Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 12

message: The following comes fairly close to what I think we mean by "non-negotiable"
:. Enforcement of these three policies is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. It is very important that any changes to this page have wide consensus; edits that do not have it are likely to be removed.
Comments? Septentrionalis 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Violates Wikipedia:No binding decisions, from all three sides. Kim Bruning 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Wikipedia:No binding decisions isn't very binding.  Jkelly 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored Eloquence's distinction between the policy pages and the underlying principles, which seemed like a good way to get the point across. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure.... we cannot call something a principle here, and call it a policy in their respective pages... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally like the "principles" wording, at a glance at least. But then again I'm not a real lawyer about WP:V, I've always cared more about the spirit than the letter of it. --W.marsh 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NBD seems like a total contradiction, by the way. No binding decisions except... that we have no... binding decisions. Nice. --W.marsh 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who disagrees with my edit should feel free to revert. Jossi, I think the point is that the particular wording of a policy page might be tweaked so long as the principle/spirit of the policy (what I would call the policy itself) isn't changed; and the policy/principle distinction gets that across. However, as I said, if you disagree, feel free to revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does my last tweak satisfy the concerns? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a good edit.  Jkelly 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Thank you, Jossi. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also update the other three policies with the same wording. Would do you the honors, SM? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But declaring random stuff "non negotiable" is a bit of a problem you see. No matter who supports what, it makes certain things very hard. Kim Bruning 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree; but are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR random? (I think the second sentence, restricting edits on this page, is more of a problem than "non-negotiable", myself.) Septentrionalis 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-negotiable again

message: JA: The WikiPuniversity course, Teaching Grandma To Suck Eggs 101, has been cancelled due to lack of chickens.  Jon Awbrey 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, we've been teaching grandmothers to suck eggs since 2001. ;-) Kim Bruning 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you mean we have been teaching them to sukc eggs? Grace Note 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching Grandma To Suck Eggs 

message: Partly related to the stuff about referencing things in the lead section, should we be worried if an article is inconsistent about where it references something? I am talking here about cases where something is mentioned both in the lead section and later in the article. There seem to be three different "styles":
# Referenced in the main body of the article, but not in the lead section
# Referenced in the lead section but not in the main body of the article
# Referenced in both lead section and the main body of the article
Style 2 seems to arise when a "citation needed" tag gets slapped on a sentence in a lead section where the particular fact either is not referenced in the main article, or has been added to the lead section but not the main body of the article (a synchronisation problem). It is also consistent with referencing at the first appearance of something, rather than waiting until it appears in the main body of the article. Referencing in both locations (style 3) is consistent with enabling the lead section to be a stand-alone section.
I find this situation confusing. I think this might be best discussed at Wikipedia:Cite sources, but wanted to ask here which style best aids verifiability. Carcharoth 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent referencing location 

message: JA: Adding a couple of subheads for browser-friendly continuation of several previous discussions.  Jon Awbrey 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Policy is More than the Sum of its Principles