Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 1

message: The section titled "Some key terms" does not confine itself to defining terms, it also expresses policy (e.g. edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge). This is a problem, because people who are looking for the policy may not think to look in the key terms section. --Gerry Ashton 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better now? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this arrangement is more elegant than anything that came to my mind. --Gerry Ashton 06:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some key terms section

message: I have expanded the Policy in a Nutshell section to include a point of WP:V that I believe is vital to any content policy - that is, material which is not attributed to any reliable source can be challenged or summarily removed. The burden of attributing information to a reliable source must fall on the person adding or defending such material. FCYTravis 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FCY, I've avoided the secondary/tertiary issue because people find it confusing. Also, to say that reliable sources are needed because reliable information is needed is repetitive. We should try to keep unnecessary words to a minimum. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything, cited or not, can be removed for lots of reasons. I might take something out because it gives undue weight, because it isn't accurate, or because it is just bad writing: yet another thing that can be eaten on toast. It is (sadly) not false that lard and sugar can be eaten on toast, nor do we necessarily need a citation to say so. I remove it because it is item 17 on an increasingly lame list of condiments, after peanut butter, chutney, and mayonaise. I remove stuff all the time, just in the normal course of editing. Tom Harrison Talk 17:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but information which one knows to be completely correct, but which is not cited, should not be removed on the basis that there is no citation.  FCYTravis seems to be saying that if I come across an article saying that Henry VII reigned as King of England from 1485 to 1509, but that fact is not cited, I am perfectly within my rights in removing that item, simply on the basis that no citation is provided.  That is completely absurd. john k 21:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It can't be used to frivolously remove stuff, or unreasonably demand citations. Saying "may be challenged or removed" in the nutshell may be taken to suggest otherwise. Tom Harrison Talk 23:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutshell

message: I still think the self-published source section needs some work.  My primary concerns are:
* It's still biased towards academic subjects.  We can use a "professional researcher"'s self-published work, but we can't use a subject expert's work.  Consider, for instance, articles on Microsoft software, e.g. Microsoft Exchange Server.  There are a lot of experts on this software out there, many of them accredited by Microsoft themselves (e.g. Microsoft MVPs) whose opinions are notable and worth including in articles on the software, yet currently they are excluded by the wording here (as they are by WP:V).
:*I changed researcher to expert, which should cover your concerns. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I think that works. JulesH 08:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Another possibility not mentioned in the Self-published sources section is self-published sources that become reliable after publication because independent reliable sources recommend them. --Gerry Ashton 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added a fourth exception to cover self-published sources that are recommended by independent reliable sources. As an example, consider the Internet Resource Links page at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Two of these links, Metrication Matters and US Metric Association each appear to be under the control of single individuals, and one might argue they are self-published. But since they are recommended by NIST, there is really no point in having such an argument; they're probably reliable. --Gerry Ashton 08:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me add a slightly more clear-cut example. Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, edited by P. Kenneth Seidelmann and published by University Science Books in 1991, p. 574. contains this reference: "Herget, P. (1948). Computation of Orbits Published privately by author." --Gerry Ashton 08:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean P. Herget's book becomes a reliable source. Someone's citing it isn't the same as it being recommended. And indeed, Seidelmann may have cited the only sentence it in he's prepared to stand by, for all we know. (I'm not commenting on Herget's work here; just using it as an example.) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that mere presence in a reference or citation list does not make a work reliable; the independent reliable sources would have to give a favorable evaluation of the self-published work. My real point is that self-published works do get mentioned in reliable sources; it isn't just an abstract situation that never comes up in practice. --Gerry Ashton 08:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources section

message: The section heading What does this policy exclude? seems a bit problematic. The way I read it is 'what does this policy not cover' rather than the intended 'what does this policy disallow'. Maybe this should be changed?-Localzuk(talk) 08:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've changed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section heading 

message: This proposal has major implications for scientific controversies.
The "truth" of the Theory of Evolution would immediately be downgraded from a "fact" (needing no attribution) to a "mainstream view" (requiring attribution to a source). 
*We'd have to write According to biologists natural selection et al. produces new species rather than Natural sselection et al. produces new species.
The controversy over anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming would likewise need recasting. The proportion of "consensus" vs. disgreement would no longer be something any Wikipedia contributor could simply assert as a "fact". Instead, the contributor would have to write:
*According to an essay (or editorial) in Science, scientific journals have never published a peer-reviewed article denying the anthropogenic global warming theory. 
Articles could also include statements from AGW sceptics like scientist Richard Lindzen and novelist Michael Crichton, M.D., who claim that numerous peer-reviewed articles have been published rebutting various aspets of AGW. 
I like the new Attribution policy, because it will take Wikipedia out of the business of "getting to the bottom" of scientific controversies and put it back to where it was originally intended to be. It will not assert that "X is a fact" but rather that "A says X is true" and also "B says X is not true". This will allow readers to make up their own minds. --Uncle Ed 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that would be the result of the proposed policy, it's not something I could support. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is my concern as well.  --EngineerScotty 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This proposal seems to mainly streamline and codify existing policies - I doubt that it woudl have the radical effects Ed wants it to. The Land 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have the impression that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the only fundamental (foundation) policy of the three best-known (mentioned by Jimbo Wales in User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles and in m:Foundation issues). The other two aren't among the Wikipedia:Five Pillars and, by their nature, must adapt to changing circumstances to survive.qp10qp 14:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Verifiability dates from August 2003 whilst No original research was added in December 2003.  They're old, but they're not foundation principles. Hiding Talk 15:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Just to address the concerns above, actually it wuld be great if we could say that according to Nature of date foo no scientific journal has never published a peer-reviewed article denying the anthropogenic global warming theory; we can then say that within the scientific community it is generally regarded as accepted fact and that there is no significant informed dissent from this view in independent scientific thought.  That is a very strong statement.  So strong that the theory could justly be stated as fact (or as generally accepted) in the lead and the evidence stated a subsequent paragraph. It would be foolish to deny that there are climate change deniers, just as there are holocaust deniers and evolution deniers, but if we can make a directly attributable statement which unequivocally demonstrates the complete lack of acceptance of these denials by mainstream thought, I really see no problem.  I am prepared to eb persuaded otherwise, of course. Guy 15:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to note, any encyclopedia that hedges claims about global warming or evolution with a "Group X believes" is a shitty encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. This proposal reflects the narrow interests of giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints than to a factual portrayal of the topics. FeloniousMonk 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FM, which parts of the proposal imply that, would you say, because it certainly wasn't the intent; nothing in this proposal should adversely affect the undue weight provision of NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific controversies 

