a matter of editors not bothering to view the video, they don't have easy access to it. Would they even be able to purchase the video? Would you be able to view the video? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's the same problem as in the academic world. As a recent example, I participate in a mathematically oriented forum on which another voting-method expert cited a specific academic article to prove his claim, but I cannot get access to a copy of that article. I checked with local libraries (including big ones), but they do not subscribe to that academic publication. Directly from the publisher I can access the article online if I pay them $30 (USD). That lack of access to academic publications is accepted for Wikipedia articles on academic and professional subjects. This means that only some people can verify academic/professional facts if the citation is from a publication that does not make its articles available (for free) online.

So, in a similar way, someone can record the American Idol TV episodes for free from the broadcast version (for personal viewing), but otherwise it costs money to access the shows online. If this is unacceptable for Wikipedia verification purposes, then we need to ask if the same situation is acceptable when an academic or professional citation is not available online for free. (BTW, thanks for knowing how to "outdent".) VoteFair (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer the two questions in my last message? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, if someone is willing to pay money they can watch an episode of many of the most popular TV shows online (such as on Hulu). However, there may be a delay before each episode is available on that basis. (As I also indicated, anyone can record the broadcast version of the show for free, and that is available immediately.) I suppose that cable TV subscribers might be able to view an episode "on demand", but most cable TV users would record the show with a digital video recorder. Is that what you mean by "purchase the video"? As for your other question, "Would you be able to view the video?", I don't know what that is asking (beyond the obvious). Keep in mind that even if someone has an episode recorded, they may not bother to watch (or re-watch) the show to verify a statement. Some editors seem to prefer to flag the statement with a request for an inline citation because they doubt the validity of the statement, and they figure that other Wikipedia participants can sort it out for them. (In such cases I think it makes more sense to question the statement on the talk page, but that's just my opinion, which I'm not recommending for inclusion in this policy.) VoteFair (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "Yes, of course, if someone is willing to pay money they can watch an episode of many of the most popular TV shows online (such as on Hulu). " — I couldn't find American Idol at HULU. The difficulty that a reader has in verifying the quote has gone well beyond your original characterization of the reader not being bothered to watch the episode.

Please note the following difference between Wikipedia and sources of information where the author(s) are specified. When authors are specified, they are responsible for the work's accuracy. Wikipedia articles come from open editing by anonymous editors without any responsibility. If instead of reading Wikipedia, the reader came across the quote from the TV episode in an authored book or article, the reader could consider the credibility of the author or the publisher when considering whether the quote was accurately presented. That's not possible in Wikipedia. The editors are anonymous. Errors are regularly being corrected and introduced in Wikipedia. The only security that a reader has that the quote is correct in Wikipedia is an inline citation to a published reliable source, unless the reader already knows that TV host was correctly quoted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "The only security that a reader has that the quote is correct in Wikipedia is ... a published reliable source ...", but you qualify that statement with the words "an inline citation to", and that is my objection. Software articles and TV-episode articles clearly convey the published source in the context of the article, so adding an inline citation is redundant, and therefore should not be necessary -- unless the information is challenged by someone who is familiar with the subject.

As for not finding American Idol episodes on Hulu, note that I said "such as." Presumably the episodes are available from other published sources, such as on-demand cable TV providers (but I don't subscribe to cable TV so I don't know). Also this show is broadcast for free, which is clearly a "published source" and that is available to everyone who wants to access it. And TiVo/DVR technology provides yet another way to access the shows. (As for reputation, the TV station and the TV network and the show's producers are responsible for every word said on the show.)

The equivalent availability issues apply to academic articles. In those cases, just citing the article is presumed to be sufficient even in situations where someone in the non-academic world cannot get access to the article. VoteFair (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In order to get more info about your example article American Idol (season 11), I went there and looked around. To try to find the quote that you were referring to, I looked for your edits. There weren’t any edits by VoteFair on the article page, but there were two edits on the Talkpage. One wasn’t relevant and the other was the section Citing the show itself. Seems like you were getting ready to provide an inline citation for something like the example we've been discussing.

An inline citation for the host's quote, that includes the episode title, date of the original telecast, and the place where viewing the episode can be purchased, would be sufficient according to WP:V section Access to sources which says, “The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.” In any case, it would be better than no inline citation at all. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved in any editing of the example I saw; I just waited and someone else removed the request for an inline citation.

I'm not certain which statement it was, but let's suppose it's the statement "Ryan Seacrest stated that it will be a competition between the male and female contestants." This is not a quotation (an exact quote), it just refers to a change in the rules, so the inline-citation requirement does not apply.

I agree that the issue of whether it costs money to access the published source is not an issue. (I thought you were claiming it was an issue.)

