Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archives

[edit] Dispute - Verifiability or NPOV?

There is a dispute regarding the Criticism section of an article on a top online game. The dispute has nearly led to edit wars on more than one occasion, and has severely disrupted my attempts to improve the article to GA status.

I am posting here for advice, as the dispute concerns two of Wikipedia's core policies: verifiability and NPOV. This dispute also highlights a problem caused by the Verifiability policy, which I have tried to point out several times, namely, systematic bias.

To summarize the locus of the dispute, when I first tried to improve the article to GA status, the Criticism section documented common player criticisms of the game. However, due to criticisms over lack of referencing, someone removed all the player criticisms and the section became a list of press reviews of the game (all of which praised the game).

Soon after the section was overwritten, the article's talk page was flooded with complaints about the new Criticism section, describing it as highly biased, reading like an advertisement, and blatantly violating the NPOV policy. Two comments I remember are "Previously, only the Criticism section documented any negative opinion of the game" and "The press reviews are totally different from what players think of the game".

On the talk page, there was an argument over the Criticism section, with both the new and old Criticism sections having their supporters, and an edit war nearly broke out. I commented "You'll never find those player criticisms in a reliable source" and suggested the Criticism section contain both player criticisms and press reviews to satisfy both verifiability and NPOV. We had a discussion on the talk page, and decided to restore the player criticisms, but referencing a player review from GameFAQs (which documented several of the player criticisms), and rewriting them in paragraph form, instead of a list.

Recently, when the article was put up for peer review, there were several complaints about the Criticism section. Exasperated, I lashed out at them.

"Make up your mind whether you want:

• A Criticism section containing press reviews, thus being reliable, but thus being highly biased and reading like an advertisement, and blatantly violating NPOV, or
• A Criticism section documenting player criticisms, thus being NPOV, but inherently less reliable."

We now have to choose between verifiability and NPOV. As stated earlier, I suggested a middle ground: have the Criticism section contain both press reviews and player criticisms.

However, I need your advice; please provide it. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that verifiability trumps NPOV hands-down. There are good reasons for this but I will spare you the lecture unless you really wish to hear it.

If an article can only be made NPOV (in your opinion) by ignoring verifiability requirements, you are now in the realm of Original Research. The case in question, as described by you, is a perfect example of that. I am not familiar with GameFAQs and cannot opine as to whether it is a reliable source. If it is not, then referencing it is not appropriate and all material which is based solely on it should be removed. I know this answer will be frustrating to you but them's the rules (at least as I understand them).

--Richard 09:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know. NPOV, according to the founder of Wikipedia, is "absolute and non-negotiable". That to me sounds like that in as a last-ditch measure, original research should be allowed for a little bit to maintain NPOV until it can be replaced with verifiable, reliable information, except possibly with biographies of living persons. In that case, real harm could come from lack of verifiable information, and thus WP:V *might* trump WP:NPOV, although I think they would at least be treated with equal importance. I would like to hear these "good reasons" why it would be better for WP:V to trump WP:NPOV. 170.215.83.83 23:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although NPOV is a foundation issue, and Verifiability isn't, both policies have been described as "non-negotiable". Go ahead and lecture me, Richard.

I do not wish to let my personal bias affect this issue. I will respect the consensus, even if it is to follow verifiability and not NPOV.

We must make a decision and stick to it, in order to ensure stability, a GA criteria. Our decision should be one that improves the article's GA chances. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then the thing to do, in my opinion would be to try and find the best possible compromise between the two, since they are both at the same level of importance ("non-negotiable"). 70.101.147.74 07:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point that nobody responded to... 170.215.83.4 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I should further add that there is a difference between saying "Game X has lousy graphics" or "Game Y is difficult to play" and saying "In GameFAQs, some players who have reviewed the game complained of lousy graphics and stated that the game was difficult to play." I think using the second formulation would reduce the problem to one of whether or not GameFAQs is a reliable source. I suspect the problem is that GameFAQs is not a magazine but rather a blog, mailing list or bulletin board.

--Richard 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the root of the problem is that actual game purchasers are willing to spend their money on the basis of blog comments, so there is no market for a professionally published game review magazine or website (a sort of Consumer Reports for games). However, blogs are not reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So just delete the criticism section altogether; magazines that publish favorable reviews of poor games are not reliable sources, despite being printed on glossy paper. --Gerry Ashton 13:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please get your facts right - GameFAQs is not a blog. However, press reviews are deemed more reliable, while GameFAQs is marginally reliable. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Only sourced information may be used in an article (although that does not mean that all information that is sourced has to be used). So whoever it was that removed comments that did not have a reputable source was right to do so.

NPOV requires an article to take a neutral point of view. That does not mean that every time something good is mentioned, something bad also has to be mentioned. More, it means you need to be objective. If it really is the case that every reliable quotable source has nothing but praise for the game, then it is perfectly right for the article to leave its reader with the impression that there is nothing negative to say.

However, if there is some notable criticism of the game, as you suggest there is, then my guess is a reliable source can in fact be found for it (it just hasn't been found yet and someone will need to find it before it progresses to GA status). Until such a source is found, the article cannot include the criticisms. If that means the article temporarily contravenes NPOV, then so be it. The article is work in progress.

If on the other hand, there is no reliable source for criticism because it is widely regarded as excellent - don't worry about it.

Maybe have a look at Don Bradman. That article is able to make the very positive claim that he "was an Australian cricketer who is universally regarded as the greatest batsman of all time", and which has very little criticism of him. Because of the way the article does this, and the support it has from reputable sources for its positivity, no-one has seen NPOV problems in the article to date, jguk 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The current situation seems to be that the mainstream media has a positive opinion of the game while the mass media has a negative opinion of the game. Because of the verifiability policy, only the positive opinion of the mainstream media can be included, while the negative viewpoint of the mass media must be completely ignored. This is what I meant when I posted on this talk page several months ago that the verifiability policy creates sytemic bias. And since most Wikipedia readers represent the mass media, the complaints over the well-referenced but allegedly POV section are understandable. However, even I agreed that the well-referenced Criticism section looked like a blatant advertisement for the game. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GameFaq (blessed be that it is there) is a commercial business and attempts to present a product and to sell products. It might be argued it is a "blog created by a business". It seems to me this section points out Wikipedia needs a guideline to reliability, a method of specifying the most important element of reliability and the whole list of characteristics which together constitute reliability. Terryeo 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Terryeo that the Wikipedia guideline to reliability may need to be reviewed and updated. In the meantime, let's work off the underlying principles. As I stated earlier, I believe verifiability and reliability trump NPOV. The question is: Is GameFAQs reliable?

Wikipedia's current policy is that a source must satisfy a certain level of reliability by having a public check on it, usually peer review, publishing house or a professional concern such as a newspaper, magazine or broadcast news network. Self-published material such as vanity websites, blogs, self-published e-books and vanity published books do not qualify.

Despite what Hildanknight says about "GameFAQs not being a blog", the fact remains that GameFAQs has message boards. If the cited game reviews are unreviewed opinions on the message boards, those reviews probably fall in the realm of "unreviewed self-published material" and therefore do not qualify as reliable. If, however, the user reviews are featured articles that are invited by the GameFAQs website and undergo some sort of scrutiny and editorial review, then that kind of user review is arguably reliable.

Consider this: Is an opinion expressed on a message board at Motley Fool or Raging Bull "reliable"? Why or why not? Now, apply your answer to GameFAQs.

--Richard 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs is not a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that this is true. However, it would help if you could explain why you think it is not a reliable source. --Richard 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The review was not posted on a message board - it was listed under "GameFAQs Reader Reviews". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As you pointed out, GameFACS is probably regarded by the gaming community to be a more reliable source than press articles. We have similar problems in the science community, but rarely someone who claims that X is generally more trusted/respected than Y is accused of doing "original research"; and even doing a Google search for determining the popularity of ideas is considered acceptable in some cases. Anyway, for the purpose of verifiability the only thing that matters is that the article's statements that are made can be verified today but also next year. I see no problem with stating for example that "the game received a number of favourable newspaper reviews [ref ref ref], but received significant criticism by users on a well known gaming website [ref]." The main point of WP:V is that no statements are made that go beyond what can be verified. For a similar discussion about using references to usenet as Wikipedia source, see the Talk page of Archimedes Plutonium. Harald88 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is a big difference between stating something as fact "Game X has amateur graphics" vs. "There has been significant criticism of Game X's graphics posted on a well-known gaming site." The first asserts something to be true about the game. The second asserts something to be true about how a particular set of users perceived the game. --Richard 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Richard's phrasing is slightly better than mine, as it totally avoids making any (even safe) assumptions. Harald88 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Does GameFaq review information before it is posted? If it does, then it has both attributability and the site means to maintain a reputation. Having personally used a few of the GameFaqs, I've found them to be accurate. Maybe we can email them and ask for particulars? Terryeo 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much that it's "peer reviewed". And the same for published journalists's opinions about games. Harald88 07:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A good point, and it additionally spells out one more element of "reliable published source". What exactly is a "peer" when it comes to a FAQ or walkthrough of a game? Terryeo 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that in this case a peer is another person capable of playing a game and making observations. For games, unlike science, this means just about everyone. The fact that the site has a good reputation basically means it's passed the equivalent of "peer review", since the general public are the peers. Ken Arromdee 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find out how GameFAQs checks the accuracy of their "Reader Reviews". Nevertheless, I agree with Ken Arromdee's comments. Note what I said above about systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should use reader reviews regardless of the peer review question. All a review is is one person's opinion on the game. We wouldn't use a film critic's review in an article about a film, at least not if we were using it to source the statement that the film had amateur special effects, and even if the film critic was professionally published. One person's review isn't notable.

Now, if you had *many* reader reviews and were using them to say "most readers who reviewed the game at Gamefaqs think the game is amateurish", I think that would be different.

Ken Arromdee 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the idea of "peer review" is not critical to the issue here although it helps. "Peer review" per se is only one method of determining reliability. If information is provided in a GameFAQs "Reader Review", the question becomes "What does it take for something to be published in the Reader Review section? Can I just post a review in the Reader Review section without oversight or does my submission require approval by someone on the GameFAQs staff? If the former, then it's still basically a blog/message board/whatever. If my submission is reviewed editorially for content and blessed by someone on the GameFAQs staff, then the situation is a bit closer to that of a newspaper. The critical question is: Can a single person self-publish information without any checks on the content or is there some mechanism for filtering out garbage?

To answer my own rhetorical question that I posted earlier about Motley Fool and Raging Bull, comments on those sites are not reliable soruces because there is no filter that checks the content of the messages posted there.

--Richard 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I got a question, what is the name of the article? It's annoying to read this example of a dispute and not know what game this is about. J.L.W.S. The Special One/Hildanknight, you said you read the article, and "it sounded like an advertisement" to you. Tell me which article you're talking about. I want to know what article everyone is talking about, otherwise it sounds dumb when your talking about "GameFAQ", when I don't know where to find this GameFAQ, or know what the hey you are talking about. 65.11.88.100 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did a little research into you J.L.W.S. The Special One, I think I'm going to guess that the article you're talking about is RuneScape. Well ok, I'm going to start by saying this game is definitely not perfect (or at least in my opinion). Criticism of runescape does exist, but it's hard to find a "reliable reference" of this criticism. That's because this is game is free to play, (not the member's version though) so there isn't any commercial drive for any magazines or review companies to say "buy" this game or "don't buy" this game because of so and so. Also, the IP address above is mine, I just forget to login before. --Fastman99 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is RuneScape. I agree that there is considerable mass-media criticism of the game, which is not reliable and thus not accepted, and being browser-based, there is a lack of criticism from reliable sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar issue, higher stakes

Let's consider what happens with a controversial, but not very high profile, political figure. By our own rules, his or her own writings about him- or herself are citable; similarly, those of organizations with which he or she is affiliated. There is a much higher threshold for critical material and, connected to that, there is an interesting intersection between WP:BLP and verifiability. I'm a little concerned that WP:BLP seems to mean that an article in a minor newspaper might be citable for a positive remark and the newspaper—even the same article—might not be citable for the other side of the same story.

I'm not sure there is anything we can do about this, but I thought I'd put the matter on the table. At the very least, I'm a bit uncomfortable that we seem to be saying that certain sources can be used only in a way that is not representative of what the source, taken as a whole, actually says. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the similarities in the issues you and I raised, namely how verifiability decreases NPOV, and how critical sources may not be considered reliable, I must remind you that an online game is a mass-media topic, while a controversial political figure is a mainstream-media topic. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy only accepts mainstream-media sources, and it will be difficult to find mainstream-media sources on a mass-media topic; in contrast, it should be easier to find mainstream-media sources on the political figure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV needs to be restored for one key reson: Runescape's competition have very negative NPOV reveiws listed on their articles. Right now, anyone and their grandma will think that, due to the fact that the RS article has no critisism, that it is a p0erfect game, while its competition seem like bad games. This will msot definitly help Runescape and hurt the other games as many people do read wikipedia before paying so a new game (or membership in RS). Thus, right now, Wikipedia is a bias ad for RS and is failing in its stated mission of fair and equel information.--68.192.188.142 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate at WP:RS - Should it be rejected as a guideline?

There continues to be debate at WP:RS about whether it should remain a guideline on not (a small but active minority feel it should be scrapped). As that guideline is referred to on (and in my opinion is an intrigal part of) this policy page, I think the regular editors of WP:V should be made aware of this debate. Please pop over, read the talk page and chime in. Blueboar 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source

Given the recent changes to this page with the removal of the link to reliable sources what is a "reliable source"? Is it any source that is not "dubious reliability" or is there some third category? As for "dubious reliability":

• "a poor reputation for fact-checking" how does one judge reputation?
• What is a "fact-checking facility"?
• I am assuming it is "no" editorial oversite. What is editorial oversite? For example is a Wiki web site overseen by editors? How does one tell if there is "editorial oversite"?

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I think it is a difficult task for any of us to determine what is or is not a "reliable source". I much prefer the words "reputable source". Reputation (and reputation for accuracy in a field) is relatively easy to check. Reliability suggests we need a more detailed examination.

Second, we are not going to get a rules-based exposition about what is or is not a reputable source. Instead we should aim for a principle. Might I suggest adding a definition of "reputable source" into the policy along the lines of "A reference is a reputable source for a claim if it can withstand academic scrutiny".

This would need to be backed up by an explanatory paragraph below along the lines of pointing out that "for a claim" means a source can be a reputable for some claims but not for others, and that "academic scrutiny" means asking yourself questions such as "does the source have justification for making the claim?", "are there other errors in the source that make this claim suspect?", "is there any incentive for anyone for this claim to be false?", and so on, jguk 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On the idea of "A reference is a reputable source for a claim if it can withstand academic scrutiny". As setting a goal, it's admirable. As setting a standard, it's passing the buck to an absent party — unless some academic institutions are going to assign staff to actually scrutinize Wikipedia submissions. Otherwise, how easy it will be to say, "Well, my sources will of course withstand such scrutiny, but your contrary sources will not!"

A "common sense" definition would ask (and explain) some basic questions, along the lines of:

1. Does the source have the reputation in its field of being honest and accurate? (This may or may not be an "academic" field.) Reports on, say, the causes of lung cancer may not be equally trustworthy coming from, say, the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco Institute. Even ordinary news agencies differ in reputations; compare The Times (of London) to The Sun — or the New York Post or Fox News or the Drudge Report. But many readers and viewers do not know that difference, so they would not be alerted by the footnotes to doubt a Wikipedia page's assertions. It falls to Wikipedia editors to screen their sources, which means being more aware of the difference than those readers and viewers. One may have to learn about the field in question in order to know a source's reputation — which technical journals are peer-reviewed or have hard-nosed editors, versus which are crackpot-magnets or shills. (There's no easy way to flag one group or the other — if there were, at least some crackpots and shills would quickly learn how to award themselves the "sane" flag... or the "fair and balanced" flag.)
2. Does the source have a strong basis for actual knowledge of the subject? A specialist publication or field reporter that actually covered an event or interviewed a subject is more likely to get the details right than a general publication or newsroom reporter summarizing someone else's coverage.
3. What does this source's report actually prove? The most reputable, accurate, and knowledgeable source may report that "The Secretary of Defense said the occupied areas are entirely peaceful" — which is not the same thing as reporting that "the occupied areas are entirely peaceful".