message: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible
Great. But we fail to address the issue of what to do when that is not possible. As it stands now this is a gaping hole for adding unreliable material to articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the "wherever possible" at all.  What is an example of when material not published by a reliable, secondary source would be acceptable?  Sandy 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "wherever possible" refers to the reliance on secondary sources: we should rely on reliable secondary sources wherever possible; although sometimes primary sources will be appropropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See the self-published sources section of the talk page, near the bottom of that discussion, for some examples. I acknowledge that the examples I was able to come up with in a short time are not ideal examples, but I'm sure we could find better examples if we looked. The point is, reliable source do sometimes use self-published sources. If we can show that authorities in a field consider a certain self-published source to be reliable, why should we reject it for use in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 17:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with blogs one can certainly find examples of this.  Mainstream media sources certainly cite self-published blogs on occasion.  And blogs that are not self-published very frequently cite self-published blogs.  john k 12:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this "reviewed and recommended" exception is problematic. First, we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine, and we don't use sources in the same way that they do; so just because a reliable source — say, a newspaper — recommends a blog, that doesn't mean we can suddenly regard it as a reliable source. Secondly, it's usually particular material from a blog or other self-published source that's reviewed and referred to, not the whole thing. Just because the blog was good on Tuesday when the newspaper reviewed it doesn't mean it's good at any other time. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder about older books, which may have been self-published before publishing houses play the role they do today. I have never worked with this type of material, but I'm concerned about excluding anything important. Furthermore, the self-published definition has been edited to include organizations as self-publishers, so the "reviewed and recommended" exception may be necessary to use material published by organizations, with no author listed. The current wording requires us to decide if the organization is "well-known and reliable". It may be more practical to see if the material has been recommended in reliable sources. Also, the reliability of any source can always be discussed on the talk page, and the discussion might be more productive if discussing specific recommendations versus whether the organization is "well-known and reliable". --Gerry Ashton 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wherever possible? what about when not possible? 

message: I'm not sure who came up with the idea of the "three core content policies" but I wish to point out that WP:NOT is just as much a "core content policy" as V/NPOV/NOR, and in fact predates two of the three. One could also plausibly argue for the Copyright Policy to be a core content policy, and possibly WP:OWN as well. >Radiant< 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I maintain that we should aim for the canonical policies to be very short. Guy 15:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would argue for Wikipedia:Lawful to be a core policy that subsumes copyright, libel, laws on privacy at least. Since the wiki foundation's charter specifies "educational", it might even subsume most of NOT. WAS 4.250 16:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could call NPOV and Attribution (or whatever we end up with) core editorial policies, rather than content. I wanted to get across the idea that there are these two policies that determine what we're allow to write, and that they work in harmony and shouldn't be intepreted in isolation. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *That is a good idea, but NOT and Copyvio also determine what we're allowed to write. >Radiant< 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT 