Remember that what I'm claiming -- which is that an inline citation is not needed if the article clearly indicates where the "published source" can be found -- also applies to software articles, for which the "published source" is the documentation that comes with the software. I am using the American Idol example to clarify a more extreme case of the same concept. VoteFair (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "Remember that what I'm claiming -- which is that an inline citation is not needed if the article clearly indicates where the "published source" can be found" — In the example article American Idol (season 11), how would the article clearly indicate where the published source could be found for the Seacrest statement if not with an inline citation? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the section title -- "Top 13 – Whitney Houston & Stevie Wonder" -- specifies a specific episode, with the "source" details about that episode (date, time, network, etc.) being presented elsewhere in the same article. (The article's first sentence specifies the network, the second sentence specifies the time of broadcast, and the "US Nielsen ratings" section specifies the date for each episode, with each episode having a name such as "Top 13".)

Expressed another way, if inline citations were required for every statement, then every statement in a section would repeat the same citation again and again.

Another possibility is that the heading could contain the inline citation, but that's messy for reasons of formatting and linking.

Remember that what I'm really getting at is software articles for which a single published source -- the documentation that comes with the software -- is the published source. In that case an inline citation would apply to the entire article, which makes no sense, and does not provide a location for the citation. (Surely the citation does not belong in the article title.) Typically such an article would begin by specifying which business makes and sells the software, and that provides the information needed for buying a copy of the software. VoteFair (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem in your "Idol" example, is it appears the article has provided no reliable source for the quote, let alone a proper in-line citation. The "source" for the quote is apparently the memory and correct hearing of an editor; we cannot use as a reliable source what an editor remembers or hears, particularly when it could put words in someone else's mouth, they never said. Whereas, a proper inline citation corrects these issues, pointing where exactly, one can go to confirm the quote, and it will have to be an official (copyrighted) (i.e. verifiable) source (recording, transcript, with page or time or other pinpoint location), or another reliable source that has republished the quote, and these must be currently available (because we do not use as reliable sources, sources that no longer exist to be viewed somewhere by others or have been reliably republished). In short, the quote has a verifiability problem because it has reliability and availability issues, it has an inline citation problem because all quotes must have one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Alanscottwalker wrote regarding WP:V’s requirements for direct quotations. I think his remarks also apply to material that has been challenged and isn’t a quotation.

It would help if somewhere in the article there was info about gaining access to view the episodes, even if one had to pay for it. In the case of a specific item of info that has been challenged on the Talk page of the article, it would be helpful to give an inline citation that specifies the time in the video where the video supports the specific statement. This is analogous to specifying the page number of a book that is used as a source.

In the section Top 13 – Whitney Houston & Stevie Wonder, the excerpt “Ryan Seacrest stated that it will be a competition between the male and female contestants.” could have the type of inline citation mentioned above, if the info was challenged on the Talk page. In this specific example, would there be any problem with that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it also applies to challenged and likely challenged material (saying what someone may have said or meant is in that category); in that case the editor is being asked to demonstrate that (although using different words) an available reliable source directly contains the information presented. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker says "it appears the article has provided no reliable source for the quote", but the statement is not a quotation (it's just a statement of a new American Idol rule and a statement as to who conveyed the new rule), and the article DOES provide a reliable source, namely the TV episode itself. Apparently I haven't been clear enough about this example and the concept I'm conveying, so I'll try a different perspective.

An in-line citation basically says "it's not obvious where this fact can be verified, so here is a published source that supports this statement." In contrast, I'm talking about cases for which it is obvious where the fact can be verified, such as by simply watching the specified TV episode or running the specified software.

As for User:Bob K31416's request for a specific time in the recording, that has the same complication as digital help files, namely that the time/location varies depending upon factors such as whether the copy being accessed has the same commercials as the version for which a time was specified -- because a specified number of minutes into a show without commercials (which may be available for a fee) is different from the number of minutes into the same show with commercial breaks. In the world of installed software there are no page numbers (unless the documentation happens to be provided as a PDF file, but that's becoming less common).

Again the point is that there are at least two different kinds of verification. The kind that is specified by an in-line citation involves a notable and reliable publication in which a person makes the claim or statement. The other kind I'm referring to is specified by the publication itself! That is certainly verifiable, and anyone with access to the publication (either a TV show or an installed software program) knows how to (directly!) verify the kinds of statements I'm talking about.

