Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 22

message: One thing I noticed is that self published sources does not cover self-produced material that is published by another party without independent analysis. Press releases and puff-pieces would fall into this gray-area. I would suggest we add something like "this includes self-produced material, even if it is published by another party without independent analysis" in the WP:SPS section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 September 2007
: That is obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's so obvious that I don't know where the rule is on press releases.  I would generally only quote them, if no other source is available, for straight factual information that is the subject of the press release, e.g. the CEO of company X is Y.  But why further strain the definition of self-published by adding a new concept like self-produced?  Everything is self-produced at some level, right?  Wikidemo 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, speaking of clueless, I finally get what this is about.  You don't mean self-produced, you mean people making claims about themselves, right?  Wikidemo 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not sure of the intent here, but I think with a press release, the source and the type of information needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. E.g., if Ford, a publicly traded company in the U.S. subject to SEC regulations, claimed they shipped 24,231 of some car in a particular month, I'd treat that as a reliably-sourced fact. If Ford claimed the cars were well-designed or improved the environment, I wouldn't treat those as reliably-sourced facts. -Agyle 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally suggest that press releases uncritically reproduced are not useful for any kind of information, due to questions of reliability. For both of the examples noted, CEO identity and product produced within a given month, SEC filings are generally reviewed for accuracy and the incentive of civil & criminal penalties discourages misreporting, lending a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" to the reports. They are of course some rare cases of gross misreporting, but such cases are notable and well-covered by independent reliable sources (for example, Enron or Adelphia Communications). For other claims, such as say a claim of a particular type of cloning or energy product, if actually worthy of note and accurate, they should be covered in outside sources (even if in trade or industry periodicals). Just some thoughts. Vassyana 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that Agyle is nearly right. High profile organisations don't tend to lie in basic factual statements, because they just wouldn't get away with it. Plus, sales statistics don't tend to have better sources than the company itself except in the relatively few markets with industrial bodies that monitor sales. SamBC(talk) 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: High-profile organizations will have better sources available for those claims, such as SEC reports and business news articles. Less noteworthy or prominent organizations will not have the same incentive to truthfulness due to less scrutiny, though SEC filings (for example) retain the same oversight and incentive. In fact, low profile businesses will generally have more incentive to provide accurate legally required financial reports, since they can less afford the penalties involved for misreporting. Vassyana 13:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand self-published to include self-produced 

message: For disclosure, I am named in a dispute currently accepted for mediation.
Is there any reason why an unclassified version of any US Army Regulation (AR) is unacceptable as a verifiable source? Specifically, I am claiming that the downloadable versions of AR 220-1, AR 220-5, and AR 600-82 are acceptable as verifiable secondary sources when retrieved directly from www.army.mil as they are in the public domain as US government publications. The AR series of publication that are unclassified are available as PDF files. The ARs are endorsed by at least on senior general officer serving with the Headquarters of the Department of the Army (HQDA), and they would seem to be the most authoritative source on Army operations available.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it is a crime for active-duty service members to disobey those publications as they have the force of published orders, and while nobody outside the military appears bound by them, they do appear to be verifiable secondary sources (the military officers who drafted and/or approved them, or legislative acts relied upon for drafting, are apparent primary sources).
I am not not disputing any verifiable source that publishes credible evidence of military failures to adhere to those published ARs, or that any such refuting evidence exists; at this time, no editor has brought any such evidence forward in the dispute I am now involved in. Hotfeba 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can seek advice about specific sources at WP:RS/N. Adrian M. H. 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: By the sound of it, on principle, they would not be a reliable source for what has happened, only for what the army says is allowed to happen. The Uniform Code isn't exactly broken rarely, now is it? SamBC(talk) 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: By the sound of it, they would be a reliable source to support assertions about what particular ARs say, or about what they do not say. -- Boracay Bill 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Wtmitchell & Sambc, speaking generally without finding the sources. They can be used to verify what they say, but what they say may not be reliably factual. The assumption that the Army's publications are the most authoritative source on Army operations may not be true for certain topics, due to secrecy, security, political or other issues; they're not a transparent organization. -Agyle 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. I have made a more in-depth request for clarification at WP:RS/N per the above recommendation; if you are curious, the mediation refers to the naming of the 3rd US Infantry article (see style adopted in the United States Army article for comparison). I didn't initiate the mediation request, but I do believe I have the verifiable sources to finish it. Hotfeba 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of unclassified US Army regulations as verifiable sources 

message: An editor in one of the articles I am now editing insist on adding a "citation needed" to a map. The map was created by a Wikipedian, who cited some - but not all - of the source on his map, which is a compilation of several sources. The map in question is :Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920 claims names.png. Also, what to do in cases of maps which don't cite sources at all (ex. :Image:Border-Lithuania-Poland-1919-1939.svg)? Can and should they be removed as "unreferenced OR"?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be very cautious about maps created by users, in particular about controversial political subjects. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV#UNDUE are easily abused in these... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to reference maps? 