message: In reading the comments above, I am unclear about what is the purpose of this. Can anyone clarify it for me? Is it:
# a replacement for WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS?
# a clarification of these?
# a new version of Wikipedia:Policy_trifecta, Wikipedia:Five_pillars, Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset?
Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more sensibly written and simpler replacement for WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good luck to us, then. We will surely need it.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, the proposal is to combine V and NOR into one policy; and then to turn RS into strictly a page of advice about where to look for good sources, minus anything that belongs in the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: My main concern with where this seems to be going, it that it blurs the distinction between claims of fact (statements of the form "P") and claims of opinion (statements of the form "according to source S, P")--where P is a proposition (which may be true, may be false, may be disputed, or may be entirely personal opinion) and S is a source for that proposition (which may be authoritative or relevent, or not).  (Assume that in both cases, S is cited in the notes).
Current policy doesn't really address this well; WP:NPOV comes closest to dealing with it.
Obviously, a claim of fact should only apply when:
* The fact is manifest and undisputed ("the sun rises in the East")
* The fact is a matter of established historical record, and undisputed ("Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his major league career")
* The fact is a matter of established scholarship or science, and is undisputed ("The bite of the King Cobra is toxic to humans").
Here, "undisputed" excludes cranks and the like--the fact that a few crackpots think they can square the circle with only compass and straightedge (though none have shown how, and it's been long proven otherwise) doesn't denigrate the claim that "it is impossible to square the circle using only compass and straightedge" from the status of fact.
As an encyclopedia, we should be presenting facts as facts.
Claims of opinion--which should always be attributed in prose--should apply when:
* The claim is widely regarded as false or nonsense ("The Earth is flat", vs. "According to the Flat Earth Society, the Earth is flat.")
* The claim itself is an opinion ("Ishtar is a lousy movie." vs "According to Roger Ebert, Ishtar is a lousy movie").
* The claim involves an active controversy ("The War in Iraq is a failure" vs "According to many critics of George W. Bush, the War in Iraq is a failure").
* The claim involves an area of scholarship or science which is significantly disputed, or presents a significant minority opinion ("According to most scientists, human activities have caused global warming"; "according to proponents of chiropractic, many maladies can be cured with spinal adjustments")
* The source is of questionable reliablity.  ("According to Jane Fonda, plutonium is the most toxic substance on Earth"--I heard that one from an old chemistry prof many years ago).  In this case, of course, better sources that Fonda are available on this topic, and she ought not be quoted at all--but there are some propositions that are significant enough to merit mention but not terribly well-sourced
* The source is a statistcal aggregate ("According to a Gallup poll, 62% of Americans believe that...").  Note that two sources--the researcher (Gallup), and the group being sampled ("62% of Americans"), are needed for this sort of claim.
Of importance to this instant topic is the following observation:  Claims of fact require stronger evidence.  WP:RS, for its faults, attempted to note that some sources are stronger than others.  This current proposal seems to gloss over or ignore the difference.  It would be a massive step backward were Wikipedia to be reduced to Uncle Ed's carciture above.
--EngineerScotty 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would be astonished at how many things people assert are "undisputed fact", and how often they disagree on just what those "undisputed facts" are. Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  :)  Generally, nothing is undisputed--for any proposition P, I'm sure someone can be found who will claim ¬P (whether they believe it or are just trolling is another matter).  In some cases, all claims of ¬P can be dismissed as original research; in other cases, such claims will remain.  The general policy is that if ¬P remains a fringe viewpoint, it can still be ignored--there are sources advocating Phrenology, but we still treat it as a discredited theory as opposed to a minority opinion.  --EngineerScotty 16:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that I have any idea how to put this into policy, but in science having at least one journal article disputing a claim, can be seen as an indication that the claim is not totally crankish. On the real crankish claims, no scientist would waste his efforts critizing them. That's the reasons it's hard to find good critical sources for Heim theory or New Chronology (Fomenko). --Pjacobi 16:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact vs opinion 

message: Are the examples currently given regarding the Bible (it being a good source for the story of the Garden of Eden or details of the Ten Commandments) accurate? Religions differ significantly regarding exactly what the Bible says about both. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretations will differ, but the best source for the claim 'Genesis contains a narrative about Adam and Eve in the garden' is surely the text of Genesis itself. That the ten commandments include an injunction against theft, is likewise best verified from Exodus.--Doc 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theft is a good example.  Could one say that the Ten Commandments contains an injunction against theft? The traditional Jewish interpretation, for example, is that that particular injunction forbids kidnapping (i.e. theft of people). Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It may not be the only citable source, but are you actually saying one could not cite the Bible as a source for this? I cannot imagine an article on either of these topics that did not cite the Bible. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the theft example above. How would you break up the verses, translate them, etc.? These are all points of contention. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that this new proposal will be tight and not too verbose. All these examples, can be moved to a separate article in which we give examples from different domains of knowledge. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO any amount of Bible exegesis is original research and should strictly be avoided. Too many people claim but it's said in the Bible and too many peoply disagree about what's acually said. Scholars of theology have to be cited for exegesis. --Pjacobi 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To a point yes. but statements like 'the Bible contains many references to Jericho/flowers/trees/donkeys' whilst strictly exegesis, are probably best referenced by citing some of the Biblical references. Likewise statements like 'according the Genesis Adam and Eve had a son called Cain', or 'According to John's gospel, Jesus claimed to be the 'true vine etc. To draw a distinction between a 'plain reading' and a 'hermeneutic' is in theory vety difficult, but in practice many readings will be uncontested. It is only when someone points out that 'hey, some schollars read that differently' that we need to insist on secondary sources (for both the traditional and alternative reading), it is simply a matter of common sense here (as with any primary source). Let's not over-complicate or prescribe until a problem emerges.--Doc 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible examples 

message: My pet issue, I'll admit: as a person who reads about half a dozen languages decently, I find the strong preference for English language sources annoying. Try doing research on Romania, or on Spanish-language literature, with only English-language sources. Especially, try doing online research on these topics with only English-language sources.
Right now we say "English-language sources should be used whenever possible…" I would like to change that to something like "There is a strong preference for including English-language sources…". The fact that it is possible to find English-language sources on these topics (in a university library in the English-speaking world, for example) should not be an argument against using readily available sources in the relevant languages. A Romanian in Bucharest writing on Romanian historical figures should not be told that he or she must hunt down an obscure book in a library 2000 kilometres away rather than using equally good materials readily at hand. To be honest, even I, living in Seattle, shouldn't be told that: for many topics, my personal library contains useful books in other languages, the public library is useless, and nothing else is readily available to me unless it happens to be in the one university library I have access to.
It's great if someone wants to add English-language references to such articles, but it is ridiculous to say that, because they could, in principle, be found, other equally reliable and more readily available sources are not acceptable. - Jmabel | Talk 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it becomes really difficult to verify non-English sources. If someone claims that a seminal work on a particular subject has been written in Basque, and you find the claims made extremely dubious, what can you do? Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is generally no problem in verifying material written in languages that are widespread among Wikipedia editors, such as French, German, and Dutch. Andries 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or Romanian. At least five administrators read it well (four natively) and are about as politically diverse etc. as anyone could ever ask for. - Jmabel | Talk 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there can be a problem:  differences in translation can be a source of heated POV discussions.  If English sources are available, since this is the English wiki, they should take precedence.  I agree with the policy of only using non-English language sources when nothing is available in English, and emphasizing the importance of trying to locate a reliable source in the language of the Wiki. Sandy 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Y'know: on most topics this is no problem at all. There are perhaps 2% of pages where things are really contentious, and where people start worrying about the subtle connotations of sources. But that happens just as readily with English-language sources. And, frankly, where the primary materials are in another language and the area is controversial, it is as likely as not that a professional translator has an axe to grind, too.  - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign-language sources 