One option is to regard a sidebar as the "citation", where the sidebar specifies the publication information: publisher (such as "Fox TV network" for American Idol), content title (such as "Adobe Illustrator version x.xx" for installed software), and publication date. This approach would make sense because it applies to the entire article or to an entire section. In contrast, in-line citations only apply to a paragraph or sentence. VoteFair (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder: although the watchlist notice is now off for a couple of days, the RfC is still in progress. All users are welcome and encouraged to comment there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: the request for comments on how to word the lead section of the verifiability policy will close on July 28. Editors are invited to participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it the end of the world or does discussion actually work? I'm leaning towards the former. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes due to RFC are having an impact at other policies

As one might expect, the changes we have made due to the RFC are starting to impact other policies. I draw everyone's attention to WP:NOR, where there is now a discussion about retaining or removing the koan "VNT" from that policy. Please comment at WT:NOR#Replaced with the correct text from the consensus version of WP:V?. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That section is a statement about what is in wp:ver. I'd call it a simple update rather than an impact. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have started a sub-section that broadens the discussion beyond an update. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC closed

First, I would like to thank ‎Mr. Stradivarius for mediating the drafting of the RFC... the spirit of amicability and cooperation that prevailed was largely due to his efforts. I would also like to thank Coren, Sandstein and jc37 for a very thoughtful and well explained closure.

I am sure that all of us will have thoughts and ideas on how to improve the lede further (and how to resolve the remaining unresolved questions)... I know I do. However, I suggest that we wait a while before presenting them. I think it would be beneficial if we sit back and live with the new text for a month or so. Let's see how the changes actually affect the project (both for the good and for the bad) before we suggest further changes. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fully concur with all of that. Mr Stradivarius and the closers certainly all deserve our thanks.

  I also agree that it's time for those of us (e.g. me!) who've been struggling and tussling over this for years to leave the policy alone for a while, and let some new people come to it with fresh eyes. (This is obviously a tempting view for me because I'm delighted with the outcome and I think the good guys won, so I don't mind if the policy crystallises a bit how it is.)

  However, I also want to say that I view "historically and notably" as a potential bone of contention, so I would not object to some discussion around rephrasing the footnote in a way that's less patronising towards VnT.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If anything wikipedia rewards persistence - and I guess its easier to be persistent when you are convinced that you are fighting the good fight. We bad guys tend not to care anymore after awhile. Congratulations, now have it your way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's not call anything "won"; it was decided. Even decisions to not "weigh in" by folks who thought the opposite were a part of that process, so let's just say we all decided and thank EVERYONE. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Responding on Blueboar's comment, I think that the "sit back" is a good idea. IMHO the overall effects will be gradual, long term and good. I would not expect any dramatic effects either way short term, saying such could cause people to read things into everyday Wikipedia situations that aren't there. Also not too thrilled about the implications of "live with" wording, but understand that the context of the post and poster may be needed to understand it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify... I did not mean "live with it" in a negative way (as in: "I won, you lost... so live with it") ... but rather in a more positive sense of "try it on for size... observe it in action for a while". Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Cool! North8000 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While we're all here and on this, I think that we should keep working on minor tweaks that do not change the larger scale result. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Very minor tweaks should be OK... however, let's also remember that what might seem like a "minor tweak" to one person may seem like a "major tweak" to another. What I am saying is that we need to continue to go slowly and deliberately. We have reached a consensus at the Macro-level. The next step will be to see if we can reach a consensus on the micro-level... discussing subtle wording changes and their nuances. But for us do this properly, we need to give everyone time to assimilate and think about the macro-level changes that have now occurred. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I should have been clearer. I meant zero controversy tweaks, where there is nobody opposed to the tweak. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to agree with everything above! You know, everything I said during the comment period, I of course said in good faith, but now I don't even care about the footnote or the language of the footnote. One thing is important over everything else: It's time to move on! I hope that everyone will join together in agreeing that there really is a community consensus here, and that it is now time to stop the interminable discussions about the policy page, and to go and fix up the content of some real pages in the mainspace. Congratulations to everybody who worked together on this discussion! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still the possibility that the result of the RfC can be undone by aggressive editors. The situation we've had of full protection, where edits were made by first a request on this talk page, gave stability to this policy and perhaps it should be continued, at least for awhile. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I suggest that we start from a position of hoping for the best, but if some edit warring and/or non-consensus major undoing rears its ugly head, we should move promptly to restore full protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy that we've reached this point. It is really a victory for consensus formation. Regarding further tweaks, certainly the process needs to continue in some form, after we have all had time to assimilate. For instance, despite the overall popularity of Option D in the RfC, the words "historically and notably" in its footnote were thought to be condescending by a number of people, while I don't think anyone spoke up in favor of those words. (I'm not saying this because I personally have an issue with the "historically and notably" words -- actually, I think I was the one who suggested them in the first place...) I do think, though, that the approach to further tweaking needs be one of prior discussion to consensus. Protected or not, the policy page in the aftermath of the RfC is not the place or time for boldness in editing. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree and well said. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agree, although I would add that even if no-one "spoke up for" the "historically and notably" wording, they voted for it. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I consider the new text a major improvement - I always thought "verifiability, not truth" was too confusing for new editors. I did not participate in the RfCs because I assumed they had 0% chance of succeeding and I didn't want to waste my time (I just spent my time improving articles). I'm not sure who the persistent editors were that kept at it (Blueboar? others?) but they have my respect and admiration. Many WP processes need to be improved, but it can be daunting because there is so much inertia behind the old ways. It is heartening to see this very visible sign of progress. My thanks to all the editors that contributed time and effort during the RfCs. It is appreciated! --Noleander (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just saw this thread - thank you everyone for your words of encouragement! It wouldn't have have happened without the mediation participants, the closers, and all of the commenters at the RfC, though, so I regard it as everyone's achievement. Thank you all for sticking with this until the end. Personally, I do admit to being very pleased that we finally have a wide community consensus about the verifiability lede, and I agree with the idea of waiting for a while before we start any new discussions. If anyone wants my help with future WP:V issues, though, don't hesitate to ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy, and haven't even read the close yet! But although the process was "sticky" at times, and (for me) very frustrating at the RfC stage, the end result gives me a warm glow of satisfaction that we've managed to achieve the apparently impossible. I think, in military award terms, the correct phrase is "courage and cool persistence in the face of adversity" ... ;P Pesky (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Legacy Text