A normally reliable source (on most subjects) may be wildly wrong on a technical subject outside its area of expertise. Conversely, a source that isn't reliable for anything else might be fairly cited when the topic actually is "What did this source say?"

Take for instance a source that is generally not considered "reliable", such as Usenet posts or blog comments. For most topics, these should no more be cited as sources than any random comment you overheard on a city bus — they have no reputation for accuracy or actual knowledge. But when the topic is "Internet terminology" or "Internet forum terminology" — as it is in Disemvoweling — then Usenet posts and blog comments might be fairly cited as showing that a term was actually used, with such-and-such meaning, on such-and-such dates. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:48, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

We certainly do need to rely on common sense. I don't think that a requirement for a source for a claim to be able to withstand academic scrutiny is passing the buck - although I admit I have scratched my head hard to think of a better word than "academic". Maybe "able to withstand a reasonable level of scrutiny". Of course, "reasonable level" is undefined - but then whatever we go with won't be clearly defined and will need to be applied with common sense.

So what about: "A reference is a reputable source for a claim if it can withstand a reasonable level of scrutiny", followed by a short explanation of what that scrutiny might be (eg asking questions such as why should you believe the source, does it have a reputation for accuracy, could the source be biased or putting forward a political view)? jguk 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are sources in languages other than English verifiable?

This is the English language Wikipedia but from time to time articles are sourced in a variety of other languages. Recently Márton Szász was sourced just in Hungarian which none of my translators handles. My view is that we should stipulate that essential facts should be verifiable in English sources. Whilst Hungarian is not particularly obscure, if foreign language verification is allowed, in theory sources could be provided in far more obscure languages that perhaps no-one on here except the editor understands leading to some very dubious entries. TerriersFan 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle Hungarian, but I think that our policy should clearly be that Linear A is not an allowable language for sources. - O^O 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL; nice one! TerriersFan 19:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If we disallow foreign language sites then we run the risk of losing valuable content which is unavaliable in English; could we use existing features of Wikipedia to allow a user to request confirmation of a citation from an independent user - perhaps using templates along the lines of ^{[citation needed]} , I'm think Template:Confirm-xx where xx is the two letter language code. --Neo 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I would prefer, as I say above, sources to be in English I would not strongly object to a defined list of the most common languages. French, Spanish and German, say, would be fine since online translators handle these. However, let me give you an example. The Taxicab series of articles is one to which I have put a lot of work in. Let's say someone puts in something controversial about taxicabs in India and cites references in Sanskrit. I would have to accept an edit that I disagree with because I would have no way of checking whether the references had any relevance. If we take Márton Szász above, the references are here and here. I haven't a clue whether they support the guy as being a maths child prodigy. TerriersFan 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that every claim in every article be verifiable by every reader. Most of us can't verify most of the articles on mathematics, but that does not mean we should eliminate them. If you can't read Hungarian, leave it to someone who does. If you doubt what the article says, and you can't read Hungarian, find a good source in a language that you can read that says something more plausible, and add the new source to the article. --Gerry Ashton 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point when possible. The problem arises when there are no sources in English for something that is critical to the article. TerriersFan 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is something critical to an article that can only be sourced in a foreign-language publication, we should be thankful that there are editors who can read the other language and provide this information to us; otherwise we would just have to do without the information. We can hope that other people who read the same foreign language will spot any problems with the information. --Gerry Ashton 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is: just try writing about Romania without using Romanian-language sources. We have at least half a dozen admins who read Romanian (mostly native), plus several dozen more good, regular contributors. The political range is about as wide as in Wikipedia in general, so, believe me, no one is going to get away with misrepresenting a source any more than in English. These people have been steadily assembling here what is easily the best online English-language content about that country, largely by using Romanian-language sources, about half of them online and half print. On the whole, the level of rigor in citations (and the level of the work in general) is well above what is typical for Wikipedia. Does anyone actually want to discourage that? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many subjects where the sources have to be in foreign languages, since net to nothing is written about it in English. IF you doubt the accuracy of a translation, or the reputability of a source, put a message on the talk page of the wikiproject for that country (equating country with language for a moment). For most languages, you will find a few unincolved editors who are able to check the source or the quote given. When a source is truly unverifiable by anyone on Wikipedia except the contributor (because of the language), I would assume good faith unless the source seems dubious (contradicts all other sources) or violating WP:BLP. Fram 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that sources in other languages are verifiable. I believe, "other language", constitutes an egregious barrier to verifiability. Editors should not be under the requirement of enlisting translation services merely to do their job. Wjhonson 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great if we could find an agreeable solution here and add it to the policy. We have some links on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that are in Farsi, and an editor has requested that they be factchecked. They are facts about the internal policies of MA, which wouldn't really be of interest to non-Arab sources, so I'm not sure English-language sources would even be available. Vir4030 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course we should use non-English sources. I'm surprised that this comes up as a real question. If a particular editor cannot read a particular source themselves, that is what the Babel templates are for. Jkelly 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to one of these Babel templates for Farsi? Vir4030 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letters to the editor - reliable?

Are letters to the editor considered to be reliable sources? CoYep 03:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If they are used as sources for some information about letters to the editor, whether those letters specifically or something general about a newspapers' letters, then it is rather reliable that the newspaper did indeed receive such a letter and they would be reliable for that specific purpose. If they are used as sources for some news or historical event, they are absolutely not reliable. Any quack can write a letter to the editor. —Centrx→talk • 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both Yes and No." For some more Elvish counsel...

Letters (to the Editor or anyone else) might be cited as expressing the thought of a known person, as for instance the letters of Thomas Jefferson and of Albert Einstein expressed their personal political and religious beliefs in a way their formal publications did not. Some care might have to be taken that a particular letter printed over a notable person's name was actually written by that person, and not another person with the same name — or an imposter. (A newspaper may try to verify a writer's identity by calling the phone number given in the letter, but this doesn't prove it's the named person's phone.)

The proportion of "Letters to the Editor" supporting or opposing particular points of view should not be cited as expressing the proportions of opinion in the general population. (1) A letter-writing campaign may result in the view it sponsors getting a disproportionate number of letters published, especially in the case of an "astroturfing" campaign. (2) A newspaper may have selected letters for publication using other criteria than proportionate representation, for instance to represent both views in equal numbers, or to represent the views held by the editor, or to show the letters best written (in the editor's judgment). – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 21:47, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Thanks alot CoYep 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. So this letter to the editor [1] wouldn't be a reliable source for, for instance, the Sphinx of Giza article or an article about Craniofacial Anthropometry? CoYep 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If the same writer publishes the same claim in a peer-reviewed article for a journal of archaeology or anthropology, he will probably have to include photographs, and citations to sources for his assertions. Subsequent issues might have rebuttals. In the end, some consensus among the field's professionals may result.

As it is, do you even know whether, say, "John Smith, orthodontist" is really "John Smith" or really an orthodontist? Perhaps Bob Brown the astroturfer has borrowed someone else's name. Perhaps an orthodontal student is anticipating his degree. On the Internet and in the letters columns, no-one knows you're a dog. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:03, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Yes, this was my argument as well when I discussed that issue with another editor. But since this editor insists that it is a reliable source, I decided to ask for another opinion. Again, thanks a lot. CoYep 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When people speak of newspapers as reliable sources, they are generally thinking of the articles in the main sections. Letters to the editor, family-written obituaries and ads are not reliable. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Journals such as The Nation, National Review, Foreign Affairs often receive and publish letters from people who are the subjects of their articles and from other experts on the topics covered, often rebutting the content of an article (with the original author often responding). These exchanges should certainly be citable. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As should these letters to The Times letters to The Times June 1932 and this letter to The Times July 1966. It comes down to the reputation of the person who wrote the letters, or in the case of the second one (his knowledge about himself). After all a biography on Winston Churchill which quotes a letter he wrote to someone else about his view on a specific issue would be considered a primary reference and it would seem odd if that if the letter had been to a newspaper, that it should be discounted as a reference in a Wikipedia article, because it was not a private correspondence. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The letters may be used under the self-publication provision i.e. if written by someone who would otherwise be regarded as a reliable source OR if written by someone, even if not regarded as reliable, about himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to an online copy of an offline V RS

Let's say an article cites a V RS that is offline, and a copy of that source is discovered online, and is found (by one or more editors who have examined the offline source) to be an accurate reproduction. Leaving aside copyright issues for the moment, under what circumstances is it appropriate to link to the online copy? Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In those circumstances it is always appropriate to provide a link to the online copy at the bottom of the article, jguk 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. (I remember the phrase "great for easy access" from a subsection somewhere.) Is that the case even if the site hosting the determined-to-be-accurate copy is a free site like Geocities or YouTube? thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as its the same text, it doesn't matter where it's hosted. If you can trust that the person who made the website is not going to deviously fiddle around with it, then it's fine. Whereas in general a source is reliable because of the author's research methods, experience and knowledge in the field, etc., the free website is only a mirror or conduit where we need only be sure that it is a faithful reproduction. Though, it is best to find a copy hosted on Project Gutenberg or Wikisource, etc. because it will be more permanent. —Centrx→talk • 09:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to refine that:

• YouTube: generally rather not, unless you're pretty sure there's no copyvio involved, per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works; also you'd need to be pretty sure that the material is not tampered with, and stable in an untampered version. See also WP:RS#YouTube: "[...] As such, linking to video content in YouTube should almost always be avoided as a source." Also note that not so many content available via YouTube could be qualified RS *at all*.
• For example Google Books has less of these problems: for some books that are without doubt RS, Google Books displays the full content, in a stable way, and there are no copyvio trappings.
• For the RS sources available at Gutenberg there's only a small caveat: some of the material there is pretty old (pre-"copyright"): sometimes positions taken in these works have been ammended/corrected/updated in more recent scholarship, and/or translations are not so fluent for our early 21st-century eyes. For example Gutenberg has a translation of Cicero's De Re Publica: some odd pieces of text of that dialogue have been rediscovered more recently, and more recent sholarship usually also uses a different numbering of the paragraphs of that work. Similarly, Gutenberg has an omnibus volume of translations of apocryphal gospels (in a bit swollen 19th century English), the Gospel of Judas is of course not included in that volume. On the other hand, many of the translations of ancient texts at Gutenberg have comprehensive introductions that more often than not can be used as RS (see e.g. The Pumpkinification of Claudius#_note-1 that uses such introduction as a V RS).
• Wikisource: can be used for illustrations, but rather not for deployment of verifiability, see Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification for more on that. Generally, as Wikisource is also a wiki, there may be stability problems with the source texts. --Francis Schonken 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to play Devil's advocate - there may be cases where YouTube is hosting copyrighted material with permission of the copyright owners. In those cases, wouldn't it be OK to link? dryguy 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis and Centrx; your comments make sense. Reading through WP:CITE I found the relevant term "convenience link", and then the essay WP:CONV. Sounds like the issue isn't fully resolved, but we're making progress. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "themselves"

This may just be a linguistic difference of use of English but with respect to, "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the themselves", it is not quite right. You would not say them about an organization, which the policy refers to, you would say it. In my experience this has given rise to edit conflicts based on differeing interpretations of this policy where individuals have claimed that the policy only allows the self-published authors "themselves" to use the self-published source material. This is obviously wrong.

"Themselves" relates to individuals. In this case, the policy could relate to organizations to which one would refer "itself". Other contributors have agreed with the misplaced generality of "themselves" and policy has been modified to "in articles about the author or the authoring organisation", which is better. But how to fit it into the title? I have proposed "the subject" because the subject of an topic can refer to an individual, group of individuals or organizational entity; and is short.

Perhaps the policy point could be merged with the one above allowing a single short title on "self-published" material?

Your opinions. 195.82.106.244 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"The phrase 'the organizations themselves have said ...," for example, is standard English. I don't really see how anyone could misunderstand the sentence in the policy. On the other hand, the phrase "authoring organization" is completely unclear and sounds like someone has made it up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you have used a plural. You would not say "the organization themselves", you would say "the organization itself".

For the record, I did not state "authoring organization" but it is entirely clear, if a highly specific and intelligent use of English. I think we need more than two opinions on this matter as others have expressed an interest to clarify it. As stated, where conflict arose due to the generality of the statement was where it was interpretated that "themselves" only permitted the authoring individuals or organizations to use self-published material - which is, of course, ridiculous.

Drop "authoring" individual or organization into Google [2], [3], [4] and I think you will find it is widely and commonly used particularly in Governmental and Educational circles.

Actually, you may have cracked it by the use of "authors(s)". KISS etc.

195.82.106.244 12:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Themselves" is plural because "sources", which it agrees with, is plural. qp10qp 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of content policies

Recently someone has increased the reference on this page from there being two other content policies, to say that there are three. There are, however, many more. Our copyright and libel policies are certainly about content. The separate, though related policy, on biographies of living people is also a content policy. Plus more are listed as content policies on Wikipedia:List of policies.

I don't think increasing the comments at the top of this project page to refer to all of these would be useful. Instead maybe reference them at the end if not already referenced as part of the discussion.

The only other content policy that I think is really worth mentioning up front is WP:NPOV, jguk 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything is about content come to that, but V, NOR, and NPOV are what we call the three content policies, and not only recently. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why? WP:NOT, at the very least, is just as important as the three that are currently listed. JulesH 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Verifiability of Opinions

I am not currently engaged in any discussions described below, but I have had these questions for a while and want to ask them.

1. It is often possible to verify opinions: "Michael Moore thinks George Bush is an idiot". But it seems to me that putting such opinions into articles is problematic. I can see, for example how such an opinion, if from a verified source, might be included in the article on Michael Moore. However, I do not see how it would be appropriately included in an article about George Bush. Is there some policy or guideline that one can review in such cases? (Incidentally, I take the instructions under NPOV about not declaring Hitler to be evil but rather, just describe his acts and let the reader judge as a critical yet under-used and under emphasized instruction).
2. Sometimes there are current or recent events on which various popular commentators provide their "insights". They are often respected sufficiently that their opinions are sought. To imagine an example, perhaps someone gave an opinion on the police investigation of Natalie Holloway in Aruba. Maybe, say, Mark Fuhrman (I am making all of this up as an example). Although his comments and opinion are verifiable, it seems to me that such editorial commentary is inherently POV and probably unencyclopedic. What policies or guidelines cover this area? If none, should there be something? (In other words, is my view that such editorial commentary should be greatly restricted, correct?). I note that it is often possible for people to argue by proxy this way -- and I think the encyclopedia would be improved as would tempers if this sort of thing were not generally accepted.
3. Fairly frequently, an article is based almost entirely upon one source. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- and for certain subjects it is even necessary because the subject area is very narrow. But I have noticed one area that is a bit of concern to me. A person will get a book... say something by Bill O'Reilly ... and finding a number of "facts" in that "verifiable source" will go and add sections to articles based upon that one source -- which though verifiable, is highly POV and is in fact, editorial content possibly masquerading as something else. Another example would be a person who publishes some work on some recent policy by the President (choose any President, not just this current one). A wikipedian reads this highly critical and POV book and then creates a section based upon its contents. Particularly when the book is new, this content may go entirely unrefuted by other "reliable sources". At the core, all of these examples involve what I called "justified editorial content" which is highly POV. Is there guidance on this matter? I have always been under the impression that NPOV is a more "core" principle and that Verifiability is intended to serve that intent. Thus, I would think that verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And so, when there were contributions that are POV, the mere fact that they are verifiable should not give them a pass. I have also tended to think that "Just the facts, Ma'am" is a better approach for contentious material rather than "Both the Facts and Editorials". But I would like some other thoughts on this.