message: I think that deleting / redirecting WP:V would be a bad idea. If it does become obsolete to this new one, it should be tagged with a "historical" tag to show how the policy progressed. - Che Nuevara 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur strongly. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that if it is redirected (which I would prefer), you can still access its history by clicking on the notification you were redirected, and then choosing 'history'. JulesH 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to become historical, not deleted. Lincher 21:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Redirecting is the best way to make sure all conversation points to the current guideline. Deletion is obviously a bad idea. >Radiant< 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  do not delete ... "historical" it 

message: I thought the extra strict rules were only meant for living people, but this article writes that the same standards apply for deceased people. This is new and incomprehensible for me. Andries 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. If we are going to make a change here, I think it would be good to apply the rules to people who died recently, if false disparaging information is likely to harm living people or organizations that the dead person was closely associated with. --Gerry Ashton 17:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the only reason the rule exists is to prevent legal issues.  This ceases to be an issue the moment the subject dies. JulesH 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. Jimbo has repeatedly stressed that it is also "the right thing to do." Put another way, we're not just concerned about libel because we might get sued. We're concerned about libel because saying untrue things that are hurtful is wrong. Phil Sandifer 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the same way of reasoning, saying untrue things that are hurtful would not be wrong only for living or deceased people, but also about organizations, religions, countries, soccer clubs, companies, etc. To summarize for every subject with with some people (partially) identify with. Andries 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the extra rules for deceased people?

message: I found this highly interesting in a particular context: If you are published outside of Wikipedia, you may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's work. Such citations must fulfill all requirements of this policy; make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. And, the context is that a number of our highly productive and prolific editors have chosen to remain shrouded inside a thick veil of anonymity! I do not expect that they shall disclose their identities as they have every right to protect their identities. However, such editors can always cite their publications if otherwise in conformity with the "redefined" policies and enjoy the publication of their work on Wikipedia in absentia. I do not presume that it is happening currently! I was just talking of a possibility with due respect to all the mighty editors of Wikipedia. However, I do not find anything unusual with this point of the policy. --Bhadani 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks EngineerScotty. I will carefully read the page very shortly. --Bhadani 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the ArbCom case contains the following principle: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." That is so outrageous. Lets make sure we don't let anyone who actually understand a subject contribute to an article on the subject. --Gerry Ashton 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.  People "who actually understand a subject contribute to an article on the subject" aren't necessarily equal to people "contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved".  There's a difference. Hiding Talk 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the "principle" from the ArbCom is it says it is difficult to maintain NPOV while contributing to articles about themselves (very true), or subjects in which they are personally involved (often true), so these experts should just not contribute to these article. It isn't good enough to be extra careful, or to confine oneself to factual issues and avoid matters of opinion; it isn't good enough to confining oneself to mentioning material published in reliable sources, these experts should just get the hell out, we don't want them around here. --Gerry Ashton 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I don't see that interpretation.  I see it as saying that if you can do it from a NPOV feel free to do so, but be advised that we generally ask people to avoid for these reasons.  I don't see the part where we tell people to get the hell out.  Perhaps you didn't quote that bit? Hiding Talk 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: * Someone should explain in clear language how this policy improves upon the current policies, or if they view it as equivalent.Olin 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Olin, the two pages and the two ideas (material that can't be sourced (OR) versus material that simply isn't sourced) have caused confusion; the aim is to merge and streamline, and thereby hopefully avoid that confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the improvement? 

message: Firstly, I very much welcome this initiative in re-framing policy.
It has been widely discussed, and, I think, agreed, that some types of material may be added for which no already-published source may be available. A good example is converting a length previously published in yards so it can also be reported in metres. Conversion factors have obviously "already been published", but not the specific quantities involved.
I would like it to be explicit that this is not only permitted, but encouraged.
Another example that was contentious at the time. I wished to report that Western Avenue in London is 11 to 12 miles long. Nobody actually believes this statement is false but I have never been able to find a source reporting it. Reference to a map was rejected on grounds that OR was involved in computing the length. Reference to Multimap travel directions from Old Oak Common Lane Acton W3 to Denham Roundabout Denham UB9 was rejected by some on grounds of OR and by others on grounds of verifiabliity (that the length had not already been published). The article Western Avenue has never been challenged over this but many editors disliked Longest streets in London and wanted to avoid its continued existence through references to systems such as MultiMap.
Under these sort of circumstances I have found comforting the statement in WP:OR "All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". Should this be resurrected?
I think the policy should say it is disruptive to remove material on grounds of lack of source unless one believes the material to be false. Thincat 12:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't cover every evantuality in a written policy, without it becoming ridiculously involved, or so vauge that even POV pusher or tinfoilhat merchant can drive a coach and horses through it. At the margins we need to simply use common sense. Maps look like one such case. --Doc 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Oh, I agree entirely.  I like the page and haven't commented because I like it doesn't really help.  But it's been a long time coming if you ask me. But the idea that looking at a map constitutes original research is just... it just doesn't sit right.  I'm not convinced that an article on the Longest streets in London has merit though. Hiding Talk 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The immediately previous comment by SlimVirgin seem to relate to the "Scientific controversies" section below, rather than to the current section. Thincat 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material for which no reliable published source could be found 