In earlier days the requirements for in-line citations were a lot less rigid than they are now. As a consequence some editors are adding "Citation needed" flags or banners to articles that have been stable for a considerable period and whose editors might well have long since lost interest in the article (or even in Wikipedia). What are the policies regarding verification in such cases - should the articles be good allowed to degenerate because of nit-picking by people who are trying to prove a point, or is there some alternative mechanism of ensuring that work that was submitted in accordance with the standards of 2005 in not destroyed by an ill-informed editor in 2012? If so, how should such a policy be worked into WP:V? Martinvl (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Wikipedia articles aren't "grandfathered" through policy changes. If an article is in accordance with 2005 standards but not 2012 standards, it should be edited as necessary to comply with current standards. Doniago (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So if I wish to make a small change to a relatively stable article of long standing, do I need to bring the whole article up to current standards (vis-à-vis citations), or just ensure that changes are up to current standards? Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"stability" is generally irrel, particularly an unsourced stability compared with change from verifiable reliable sources. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Fix what you can, where you can. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree "fix what you can, where you can", but unfortunately it is easier to add "citation needed" tags than it is to actually go out and find one and moreover there are some editors who plaster articles with such tags in order to prove a point. If somebody is indulging in such behaviour, is it in order to demand that they also do some of the legwork in finding verification, especially when the original editor is no longer contactable? Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not in order to tell someone how they should be contributing to the project. However, you can request that someone stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, if ineeded, they are disrupting.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen such tagging done to improve articles and question items that are in an article, and I've seen it doe merely as a tool of warfare. IMHO the the spirit of "challenged or likely to be challenged" can be used to help tell which it is. Did the other person question or raise concerns about the content of the tagged statements? North8000 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Martinvl: What do you mean by 'destroyed'? If they are just adding "Citation needed" flags/banners, that doesn't destroy any content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Two responses:

1. @The Red Pen of Doom: I suspect the other person of being a sockpuppet who is out to harrass me and is gaming the system to do so.
2. @A Quest For Knowledge: It doesn't destroy the content, but does destroy the credibility, especially when hundreds of businesses download he article daily.

Martinvl (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't destroy the credibility - it points out that it requires citations in order to be credible. If you have suspicions of foul play those can be addressed in the correct venues. Adding citation tags is a service to both editors and readers - it is not problematic or disruptive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree — far from destroying the credibility, it increases the perception of Wikipedia's credibility by saying essentially "this article isn't up to our usual standards of reliability because it hasn't been verified." The article without references is already un-credible. The tag is only pointing that out, plus inviting editors and readers to help find references. It's a win-win. First Light (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - if some "plonker" (to quote from the British sitcom "Only Fools and Horses") writes "citation needed" next to the statement "Paris is the capital of France", what does that do for the credibility of the artcile in the eyes of the general public? Martinvl (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Has that actually occurred? We might be able to better address your concerns if you'd provide examples. Doniago (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

An example of plastering of "citation needed" flags is here. If we go back two years, we see that what was the lede paragrpah had been tweaked and is now the body of the article. The lede of two years ago has still been retained, but tidied up slightly. If we go back four years, we see the same sentence as the opening sentence of the article, but without citations. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