Thanks to everyone for helping me get my head around these issues. As I said, I do not have an immediate concern at this time... I am not involved in discussions of this sort. But I have seen them and now I wonder. Please comment. --Blue Tie 17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the last example you give is an example of how someone acting in bad faith can really abuse the rules. But I'd hate to see us lose the ability to cite opinionated statements. Would you really want no indication of whether written or or artistic or musical works were favorably reviewed (so that, for example, the only way that we could show that critical assessment of Van Gogh has changed over time would be in terms of the prices paid for his paintings)? No ability to quote the Abbé Sieyès on the Third Estate in writing about the Estates of the Realm, only in writing about Sieyès himself? No ability to quote Tudor Octavian writing of Calea Victoriei (one of Bucharest's main streets) in the 1930s that "this is how the whole of Bucharest would look if we had been allowed"? The result would be that articles would be dry as dust. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. I am sort of seeking for ideas here. But one thing that I note is that your examples may not involve controversy. Perhaps a key is, when something is not disputed there is a lower standard, but when it is disputed there is a higher standard required that may eliminate the biased source. Not sure. --Blue Tie 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As your example refers mainly to living people, note that WP:BLP#Reliable_sources and WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content cover some of these aspects. As for non-BLP related, I concur with Jmabel: there will always be these that will find a way to abide by policy while pushing a POV. For these, we have the community of editors and editors' consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

About the last point, what if the view in the "opinionated" source is right and thus nobody has been able to "refute" it? It would be like writing an article on General Relativity and not having any refutations listed 'cuz there are none. 170.215.83.4 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging a definition of "reliable sources" into WP:V

I have attempted to merge a definition of "reliable sources" into the policy (being bold in the process too!). The diff of my suggested amendments is here.

The aim, along the lines noted above, has been to introduce a principle-based definition, and make clear that really you just need to use common sense (and objectivity) to decide whether a source is reliable enough.

Although I have based on discussions above and on other pages, suggested improvements to the text would be useful, jguk 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what Jguk calls a discussion on talk, before proceeding to remove several sections of the policy. Please don't edit policy pages disruptively. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied from user talk)

Please don't disrupt WP:V again. It isn't helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop exercising a unilateral veto on any changes to the wording of the content policies that you personally disagree with. My edit to WP:V is an attempt to put into the text the sort of wording that has already been discussed on the talk page. I accept it can be improved upon. I also accept that others may have ideas about how to better express things. And I am, as ever, receptive to those. But I, and others, can only consider these things if you discuss the issues raised on the talk page. Yet another veto without explanation as to what you see as being wrong with the edit per se is only going to either

o left a note explaining things on the talk page - allowing for free and open discussion. Discuss. Don't revert. If you revert without discussing you give the original editor two options (1) go away; (2) enter into a revert war with you. Neither are palatable. Please use talk pages, jguk 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave a note and discuss before, not after, and please discuss this on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to revert Jguk's change, but JulesH beat me to it. Jguk, your change wiped out nearly all the interwiki links.[5] I'm sure you didn't intend that, but it looks a bit like "blind reverting". If you make small changes, one at a time, and discuss them beforehand, then it's easier for others to see exactly what's happening, so that they can agree or disagree. AnnH ♫ 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)There are several problems with these merges; particularly, no guidance on when a self-published or otherwise dubious source may be used is included, just a vague warning to be cautious when using them. There are some positive aspects though; a suggestion that these rules require application of common sense is welcome, IMO, and the approach of enumerating principles by which the reliability of a source may be evaluated rather than hard & fast rules is a good one, I feel. But I don't think it's ready for including on the policy page, so I've reverted them. JulesH 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed above, and there have been discussions on other pages, about the need to apply common sense when deciding whether a particular source is reliable or not. Those pages, including the better elements of WP:RS, do identify certain concerns/questions you should be raising. There is an acceptance, at least by some above, and presumably by those who have deemed WP:RS, that prescriptive rules around this area will not work. There is also a level of acceptance that what is good out of WP:RS ought to be merged with WP:V.

My proposed text does that. It also shortens down some of the text, without omitting any of the essential points (eg we don't need to say in lots of words "largely don't use self-published texts, but hang on, there may be examples when it is appropriate to do so, so let's list those exceptions and exceptions to those exceptions", we just need to say, use common sense, scutinise objectively, and take particular care with self-published sources).

It's good to have a definition of what we mean by "reliable sources", and it's good to make clear that you need to exercise common sense. A shorter policy that covers more is an added boon, jguk 10:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on other pages are irrelevant, Jguk; if you want to make changes here, discuss them here first. Also, your proposed additions are a separate matter from your deletion of several sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, don't try to maintain a separate discussion, please. Copied from my talk page.

[jguk has redacted a comment he made on SV's user talk page that does not address the issues being discussed in this thread, and was not intended to be a comment from me on this thread. It has been redacted as it is misleading to imply otherwise.]

YOU are the one who removed sections without discussion. Stop twisting things. It is transparent and therefore pointless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll await something constructive from SlimVirgin before addressing her.

AnnH, you're right, I did not intend to wipe out the interwiki links. Sorry for that, but thankfully the benefit of working collaboratively is that others can pick up on your mistake. Thanks.

JulesH, specific guidance on when to use self-published sources is difficult - unless you go to inordinate length, or alternatively shorten it down to the application of general principles. Also, in principle, there's no reason why we should not assess self-published sources in the same way as we assess any other source. That they are self-published increases our scepticism about them, and we are more aware that they may be self-serving, but that, of itself, is not determinative of whether they are reliable. Would a sentence along those lines be an improvement?

I'm tempted to open up a temp page, so that the approach, which JulesH and others appear to welcome, and be improved upon. Once ready it can then be merged into the main policy page, jguk 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what you did before, and it made no difference. Your changes aren't helpful, because you throw the baby out with the bathwater and you're very, very aggressive about it. That's why you fail to gain support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opened up a temporary page, Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp to look at merging a definition of "reliable source" into this policy, plus rewriting the section discussing sources to better emphasise the need to use common sense and to suggest ways to tackle the issue. In the light of JulesH's comment above, and ever eager not to throw babies out of baths, I have added a bit more on self-published sources. Constructive comments and improvements would, as ever, be welcome, jguk 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That draft was firmly rejected in January/February and was moved to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Jguk's version. Please work on it there or in user space. Creating POV forks of policies, forks already rejected, isn't constructive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here's where you suggested it before. [6]
• Here's where you announce you've replaced the policy with your draft. [7]
• Here's where it was rejected. [8]
• Here's the start of the old version being restored. [9]

What happened is that very few people contributed to the new draft, but then because of the lack of objections, you took that as consensus to go ahead. But it can't work that way. If the lack of objections is based on lack of input, it means you have no consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

jguk, based on the universal reactions to your previous attempts to completely re-write editing policies, which ranged from vociferous opposition, to complete and unequivocal opposition, you should probably assume that the default view of Wikipedians is that they by default oppose any and all changes you make, unless you first get strong agreement on the policy Talk: page from many, many editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

jguk, being BOLD with policies is generally a Bad Idea. Like contentious articles, the best course of action - the only one which is likely to succeed at all - is to discuss changes, gain consensus for the changes, then, and only then, incorporate the changes. In this case, silence does not denote consent. It denotes non-acceptance, non-support. In your case, the changes had already been discussed and rejected, so there may have been no percieved need to re-reject that which had already failed to gain support. Must we re-state objections each and every time you propose the same changes? This is disruptive. If you have something new, feel free to make a case. Otherwise, please give it (and us) a rest. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp - working draft to merge WP:Reliable sources to WP:V

In the light of the above discussions, I have started a working draft on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp with the following aims:

• To import a definition of "reliable sources" into the WP:V policy (to make it clear what we mean by the term now WP:RS has fallen by the wayside).
• To stress, in the discussion on sources on the project page, that common sense needs to be applied to the definition.
• To outline the sort of questions people should ask themselves when considering whether a source is reliable.
• Where possible, to shorten the text without losing any of the concepts behind the current version of the policy.

Constructive comments are welcome on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/temp, jguk 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm noting here that Jguk is conducting discussions about this here, on my talk page, on his talk page, on the village pump, on the WP:ATT talk page, and is now proposing to discuss it on the draft talk page. This is what happened last time too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• So how about we move all those discussions to the WP:ATT talk page? (Radiant) 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose we move Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp to User:jguk/Verifiability/temp, where he can work in isolation to his heart's content. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's as sensible as suggesting we move Wikipedia:Attribution to User:SlimVirgin/Attribution, jguk 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really. The /temp page is basically written by one person and has no talk page, whereas the attribution page has seen hundreds of edits and comments from a plethora of users. I don't think it's wise to discard all of that; perhaps Jguk could make some changes to WP:ATT to address his concerns? (Radiant) 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • To be more specific, WP:ATT has been worked on by over 60 editors, with comments on the Talk: page by over 110 editors. In addition jguk editing WP:ATT would be a bad idea; instead he should suggest any proposed changes on the Talk: page, as WP:ATT is pretty stable now, and jguk's personal views on what the content policies should say rarely coincide with either what they currently say, or what other Wikipedians think they should say. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I find that comment not very nice; you're basically implying a personal attack, while Jguk is only trying to help. (Radiant) 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
            • We've been through this before with Jguk many, many times. His proposals don't get support, but he installs them anyway, engages in revert wars to retain them, gives up eventually, rinse and repeat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I haven't had much prior interaction with either of you but wouldn't it be easier if you'd both cooperate and edit the same page to reach a compromise? Incidentally I would like to see a link or two about these allegations you make. (Radiant) 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, SlimVirgin's latest assertion is that WP:NOT and WP:Copyrights are not content policies. Mine is. Which assertion do you think most people would agree with? jguk 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP:ATT page started out as being written by one person and with no talk page. That's the same with any new proposal.

The reason I am not participating fully in trying to improve ATT is that I find it impossible to deal with SlimVirgin. And I can see others treated similarly to me. Say something on the talk page, it is dismissed out of hand without discussion. Make an amendment to the proposed policy (together with a discussion), it is reverted (without discussion). I don't see any ability to collaborate of WP:ATT. It is flawed, though not irredeemably so, but every attempt to remove those flaws is met with a brick wall. SlimVirgin no doubt has much to add by being there - but she also needs to stand back - allow others their say - allow the page to go off in directions she does not initially approve of, knowing that if others disagree with them, then they will change.

At present WP:ATT is a poor substitute for the current version of WP:V. At present I feel I and others are effectively prevented from trying to improve it - and saying I shouldn't edit it is further proof of this apparent commitment to exclude editors from discussions. Go down this route, come what may you will not have buy-in.

Also despite what I say above, if there really is going to be a new commitment to collaboration (for others as well as just for me), I am eager to help develop good, working, easy to understand policies. This objective is common to a lot of people - I just hope this commonality of purpose can be used to WP's advantage, jguk 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that at least a third of the present content of the WP:V page is Jguk's (or imported here by Jguk); at least another third was written (or imported here) by SlimVirgin. No other wikipedians had such substantial contributions to this policy page as these two authors.

So, again, as I did at WP:VPP I'd ask you both to bury your hatchets, and collaborate. It has worked before: not as smooth as one would have liked, and that is my only request: make it a bit smoother this time. We all know that in the end this crucial Wikipedia policy is going to have (under whatever name) substantial contributions of both of you. --Francis Schonken 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What you say isn't correct. This was Jguk's version of the policy, which he inserted on January 31. This is the current version. If you read them, rather than glance, you'll see they have very little in common. Jguk did not write this policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a personal issue, it's a policy issue. There's no "hatchet to bury". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

hatchet? Sorry, but the impression I get is that Jguk (talk • contribs) needs to cool off a bit, and collaborate with other editors. This is not a SlimVirgin vs Jguk issue. It is Jguk vs "anyone-that-does-not-agree-with-Jguk-style-and-opinions" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Jossi. I have been frustrated - but the frustration has been at a palpable failure to discuss issues from SlimVirgin. It's the feeling that you are against a brick wall. Open a thread on a talk page, SV ignores you until you edit the project page - in which case it is "revert" without explanation. Ask for an explanation addressing the issues, there is a response that addresses none of the reasons why the content of the edit is wrong. Open a new thread on a talk page, get it swamped with comment posted to user talk pages about requests, and her refusal, to discuss the issue at hand. This is not just my opinion, two other WPians, who I do not know, have freely commented that she is responding to my comments by making ad hominem remarks (ie by ignoring the issue and playing the man not the ball).

It is not unreasonable to request that someone disagreeing with an edit explains why they consider the content of that edit to be inappropriate. It is also not unreasonable to request that someone explains why they have made a particular edit. And that's what I want, constructive discussion on talk pages. Only then can we collaborate. My fear is that that is not happening. Not just with me, but with many others too. jguk 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I just looked through your contribs. Seems to me that you are in a solo campaign targeting each and every policy. May I suggest you take a short break from editing policy pages? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As you've looked through my contributions, you'll be aware of the emphasis I've placed on wishing to discuss issues and my attempts to get SV (in particular) to do just that. If you look through SV's contributions today, you will note that there are many reverts, and many comments on talk pages - none discussing content until she apparently ran up against 3RR. Things would be so much better if we could just discuss issues first rather go through all this nonsense first - such as SV's most recent revert, which is of Centrx's change of "challenged" to "disputed". Personally I'm indifferent on the issue, but Centrx clearly thinks the change is an improvement. Surely SV owes it to him at least to say why she disagreed. I though WP:CIVIL came out against reversion without explanation?

I have already told Centrx why I disagree. Must I now repeat myself two or three times on different pages? The reason is that "challenged" is the word used across several policies, and disputed means something different. I can challenge an edit without disputing the accuracy of it. But you can't dispute an edit; you can only dispute something in it: a fact, the truth of it, whatever. It's a question of good writing. Must every single syllable be explained several times? No, of course not. You're out to cause trouble, that's all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

jguk, it's pretty clear you decide you want to make major changes to a policy, you sometimes announce in some obscure place that you plan to do so, and then, when you get no response (because no-one has noticed, or because you never bothered to mention it in the first place), you come in and delete half the policy and/or change its entire meaning. You've done this time and again, and the response you get is completely unsurprising. SlimVirgin just happens to watch policy pages, and is often the first to notice it. This isn't about anyone else, so please stop trying to shed blame. This is about you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop this absurd spinning. I didn't "run into 3RR" until an hour ago, and it was you who turned up to delete half the policy without discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted before, and as Jayjg should be aware, I am not seeking to change policy, merely to present it better - which I understood to be his and SV's aim too. Nor did I delete policy - as noted before, I reworded to make it clearer to follow. If I failed in that aim, say where - don't just attack me in the hope I'll go away. I explained my aims first at 9 o'clock today at the top of the preceding thread, and then again at 12 o'clock today at the top of this thread. Do you agree with these aims, if not, why not - and what would you have in their place? If you agree with the aims, how would you better things to meet them?

Stop this bizarre dishonesty. You deleted half the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still, despite asking many, many times, asking what the disagreement is over the suggested amendments. Saying something is a "major change" time and time again is just not helpful. Explicitly, what do you disagree with about my suggestion on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp? Are there aspects you agree with? How would you improve the text?