message: "Not all material must actually be attributed to a source, but it must be capable of being attributed." Why should this be emphasized? "Ya I could source, but it's so obvious I don't need to" is a problem—this will only encourage it.
I'm also uneasy about merging NOR. It's the hardest content policy to grasp IMO, and deserves a distinct page. Marskell 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you tell potential editors that they must source every statement, they are apt to think that they must spend all there time writing citations for thinks like "Bill Clinton was a U.S. president" and decide they have better things to do than write Wikipedia articles. Alternatively, they will observe that hardly any articles provide sources for obvious statements, so will consider this policy to be one of those rules that exists but no one obeys, and just ignore the entire policy. --Gerry Ashton 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is that we tell them nothing with regard to what is obvious. Commonsensically, we do not need to source "Bill Clinton was a U.S. president" every time it's written, but if this were to be one of two content policies I'd hate to see that emphasized off the top. Marskell 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I have removed that statement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting question, although perhaps it shouldn't be codified here, would be whether or not "Bill Clinton  was a U.S. president" is well sourced or not.  There are plenty of sources on Clinton's article that confirm it, and we've just linked directly there. JulesH 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the sentence: "Not all material must actually be attributed to a source, but it must be capable of being attributed" — this is an important sentence. It goes right to the heart of the issue. Material that cannot be attributed is original research. Just because something doesn't have a source doesn't mean that it's OR i.e. that no source could be found for it. And just because something is in Wikipedia doesn't mean it necessarily has to be sourced. The sentence you're objecting to sums that all up: material must be attributable, but need not actually be attributed. And it then goes on to say when we do need a source: for all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an absolutely vital distinction. Phil Sandifer 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Slim, et al.  There are way too many people who say something is "OR" simply because there is not an attribution.  That is not what OR is, and that needs to be made clear.  A citation only needs to be found if someone challenges a piece of information, and people should only challenge if they think something is inaccurate, or might be.  john k 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Could be attributed" + NOR 

message: This is getting bloated. We need to separarate policy vs. guideline.
Perhaps the correct approach to this all is:
* This becomes a relatively terse policy page. Very few examples are provided and those are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
* WP:V and WP:POV (or equivalents) continue to exist, but are demoted to guidelines illustrating how to conform with the policy. 
- Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to try to have it all on one page but without the bloat. It may not be possible, but the problem with having (a) the policy page and then (b) a page on how to comply with the policy is that you end up with contradictions. This has been part of the problem with NOR, V, and RS: trying to keep them meaningful and consistent. It was heavy maintenance and not too successful. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds good. One good example illustrating the point, where necessary, but otherwise examples go on an FAQ page or similar. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy vs. guideline 

message: As mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws, there is a lot of confusion on this topic; I think this policy would do well to avoid the "primary/secondary/tertiary" taxonomy where possible--instead focusing on other issues like publication, editorial oversight, etc.
In particular, many in science use "primary source" to refer to research papers.  WP:RS largely uses the definition from historiography, wherein primary sources are artifacts such as public records, interviews with persons of interest, physical objects of import, and other things of a non-descriptive, non-synthetic, non-analytical nature.  Papers, books, and other forms of scholarship, to a historian, are always secondary sources.  Were science to adapt history's terminology, primary sources would be things like fossil records, laboratory notebooks, the output (and source code) of computer simulations, samples of chemicals, samples of biological tissue, biological specimens, medical records, etc.
Some primary sources (under the definition of historiography) are published--court records and other records of official acts, published literature (including textual works, recorded music, film).  Many of these lack analyses, though some (decisions of a court) contain an analytical component.
IMHO, the properties of a source (analytical or not; published or not; is it an idea or is it a thing) are more relevant to the distinction between "primary" and "secondary"; we ought to focus on properties and not the terminology used in historiography (and abused in science).  :)
--EngineerScotty 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm increasingly thinking the primary/secondary distinction isn't helpful, but I know that other editors rely on it. It is useful to be able to say to a newbie that they can't base an article directly on their view of the New Testament because it's a primary source. It cuts through all the explanations about not using source material properly, which is the main point, because secondary sources can be misused too. But it requires a lot more explanation to get that across without mentioning the primary/secondary distinction. It's also useful to talk about the need for secondary sources to establish that something is notable enough to be written about. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source can be misused if the editor is not careful to avoid "editorialising". I think that the distinction is not accurately portrayed between history and science "primary sources". In reality, the primary sources in science are the actual data that is collected during experiments. Articles on the topic will contain summarised statistics based on this data, but they are also required to contain analysis of the data, which is IMO, a second "layer" of knowledge. A "tertiary source" in this sense will be the heavily summarised version of these articles which are included in textbooks. Whether the restriction in content that the textbook publisher puts on the final version affects the "accuracy" of what can be said about the original articles is past what Wikipedia should be using or not, well, I don't know about that. Ansell 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that any kind of source can be misused, and ideally I'd like not to have to even mention the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. But it can be useful; for example, an editor arrives at Animal rights and adds that the Sikh religion supports animal rights, using the Bhagavad Gita as his source. The easiest way to explain the problem with that kind of editing is to say it's his own interpretation of primary source material, and that he needs to produce a secondary source that supports what he wants to add. How else would you get that across, succinctly, without relying on the primary/secondary distinction? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps say "I note that you have used Bhagavad Gita as your source for saying that the Sikh religion supports animal rights. Whether this source supports that conclusion or not is debateable. Wikipedia requires sourcing that directly supports what you say and not indirectly. If you supplied a reliable source that itself drew that conclusion through evidence such as Bhagavad Gita, then we can add in the article that source X says the Sikh religion supports animal rights based on Bhagavad Gita." WAS 4.250 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right; it can be done without reference to primary/secondary. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary vs secondary sources 