None of those sentences seem comparable to "Paris is the capital of France" - and the article surely would be much improved if these statements were sourced. The history of the article is basically irrelevant - the facts need to be sourced - also if they used to be part of the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you suspect sock puppetry, the place to go is WP:SPI, with evidence to support your claims. If you don't have evidence to support your suspicians, then the best course is to keep your suspicians to yourself. You may try other forums to address the "harassing" behaviors, such as Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already filed a SPI, but before I had enough evidence, I was fending off disruptive behaviour. I am looking for a way to stop people like him/her gaming the system. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

people will game. while the editor's actions do appear to be much more experienced than the limited editing from the current account would suggest, "I am looking for a way to stop people like him/her gaming the system." is generally a loosing game on your part. the more you get stressed out about their gaming, the less time you spend doing what you came to Wikipedia to do, the more you loose and the more they win. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never understood why people get so upset about "citation needed" tags. It is important to remember why we do not require a citation for statements like "Paris is the capital of France" ... it's because such statements are so easily verifiable that there is little point to adding one. However, it is not "wrong" to add one. So... If some idiot adds a "citation needed" tag to a statement as obviously verifiable as "Paris is the capital of France", the easiest and least stressful thing to do is not argue about it... simply slap in a citation to make them go away (it would take you all of 30 seconds to find a source for that statement, after all). The idiot then goes off, content that he has "made his mark" on the world. And if you really think that including a citation for "Paris is the capital of France" harms the article, you can always come back in a few days and remove it. I doubt anyone would even notice or care. Problem solved. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

and regarding the statements that have been in the article a long time and the original contributor is no longer here to provide a source - if a source for a comparable statement cannot be found today, then they should be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Editors active on this page are showing their usual commendable zeal in their enthusiasm for verifiability. I do think we need to say clearly that nobody here condones the use of maintenance tags for griefing. That does happen occasionally, and if you do have a real reason to think maintenance tags are being added for vexatious or retaliatory purposes, you should simply remove them. (Example, example.) Be very sure the tag is inappropriate or in bad faith before doing this!

  If the editor you're in conflict with re-adds the tag then I would suggest asking an administrator to intervene.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Noticed a needed revision

I just came across Wikipedia:Core content policies, and realized that its description of this policy should probably be revised to reflect the result of the recent RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I gave it a whirl. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks North! I think that fixed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources and what counts as a reliable source

I have come across a tendency to cite opinions from texts that aren't secondary sources in the sense they are being used for. If in passing a (respected) scholar gives an opinion on a subject that s/he is not directly dealing with, not based on primary sources or even citing secondary sources that are based on primary sources, such an opinion is unverifiable, ie we have no sourcing for where that opinion comes from. These are another step away from the primary sources, hence tertiary, though not encyclopaedias or the like. Does verifiability only apply to the fact that one can find the opinion in a cited source, or does it require that the source show on what the opinion is based? -- spin^control 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It really comes down more to WP:RS than to WP:V. Editors have to evaluate in the specific case: "Is the source a reliable source for that interpretation?" However, it is entirely verifiable that the source expressed that opinion. Therefore, there is no WP:V violation if we say that the scholar has said that "X, Y, Z". It's a matter of whether we attribute it to the scholar (entirely WP:V compliant), or whether we state the view in Wikipedia's voice (determined more by WP:RS}. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. If it's in the source, it's verifiable. I'll try the principal issue at WP:RS's talk page. -- spin^control 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the last item in the /FAQ, "Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?"

Your respected scholar is a reliable source. S/he is not required to tell you which studies she is basing her opinion on.

"Passing comments" aren't always appropriate sources (and sources must "be appropriate to the claims made" per WP:SOURCES), but the absence of a list of cited works does not turn it into a tertiary source. (After all, we're writing the world's largest tertiary source, and we cite sources all the time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper and magazine blogs

I'm wondering where the idea that any blogs on news sites are subject "the news organization's normal fact checking process" came from? From my experience (and I know this is not worth much) these blogs are set up precisely so journalists can write stuff and the news organization can have plausible deniability. Shouldn't the assumption be that there is no fact checking and a whitelist made for the few places where there is, rather than the other way around? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO on matters of fact those fact checked and reliable as well as anything that the paper puts out. . But regarding objectivity, those are often just soapboxes and are pretty low. But wp:ver has no metric for objectivity. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think they are fact checked? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to look beyond the format for any on-line media source... there was once a time when there was a clear distinction between "blogs" (personal on-line opinion pieces) and legitimate journalism. Today, however, some legitimate journalism is presented in "blog format"... while some websites are really "blogs" dressed up to look like journalism sites. So... You have to examine who the author is... who "runs" the website... is there an editorial staff (and is there a distinction between the editorial staff and the author)... what is the reputation of the site, regardless of the format.