Please discuss these issues. Discussing possible amendments and different viewpoints is an integral part of collaboration, and collaboration, when it works, is what makes WP great. jguk 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SV. Please address the merits of the edit. Saying "you deleted half the policy" means nothing. It doesn't discuss the merits of the edit at all. Your claim isn't actually true, but even if it were does not address whether it might be a good thing to do. The underlying policy is not changed in the wording. Have you even read it yet? Nothing permitted now would be prohibited if my suggested rewording was accepted. And nothing prohibited now would be permitted. Instead of shouting to the rooftops, could you do me the courtesy of actually standing back and considering what I am saying? I'm sure some bits you'll find you actually do agree with - or at least the principle behind it - even if others you disagree with. And at no point have you even commented on the many words I actually added to the policy. jguk 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin's concerns probably significantly overlap mine: your version offers no specific guidance on how to deal with the problematic sources mentioned in the current policy, particularly sources with a "poor reputation for fact checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" or self-published sources. You merely point out that asking whether this is the case is important, but don't say what should be done if it is the case. Your version is great for somebody who has a reasonably good idea how to deal with sources already, is mature enough to understand the importance of using good sources, and is making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia in an NPOV-compliant way. Unfortunately, not all editors live up to this ideal all of the time. The existing policy, with its specific rules, makes it easier to deal with these cases than your version would, which would probably require a lot of talk-page argument to resolve whether any individual source was a reasonable one to use. Yes, the current rules go too far in the opposite direction, IMO, but we shouldn't overreact and throw them out completely. JulesH 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of content policies

See Wikipedia talk:List of policies. (Radiant) 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (I'm trying to move the discussion to one place, that seems prudent. Sorry for the confusion) (Radiant) 16:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability of television episodes

I am unsure of the specific impalementation of this policy in the case of television episodes. In an article about a specific television episode, is information about that episode not implicitly verifiable? If not, how is the episode supposed to be sourced?

The nature of this question is that Hell Comes to Quahog has been the location of a voracious edit war this past hour or so, dealing with the fact that one editor believes that content in the Notes and Cultural References sections of the article (pre edit-war version) is in violation of WP:V (among other policies). I am not a participant in the edit war, though I am trying to bring it to a resolution.

Thanks in advance for any help! –Dvandersluis 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Any television episode, broadcast by say one of the top ten broadcasters, is also stored on video which may be purchased. Sometimes you can also get these on loans from libraries. So it is inherently verifiable. Wjhonson 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but there may be a gap of several months between the first broadcast of a television show, and the availability of videotapes or DVDs for purchase. The show might be considered unverifiable during this time gap. --Gerry Ashton 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that gap can be closed almost instantly at times with itunes and other websites offering episodes within minutes/hours after the initial airingGrande13 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Gerry Ashton is also being rather USA centric there - if the programme is popular then it is likely to be transmitted in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. within a few weeks to a few months of the first broadcast (e.g. Lost, series three started on 4 October in the US and will start on 19 November in the UK), allowing for verification. Also currently in the UK the most popular programmes (Doctor Who, Torchwood, Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives) are often repeated within a week of transmission, again allowing one to verify claims. --Neo 20:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy is one television shows page that should include all these cultural references and notes as some of the material used on the show is so abstract not everyone understands it ,so the episode page can be a point of reference and explanation. It is not a retelling of the joke, but more information the the reference in the joke. Since Family Guy is weak on plot, these cultural references are necessary. So basically the note and cultural references should remain 216.177.121.212 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem using works of fiction as a source, provided that the edits conform to the established policies and guidelines. Some of the relevant sections are quoted below.

WP:WAF - a guideline, tells us "Wikipedia policy on verifiabilityrequires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves."

WP:WAF-- "This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source."

WP:OR a policy, states-- "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

WP:OR-- "An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

So as long as you are only describing something that happens in the episode and you follow the directions at WP:CITE for citing the source in the references section, then you may use the episode itself as a source. If however, you want to say that 1 work is an allusion/homage/parody of or to another work, then you must find a reliable 3rd party source that has already published that connection and cite that as a source. If you watch an episode and think that scene A looks like scene B in another show, you might be correct but to add that to the encyclopedia (absent a reliable 3rd party source that has already published that connection) is considered original research and is subject to removal. Please stop by the trivia cleanup project and check out what we are doing. Also, please check out Make Love, Not Warcraft which has been cleaned of cruft and is now being reviewed as a Good Article candidate. Cheers. L0b0t 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the argument being made for family guy should have an exception, as it is consists of a much higher percentage of cultural references and callbacks and the format used for south park might not be produce the same benefits for an episode of family guy216.177.121.212 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Family Guy should not have special treatment. We're not an episode guide, and we're not here to help people understand the jokes in Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While family guy does need to be cleaned up quite a bit, I also believe that some sort of cultural reference section is needed so people have an easy and quick place to go to check upon a joke they that calls upon something they know nothing or little about. So while the note category should probably be fixed, the cultural references are a well used tool for deciphering some of the randomness of the show Grande13 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a verifiability issue here for things that happen in an episode. Some fairly obvious references seem to fall into a grey area for verifiability. I think the real issue here is that we need to limit the amount of these notes. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think that in general we're overdoing the "cultural references". If something is an alleged reference (e.g. this sketch contains a fish so it might be a reference to that other sketch which also contains a fish) then it's original research. Using exact quotes is an obvious reference, but many inferred subtle references may be entirely coincidental, and it's not our job to speculate. (Radiant) 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gerry you're misunderstanding what I'm stating. Every episode, broadcast by a major station, is avaliable, immediately for purchase. You call the station, ask them for a copy, pay the fifteen bucks or whatever. There is no waiting. Wjhonson 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this really apply to technical articles on facts that can be deduced logically?

I have a problem with the all-purposefulness of this "official policy"

I have a repeating problem with someone who feels he has the unquestioned right to undo any edits in a tech article where he sees no citations. And he comments his undos with the note "see WP:Verifiability".

An example: As someone who has years of experience on a specific topic, I have learned, partly from my own deductions, that certain things can be done. So I described them by adding them to an existing article. He, who has never heard (or thought) of this, undid my edit, asking me to provide a citation.

However, I can't provide a citation because it rather "new research", done by me or other with special knowledge, experience or understand. In this case, I then had to add explanations to the Talk page so others could follow my deductions to make this person realize that his undoing my edit was inappropriate.

Unfortunately, that same person has now again undone another's additions, although I fully agreed with those added statements, meaning that they were quite correct. Again, the said person removed them with the reasoning that there's no cititation to be found. Yet, more experienced people would understand that the newly added statements were correct.

On both cases it appears that the undoer is not able to comprehend the issue well, but still feels he must control it. Sure, there's also the need to educate this person that he should first ask, and only undo someone's edit after it has been discussed. But that's not my point here.

My point is: It should be made clear that this policy does not ALWAYS apply. In the cases I described, there is simply no citation to be found, yet they were correct. I do not like others to think they can question technical statements by a simple (and rather blind) reference to this policy.

Can something be done about this, please?

-- Tempel 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• It really depends on the complexity of your deduction; could you show us an example please? Basic math doesn't require a source (e.g. stating that "77 is the natural number following 76 and preceding 78, and the smallest positive integer requiring five syllables in English." is self-evident). But complex deduction that may be easy to an expert in the field could be incomprehensibly arcane to an outsider. (Radiant) 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I've now brought up the issue with the undo edit on the affected page, I might as well refer to it now from here. It's File_Allocation_Table. The two cases I meant were deductions that could be made from working with the FAT system. To someone who works with this enough, he'll simply agree that the things are what they are. In detail, these were:

• I claimed that while a common belief is that a FAT16 formatted disk can only have certain maximum number of files (that number was 512) in the root directory, it would be possible to enlarge this number at time of formatting the disk. The person did not believe this. I explained to him that the spec provides for this without explicitly stating it (but nothing disallowed it either). He found an article saying that disk always have only up to 512 files in the root dir and took this as a spec - but it's not a spec, it's only a description of what is currently usual or common. Later others added comments telling of little-known programs or options that actually made possible what I had claimed. But those were hard to come by and I had not known of them - was that reason enough to deny my statements?
• Recently, someone added a long section about how file fragmentation happens on a FAT formatted disk. What the person wrote was technically correct, I knew this from experience. Yet, there's no article explaining this. But "reading" a FAT disk would just explain it. Of course, not many people can do that. But the fact exists, and anyone with enough understanding would be able to see this. It's just not to be found in an article on the web.

I just realized that the person who undid my first edit referred also to Wikipedia:No_original_research. This he did when I argued that from reading the specification on the FAT file system, one could deduce the limitations I had described. Somehow, I had the impression he's not able to know the difference between a specification and a interpretation. He did quote the interpretation the the truth and the deduction from the spec incorrect. So, what would you suggest here? There was not quote to find to support what I had written, yet it could be deduced from a spec or by "reading" things readily available, even if they're not present as an article on the web or in another known form of publication. And the person I fought this over with simply said "you did original research and that does not belong in WP". Is he right? --Tempel 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in the first case I would simply link to the specs (I'm sure they're on the 'net somewhere?). In the second case, I would add a link to e.g. the description of Norton Speed Disk, or a different defragging tool, or if you find none, link to the spec again. The issue in the second case may also be that the language used in the explanation is overly technical; maybe the explanation needs to explain things further? HTH. (Radiant) 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of nutshell

Can we add either "question" or "challenge" to the third point of the nutshell so it reads: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to question and/or remove it." ? Harryboyles 09:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Martinp23 10:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the nutshell, it's the policy (the rest of the page being merely discussion). But the change is an improvement, jguk 15:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would posit that it is not an improvment. Unsourced info should be removed on sight, not tagged {{fact}} for months waiting to see if the editor that added it will eventually come back and follow policy. We have been, I think, far too tolerant with unsourced claims, especially in articles about fictional subjects. If one can't be bothered to provide a source then one's edits should be excised. The encyclopedia is filling up with original Research, speculation, and inference of connections based on facts not in evidence. Absent reliable sources, Wikipedia ceases to be a general purpose encyclopedia and becomes a blog. L0b0t 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

it should be removed eventually, but not instantly unless it is pure nonesense, maybe the period for which the tag exists should be a week/month so there is ample time to find proper sources or to integrate the material in some other format. If the item cant be sourced within that time period then it can be removed no questions asked. 67.184.160.211 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, you either come correct with a sourced edit, or you don't edit the encyclopedia. The editorial standards at Wikipedia are VERY lax and if an editor is unwilling to abide by the few simple policies we do have, then their contributions are not welcome. Cheers. L0b0t 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

that rule could be fine for new info to be added, but for information that is currently already listed, then there should be a period to find sourcing after its tagged 67.184.160.211 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

Regulars to this page may be interested in this proposal. Please comment on the talk page there. jguk 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first sentence

I'd like to amend the first sentence from

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

to

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's content policies. It is complemented by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

as I believe it's more important to emphasise that these policies work hand-in-hand rather than the number of them. jguk 13:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's particularly worth noting that WP:NOT is also a content policy, but isn't on this list, yet the current phrasing implies that the list is complete. JulesH 09:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

These three policies are our three content policies, so I do not see the need to change the wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is one of our fundamental policies, but it is not really a content policy. This formulation has had the support of the community for quite a while, and I do not see what is prompting the need for that change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more a case of stressing which policies are complementary. WP:NOT, WP:Copyrights and WP:GFDL are all key content policies - indeed any content not complying with these should be removed. And any discussion of what constitutes a content policy would need to consider them. I don't see anyone in the community disagreeing with that - realistically. They're just different types of policy to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which are complementary. It is the complementary nature of the policies that is key here. jguk 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The understanding that there are three main content policies V, NOR, and V is a long-standing one. That is all I am saying. If you want to change that, you'll need to do a lot of convincing around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the important thing to note is that V, NOR and NPOV complement each other. They work hand-in-hand. Hence the suggested revised wording. jguk 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The classification of all policies, at Wikipedia:List of policies, has the three main content policies in the "Content and Style" category, along with four other (lesser) policies. "Legal and copyright" is a separate category.

Perhaps it would suffice to change this policy so that the first sentence reads three main content policies rather than three content policies? John Broughton | Talk 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the key point that the policies work hand-in-hand? If so, we should stress that, not how many similar policies there are. jguk 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As the suggested rewording does not dispute the number of content policies (eg by suggesting a different number), which appears to be the concerns discussed I above, I'm tempted to introduce it into the text (absent further comments here to the contrary). jguk 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As said above, these three policies are our three main content policies, so I do not see the need to change the wording besides adding "main" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you see the number as so important? Indeed, more important than saying that they need to be considered together rather than in isolation? That's what's puzzling me. jguk 07:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the change. The number isn't important and it's accuracy is debatable (it doesn't matter if it is accurate or not, this debate proves it's debatable), so it might as well be removed. --Tango 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change this, you will need to argue the case also at WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as these use exactly the same wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It should only be argued once. I'll put a note on those talk pages pointing to this discussion. --Tango 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The three are so tied together they should be made into a single policy. Efforts to join at least two of them is ingoing. The point is that they are tightly interconnected; not that they are "main". As they are not more important than the policies which say to stay legal by not invading the privacy of nonpublic persons (BLP), not breaking IP laws (mainly copyright), and not defaming (people and corporations). WAS 4.250 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefuly we can soon get enough support for WP:ATT that does already an admirable job of combining V, NOR and RS into one sensible policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a big deal, but I note that in general our policy (and guideline) pages don't start with "this is one of our 5 legal policies" or "this page is one of our 7 spam guidelines", so I don't quite see why this one should. An important reason for having policy pages is educating novice users. Thus, listing related policies is very useful, and stating exactly how many policies we have doesn't really help them. (Radiant) 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibiting "self-published" sources?

Hi.