message: Hey, I came across this page, as it's a subpage of one of my acquaintances. He's thinking that it should become a guideline or policy, but I'm not so sure. I'm putting it here so that consensus can be gathered in one direction or another, but a great deal of the stuff is already alluded to in other policies, such as WP:CITE. My slightly biased opinion is that it should be included in the 'See also list, as an essay. You should probably comment on the subpage's talk page, rather than here. James-SugronoContributions 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Eternal_dragon/Guidelines/Reference_as_you_edit|New guideline?]] 

message: It must happen sometimes that some unsourced assertion in wikipedia (whether true or not) is picked up by a journalist and then asserted in what is considered a reliable source like a newspaper (without mention of wikipedia). Wikipedia can then assert this new 'fact' with attribution. Is this how knowledge is born? 195.173.57.160 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's one way to perpetuate mistakes, but we cannot prevent sloppy journalism. Adrian M. H. 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Stephen Colbert, this is exactly how "facts" are born. And he keeps trying to make this point on his TV show, for some reason. It doesn't seem to have become a huge problem though, so my belief is that policies like WP:V are working well. Eaglizard 10:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Stephen Colbert but ... Wow! I was reading a book last night and I came to a sentence that I recognised as lifted from a Wikipedia article written by...me! I was really quite pleased. Imitation, flattery etc. So, my point is not just hypothetical. The book is . The article is Nicknames for Dublin criminals. I believe that this kind of incident must be common. Wikipedia has now become the starting point for most authors' research and its assertions will often be repeated in print. Ironically, the more reliable that wikipedia becomes, the more authors will quote from it without attribution. 195.173.57.160 12:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make facts 

message: Hi. :) There is a question of interpretation of the section on foreign language sources that may suggest a need to clarify the wording of the policy. The discussion is at Talk:Sejny#Third opinion. Abbreviated, it boils down to whether the call for clear citation means quoting the original in its base language and providing the translation there. (See footnote #1 on this version of the article to see that implemented, if what I mean is not clear.) As I read the policy, clear citation probably means Wp:citation#Full_citations. If by citation, this policy means "quotation", the wording should probably be changed to clarify that, since "citation" on Wikipedia generally has the specific meaning. If it does mean citation in the WP:C sense, perhaps it would be helpful to wikilink "clear citation" so that bilingual editors can see an explanation of what that means. --Moonriddengirl 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the issue is that the citation is considered by some to contain controversial/fringe/undue claims, which would - according to our policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE - usually not make into the main body.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this one has not yet invited comment, I think I'll ask about it at village pump. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And answered at the pump. Blueboar 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding foreign-language sources 

message: The Baseball-Reference.com is the GOLD STANDARD for baseball references, you bozos!!!!
Garagehero 08:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT?? 