A newspaper like the New York Times has a relatively good reputation... that reputation extends to the material they place on-line... even if it looks like a "blog". However, we also need to remember that (regardless of whether the material is in print or on-line) some of the NYT's material is subject to editorial control, and some isn't. There is a line we can draw between "News" and "Opinion". The editorial staff fact checks "News" articles... they may not fact check opinion pieces (such as op-ed columns). Thus, opinion pieces have limited reliability on Wikipedia (they are certainly reliable for an attributed statement as to what the columnist's opinion is... but whether they are considered reliable for the facts stated in the column is another matter entirely. For that we must look at the specific columnist's reputation for fact checking and accuracy). Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all that. The question is why you (or we) assume the NYT (or anyone else we don't have specific information for) fact checks information that appears in its "blog" section. I think the assumption should be that they don't, unless we know otherwise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't they and the reporter still have a reputation to maintain? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the presumption of assumption of accuracy: If it's on their site, not marked as reader-submitted, we presume it's under the magazine/paper's editorial control. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They distance themselves from any inaccuracies by putting it in the "blog" section. That's how they maintain their reputation. Otherwise why not just put it somewhere in the regular online version of the paper? It's the same news org, the same site, and the same journalist, only a different heading. There's a reason they maintain this separation. I think our assumption should be that something is not reliable until proven otherwise, not the other way around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that if they issue corrections for their blog posts, even informally, then you may assume that they're fact-checking the blog posts. This fact-checking might be done after posting, but if they weren't checking, then they wouldn't notice that it needed to be corrected.

Is there some particular news blog that you're trying to have excluded from an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. I come across this every once in a while and it strikes me as a big gaping reliability hole. So I thought I'd come here and ask. Apparently I'm the only one who sees it. Oh well. About the corrections, it's pretty likely that they check only if someone notifies them there's a problem. Again, I know this is the case in a couple of news orgs I'm familiar with FWIW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wp:ver is ham-handed in certain areas regarding strength of sourcing and defining strength of sourcing. Including assigning too much weight to certain criteria which have the types of limitation that you noted. I've been working on defining the issue and developing holistic solution idea at wp:Strategic issues with core policies#WP:ver and wp:nor need additional source metrics, and a way to apply them. But, on matters of straightforward FACT, I think that the types of blog situations being discussed here have a pretty good track record, and so the policy works with respect to that. That doesn't mean that those blogs aren't soapboxes or objectively present information, just that they are usually right on matters of fact. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammar errors

Under "Self-published sources": "on the topic of the article" belongs in parenthesis, as it is a parenthetical clause, and the sentence is properly understood only with the requisite parenthesis. Offsetting that clause with commas would likely only lead to further confusion.

In the "Notes" section, footnote number 5 needs an "s" after "material" in order for the sentence's structure to agree with the following "those".

I was all set to "boldly edit", but the page is protected.

67.91.184.187 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those two things out. I made edits to (hopefully) address each of them, although I did it slightly differently than what you suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about photo captions

I see the policy statement: "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Question: for photo captions, to what extent do they need a reliable secondary source as opposed to, say, just some level of agreement of the caption with whatever the photographer happens to claim on the Wikimedia file upload page for that photo? N2e (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead (the first of which you just quoted), you will see that verifiability does explicitly apply to captions, but the requirement for an inline citation is a function of the degree to which the caption might be subject to dispute. Verifiability, taken in isolation, does not really say anything about what constitutes a reliable source, only requiring that sourcing exists, and leaving the quality of that sourcing to other policy pages such as RS. So what a Wikipedia editor said in uploading an image is WP:OR and not a reliable source when contradicted or called into question by other sources. If the caption information is common sense reasonable and nobody editing the page has any concerns about it, then it's no big deal. But if an editor questions the accuracy of the caption, then they have every right to apply a "citation needed" tag, and the upload information does not automatically constitute an adequate citation. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a very helpful answer Tryptofish. Thanks!

Of course it does leave millions of photo claims, I suppose mostly WP:OR by definition, unsourced in Wikipedia UNLESS some editor happens to want to expend the research time/energy to confirm it, and/or challenge it. My guess, although I have no data on it at all, is that there are likely some small percentage of those photos that are, unfortunately, uploaded by vandals or trolls that then bring down the quality of the encyclopedia we are endeavoring to build. It is fairly easy for them to do it, and if the photo looks "plausible" for the uploader's claim about that photo, I suppose a fabrication can go for a very long time. I don't have any answer for this asymmetry. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I recall there is leniency for a straightforward statement of what the contents of the photo is. E.G. "photo of the US capitol building circa 1959." But that does not apply for when more material is put into the caption. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a potential problem (I have a few hypotheticals in mind but won't go into them per WP:BEANS) but basically any image that requires some specialized knowledge to tell whether it is, in fact, what it purports to be (which is really very many of them) is subject to the risk of abuse, misuse, or mistake. On the other hand, because of the nature of most images, the info is, at least theoretically, verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's an enigma which is probably why a little slack gets cut. An image where the description truly meets wp:ver is typically not going to get into Wikipedia. If it's in a published source the owner isn't involved and probably isn't going to give away all rights to it as Wikipedia requires. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit odd this. In many cases a caption is a description of what and where, both of which are readily verifiable by comparison with other published photos or images. Generally we can assume good faith of the photographer or scanner, but it isn't too hard to verify or indeed question if there's some error. Where the caption goes beyond the obvious, a source should be cited: sometimes that's covered in the article text, or sometimes by an inline link in the caption text. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PERTINENCE. Images aren't required to be something; they are required to look like something. So the case of something that may or may not be what it purports to be is unimportant, since what matters is whether it looks like what it purports to be. If it doesn't look like ____, then it shouldn't be used to illustrate ____, even if you have a gold-plated reliable source insisting that it really is ____. And conversely, if it looks like ____, even though it isn't, then it's okay to use it to show what ____ looks like.