Does "self-published" sources include publishing your research in an academic journal? Also, why the prohibition, anyway? Is it because there is no way to check the accuracy of such things, at least not in a Wikipedia-compatible way (because Wikipedia is NOT a peer reviewer for reference sources, Wikipedia is just an ENCYCLOPEDIA)? 70.101.147.74 03:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you publish a paper in an academic journal, then the owner of the journal is the publisher, so unless you own the journal, that isn't self-publishing. The prohibition is meant to keep people from using Wikipedia to publish crackpot science, fringe historical analysis, and other such material. Since most professional publishers have some level of fact checking or other quality review, this limitation provides some minimal level of quality assurance for Wikipedia. dryguy 15:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It also limits the use of advertisements, press releases, company web sites and so on. While these things may be valid supplementary material, the core of an article about a person or organization should be third-party reports, not the unchecked claims of the subject or affiliated persons (first party) nor of anyone with a potential adversarial relationship to the subject (second party). The reasoning is exactly the same: we rely on others who are better qualified and better equipped to check the facts. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Self-published sources can be used alongside other third party sources, with proper attribution of the self-published sources. Press releases if properly attributed, can present the organization's viewpoints on certain aspects that may be needed for NPOV. Remember that NPOV asks editors to describe significant viewpoints, and these include the viewpoints of the subject of the article. On the other hand, if there are no third party sources on a subject, then most probably the subject does not deserve an article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely why I want to make sure that phrasing remains clear in the proposed WP:ATT. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet WP:ATT still includes that absurd (and thankfully oft-ignored) requirement that if we use a primary source, that source has to be intelligible to someone knowing absolutely nothing about the subject. If we're going for clarity, and common sense, we need to make clear that any reliable source can be used to substantiate claims. The nature of the source is a factor taken into consideration when deciding if it is reliable, not a determinant of whether we should use it. jguk 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen, 99% of the time, the primary/secondary advice is right on target. Professional historians are taught to use primary sources because they are supposed to conduct original research, which Wikipedia eschues. OR is something that should be done by trained professionals or under professional guidance: Don't try this on Wikipedia. If you can use a primary source in a way that does not constitute OR, then you are either using it to support a reliable secondary source's interpretation (acceptable) or its interpretation does not require special expertise. There's no third option. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points, if I may. First, it is perfectly reasonable for a specialist writing on Wikipedia to deduce from a primary source information that any specialist in that field would deduce. That, of itself, is not original research since there is nothing original about it. Second, although the approach stated on WP:ATT and WP:NOR has some validity when talking about contentious issues where there is significant research and debate being conducted, it is far too rigorous for non-contentious points, particularly in non-academic areas. It's reasonable, for example, to use a first-hand account of a sports match written in a newspaper as a reliable source for what happened in that game. It's also reasonable to use an official communiqué from a summit as evidence of what was concluded at that summit, even if it is couched in technical jargon. Rigour has its place - sometimes we need to be as rigorous as &*!@ - particularly in our more academic articles - but at other times we can accept that for low-impact, non-contentious information, lower quality sources are ok. jguk 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all Wikipedia-vetted specialists can do as you suggest. There's just one problem: Wikipedia does not vet specialists, so the set of editors who can validly do that is empty. If the specialist can make his reasoning apparent to enough editors to establish consensus that the reasoning is straightforward and obviously correct, then specialist knowledge is not absolutely required. It's helpful, but not essential. As a case in point, the legal articles benefit greatly from the input of legal specialists to distinguish rationes decidendi from obiter dicta, but lots of persons other than legal technicians are sufficiently skilled in close reading to appreciate and evaluate the results. Moreover, the conclusions can be checked in secondary authority, which answer to secondary sources in historiography. This is not a matter of disresepecting experts, but of not accepting unverifiable claims of expertise and going with the genuine, published experts. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper account of a sports match is, for Wikipedia purposes, sufficiently separated from the event that it is not what we mean by a primary source, unless there is a serious issue of bias or culture. Consider some of the unfair and unreasonable things that were written about Jackie Robinson at the time. I agree that the terminology breaks down, because an historian would consider it a primary source, but I have lost that point repeatedly, and think that it would be better to explain in a FAQ than argue further. As for the official communiqué, using them for the bare facts of who was in attendance is clearly permitted. On the other hand, any official description of what was accomplished, unless a signed protocol, needs interpretation. What do we do with, "A frank exchange of views and productive dialogue on core values?" We all know that probably means a verbal row, yet we can't rely on "common knowledge" to do that. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What if your self-founded, self-owned publisher becomes a very big, trustworthy and reputable company? 170.215.83.4 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert West wrote that is OK to use a primary source in WP, provided " its interpretation does not require special expertise." This is not quite true. It's perfectly OK if the reader will need special expertise to interpret a passage that is a direct quote or close paraphrase of a primary source; it is only if the editor is using specialist expertise to interpret the source that there is a problem. Also note that when editors discuss a passage on a talk page, it is not unusual for the editors to have specialist knowledge, and the conversation may very well be unintelligible to a reader chosen at random. --Gerry Ashton 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Talk pages are not encyclopedia space, so are rather beside the point: one cannot discuss whether to use a source and be fully within NOR/V/NPOV. In any case, I thought there was no ambiguity that we are talking about editor-supplied interpretations. Readers are always free to interpret anything. Of course, in some cases inclusion of the uninterpreted primary-source content would violate NPOV, but that is another matter. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that when discussing whether an article passage correctly represents the primary source it is drawn from, the editors discussing the passage are likely to use their specialist knowledge. It would seem Robert West is telling us that a consensus of the editors that the passage agrees with the source is insufficient; there should be a consensus of the editors that any randomly chosen reader could see that the passage agrees with the source. --Gerry Ashton 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are four basic cases. I consider the minutes of the Wannsee Conference as the source in each case.

1. The editors make no interpretive claims, and none are required. Example: The minutes are cited as the source for attendees, etc. This is not a problem, since minutes as such are within common experience. If we have another source that says Heydrich was late for one meeting, we can expect most readers to understand that minutes often fail to reflect tardyness.
2. The editors make no interpretive claims, and some are required. Example: The minutes are quoted to the effect that "forced emigration" was the goal. This is improper: a non-specialist might not realize this is euphemism.
3. The editors make interpretive claims on their own. Example: The euphemistic language is exposed without secondary source. This is improper: a reliable source is needed for such a major claim.
4. The editors cite a number of secondary sources on the nature of the euphemisms involved, and use these to interpret the primary source. This is not a problem, as the sources for the claim are reliable and secondary.

With which of the above is Gerry Ashton disagreeing? Robert A.West (Talk) 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The question in my mind is when does an allowable paraphrase become a disallowed interpretation (assuming the paraphrase is created by a WP editor and is not taken from a secondary source). I don't see anything in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference that is apt to generate grey-area paraphrases, but the problem could easily occur in technical articles. For example, text from an old published lab notebook is paraphrased, but units are converted into modern units. The editors discuss it on the talk page, and a concensus forms that the conversions are correct, so the paraphrase is OK. The editors who frequent the talk page can do the most complex unit conversions in their sleep. But, the conversion is beyond the skill of many Wikipedia readers, so perhaps the conversion is contrary to the Verifiability policy. --Gerry Ashton 02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One does not need to be a specialist to do unit conversions. Any reasonably bright eighth-grader science student should be able to do them. Now, some Wikipedians lack that level of skill, but enough have it that we have a reasonable expectation that there are hordes of editors and readers who remember dimensional analysis and can check the work. Now, I understand that there is a gray area -- there always is. What if the reasoning involved an integration by parts? To how many Wikipedians is it obvious how Bayes theorem applies to Democratic peace theory? The last is not common enough to salvage such an observation from being OR. I am not sure which side of the line I would place the integral: it would probably depend on whether the math project could be expected to take a look. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, becuase that might allow bias on the part of the "expert interpreter", pontentially leading to a breach of WP:NPOV? 170.215.83.4 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Or, he might not do the work correctly and just be flat-out wrong. A published source will have been double-checked by someone competent. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • What do you mean that he is "flat-out wrong"? I thought that statements need not be true, it even says so on WP:V. Any clarification here? 170.215.83.4 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By "double-checked" we can only say "it says what it says". We cannot repeat the analysis or experiment that led to it saying what it says. Verification means, going to that source and checking that it actually says what it says, nothing more. "Flat-out wrong" is not something we do here. We *can* however use conflicting sources to show that some fact is in conflict. We cannot present results of our own experiments to show a conflict. We *can* use sources, not experiments, to show that there is a conflict. Wjhonson 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBKramer's edit

In the subsection WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) JBKramer added the following sentence:

However, for articles that are about content that was published first and even exclusively on blogs, linking to the specified blogs is not only acceptable, but practically a requirement.

I feel this is overly broad. For the most part, content that has been exclusively published in blogs should not have a Wikipedia article about it. --Gerry Ashton 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I reverted. Apparently, the concern was over the Rather/Bush papers affair, where blogs played an acknowledged role. Once secondary sources start analyzing blog reports, I can't see any reason to treat them less well than other primary sources. The only risk is that the blogger will modify his blog to emphasize his role, and that is not such a huge risk. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I edited the policy to what appeared to be strong consensus, to which I deferred. JBKramer 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw no discussion here of those issues. What consensus? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It was clear from the results of the RFC on killian documents that I misunderstood policy to prevent blogs as being used as sources. If it turns out that I accurately understood policy, then I suggest there are a number of individuals responding to RFCs that are not remotely versed in policy. JBKramer 03:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is a very specific case. There is no need to change policy to accommodate exceptions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And not much of an exception, either. The blog claims formed the basis for research by journalists, and were verifiably cited, IIRC. Wikipedia is relying on the confirming research moreso than the blogs. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think 6 or 7 posts over a holiday weekend constitute a sufficient concensus to change the policy. Should we discuss whether "stories that broke on blogs, then moved to MSM" (the Killian documents and Mark Foley scandal pages are fine examples) need a specific discussion, and whether it should be on WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:ATT? TheronJ 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big issue is. As soon as MSM picked it up, the blog became a primary source supporting a secondary source, and we have rules for using those. If something can come in under either of two theories, treat it less restrictively, not more. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:NOT a blog and a directory. If you want to comment on blog entries, comment on the blog's comment page, not on the Wikipedia (and opinionated comments are just about all you can make if all you have as a reference ("exclusively") is the blog, so these comments would be "by definition" totally and irredemably unverifiable and POV, so also unsuitable for inclusion by those as well.). 170.215.83.4 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenged

ElectricEye, not everything that is unreferenced is likely to be challenged. That 2 plus 2 is 4 is not likely to be challenged. The phrase implies that a degree of common sense is needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, but common sense without presenting a reliable source is original research. ^_^ In my opinion, everything can be sourced and if things arent they should be sourced or simply erased. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but it is neither consensus, nor sensible. By the very nature of human discourse, a few tidbits will always slip through uncited. Mostly, they will not even be noticed. It isn't original research to condense a list of offspring into "Five sons and four daughters." Wikipedians can count, add, subtract and note that if Paris is the capital of France, it is certainly in France. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No need to tell me this, I already know it: it's common sense. I'm talking about something else. --ElectricEye (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

EE, if we were going to delete every uncited sentence, we'd have to delete most of every article. By all means start the process and we'll see how you get on. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (that's a joke by the way, just in case ...) ;-D

Hehe, I've seen that joke before! --ElectricEye (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fast forward: User gets banned for vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would WP:AGF if any editor removed all unsourced listings of Prominent figures in some the Somali clan articles, for example. Which is part of the basis for my coming here and bringing this up. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Awwww...my money was on WP:POINT. Rats! Robert A.West (Talk) 06:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How much money? =) --ElectricEye (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Somali clans where they start listing Prominent figures. You'd think common sense says to remove the unverified information to the talk page for discussion, verification and the results written into the article. Not the other way around. --ElectricEye (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a judgment call as to whether disputed items are removed from the text and taken to the talk page, or kept in the text until after someone is given an opportunity to provide their citation. The only exception is if the claim relates to a living person or is otherwise highly controversial (ie damage could occur because of a mistake). Different WPians prefer different approaches. Pick whichever one suits you best.

Just remember that the aim is to keep valid information in WP, and this means encouraging the citing of reliable sources. The way that encouragement is given is not so important. jguk 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jguk. I'll bring this up with some other editors who seem to be watching these articles and see what they think we should do. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused by change

I haven't been following this closely, but I see that the following change has been made: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge or remove it." Can someone give a short, clear summary of why this change was made? It seems quite odd to me. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems odd. Some Wikipedians, particularly for less controversial claims, prefer to leave information in the text but challenge it on the talk page (perhaps with adding a "citation needed" message in the text too). My understanding is that action, provided it is done in good faith, gives the obligation on editors wishing to retain material to justify it. The old text covers this situation. The revision doesn't. jguk 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

seeking to challenge is an odd way to put it, I think. More proper would be not on those challenging it or seeking to remove it. Putting a {{fact}} tag into an article IS a challenge to whatever material is tagged. (And I support reversing the change, with slightly clearly language.) John Broughton | Talk 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding confusion by making language clearer

There's one section of this page that has long been a bugbear of mine - largely because it is so confusing. Those used to teaching people or taking people through new topics will know that once you have confused someone on a key concept, it takes a lot to get them unconfused. Much better to lay down what you mean in a clear, unambiguous logical format first.

The passage I don't like is:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

The confusing bit is the "not truth". It seems weird to state upfront that WP does not care about truth. Of course, that's not what it means, but then there's nothing other than the "not truth" bit, in bold font, that a new reader has to work on to understand what we mean. It's no surprise that even those who defend keeping a reference to the point in the policy freely admit that many WPians are confused on the point, and no mistake that it is listed as the most frequently asked question on WP:ATT/FAQ.

We really should address this confusion, and after much thought, I think I have a formula that has a fair chance of succeeding. The revised text (absent bolding) would be:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. It is not sufficient for something to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source.

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

I reckon that this covers the key point of the "not truth" bit, and yet, by explaining it rather than stating it as a stark statement, means that there would be little confusion. jguk 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed already many a times. The formulation of "Verifiability, not truth" has been there for a long time and it is designed to make the point across. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what it has been designed to do. I'm pointing out the quite obvious issue that it patently fails to get the right point across, and suggesting a way to put that point across that is clear. jguk 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like this, as a compromise? (I've tinkered with the last sentence, too.)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not sufficient for something to be true; you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source. This is particularly true for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; without a source, it is likely to be removed.

-- John Broughton | Talk 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale has to come as soon as the concept of "not truth" is introduced. Otherwise, you start by introducing confusion. A slight reordering of what you suggest (and either removing the bold font or putting the first two clauses in bold too) could achieve this (although I think my initial suggestion is better still):

It is not sufficient for something to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This is particularly true for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged; without a source, it is likely to be removed.

jguk 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd reword the first two sentences, for better flow/grammar, and change a word in the penultimate sentence and punctuation in the final sentence -- all tweaks, admittedly:

It is not sufficient for something to be true -- you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to confirm that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This is particularly true for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged: without a source, it is likely to be removed.

But I think you're going to run into trouble with this because the core concept - threshold - is in the second sentence, and I think a lot of poeple will argue that it should remain in/as the first sentence -- John Broughton | Talk 15:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My original wording addresses this point:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. It is not sufficient for something to be true, you need to demonstrate that it is true by providing a reliable source.

"Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

jguk 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal links to third party sources

See also previous discussion Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/archive8#Explicitly say Wikipedia articles cannot serve as references for other articles and Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive10#"Note: Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources"

I think this issue needs to be discussed further because it has been raised in the debate taking place at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles.

Using internal links to another article which contain the sources for a statment is very common in Wikipedia articles. An example given in the earlier discussion was let us suppose that there is an article called Ten highest mountains in Africa and that, that list had been derived from 100 sources, with a detailed analysis of why those particular peaks have been chosen for the Wikipedia list. The current wording of this plolicy implies that all 100 sources need to be included in every article which mentions the list of 10 highest mountains in Africa. Placing every reference in every article for every Wikipedia link used as a source becomes a real maintenance issue: suppose that the sources for the list changes, then it would be necessary to edit all the subsidiary articles which use the list as well as the list itself. In day to day editing of Wikipedia articles, people are willing to accept statements like "mountain xyz is the fourth highest mountain in Africa", because they are willing to follow the link to the parent article for the sources. Only if the link article (parent article) does not have adequate sources are they likely to demand under this policy that the statement in the child article contain a third party source for verification. I think that this policy needs changing to reflect this because many/most articles rely to a lesser or greater extent on this premise.

There is of course a limit to how many nested links one should have to follow to find third party sources. I think that only a single link should be allowed, otherwise there is a danger of recursion where a circular link is created with no third party source cited for a disputed fact.

Some article types which rely very heavily on the use of links providing sources are:

• Wikipedia:Summary style (this includes many small stubs)
• Wikipedia:Timeline
• Wikipedia:List
• Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

If this policy is taken at face value then all disimbaguation pages need third party sources, unless one is willing to interpret the phrases: 2 Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.. 3 The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it. to mean, as they do in practice, that an internal link can be used to provide reliable sources.

To stop pedants using WP:V as a club (and wasting a lot of time on reverts and talk page discussions), I think that it is necessary to include in this policy a statement, that reflects how Wikipedia links are already used, that third party sources can be provided by in-line links to other Wikipedia articles that already contain adequate third party sources.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the intention of the statement that Wikipedia can't be used as a source. I always consider this kind of thing as "including references by reference", so to speak. But what we can't do is take one unsourced article and use it to back up another one; that just wouldn't work, and is what (I believe) the wording in the policy was intended to prevent. JulesH 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think JulesH is correct. WP:V has to be applied using common sense. A Wikipedia article cannot, of itself, be a source for another Wikipedia article - but it can be a useful reference for a list, say, provided the Wikipedia article being linked to clearly references the information being used in the article being linked from. If Philip, or someone else, can think of revised wording that makes this clear, then I'd support adding it to the policy page, if not, I'm inclined to leave it. jguk 13:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

DAB pages, lists and redirects are commonly held verifiable if they point to properly-sourced articles. Redirects never have sources. This is less a matter of WP sourcing WP than of a distinction between entities in article space and actual articles. Articles written in summary style are articles and tend to rely on the constituent articles, but again, they are not intended as stand-alone entities. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with the addition of "Reliable sources can be provided by an in-line link to another Wikipedia article that already contain adequate third-party sources" into the policy box.