message: I've removed this, my understanding is that this will be what the new WP:OR page will look like. Hiding Talk 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where that understanding comes from, but it's explicitly stated at the top of this discussion that this page is intended to replace WP:OR.  In fact, I think this probably is the new WP:OR page you're referring to. JulesH 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think at the top it says that examples of original research will be on the original research page.  That's why I removed it.  But I might have it wrong.  It did also make the page shorter, which was nice. Hiding Talk 20:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention of the proposal is that this will be the main NOR policy page, Hiding; we might want to retain the other page for examples, but we might not. Any essential examples for the purposes of illuminating the policy should be on this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research section 

message: I think this proposal will set off a huge firestorm if it is enacted and then fully acted upon, but I'm willing to humor it for the nonce.
What with the emphasis on publication and reliability of sources, it seems to me that this proposal will outlaw the use of a wide variety of websites. Specifically, it seems to me that it will exclude all but the following:
* Official websites as a primary source about the sponsoring entity 
* Archives on official sites of publications which would be acceptable as print sources
It would specifically appear to outlaw use of websites as secondary sources for documents, because one cannot be sure that the website is presenting an accurate copy thereof. (I ran across a case of this just today.) Perhaps more problematically it will outlaw the kind of reference that is common in articles about "things" (toaster, apple, etc.): websites that do not relate vetted research, but might by a reasonable person be considered reliable. There are plenty of articles of this kind in which a strict application of the proposal would remove all but the trivia, because only the trivia is readily amenable to such documentation.
Only the second bullet is addressed in the document as a legitimate source.
-- Mangoe 19:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording actually makes a very clear distinction on these issues and fully addresses your both points. Official websites are OK as primary sources on articles about such sponsoring organizations, and archives as well. Please re-read. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Modulo official websites, it is clear as to what it includes. I deduce that it excludes this other sort of site I described, but I suspect that a lot of editors-- maybe the overwhelming majority-- might not catch onto the implied exclusion. Or worse, there would be radically conflicting views as to what was excluded, because levels of mistrust do vary wildly. It seems to me that the kind of sites it specifically excludes are obviously excluded by a reasonable person anyway; but it also seems to me that perhaps a majority of articles rely on some grey-area source which implied to be unacceptable but not so stated. Mangoe 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested to know which passage(s) in the proposed policy outlaw the websites Mangoe is concerned about. The only issue I could come up with is the paragraph on "Traceability to author(s)". If one interpreted insisted on traceability to individual human authors, it would be a problem, but there is no problem if you also accept corporate or organizational authors. --Gerry Ashton 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick check shows that a lot of the sections under what is now "reliable sources" have changed sufficiently to probably ameliorate the issue. Mangoe 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites 

message: I am not sure about the need for such  distinction. Either we are asking editors to use reliable sources or we are not. Authority and trustworthiness need to be added to the other qualifications, and we nee drop that distinction calling sources: "Reliable sources." This wil eliminate also the whole caveat about "minimum standards". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We need to use one word to describe the sources we regard as acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Over the two years I've been editing, we've used reputable, credible, acceptable, and reliable, and reliable always seemed to be the one that stuck with most people, so I suggest we go with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that we have merged these two distinctions, we need to remove any circular references from the text. We also need to establish what a reputable publisher is, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a "reputable publisher" a concept which relies on the topic in question? And hence it would not be wise to define it in general? Ansell 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we should make those distinctions. We have the idea of some document or some person or some publisher being a reliable enough source for Wikipedia. Do we need any further distinction (e.g. reputable publisher). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure we need a definition of a "reputable publisher" any longer. The criteria is getting quite tight as it is. That's good. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable vs. Reliable 

message: The two policies which this seeks to replace both have clearer names and are more readily understood. There is no need to try to reduce the number of basic policies to two. Calsicol 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a conceptual overlap between V and NOR, Calsicol, so that they naturally suggest themselves for a merge. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This concern/objection will resurface again and again, I am afraid. I guess that only when this page is in good shape and offers a real and better alternative to RS, V and NOR, we will be able to convince of its value. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's right. It's going to have to be an obvious improvement before people will trust it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, indeed. But I think pointing out that sources are needed for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" gets round that; and also that people should not use requests for sources to cause disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't original research by the definition here, which is that no source could ever be found. Perhaps we need something along the lines of "it's OK to add material without a source, but be prepared to back it up with a source if it's challenged."  Or maybe that's something that doesn't need saying, because people will do that anyway. JulesH 06:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an unnecessary and harmful change