Captions should generally not be introducing new material into the article. A typical caption is going to say something like "Look! Here is a picture of ____", not "This picture proves that ____ is a foo that bazzes when bat bars." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite (or only partially correct). If the caption says, "15th century manuscript by Bob, entitled Scholastics Today." It really better be that exact thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course. But the question is, what is the wp:verifiability requirement for that caption? Most image captions could not meet wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't the discussion here, concluded in "most" cases, they do meet wp:ver? We probably have a sources problem (relying, as we do on the GF of the uploader), but presumably anyone familiar with (or in possession of) Bob's 15th century manuscript, could verify the caption (depending on the quality of the image). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mostly agree, just clarifying. Except that we're sort of saying that wp:ver doesn't apply to one very narrow aspect, (that a basic image description matches the image) rather than saying it complies fully with wp:ver. For example, if a wp editor took a picture of the 2012 Mardis Gras and wrote the caption "2012 Mardis Gras", there is no way that they could produce a wp:rs that says that their picture is of the 2012 Mardis Gras. That does not mean that it would be removed on wp:ver grounds. If the caption said "John Smith partying with his mistress at the 2102 Mardis Gras" then the rest of the statement would require a wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Alan, that's not what PERTINENCE says. We hashed this out a couple of years ago, and we have a pretty strong consensus behind it. If the image looks like a cupcake, then it's okay to use it to illustrate Cupcake, even to the extent of using a caption like "A cupcake". It is not necessary to give it a caption of "This is a lump of styrofoam covered with spackling compound, carefully designed to look like a cupcake", even if the object in the picture might be one of those fake cupcakes used to decorate bakery windows. The sole requirement is that the image must look like (even "look exactly like") the thing it purports to be. We do not require a published, reliable source to prove that the actual image really is the thing that we're talking about. The purpose is illustration, not providing photographic proof that the thing exists.

Now if you've got something that looks sort-of-not-exactly-like the object, then you can't use a straightforward caption like that. If the image shows a paper that says "Dear Mom, we are well but wish the Nazis would stop shelling us", then you probably shouldn't be using it at all, and you definitely shouldn't label it as being a 15th century manuscript, because it doesn't look like a 15th century manuscript. But if it is, say, a high-quality replica of the original, such that it looks like a real 15th century manuscript, then that would be okay. Illustration is all about appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what verifiability says. We still attempt to reconcile the competing demands of policy and guideline. We still attempt to carefully publish that which is verifiable. Otherwise, the Pedia looks like fools, when we say something is that which it is not (in your example, it's as simple as adding "Reprint of ..." to the caption. As for your first example, you are correct, there is no point in being ridiculous in the caption, only clear enough, within reason). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

And how do you propose to know that it's a replica, rather than the real thing? There are no WP:V-compliant sources that will tell you whether or not the manuscript is most accurately described as "A 15th century manuscript" or as "A replica of a 15th century manuscript". Our inability to prove that the user who uploaded the file to Commons provided an accurate description is why we require only that an image with a caption of "A 15th century manuscript" look like what we're claiming it is, not that we be able to verify through a published reliable source that the item in the photograph is authentic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Research and due diligence. That's what WP:V asks for and it's a good thing to cultivate and expect. If users have researched and still are unsure they should refrain, act with caution, and with care to get it right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A rule of thumb: the larger a caption is, the more likely it is to be problematic. All too often a large caption is a red flag that someone has used the caption to present problematic information (OR, Unverifiable statements, POV, etc)... if the information isn't problematic, and worth having in the article, it should be worked into the text of the article (where it must follow all of our content guidelines). The image can then be used to illustrate that information, and a short caption serves to connect the two. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and important point. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal concerning grammar

I propose to rephrase this policy from the passive infinitive to the simple imperative or declarative.	It is proposed that this policy is rephrased from the passive infinitive to the simple imperative or declarative.
The simple imperative is clearer than the passive infinitive.	It is suggested that the wording might be clarified if it were changed from the passive infinitive to the simple imperative.
Examples	Examples
When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.	When reliable sources disagree, present the conflict from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.
Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately.	You may remove any material that needs but lacks a source. Please remove unsourced, contentious material about living people on sight.
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.	Please attribute all quotations, and any material challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable published source. Please use an inline citation to do this.