Although true, I don't think it is as essential as the other three points already in the box. Plus, some will inevitably misunderstand it to mean that it is uniformly desirable to have internal links as sources.

I wouldn't be so concerned, however, if the text were removed from the policy box and placed later down in the discussion of the policy. jguk 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a numbered item that encouraged providing a reliable source by linking to another Wikipedia article that has the source. With the specific exceptions of dab pages and articles written in WP:Summary style, this is a generally bad practice, because there is no guarantee that the source will remain in the target article. It also encourages laziness, because the target article may not use the source accurately. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I should add that I would be flabbergasted to learn that there was consensus for the addition. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right... "This statement is referenced somewhere in the history of some other article" is a terrible way to reference something. Jkelly 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's discussion of this up above at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Internal_links_to_third_party_sources. Can we somehow merge the discussions? jguk 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have boldly moved the section referenced to become the parent heading of this discussion. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To say "this is a generally bad practice, because there is no guarantee that the source will remain in the target article." is no more valid than saying that linking to on line sources is a bad idea because there is no guarantee that the source will remain on line. Are you really saying that all the articles on Wikipedia which rely on in-line links need to be source. The place to challenge for more sources is in the in-line link page not on the sentence that contains the in-line link. After all that will fix the source problem on two or more pages simultaneously.

The claim that in-line links to other Wikipedia articles are not sufficient is a massive move away from what is currently accepted in the day to day editing of Wikipedia articles. See for example the list I put higher up the page, are you claiming that all those type of articles should be removed if they do not contain reliable sources? Also what about the practical issue of the overheads on maintenance? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You previously asked for a detailed discussion, and I gave it to you in the section below. I am not sure what more you want.

As for policy. you have it backwards. Wikipedia policy is and has been that a Wiki (any Wiki) is not a reliable source. The main reason has always been as I stated -- in contrast to most sites, a Wiki is subject to arbitrary change without notice. The second reason is that there is no guarantee that any Wikipedia article has accurately represented its references. If the editor of article A goes to the trouble of checking the references in article B, he may as well go ahead and include them in A. The only reason to cite article A is to save the trouble of reference-checking in the first place.

As for the four special cases you cite, and which I discuss below, the deleted phrasing did not make me think about them -- it looked to me like blanket permission to bypass verifiability for any article by reference to any other article. Followed to its logical conclusion, Wikipedia could become a daisy-chain of bad information: article A relies on article B which relies on article C which once had a dubious source but now relies on article A. Yes, there are undoubtedly thousands of articles that do this. There are also undoubtedly thousands of copyvios, instances of original research, unsourced defamatory statements about living persons and so on. The purpose of a policy page is not to describe what we do when we are at our worst and then enshrine it as acceptable practice. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the daisy-chain problem if you look at the previous discussions you will see an example I gave (Bundesland), which is why I phrased the addition the way I did: "Reliable sources can be provided by an in-line link to another Wikipedia article that already contain adequate third-party sources." as this removes the daisy-chain problem. It is also phrased in such a way that it is not the tertiary information in the Wikipedia in-line link article that is being cited, but the adequate third-party sources in the inline-link article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The five cases

There are five cases where one article might rely on another for verifiability. Some are valid, and others are bad practice. Two of the valid cases I would class as "navigational aids" rather than "articles." If the intention of the addition I reverted was to provide for the valid cases, then I think it was unfortunately phrased. In that event, it could be mentioned as a set of exception farther on down.

1. Pure navigational aids: redirects and categories. There is simply no practical way to include references, so anyone demanding we do so is being a dick.
2. Disambiguation pages. So long as they only contain enough information to find the correct article, they are really another species of navigational aid -- they certainly do not stand on their own. I would commend including references for the redlinked items, since one can hardly rely on an article that hasn't been written yet, and the reference can serve as a starting point for the article.
3. Lists and timelines. Some of these are similar to disambiguation pages; some make substantial assertions. If the information given is brief, central to the article linked and so indisputable that it is inconceivable that it would ever be superseded, then no purpose would be served by a separate reference other than to make work. Otherwise, we should insist on sources.
4. Articles written in Wikipedia:Summary style. Again, these are articles that are not intended to stand on their own. Substantial assertions, and any assertion that could conceivably be removed from the subarticle should be referenced. This is already covered.
5. Articles that should stand on their own. Such articles should never use other articles as a verifiability shortcut. I grant that we have thousands of examples of articles that do just this, but we shouldn't endorse it. There are two risks: the target article might be wrong, and the statement referenced might vanish from the target article. If it is obvious that the source cited in the target article is a good one, importing the correct source should be the work of a few moments.

Cases 1-4 are valid exceptions, although 3 and 4 are not complete exceptions. Case 5 is what I meant by "very bad practice." I have been guilty of that particular sin myself, but that does not mean that doing so improves Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a case where articles in category 5 can do this validly, and that is where the information being sourced is tangential to the subject of the article. If we have an article about a mountaineer, say, and want to say "he has climbed both Everest and K2, the two tallest mountains in the world", I think it would be acceptable to point to List of highest mountains, a well-sourced article on the subject, as a reference for this. It's highly unlikely that those sources will be removed, and even if they are it will almost certainly be because something is wrong with them. So I can't say I really understand your concerns. JulesH 11:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In the example cited, we would need a reliable source for the fact that the mountaineer climed both mountains. (Its just the sort of claim we shouldn't accept from a self-published source.) The tangential fact that Everest and K2 are the two highest mountains in the world could, IMO, pass without a citation, because the fact is trivially checked using obvious works of general reference that nearly everyone has. Its the sort of fact that is not "likely to be challenged." Using a wikilink to reinforce the point is harmless.

Now, contrast this with the case where the mountaineer helped identify the bodies from a disaster. This fact is significant to both the biography of the climber and the account of the disaster and should be well sourced in both cases. Neither article should lean on the other, because it is uncertain how each will change. As noted in the edit summary of the paragraph I reverted, there are thousands of articles that lean on other articles in this way. It is preferable to no sources, but we should not give blanket permission for it.

I have seen lots of articles that lean on other articles for sources and that should not. I have never seen an editor demand a source for a redirect, a true dab page or a list that was just a set of article pointers. The proposed paragraph seems to be solving a problem we have not seen, at the risk of exacerbating a problem we have. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert, clearly you have not been involved in the debate about Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, because it is a problem, believe me if it is not spelt out in this policy page then if that idea is implemented expect all the type of pages you have mentioned above to be flagged for deletion as they do not meet the WP:V policy. It is no good arguing as you have above that custom and guidelines (eg the above example Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links | already covered) cover it, because custom and guidelines are not policy. The policy needs adjustment to reflect the real Wikipedia world and as it stands at the moment almost all of what you say above fail the policy test of "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

Many articles are both articles in their own right, but also contain lists or are in part summary pages. Above you write "IMO, pass without a citation, because the fact is trivially checked using obvious works of general reference that nearly everyone has. Its the sort of fact that is not "likely to be challenged." Using a wikilink to reinforce the point is harmless." The trouble with this is who defines what is trivially checked out. For example the an article might state "A mercenary is an unlawful combatant." or "Napoleon Bonaparte lost the Battle of Waterloo." or "There is no positive international law banning the use of depleted uranium sabot rounds" or "Charles I was executed on January 30 1649". What is an obvious fact to someone and easy to look up in a reference that they have, is to another an obscure fact which is why they are reading the article on Wikipedia and the link provides an easy way to check the fact in a reference that they posses. This policy should reflect the everyday fact that this is how pages in wikipedia are structured using in-line links to other more detailed accounts. This article "meta:wiki is not paper" has an interesting section (Style and functionality) which say:

It is unclear if IBM's code page 437 (a character code set)
was based on the VT-220 terminal (a computer input/output
device) of DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), or if the
reverse was the case.

It is unclear if IBM's code page 437 was based on the VT220 terminal
of DEC, or if the reverse was the case. 

I think that this argument also applies to references. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ROFL. Obviously, you are talking about a different Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, because I helped start that thread, the proposal to limit it to Biographies of Living Persons is mine and the UfD is mine. Since 18 November, the proposal has contained (Revision as of 05:59, 18 November 2006 ) and still contains (Proposed_text_.231) an explicit exception (variously phrased) for the sorts of pages I covered in cases 1-3. Few summary style pages can go completely without references, so it is more a standard verifiability issue -- how many references does such an article need? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that you are aware of the problem, in which case I fail to see why you write "The proposed paragraph seems to be solving a problem we have not seen, at the risk of exacerbating a problem we have". The proposals at (Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles) seemed to have been added after I raised this issue on the talk page (88155683). But I notice that in the latest proposal [#4 (23:37, 21 November 2006 208.20.251.27)] that the wording is now "The process should not be applied to disambiguation pages or those written insummary style" The trouble with this wording is that an article may be written in summary style, but the in-line references may be to wikipedia links which do not contain any third party sources! (see for example this version of List of War Crimes (Revision as of 13:44, 21 March 2006) this is clearly unnaccptable and it does not cover summary style articles which link in-line to summary style artiles (the diasy-chain problem). The proposed wording I have suggested for this policy covers text in all article, (removing the potential problem of a policy relying on guidlines for policy statments eg "what is a summary page?") and does away with the problem of an in-line Wikipedia link pages not containin adequate third party sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, we have a number of misunderstandings here. The first and foremost is that a proposal should be responded to by major changes in existing policy. If there are defects in the proposals, or exceptions that should be made clearer, then the relevant project page is the place to address them. The second misunderstanding is confusing process (XfD or a CSD criterion) with the policy that it is meant to enforce (Verifiability). The vast majority of articles that should be deleted are not valid speedy deletions: speedies are only for the clearest cases where no discussion is required. I'll avoid going on, because the proposal is not germane to this page, and is unlikely to become policy, except maybe in the form of BLPs only. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The "SDcdfua" is only tangential to this policy page. However it highlights a problem with this policy. The experienced editors who edit this page tend to be practical experienced editors who are more than capable of making sensible judgements about when a piece of text needs a third party citation. But as experienced editors they are also immersed in the current culture of editing Wikipedia pages, and, often without realising it, they interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines with a lens which includes custom. However when it becomes clear that the wording of a policy is far removed from what is done on a day to day basis when editing pages, then I think the policy should be altered to reflect best practice. Most experienced editors accept a sentence or paragraph which uses in-line links to well sourced Wikipedia article, as reliably sourced. They are only likely to object if the sentence draws a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." or "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" that are not directly supported by the in-line links. In such a case they will demand a citation from reliable sources even if the in-line links are well sourced e.g. "The moon is a satellite of the earth and it is made of cheddar cheese". My suggested changes will not protect such sentences. But they will save the need to put in citations for such statements as "At the end of the Potsdam Conference, the Allies issued an ultimatum to Japan". Adding a sentence reflecting the wide spread acceptance of such in-line Wikipedia references into this policy will stop the need for guidlines like "SDcdfua" to add a complicated clause to put into words what is the customary interpretation by experienced editors of WP:V. This change, to bring into line the Verifiability policy with its customary interpretation, will help stop trolls and well intentioned inexperienced editors wasting everyone's time. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, err, no: I'd stick to the rationale explained in Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification.

As a reminder, one of the issues that led to me writing that essay was the birth date that used to be mentioned in the Jimmy Wales article. What happened? In short, some time ago Jimbo (himself) had (obviously copy-pasted) some autobiography in the Foundation wiki. Then, later, that content of the Foundation wiki was used as a reference for Jimbo's birthday in the Jimmy Wales article. It cost Jimbo a whole lot of trouble to get the erroneous date deleted from the Jimmy Wales article.

So, no, internal links should not play a role in the Verification mechanism of main namespace content, apart from the obvious exceptions mentioned in Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification ("obvious exceptions", e.g. copyrights-related attribution in edit history when translating/importing content from another WikiMedia project; attribution of media via "image" namespace, and that's about it). --Francis Schonken 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording I am proposing does not suggest that the content of the Wikipedia in-line article that is being used as a source, but the third party sources in that article. There is nothing exceptional about this, it is what is done in many (most?) articles to a greater or lesser extent. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why, in cases of conflict over this, you could not, just simply cut-and-paste the citation from one article to the other? I really doubt anyone is going to be such a dick as to request references for trivially verifiable content. We do not however, want to get into a position where we have circular references. So in any case of conflict, the least confrontational approach is simply to repeat the citations in each article where they are requested. Where is the harm? Wjhonson 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My objection to relying on a wikilinked article for sources is it makes the passage in the source that backs up the Wikipedia article harder to find, because when you go to the linked article, it may have a broader range of information than the linking article. If, for example, an article about Aberdeen relied on a source from the Scotland article, the poor reader would have to look through 61 different sources, many of which have nothing to do with Aberdeen. Even if the article to be linked to does not have a long list of references now, it may in the future. (Clarified based on Wjonson's comment immediately below.) --Gerry Ashton 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You object to my idea? I don't understand your objection. It appears you think I'm saying "cut and paste all sources". I'm not. I'm saying copy the one requested citation from one article to the other. If one article says "the tallest Mountain in Scotland is Mount Googleblat (see Hitchins, p20)" then you simple copy that one citation to the Mount Googleblat article. Not all citations in the Scotland article. Hope my position is clearer. Wjhonson 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third-party sources

I have removed the word "third-party" from the sentence: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party source Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'm not sure how it got to be added, but I think it must have been in error. WP:V is not a notability criterion - notability is dealt with on other page. The verifiability requirement is, and should be, for a reliable source. If a source is not 3P there may (or may not) be some question marks over its reliability. Indeed, we are likely to be more rigorous in assessing its reliability. But if the source is reliable, it is good enough to be used. jguk 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. the latest removal by Jguk. Would it not be better to say reliable secondary sources, as an article with only primary sources is a very bad idea and just inviting original research? L0b0t 17:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I could not disagree with this novel change more. The words "third-party" have been in that sentence since it was added to the policy, and that was done after significant discussion and consensus was established. The requirement not to include topics based on self-claims is essential to maintaining any sort of credibility for Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that an article "with only primary sources ...[invites] original research". Original research is not the same as source-based research. I agree with removing "third-party". Wjhonson 18:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully invite you take a look at some of the television show episode articles (The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc) where sole reliance on the episode itself immediatly leads to fanboy speculation and interpretation (This scene with a fish in show X is a parody of this other scene in show Y that has a fish.) Cheers. L0b0t 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Third-party" is not the same as "secondary" and we should not confuse them. A source can be secondary in form, and apparently reliable, but still be controlled by the subject of the article. This is often true with corporations that sponsor research related to their goals. Further, a source can be primary and yet unrelated to any of the participants. Thus, a newspaper account of an accident is a primary source, but is a third-party look at what happened. If the topic has no coverage that is independent of the subject, then Wikipedia will never be able to construct an NPOV article on that topic. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification --Francis Schonken 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that articles that rely only on self-published sources by people or organizations with a vested interest in the subject of the article are bad, and sources that are not technicallly self-published but are under the control of people or organizations with a vested interest are just as bad. I am concerned, however, that some readers of the policy might see the words third-party and think that sources written by a person with a vested interest, but published by an independent reputable publisher, are ruled out. It suffices that the publisher be a third-party; the author need not be. --Gerry Ashton 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's verifiability policy is already phrased to regard the publisher moreso than to the author. Professor Dryasdust's blog is a questionable source. If the exact same content by the same author is published in The Journal of Xerology, we regard it as a reliable source. With a newspaper, we regard the paper, not the reporter. The exceptions (advertisements, letters to the editor, family-written obituaries, the gossip column, etc.) are based on merely cursory editorial review for those sections, and affect all content in those sections, regardless of author. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Third-party" only serves to confuse not clarify the issue. We have lived with primary and secondary for a long time. Adding another layer does not help the situation. Wjhonson 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't expected this amendment to be controversial. I really did see it as a mistake that had somewhere slipped into the text. Had I thought different, I would have raised the point here on the talk page first.

