Wikipedia talk:Common knowledge

message: I created this page because it seemed like Wikipedia:Reliable sources was going to relatively easily reach consensus, but that this section was controversial.  I pondered creating them separately in the first place, but I thought hey, maybe they're closely enough related that they belong in the same place.  I separated them recently because it seemed that we were in danger of discussing two different chunks, each of very different quality, on the same page, and I was afraid that would be too confusing.  I guess there's danger of confusion no matter which way I do things.
Both articles are in :Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank.  This is a place where ideas that are not (or are not yet) "blessed" policy get hashed out.  
I agree that as ideas mature, it's good to reconcile contradictions, and that page mergers can be a good way to do that.  But these things take time.  I would expect this type of idea to remain in the thinktank for at least 30 days before moving up even to :Category:Wikipedia semi-policy.  Perhaps at this milestone, there should be some sort of vote that's broadly advertised.  But in the meantime, it's good to discuss and criticize and improve, so that we can try to form a broad agreement on the best language on which to take a vote.
We have plenty of pages for proposals that contravene existing policy.  They should be clearly marked as non-policy, but kept around so there's a record of not only what we decide, but what we decide against.  See, for example, :Category:Wikipedia rejected policies. -- Beland 05:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this page was created 

message: More discussion on "common knowledge" continues on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. -- Beland 05:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: That's all. Maurreen 07:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think this page is fine

message: See Talk:Antipodes#Antipodes as a European term??? : 
The problem of proving the common usage in a language to a person that is unable to speak it is challenging and interesting in itself, as the combination makes it very hard to strictly comply with WP:Source. 
Would anybody like to comment on how to address the question? 
Sergio Ballestrero 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that, if the language is widely enough spoken that we can suppose a reasonable audience of present & future Wikipedia editors with some exposure to it, it would be out of line to challenge the content too urgently.  "Delete if not verified" applies to insidious or surprising material, POV material, contributions from probelmatic editors.  But if there's a large audience of people more knowledgeable than yourself, I'd say let it stand unless the complaint comes from them.  WP:RD/L is a pretty fast place to get information about what is undisputed in many of the world's languages.  Wareh 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common usage of words in a foreign language 

message: As a professional historian I'm a bit troubled by this interpretation:
:*Historical facts. If none of the current editors were alive when it happened, then a contemporary written account, or the account of a professional historian, is likely to be considerably more accurate. 
On the one hand, first hand observation smacks a bit of original research.  I know first hand that when it first came out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was assigned in university courses in a wide range of disciplines.  That point would fit very well in that article, but I have no intention of adding it.
Secondly, since Wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources, I would put the account of a professional historian before a contemporary written account.  As Jimbo recognized  interpretation of primary historical sources requires experience.  When I moved from being a physics major to being a historian, it took about three semesters to get the hang of it.
I'd suggest replacing it with the following: 
:*Historical facts. An account of a professional historian, or if none is available, a contemporary written account.  In the latter case, such a primary source should be interpreted with caution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2006  (UTC)
Since no one's objected, I've made the proposed change. --SteveMcCluskey 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical "Facts" 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: This page doesn't seem to be useful in defining what is Common knowledge, only what isn't.  It's a page of negatives without serving the purpose of giving any positive examples of when you *need not* cite a reference.  I find it unhelpful as you can tell. Wjhonson 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use/Misuse

message: As Wjhonson mentions, this is only a long list of "Don't"'s.  I propose we list some "do"'s:
*Simple geographic information (e.g. "The Rio Grande separates the United States from Mexico", or "Central Park is in New York City") should be passable as common knowledge requiring no citations
*There are four seasons in a year, 365 days in year.
*The periodic table and other well-known models in science.
--Loodog 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed accepted common knowledge 

message: We are having trouble figuring out how Common Knowledge applies to popular culture when the item in question is widely known item. Specifically this is related to discussion on Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters as to whether something like "Monkey D. Luffy is a character in the anime One Piece" given its high profile nature would be considered common enough knowledge and related to that, whether such things as his nature of being a rubber man, or Zoro's use of three swords, etc. would be. WP:fict does not really say much on something that is considered widely acceptable and easily verifiable to someone who could see an image of it on the original source or advertisement. This article doesn't really say how to treat such popular culture elements either.Jinnai (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: one does not need to rely on "common knowledge" for things like this. The work itself is an accepted source for uncontroversial statements. That he's a character in the anime is sourced by citing an place where he's a character. That he's a rubber man is sourced by citing a place where it's visually obvious. Good faith doubts about such things need further discussion, but not all evidence has to be in words. In my experience most such questions are not really good faith disputes, but attempts to destroy content. But if its necessary to find a quote for Zorro being a swordsman it can be done--but asking for one where there is no doubt about it is usually an instance of disruption. DGG (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Knowledge for Popular Culture items 

message: Should citations be required for stating the meaning of a common word? There is a disagreement over this at Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Fact tag necessary for common language knowledge?. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed for translations of everyday words in foreign languages? 

message: It seems to me that if it truly is common knowledge, it doesn't need to be documented in Wikipedia. We don't need an article stating the sky is blue or that most people have five fingers on each hand.
Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: we do need to refer to the fact in the context of articles. Can you imagine an article on "sky" that does not say what color it is?   And the article on hand says we have four fingers -- and a thumb. The article on finger explains the discrepancy.     DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it's common knowledge, why is it in Wikipedia