In some cases I would like to simplify the sentence structure, so that each sentence is shorter and there are fewer ideas per sentence, but more actual sentences in the policy. In others I would like to use shorter words with more impact. The table above contains examples of both.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the overall thought is good. Two concerns: 1. would rather not fuzzy up the current RFC in cases whee they are about the same material. 2. Your last one actually makes a structural change. The current version defines a state that must exist for the material. Your proposed change changes it to instruction for the original inserter/insertion of the material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On your first point, there's no intention to fuzzy up the RFC. This is a separate (and probably subsequent) issue and there is no intention to make substantive changes to the policy. On your second point, I think that's in your head. There is nothing about my proposed change that says or implies that it's an instruction purely for the original inserter. In logic and grammar, it's a general instruction to all editors, just as the current version is.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"unsourced contentious material" I think would read better with a comma. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

S. Marshall. On you response on "fuzzying", cool. On your response on the "changing" one, a curse/blessing of mine is seeing structure in writing. I think I'm right at the hairsplitting level, but it probably hair splitting and I think that your wording is fine. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comma duly inserted, Gigs. I think we agree, North.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Over all, I like where this is headed. I do have a comment about the second example: Given the context, I think most people understand the phrasing: "Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed" as being permissive in nature (you are allowed to remove the material if it is unsourced)... however, the phrasing is also cautionary in nature (the material might be removed if it is unsourced). I like that duality... it addresses both the editor who wishes to add the information and those who might challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's always better to use plain language than roundabout language, so I like the general thrust of this, so long as, as S Marshall already says, it's intended to be subsequent to the ongoing RfC. One issue that catches my eye, however, is the very repetitive appearance of "Please" do this or that. Cumulatively, it starts to sound like a long series of pleadings, and that makes it sound to me more like a help page than a policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm addressing people who're freely giving their time to the encyclopaedia; surely saying "please" to them is no more and no less than the proper respect due to volunteers.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, puh-lease! (Just kidding.) Actually, it's a minor point, and I don't want to make too much of it. Of course we should be respectful, but it just struck me as noticeably repetitive, that's all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking all this as a sort of amberish-green light to make grammatical adjustments along these lines once the RFC's over.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Being bold on policies is still OK, especially just copy edits. Gigs (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point... it would not be all that bold of an edit... the idea has been presented and discussed on the talk page, and there seems to be at least an initial consensus to support it. Of course, that consensus is not very broad at the moment (its only been discussed by four or five editors)... and it is always possible that someone who has not yet commented will come along later and object (and either edit further or revert)... but it is also possible that everyone will like it. We can always come back here and continue discussing if and when someone objects. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll sit on my hands til the RFC's over because that seems to be the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 19:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is confusing!

How am I supposed to prove that my information is verifiable? In my opinion I think all the people that accuse people of non-verifiable information, should STOP being lazy, and at least TRY to get their things straightened! I have no offense towards these people, but I've had enough! What the heck am I supposed to do? I can't be a Wikipedian without editing things! Some people are CRAZY! If they say my information is non-verifiable then they can get off their chairs, and do some research! I have read articles that have false and incorrect information, and they don't get accused of non-verifiable information! Now that I decide to use correct and reliable information, they say it's not verifiable! I'm DONE with Wikipedia! I try so hard to edit, and make sure my things are correct before I save them, and this is what Wikipedia does? This is EXTREMELY unnaceptable! I'm appsolutely DONE if they send me one more note like that! DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC) DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything you know you learned somewhere. Is it so difficult to tell people where that was in the form of a citation? Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Someone who understands what I'm trying to say! Thank you Someguy1221! Thank you! Finally someone who knows what I'm talking about! DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Deidra, if you want to make an edit, and want advice on how to source it the right way, please feel free to leave a message about it on my user talk page, and I'll try to point you in the right direction if I can. Wikipedia does not do these things because we want to be nasty or anything like that. We do it because we're an encyclopedia, and we have a responsibility not to print stuff that is wrong. If someone else came along and deliberately put something false on a page, I'm sure you wouldn't want us to just leave it there, where it might mislead other readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Deidra, Were you referring to this edit[11] that removed some material from the section "Health" that you added to the Papillon article? It appears that the editor didn't remove the material because the material wasn't verifiable, but because of WP:NOTGUIDE. Here's an excerpt from that policy.

1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks.

The parts were removed because they read like a "how-to" style owners manual, i.e. how to take care of a Papillon, not because they were unverfiable. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I added an inline citation to the Health section.[12] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)