The main point of this page is that claims should be supported by reliable sources. Other issues are discussed in addition to that, but they, important as some are, are all either ancilliary or subsidiary.

WP does not have a definitive definition of "reliable sources" - and it is probably impossible to have one - but we all have ideas of which sorts of sources tend to be more reliable than others. I don't think that, using the words in their normal English meaning, anyone would agree that non-third-party sources may be reliable. Accordingly, where a non-third-party source is assessed as reliable, we allow it to support a claim in Wikipeida.

The statement that where no reliable sources exist, we should not have an article on them, is something that follows automatically from the main point that claims should be supported by reliable sources. The statement adds no new requirement: it is not possible to agree with the main point of the policy and disagree with the statement.

Adding a "third-party" to the statement introduces a new requirement. And I think it is an unreasonable requirement. This is because the policy applies to everything in the article namespace - including stubs - including new, not very developed, articles - including fairly unimportant topics. It is reasonable to ask these articles to provide a reliable source. But what is gained by requiring a third-party source? If we have an article on a Simpsons episode that quotes the episode and the Simpsons website, what really is to be gained by adding a third-party source for some of the text (which would probably be in the nature of a brief synopsis in TV Guide or a TV review in a local newspaper)?

I just think we should be realistic here. Long, developed articles without third-party sources are most certainly lacking something in the way of credibility. I agree we should be worried there. But a stub - the beginnings of an article that may develop further? If the content can be referenced to a reliable source, surely we should let that article be, and hope it does develop, rather than argue that we should kill it at birth for want of a third-party source? jguk 18:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not what the policy says. An article can be killed only if no reliable third-party sources exist at all for the topic. Under those conditions, we can never have an NPOV article on the topic, so we shouldn't have one at all. If sources can be found, but are not in the article, the article should be improved. That is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of long-standing formulation

The original formulation of "Verifiability, not truth" makes a very significant point. I do not see any substantial arguments that support its removal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have removed much more than that, including: the policy box (which has been here for around seven or eight months, I think), and a suggested improvement of the lead section unrelated to that point, which is discussed above, plus a whole host of other positive amendments that have been made by a wide range of people in the last few days.

I would also add that you have reinserted a paragraph at the start of the page which has not appeared in this policy since 8 November. This is a retrograde step, which ought to have been discussed on this page first. Please take more care with your edits - it is wrong to eliminate weeks' worth of improvements just because one WPian, and I appreciate that this is not Jossi (so perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on him), has decided to come in and revert them all.

Addressing the underlying point that Jossi is making (it seems it is just the "verifiabilty, not truth" bit of his revert that he intended to make), I would add that that point was not removed. It featured prominently in the text later on.

There is discussion on the point above - with suggestions as to how to make the point clearer, not to remove it.

It is the one thing about this policy that confuses the hell out of new readers. There is no reason why it should do - it should follow immediately from the key point that claims should be supported by reference to a reliable source. If it is, as you say, a very significant point, we really need to make sure we are making it in a way that everyone can understand. jguk 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon which basis are you asserting that "this policy that confuses the hell out of new readers"? The change you have made, has moved the most important aspect of this policy: "Verifiability, not truth" out of the lead, and has replaced the policy in a nutshell that is featured in all other policies, with a different box. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy box (your second point) has been in this policy for over half a year. It makes it clear that the contents contains the policy, with the remainder of the text being discussion. It is aesthetically nice, and to the point.

Regarding your first point, the most important point of this policy is that claims should be referenced to a reliable source. Comments that this is not the same as reporting "the truth" may be important, but are a follow-on to the main point.

However, I would not oppose re-adding that point to the lead section if (1) it appeared as the second rather than first paragraph (see WP:LEAD); (2) the point was expressed in a clear way that is unlikely to confuse (and see above for suggested ways of explaining it briefly). jguk 10:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, please do not make major changes in a central policy like this one without discussing it here and reaching consensus first. Thanks, Crum375 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, I am reverting to the original version. The policy box, which Jossi and SlimVirgin are seeking to amend, has been here in this policy in that form for well over six months.

It is for those wishing to divert from the established format on this policy to justify why they wish to change it now, not for those wishing to retain the status quo to justify why they are reverting undiscussed changes. jguk 15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your editing behavior is becoming indeed disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to point out that, if not for the fact that I edited the page last week, I would now have protected it. Could both sides please lay off the edit war? Thank you. (Radiant) 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that 5 people reverting jguk's unilateral policy changes is not an "edit war" between "sides", it's one editor acting increasingly disruptively, as he has done many times in the past. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• If he is as disruptive as you claim, maybe you should consider opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jguk? (Radiant) 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, are you somehow denying that jguk's attempted policy re-writes have been reverted by five different editors in the past 3 days? [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]? What benefit do you think an RFC would add to this strong consensus against jguk's one-man policy train? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I meant. My point is that if the issue is Jguk's behavior (which you allege to be frequently disruptive) that should be dealt with in an RFC. If the issue is the content of this page, we discuss it here, on its talk page and doesn't need an RFC. There appear to be several issues conflated in the disagreement between Jguk and SV (see text below), at least one of which (the nutshell or lack thereof) looks like not such a big deal to me. (Radiant) 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, Jguk has been editing policies and guidelines disruptively since I started editing Wikipedia, and getting obsessed with tiny issues that have led to months-long revert wars and ArbCom cases against him. There won't be any progress here so long as that behavior continues. As a potential future arbitrator, I would ask you not to show any support for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand me. I am not at all showing any support for his edits; I'm simply stating that if there's a problem with him in particular, then this talk page is not such a good place for discussing it. I asked earlier to stop revert warring; I fail to see how you interpret this as an endorsement for his actions (which, obviously, include revert warring). As I have stated before, I am unfamiliar with him or his history, so if you would please point out these ArbCom cases I could at least read up to what you mean; neither his block log nor Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk seem particularly relevant to this. (Radiant) 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan would help shed further light. I would look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2/Proposed_decision#Obsessional_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Proposed_decision#Banning_of_obsessive_users in particular. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the latest obsessions is removing "verifiability, not truth" and a dislike of the term "no original research," because he wants policies to be expressed in positive terms, not negative. He's been reverting over this pop psychology for, I believe, close to a year, with a break when he left over it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, there's an argument between "you changed the policy" and "I just reverted it to how it has been". If both sides are going to insist that you're not changing, but just reverting to "the status quo", could you provide diffs showing which "status quo" version you are reverting to? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at the diff there appears to be three disputes intermingling - (1) should the page have a nutshell box; (2) the "threshold is not truth" issue; and (3) whether the exact amount of content policies should be noted. Confusing, no? It's quite possible to cite precedent for or against any of them (indeed, see this revision), but frankly "that's the way it used to be" is not such a strong argument for either "side". Maybe we can get some better argumentation in here? For what it's worth, I don't see the harm in noting that simply being true is not enough for information to be included here, as this is a semi-common mistake for novice users ("yes, my goldfish is named Bubbles, now why can't I have an article on him?") (Radiant) 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So, the points of contention...

Nutshell or "The policy". I prefer "the policy"; it provides a clearer structure to the page that helps readers understand it more easily -- what's in the box is everything important, the rest is just explanation of how to interpret what's in the box. Mostly on the subject of what "published by reliable sources" means.

Threshold for inclusion -- I don't think Jguk's change here makes much sense. The paragraph he's trying to move is the one that explains what this policy's about, which clearly must be the first paragraph.

Number of policies -- Something must be changed, because the text as it is at the moment is misleading. WP:NOT, at the very least, is also a content policy which according to the text we have at the moment doesn't exist. Either drop the number, or list all of the relevant policies -- either solution works for me. JulesH 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operating definition of consensus

Over the last several months I have been observing business at WP:V and sometimes participating. One pattern I have seen several times now is that someone will edit WP:V in good faith, only to be immediately reverted by an admin claiming "no consensus, no consensus" (after only very brief discussion or no discussion), frequently followed by charges that the good faith editor is being disruptive. To be fair, these reverts are often justified, but could perhaps be handled more diplomatically. I don't believe that the majority of people (aside from vandals) trying to change WP:V are out to disrupt Wikipedia. Some are motivated by what they see as unfair treatment they received under the guise of WP:V, and they want to see changes so that no one has to suffer the same treatment that they suffered. In some cases, those changes may not be justified, but I believe that in all cases, it is important to try and understand the reasons why changes are being proposed.

I also see quite a number of changes to WP:V made by admins, generally made without any discussion to achieve consensus. I don't mean to accuse anyone of bad-faith, but rather, I hope my comments will be taken as an indication that everyone needs to work more at understanding the concerns of other editors, without prior assumptions, and admins need to work to avoid the appearance of a double standard. Wikipedia would be served better if more effort was made by all parties to make WP:V be a true record of consensus. dryguy 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it's the same on all core content policy pages. All reverts for anything other than vandalism should be explained on the discussion page, maybe even broached there first. This is advised on all advice pages about reverting and admin tools but is ignored. Instant reverting represents a subversion of what Wikipedia is about, and I'm not sure if it is coincidental (because admins tend to be in a hurry) or the beginnings of an ossification of process (which will eventually lead to reactionism). In my opinion, too many admins go into admin mode where policy pages are concerned, forgetting that there is no actual problem, no misbehaviour, no request for policing, and that they should edit rather than administrate the page. They are subverting the foundation principle that anyone should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia, and they must be quietly opposed by wise editors and people willing to mull over the implications of edits rather than blindly zap them. The result will probably be similar, but it will be achieved more kindly.

Admins who want to edit policy have no more rights in the matter than any other editor, and they should spend time building consensus on the talk page along with everyone else. Consensus is not some agreement made a few months ago which has to be defended, or a strategy cooked up by some admins over e-mail, but is today's view, agreed to by editors on the talk page. The policy may not appear to change much over time, but it must renew itself in order to stay the same, like skin or a gooseberry bush.

qp10qp 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiabity vs. Citability

I'm currently in discussion about a conclusion in an article which was drawn from some information available within confidential membership records of an organisation. Since these are not actually publicly available to everyone, they cannot readily be cited. However, it is possible to obtain the information for verification by approaching the said organisation and offering just cause to gain access to the records (at least, information from those records which do not reveal personal details like name or address). Would this be sufficient to meet the requirements of verifiability? Horus Kol 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Approaching them via phone or email and asking them that question will violate WP:NOR, but if you convince said organization to publish a summary of these numbers on their website, that would work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That someone can, in theory, re-create the work you did is not what WP:V is all about. The critical word is published. Original research is not any less original research even if it's relatively easy for someone to duplicate what you did. John Broughton | Talk 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the information would not be wikiceptable (acceptable to wikipedia), but not for the reasons given above. Merely asking for information from an organization is not original research. It is "source-based research" if said organization sends you some publication or copy of a document which contains the said information. If I ask the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce for their membership list and they send it to me, I am not creating that document, I am receiving it as a source. Again "research" is not "original research". Two quite different things. However, in your cited case above, the information is not "publicly accessible". That is, a person should not have to "show just cause", they should be able to simply walk in the repository, and with sufficient instruction, be able to find the information themselves. That is, at a Land Deed office, you can obtain a copy of a Deed without any cause, any member of the public can do so, with no justification. That is public information. That is, it has been "published" to "the public" by the Land Deed Office. Your case however, has is not publicly accessible in this same manner. Wjhonson 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking for information from an organization is original research, if that information is not publicly available to our readers. For example, saying that you received an email or talked to an officer of that organization on the phone about these numbers and using that information in the article is what WP:NOR warns us about. The material you need must have been published in a reputable publication for you to use it in an article as a source to support a claim. As an official website is considered a reliable source on an article about the publisher of that website, and if you ask the organization to publish these numbers on their website, then you could use the material. I would further argue that if the organization sends you a copy of some unpublished material, you may not be able to use that as Wjhonson asserts, unless that material is made available under no conditions to anyone that asks. After all,[ [WP:V]] is all about our readers' ability to verify a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No asking for information is not original research. If that information has not been published, then that it the criteria that can be used to not include it. Verbal communications, and non-public emails are not "published", the issue in that case is not original research, and is not what NOR warns us about. And yes, if they send you data you can use that, provided that any member of the public could receive that data, with no justification. That is what published means. Available to any member of the public. If any reader can verify the data, in the same manner, then its verifiable. Wjhonson 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would generally agree with the above statement - if information is avaliable, for instance under freedom of information acts, then it is verifiable, even if it hasn't been published. --Neo 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if material available via the FOI Act is published? If it isn't published then we can't use it on wikipedia as publication is one of the principles underlying verifiability. My example above, assumes the material requested has been published by the organization. Noting of course, that self-published is still published. Wjhonson 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

... at a Land Deed office, you can obtain a copy of a Deed without any cause, any member of the public can do so, with no justification. That is public information. That is, it has been "published" to "the public" by the Land Deed Office. With all due respect, I don't believe that "public" equals "published" - otherwise, the policy would use a different word.

If I add to an article that "X owns properties A, B, and C", and state that I got the information from the Land Deed Office, how does a reader verify that? Suppose someone else says he/she also went to the Deed Office, and didn't find what I claimed - how could the dispute be settled - by a third person going? (Note that neither of us qualifies as reliable sources per WP:RS, even if posting a scan to a web page.)

Things, of course, are quite different if the Deed Office publishes the information on the Web - now it's easy to provide a link, and easy for someone to follow that link. But treeware in filing cabinets that members of the public can obtain copies of - I don't think such information is "published" as used in this policy, and hence I think it fails WP:V. John Broughton | Talk 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would accept information that can be accessed by the general public as published, but would require that the citation be specific enough that a reader can reasonably certain of finding or obtaining the information. A footnote that said "deed on file in Weschester County courthouse" would be unacceptable, but one that said "Westchester County Clerk land records, liber 7764, page 227" that would suffice. I would usually not consider information through the Freedom of Information act acceptable due to the unpredictable delay and the fact that an agency employee will review the information to be released for confidentiality, so the result may be different depending on changes in world politics, or even the whim of the reviewer. --Gerry Ashton 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't accept the above citation on at least two grounds. First, I accept the ordinary distinction between publicly-available information and published information. The difference is whether the information has been transferred to some widely and readily available medium. Placing something on file where it can be inspected by those with the wit to find it is not publication.

Second, I would not accept it because of the nature of the primary document. The language of some deeds is turgid enough that someone who is not accustomed to reading them can actually misunderstand what is going on. The phrasing can be especially weird when real estate is purchased by a fiducuiary, such as the executor or administrator of an estate, and someone is really nervous about getting all the heirs to sign off. For older deeds, the copy available for inspection may be on microfilm, which is often hard to read. This sort of consideration is not limited to deeds -- it affects many types of archival material, which is why Wikipedia editors should generally stay out of dusty archives. Avoiding this sort of problem is what reliable publishers do and why collections of letters and so on are edited. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't address Mr. West's second ground, but I wonder if Mr. West would withdraw his first objection if the material could be ordered by mail for a nominal fee? --Gerry Ashton 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. Suppose one can get a copy of a three-page deed for a $5 copying fee, including postage. That is equivalent to paying $1000 for a 600-page book: a substantial expense for a middle-class American, and quite out of reach for many Wikipedians. The comparison fails if one is concerned with one such reference in one such article, but if the practice became widespread it would be a different matter. In contrast, most web pages cited are available for no additional fee, once one has an ISP that can reach Wikipedia. Most books and periodicals can be examined at no cost by anyone with access to a good free library, and especially so if it participates in inter-library loan. The farther we stray from that standard, the more nervous I get, and especially so when the material is primary. Pay websites bother me as sources, for the same reason. I don't know exactly where the line lies, but I dislike getting close. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that our focus on the trees has us overlooking the forest.

What would be the end-game for Wikipedia (or any repository of knowledge)? To reflect the truth of everything.

Restriction of sources (be they free or leasable; easily gathered or difficultly obtained; written for the laymen or scholars) is a dangerous precedent as all sources should be accepted as verifiable in the absence of them being unverifiable.