message: Per some discussions we had at the September 2006 meetup in Seattle, I'd like to suggest adding one more "key principle", something along the lines of: 
* At times, building an encyclopedia this requires use of judgment about sources, not just application of formal rules. Formal rules are not a substitute for intellectual honesty. Formal rules can not generally determine whether an item of information is notable, or whether it is relevant to a particular topic. 
- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  BTW, I've added a bit about out-of-date sources; I tried to remove a bit of fluff as well.  --EngineerScotty 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  Our goal should be "representing significant views fairly and without bias."  So where do we talk about the "judgment of sources" that will actually bring us to "representing significant views fairly and without bias"?  While it is true that we would like ambitious newcomers to attribute what they write to reliable sources, where do we give guidance on the "judgment of sources"? --not in WP:NPOV and not in the formal rules of Wikipedia:Attribution--where?  --Rednblu 06:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is probably the best place for anything in depth along those lines. JulesH 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another key principle 

message: No original research made it quite clear that the writer should not be making new theories, concepts, or personal analysis.  Verifiability is about proper sourcing.  They are tied, but then, they're not.  The overlap is moreso in "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position."  I think that OR needs to be more streamlined insted..  It talks too much about primary and secondary sources that should be better covered in Verifiability.  The section "Citing oneself" in OR I think is esspecially importantant, considering we ought help clear up the difference between original research, and someone adding stuff their own wealth of knoledge to wikipedia.  Kevin_b_er 07:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let me put another one.  I don't think the policy hammers home enough that its an encyclopedia, not for writing your personal opinions or attempting to establish a new viewpoint on something through wikipedia.  This then ties to NPOV and Conflict of interest.  (You notice many of the core policies tie together?) The 1st pillars expresses this well by stating "Wikipedia is not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."  That is what needs to be rexpressed here. Kevin_b_er 08:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that help? JulesH 08:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've restored it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've restored; it's not exactly the same wording, but it's saying the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's back, although not worded the same way. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't think we need to spell it out to that degree; although I do want to restore the synthesis of an argument example. But if you want to spell it out, we only have to restore the "What does this policy disallow" section, which someone removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating the basic original research 

message: I'm not keen on this section. It's long; too detailed; and it mixes up key concepts. For example, it says anonymous sources aren't allowed unless they've been interviewed by someone trustworthy e.g. Deep Throat. But Deep Throat wouldn't have been Wikipedia's source; he was Bob Woodward's source, and Bob Woodward might have been ours via the Washington Post. 
I think we should remove this section entirely. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed it, because it seemed too problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources section

message: I've created an NOR section because a few editors have expressed concern that the NOR aspect isn't prominent enough, and I restored the synthesis of published material example, because it's something that a lot of editors have difficulty with. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Are there oher areas of NOR that have recurring disputes about?  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the big one. I can't think of anything else on the NOR page that isn't here in some form or another. Can you think of anything essential that's missing? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No original research

message: I made three changes to this section. I broadened #1 to include all problematic sources, as all such sources are reliable primary sources about themselves. I broadened #4 very slightly to clarify something that was already implicit. Then I restricted #5 - the relevant areas of popular culture can get by on #1 and #4. Phil Sandifer 13:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes look good, Phil. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, I'd say that reliable sources can be people or the material they produce. The New York Times is a reliable source, but so is Seymour Hersh, whether published in the NYT or on his own blog; admittedly less so if on his blog, but still acceptable for our purposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a semantic issue. Since Seymour Hersh can't live in the Wikipedia servers (as in Tron), he can't be a Wikipedia source, only his publications can be Wikipedia sources. --Gerry Ashton 18:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tinkering with problematic sources

message: I'm moving to the talk page the following exception to using self-published sources, because it's not clear what it's referring to, and it could create loopholes. Does anyone else have concerns about it? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Maybe the editor that added this can clarify this exception. It is not clear. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this isn't trying to make a general case for what is a specific case in popular culture. This may be a good idea - in general, if there's a specific exception that needs to be made, there's probably a flaw somewhere in the general principle. See below for more details. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewed and recommended section

message: A couple of issues with this section.
First up, I've seen people get confused in the past about what exactly "themselves" means in this case.  It should be a reference to the author of the source, but it's sometimes interpreted as a reference to the source itself.  I'm not sure how best to clarify this, though.
Secondly, I'm of the opinion that the exception should be widened.  Current practice seems to be that self-published sources are frequently used in articles on subjects which the authors are deeply involved with, but not directly about the authors themselves.  It's a frequently cited example, but its still true: most of the sources on Scientology are self-published, either by L. Ron Hubbard or by the Church of Scientology, neither of which "are" Scientology, as can be witnessed by the fact that we have separate articles on each.  By a strict reading of this rule, these sources are not permitted (although you could argue that Hubbard was an expert on the subject, I don't see a good argument that can be made for the CoS), but there is little doubt that they make the article better.  Again, I'm not sure how best to achieve this.  The suggestion I put in the text was reverted quickly.  
Any comments? JulesH 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology is an interesting case--many of the commentators on it are either affiliated with the CoS, or sued by it :); few if any of the published sources on the controversies surrounding Scientology are very good.  Scientology is an important enough topic that we can't ignore it; but it is terribly difficult to cover in a reliable, NPOV manner.  Other than my throwaway comment here, it's one of several Wikipedia topics that I avoid like the plague.  :)--EngineerScotty 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, they don't litigate at the drop of a hat like they used to; nowadays they're more likely to "fair game" critics -- speaking from personal experience. But you're smart to avoid the topic. ;-) -- llywrch 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is both. Not only is someone's blog a reasonable primary source about the author of the blog, the blog is also a reasonable primary source for articles on that blog. This is, again, an essential point that cannot be lost. Phil Sandifer 16:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources in articles about "themselves" 