How else would you reflect "everything" or "truth?" By restricting sources you restrict both your scope and depth of knowledge.

If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain. - Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

Drew30319 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal may be truth, but the policy specifically says that what is true but NOT verifiable does NOT belong in Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. (emphasis in original) John Broughton | Talk 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the issue here revolves around what an acceptable definition of "published" is. I would say that a good starting point for a definition would be the legal definition used in terms of copyright law (the legal definition used by defamation law -- that something is published when passed from its author to any other party -- is too inclusive for our purposes):

A work is "published" when it is first made available to the public on an unrestricted basis.[15]

Perhaps something along these lines should be included here? JulesH 12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Nolo passage cited above concerns the date of publication, not the fact of publication. The definition is found at 17 USC 101.

the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

To perform or display a work "publicly" means –

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Thus, an edition is published on the date that it is made available to the public on an unrestricted basis, not on the date it is printed, or typeset, or whatever. The whole thing presupposes the production of numerous copies in the ordinary sense of publishing, as given by Merriam-Webster:

"2 a : to disseminate to the public b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : PRINT 2c c : to issue the work of (an author)."

Thus, a painting is not published by being put on free public display at a museum or public gallery; otherwise, such display could interfere with first publication rights. Paintings used as book and magazine covers are commonly publicly displayed before and after sale of publication rights and even sold at public auction. The interpretation proposed would allow Wikipedia to cite a painting as a source, so long as it has been on public display, say at a First Friday celebration, even if it is thereafter not available to the public and does not appear in print nor on the Web.

The point of publication from Wikipedia's standpoint is twofold. First, someone other than the author stands behind it, generally by devoting money to the project of dissemination. This gives us a reason to take it seriously. Second, publication makes it available to Wikipedians who wish to verify. I would agree that Wikipedia should not consider an edition to be published until it has been made generally available to the public, but there must be an edition, and it must be extant. I would go farther and argue that, exceptional cases aside, it should be widely available. In the case of publication by Web, this means that the site must be up or archived somewhere generally accessible to the public. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have two comments about Mr. West's comment. First, the the definition of published in the US copyright law is aimed at the issue of when the clock starts for the period of time that copyright lasts, and distinguishing published and unpublished work because the length of the copyright protection is different. Our concern is verifiability, so our definition of published might differ. Second, Mr. West wrote "first, someone other than the author stands behind it, generally by devoting money to the project of dissemination." But we allow citiation of self-published works in limited circumstances, so this point is not really relevant to defining self-published. --Gerry Ashton 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not arguing for the use of the legal definition; rather, I was responding to JulesH's introduction of a legal definition that actually runs counter to his point. The dissemination argument, however, militates in favor of a definition along the lines of M-W sense #2.

Mr. Ashton is correct that the first reason for Wikipedia's concern about publication -- oversight -- manifestly does not apply to self-published works. That is exactly the reason that we accept them only in limited circumstances. The second reason -- wide dissemination -- applies to self-published as well as third-party-published works. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to add a little more to this policy to cover the accessibility of sources. I just came to the policy to review what it said on the matter and all I can find is what's contained in the second sentence:

• "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

The specific case I'm involved with is an article that includes a corporate history sourced (eventually) to old press releases that aren't on the web. The editor apparently works at the company and has access to their old records. I think it's pretty clear that they aren't accessible and therefore aren't verifiable, but there's no text in the policy which directly covers hard-to-access sources. -Will Beback · † · 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] practical problem: destruction of verifiability by third parties

See [16] This hangs closely towards the web page problem, except for it being in-between: now we can verify the reliability of the newspaper on this issue, but soon we won't because the evidence is being erased. Perhaps we must statisfy ourselves to keep it for the record on the talk page that this claim has been verified to be factual? Harald88 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He who controls the web-cache controls the past. Does the Internet Archive have a copy? Is there no other source for this material? No paper edition that can be found in libraries? If all three answers are "No," we may be helpless. If we put a certification on the talk page, and all independent copies go away, we are left with Wikipedians as the source, which is a pretty good definition of original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, as stated in the link above, the only currently existing archive is on the Wikipedia Talk page and everywhere else where people are willing to put copies. The research was done by the cited newspaper (thus by definiton not WP:OR), but the newspaper's claim will become unverifiable in the future except if we come up with a mechanism that protects important currently verifiable information from a likely destruction.

This is an urgent example but in the long run the same problem is bound to arise with many other sources such as newspaper articles. Despite libraries and archive.org, not all information that is available today will remain available. Harald88 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been going out of existence since writers first started using sources. Books and periodicals printed on acid paper are slowly oxidizing into nonexistence. NASA has discovered that large volumes of Apollo data is on tapes that are too damaged to read. Old films burn up or disintegrate, especially those on nitrate. Even CD-ROM's seem to have a life of about thirty years -- if not recopied, that data will be lost. One sources are lost, we have to rely on other reliable sources to relate what they said or cover the same territory. If we run out of sources for something, the fact that a Wikipedia article claims to have been written at a time that other sources were extant is, in effect, making an earlier version of the Wikipedia article the source. Since we have no way to evaluate whether the source is used properly, we have to presume that the no-longer-sourcable information is original research. A Wikipedia article should be evaluated for compliance with V, NOR and NPOV based on its present content and verifiability. Its history should be irrelevant. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing suggests that future editors will be more reliable than existing editors. Obviously the decision to allow Wikipedia content to be conserved after verification or to impose deletion of verification is something that requires a wider debate. I'll mention it in the Village pump. Harald88 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I now discover that in a parallel discussion on WP:CITE (there really is too much overlap!) a practical suggestion is being made that goes some way in solving this problem for web content (protection against linkrot): [17] Harald88 10:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on foreign language sources

I added the following to the section on foreign language sources: "The burden lies with the editor who added the source to demonstrate evidence of the content of foreign language sources.".

It now reads:

English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. The burden lies with the editor who added the source to demonstrate evidence of the content of foreign language sources.

My motivation is the use of foreign language sources I see in edit wars and controversial articles. Any comments? (I'm non English btw). -- Steve Hart 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the sort of thing you are trying to prevent, and how an editor might meet the burden? Robert A.West (Talk) 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be back with examples, I'm generally concerned about obscure partisan websites. Originally, I included the words when language translation tools or other means of verification are not readily available, and I believe that or a translation by a third party editor would be sufficient. -- Steve Hart 10:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the translation is reliable, then the translation can be cited as the source, with the original cited indirectly. If the translation is not reliable, it should not be used. Robert A.West (Talk) 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently practice seems to be that foreign language sources is as good as english sources, even if no translation is available. Do you suggest that sources where no translation is available should not be used? -- Steve Hart 10:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am having trouble figuring out what change you want, and am probably guessing wrong. Having a foreign-language source presupposes a large enough body of interested, fluent Wikipedians to verify. If that exists, no problem. Original translation is a fine courtesy, but is not verification. You suggest automatic translation. While it has progressed beyond the "Vodka is strong, but the meat is rotten," stage, it is IMO still woefully inadequate except as an aid to one's own translation. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a body of interest (I think that is more of an academic discussion given the audience of the namespace). I'm not suggesting automatic translation (which is why I left that part out). FWIW, I don't think the method is very important, the concern is verifiability. I have no problem with foreign language sources per se and I have used them myself on a couple of occasions. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sentence proposed should be added. It's problematic in two ways, I think:

• It doesn't make clear exactly how an editor should go about providing evidence that his translation is good. And I can't really see how this can be done, unless the source has already been translated by a reliable publication, at which point that should be used in preference.
• It places a burden on the original author of the material, when that author might not be around any more to justify his translation. At the very least it should use phrasing that includes others who wish the material to be retained.

Frankly, I don't think this is a workable change. Its effect, as far as I can see, is to completely remove the possibility of using foreign language sources in English Wikipedia, which is a major change to policy that I don't think will gain consensus. Therefore I'm removing the change, pending further discussion. JulesH 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The question above all is, in my opion, verifiability, since it's the heart of Wikipedia. I don't think we can apply a different standard to material which relies on foreign language sources. So we need to verify. If we agree on that, the next question should be where the burden lies. I believe the burden ultimately needs to be with who added the source. This policy states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor, to provide a source when content is added or restored, and I would argue that the burden is to provide a verifiable source. What should be avoided are editors who add foreign language sources under the impression that someone will come along some day and provide a translation. The third question should then be what types of translation are adequate. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-inventing the wheel

Until a week ago, this text could be found at WP:RS:

== Sources in languages other than English ==

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Allegedly (and I happen to believe that) this "full version" was developed by many Wikipedians as the consensus.

Just a few days ago I was thinking that maybe we should get this back in WP:V (since the language of a source is not in itself a reliability issue, but it can cause a practical verifiability issue for a Wikipedia that targets readers that not necessarily need to know any other language than English).

What I learn from the "full version" (that is not in the current paragraph at WP:V) is that if one uses a non-English source where no original English source or external translation is available, one provides both the quote in the original language (i.e. copy a quote from the source text that most briefly states what you want to make verifiable), plus a translation of that quote in English. If another Wikipedian, that does not speak the language, wants to verify, (s)he can always ask a random Wikipedian speaking that language (there are categories and lists of Wikipedians per origin/language, e.g. Category:User de for German) and ask to check whether the translation is OK. This is consistent with a description that used to be in WP:CITE (but apparently is no longer there).

Not so long ago I initiated an article that exclusively relies on sources in a non-English language (De Standaard, Belgisch Staatsblad, University of Ghent website,...), applying the technique as described above.

Somebody asked for problematic examples: The one I know of is the Sathya Sai Baba page. Well, it was problematic all over (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba). The "translation of source quotes" issue was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive7#Two problems with using non-English sources that I do not know how to solve. What I find today (e.g. Sathya_Sai_Baba#_note-saiparadox) is imho acceptable. --Francis Schonken 11:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• This seems common sense to me. In fact, even if a published translation is used, a citation of the original should (IMO) be included as well. Wiki is not paper -- we have the room. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Would, for example, this one be OK IYO: Translatio imperii#_note-Le_Goff? --Francis Schonken 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Published translation. Original cited as well. What's not to like? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I was wondering whether you implied that you would like that an excerpt of Le Goff's text would need to be given in French, and then exactly the same text translated in English... Apparently not what you intended. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good examples, but they are not representative for Wikipedia based on my experience (e.g. [18]). Neither do I see where in the old text it says that a translation must be included. It talks about in principle and says that published translations are generally preferred over editors, but it doesn't mandate translations. Furtermore, editors aren't required to make a distinction between a published translation and one provided by the editor, a rather crucial question for both readers and other editors. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy does not say that translations are required. The policy also doesn't spell when inline citations are best, or when a simple bibliographic reference is sufficient. This is policy, not a cookbook; details have to be worked out on the basis of what is best for each article. If there are numerous footnotes to the same translation, it might work to reference only the translation in the footnotes, where page numbers are vital, and to mention the original only bibliographically. If there is no translation available, the foreign language source is short and the article could not exist without the source, then inclusion of an unpublished translation on the talk page is probably best. There is a difference between a source written in Ingrian and one written in French. These are all practical questions concerning how to apply policy to specific cases. Ironing these things out is what talk pages are for. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First thing first then: Should there be a requirement for published translation of foreign language sources? Personally, I think that's a good idea. In that case, I assume the translation needs to meet WP:RS too? -- Steve Hart 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the former paragraph from WP:CITE I referred to above (my bolding):

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

It went missing 01:15, 21 November 2006 (afaics the vandalism reverters missed it thus far).

If you want to have those two in-line references from the Rehavam Zeevi article checked, I suppose you could mention them at Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics, surely there must be some people there that can help you out translating, and checking whether these sources are reliable at all.

Let that not stop you from finding sources in English asserting the same, if these are available. Maybe also for finding sources directly in English, people from the Israel-related notice board can help out.

For clarity, here are the two sources implied by the link Steve Hart gave above:

• http://business.msn.co.il/news/StatePoliticalMilitary/Political/200511/20051102134000.htm
• http://www.ynet.co.il/home/0,7340,L-1410,00.html

They are used in the two last paragraphs of Rehavam Zeevi#Controversy (that is, before the first subsection of that section).

Re. "editors aren't required to make a distinction between a published translation and one provided by the editor" - I read "published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly" in the former WP:RS section, so editors are required to make a distinction. Also the reader could usually see the difference: only a text given in two languages (English + original language), without a source for the translation mentioned (mentioning the source for a translation would be a copyright-related obligation if you import a translation in Wikipedia) would indicate that the translation was made by a Wikipedian. --Francis Schonken 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all concerned about the two cites from the Zeevi article, they were given as an example. Nor am I embroiled in any controversy about this, but the question of verifiability has been on my mind for a while. I note that the missing paragraph from WP:CITE says "should" and not "must", though. I also think that the reader (and other editors) should be told (as opposed to assume) when text is translated by editors, it goes to the question of credibility. Maybe. -- Steve Hart 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway,

1. I undid the vandalism at WP:CITE, alluded at above: if you think the text should be further tweaked (from "should" to "must" or whatever), I'd refer you to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. For me "should" would be fine in that context.
2. I replaced the "limited" section regarding source languages in WP:V, by the "full version" retrieved from the WP:RS archives (as quoted above), see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. I'd take it from there. This section might benefit from some "smartening up", but it is OK as far as I'm concerned, and I repeat here that I've always been told it was the result of consensus (reports of people contending a consensus developed around the precise wording can be found in the WP:RS talk archives, I'm not going to contest that). --Francis Schonken 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

__

Just removed a very offensive picture (vandalism)with the tag "{{Spoken Wikipedia|Wikipedia_Verifiability.ogg|2006-12-04}}" which I don't know who posted... __

• Well, it's better now, after you restored the text. But we still do not address how to verify foreign language sources when there is no translation available. While it is expected that editors check book citations themselves (e.g. by going to the library), it is not as easy to check the accuracy of foreign language sources when the cite is a link to a webpage with a bunch of text on it. I see there's not much of a discussion, so I'm pondering fireing off an email to the maillist to see what people think about this. -- Steve Hart 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common knowledge

Where do we set the bar between common knowledge and facts that require verification? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge is frequently false, and therefore not knowledge. That said, I would not bother giving or asking for an explicit source for an incidental fact that can be looked up in the sort of references that I would expect to find in any household:

• A decent dictionary or thesaurus,
• A good-quality almanac,
• A gazetteer or atlas,
• A handbook of useful tables (weights, measures, currencies, forms of address, etc.)

Note that I say, "incidental fact." Substantial assertions central to an article or section should always have a reference cited at least bibliographically, if not inline. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One way to look at it, that is at least a useful heuristic: If the person could verify it with 5 seconds with a Google search or by asking a 5-year-old child. —Centrx→talk • 06:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Though certain information is generally thought of as agreed upon truth, a policy whose very first line is "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is pretty much cut and clear that the bulk of Wikipedia's articles should be suscetible to scrutiny and in need of citation. Really the "just the facts mam" approach applies to the situation. There are some cases where as Robert mentioned above, "incidental" fact can verify adequetely enough.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An example of common knowledge getting it wrong - Captain_Pugwash#Urban_myth... it was even in print, so verifiable. Horus Kol 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School newspaper: verifiable?

There's a discussion at Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School#RFC over whether a school newspaper is a reliable source and how information sourced from it should be represented, if at all? Thoughts welcome to build a consensus. Steve block Talk 16:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "One of three content policies"

Is this expression a hang over or do the three policies cited really differ in nature to the other two in the top policy content box? --BozMo talk 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean the other three in the policy content box. And no, I don't think they're any different. You need to consider all of them to determine if content is appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Ok, I've checked some of the sources on one of today's "DYK" articles and the citations are highly dubious and definately NPOV. I'm tagging it as NPOV but I also want to put something on there to indcate that the sources do not say what the article says it says.Balloonman 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)