message: I removed an included example of original research (commented it out, actually), as it was three paragraphs long.  This sort of thing might be better on a FAQ or example pages.  If someone really wants to include it, feel free to revert.  --EngineerScotty 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove of OR example 

message: The foundation concept of attribution is that because "anybody can edit" we MUST, in every article, for every questionable claim, answer the question "Who says so?" in a way that makes sense to the reader. This has nothing to do with primary or secondary sources. This has to do with claims made by a source that we directly quote or use without alteration or analysis. If we quote an analysis it is a primary source for that analysis and it doesn't matter because what matteres is can we trust that author (source) for that analysis which is not a question a lot of talk about primary versus secondary adequately handles. This has to do with why that source should be believed. If there is a conflict of interest of the type that makes their claim suspect then that must be made clear ("Scientologists say ... about scientology."  or "Cold fusion researcher says ... about his own work".) If they lack expertise then that should be made clear. If other experts disagree then that should be made clear. We are not going to clue in all our wikipedia editors into the all the details of proper sourcing no matter how many pages we write. We only need to tell our editers to provide for the reader the answer to "Who says so and why should I believe them?" and here are some wikipedia articles that do that and here are some external links into the art of proper sourcing for further study if you wish. WAS 4.250 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The foundation concept of attribution

message: While one can argue that certain topics on Popular culture are not well covered outside of Internet sources, the change from that to "Respected self-publications", along with the removal of caveats, just opens the floodgates to purely subjective and self-serving analysis about what is "respected". Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It does. Unfortunately, that's a fact of life - it's folly to think that we can actually come up with a prescriptive policy on this. Defer it to the WikiProjects. Otherwise, we get put into a situation of utter madness. The caveats might well need to be reinserted, but I'm very, very wary of deciding that popular culture is the only such area. We need to be careful, in making these guidelines, not to step on the needs of areas of the project that we don't interact with. Phil Sandifer 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The experts are the proper judge of what is and what is not a proper source for what. If someone is judged an expert by anyone worth paying attention to then he should be quoted in wikipedia giving his opinion and the basis of his opinion. "Saint Paul said ...." WAS 4.250 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Does this edit summary look strange to anyone else?  It seems like a part of the page prohibiting something was removed with the edit summary "this should be prohibited"?  Am I missing something? ---J.S (t|c) 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, it looks like Phil was confused here, and the passage did not look confusing to me. I'd be in favor of restoring; if anyone can see what was unclear, then reword accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored. Maybe Phil could clarify the reasons, if the deletion wasn't a mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the section on questionable sources has exceptions, this doesn't belong there. Unpublished sources are unusable, period, in all cases. They belong elsewhere, or just not explicitly mentioned, since they necessarily fail verifiability. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Removal... 

message: though I may regret it.  :)
The essential point is that if reliable sources conflict, NPOV is how we resolve it.  Not by playing the "my sources are better than yours game", which is fondly played in several edit wars I can think of.  
The main exception is if the balance of sources is tilted in one direction or another; the existence of the Flat Earth Society and their publications aren't sufficient to include "according to some, the earth is flat" in Earth and other articles.
--EngineerScotty 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caveats may sometimes be in order, as when a noted actor says that "the tradition of playing Shylock sympathetically began with Edmund Kean in 1847" and we know from reliable sources that Kean died in 1833. Wikipedians are not mere copyists, bound to repeat simple statements without any scholarly judgment. In cases like this, cite the authority accurately and honestly, but mention (and cite for) the conflicting fact or facts in a way to suggest that the authority may be wrong; point to the problem, but do not attempt to solve it with your own arguments. 
- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section on conflicting sources 

message: I'm repeating a comment made above, concerning how archaic works square with the publication requirement (many works from prior centuries were not "published" in the manner we speak of today).  
I would think that with any archaic work (which I'll somewhat arbitrarily define as anything written before 1900--feel free to substitute a more appropriate guideline), such works fall into one of several classes:
* Those which have been analyzed and commented on over the years by more recent scholars.  These I have no issue with using (subject to the opinions of the scholars of their worth)--the lens of history can serve as a replacement for publication.
* Those which have not.  In some cases, an archaic work may have been lying dormant for years in an archive, recently discovered; in other cases, it wasn't considered worth commentary.  In either case, the lack of historical perspective on these should disallow their use on Wikipedia; at least until modern scholars outside Wikipedia comment on and analyze them.  
--EngineerScotty 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Archaic works' worth using are almost always available to us in modern annotated editions. We can then apply the reliability tests to the modern editions. And, as you say, if they haven't been published in an annotated edition or otherwise made avaialble with commentary and/or analysis from a  reliable source, we shouldn't use them. -- Donald Albury 22:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I'm not at all sure I agree with that claim. For example, no one generally reprints critical editions of 19th-century newspapers, but 1860s New York Times issues would be sources for the events of their period of roughly the same quality as the New York Times today, which we don't hesitate to cite. And when something is being cited as a primary source—for example, as a citation for a quotation—there is no problem at all with the source being "archaic". Certainly one wouldn't normally quote a 19th-century science book for any reason other than to show the state of a science at the time, but (again for example) if you are writing about 19th century actors, it is likely that for any but the most famous, 19th century periodicals are the best sources there are. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication and archaic works