message: People are deleting things based on policy regardless of whether they agree or disagree citing "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" so we need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes and "truth" is a fine criteria where there is no dispute and was in fact the original criteria for the content of the initial wikipedia articles. It was only with disputes over what is true that it became clear that it was better to argue over sources than argue over "truth". We need to be clear that we do not want people adding things they believe are true unless they believe there are reliable published sources for those claims because this is very useful in dealing with people who want to add what they saw with their own eyes and just KNOW is true. On the other hand we now have people going to the other extreme and deleting things that no one has even suggested might be inaccurate; just because it lacks a source (eg BLP's) and the fact that no one disagrees that it is true is held to not be an argument to keep it - and that's not useful behavior. I made an edit WP:BRD that tried to do this but was asked to come here and discuss. So what do you'll think? 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally think that the threshold is fine as-is. In general, if someone adds something without a source, I am not going to delete it unless it is contentious, defamatory, alters the meaning of the sentence, or is just plain wrong. I will, however, place a fact tag on the claim and request a source, either on the talk page, their user talk page, or in the edit summary (if I alter it). That said, this is my personal preference. It is certainly within an editor's purview to delete uncited claims. I think that this applies not only to disputes, but to anything. That said, things that are uncited do not necessarily need to be deleted, just tagged with . Perhaps some specific guidance is in order on what to do if something isn't cited? Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that ordinarily deleting uncited claims represents a bad case of WP:BITE. Fact tags (and ideally notes to the editor for new material as well) should be used except in cases of WP:BLP or theories that seem wacky or otherwise contestable. In addition to its being more respectful to newbies, I also believe it's more in the interests of the project's goals. A user-written encyclopedia will inevitably be somewhat under construction. One that looks that way, with tags showing questionable claims visible at any given moment, is actually more accurate and reliable, in addition to being more harmonious, compared to one where all disputes are hidden away and revert wars are used instead.  --Shirahadasha 18:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As soon as the deleting editor deletes the statement, I would call that a disagreement as to the statement's truth. When they cite "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", this is probably due to a claim by the other party that the deleted statement was true, not to some disappointment by the deleting party that despite their own belief in the statement, that it has to go. Sancho 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on experience at WP, I wouldn't assume that. Objective editing on non controversial topics is relatively unlikely to be challenged.  When there is conflict, there is usually some POV involved. In contentious issues, it is somewhat difficult for involved parties -- even with perfect good faith and the highest motives-- to distinguish properly between truth and what supports their own viewpoint. Although we may discourage editing by those with strong POV, it is generally just those people who will inevitably be interested in such subjects. DGG (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to change it. Its one of the few things that really keeps people who are trying to push POV in an article out. There is no information that is so important that we should let it sit in an article until a proper source is found. This isn't a race to who gets to add some tidbit of information they heard somewhere.--Crossmr 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Information may not be important, but people are important. This is a volunteer organization. We have to keep the goodwill of new volunteers. Simply deleting new user's contributions for policy imperfections does not serve this end. I revert for deleting sourced conduct, major restructurings without consensus, and highly controversial unsourced statements that make an article appear soapish, but in the absence of soap, hoax,  or edits which themselves deleted sourced opposing opinions I don't believe reversion/deletion should be the first response to an unsourced statement. I think we have to keep our user community in mind and the project forgets it at its peril. --Shirahadasha 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to clarify that the rules are for dealing with disputes 

message: Thank you for the discussion. I argue that it is essential to quote self-published sources in many cases, for example
*Senator John Doe asserts that he was never convicted of a felony.John Doe: my Life In Politics. Publishers, Inc. 2007. p 100.
:(It would be unacceptable to say "Senator John Doe was never convicted of a felony", since we have to make it clear that John Doe said it.)
*World-renowned violinist Jon Daue has called himself "the greatest musician of the 21st century".Jon Daue: my Life In Music. Publishers, Inc. 2007. p 101.
*It is the policy of the American Institute of Racial Harmony to exclude people with ginger hair."The problem with Gingers" (pamphlet) American Institute of Racial Harmony, 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmack (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised proposal

message: I notice that about eighty times, that the source www.constitution.org is used as a reference in Wikipedia.  I am curious about the opinion of other editors about whether this source meets the reliable source policy.  While at first glance the website appears to be scholarly and impressive, when you look deeper it appears largely anonymous and without reliable publication process.  Also, there are indications that lead me to guess it is a blog of user Jon Roland and to some extent this also may be a policy question of WP:COI.  What is the consensus opinion of editors on the question of the reliability of this source?  SaltyBoatr 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be worth addressing to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. JavaTenor 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, moved to here:    SaltyBoatr 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.constitution.org 

message: I have put comments markers around: 
::Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." 
::ththis should be seen as an attempt at  good advice, but it is not formal policy or worded as such.  Personally, I think the different sentences contradict each other.  If it applies aggressively to everything, it can not especially apply to something, and there is a difference between "pseudo" information and information suspected as being "pseudo" I suggest the proper place for this is a footnote.  DGG (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree that the unlikely cult of personality around Jimbo shouldn't cloud our thoughts or our policy pages.  Sometimes it seems that most any uneventful thing he sends ends up as a non-sequitur on a policy page.  On the other hand, he really does have a lot of insight, and the predictable anti-Jimbo hating (I use the word in the kind, pop sense) goes too far.  Perhaps we should simply develop a "Jimbo quote" template.Wikidemo 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to Jimbo, I believe new Wikipedia editors would experience undue WP:BITE if their content was summarily removed unless it conformed completely to sourcing requirements. Moreover, disputes about the reliability of sourcing are often connected to content disputes. Wikipedia will be a more WP:CIVIL place if people can discuss sourcing disputes rather than respond by reverting. Articles on highly visible topics may be different, but on ordinary articles -- even very controversial articles -- tagging rather than removing material as the initial response to sourcing issues is more likely to lead to resolution of disputes in a manner productive to the project, both in terms of reducing tensions and in terms of improvement to the overall quality. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's another problem with many Jimbo quotes.  They can't be taken literally.  He's an idea man more than a nuts and bolts policy pragmatist, and in that role he is prone to overstate a point for emphasis.  If you read this closely, he is riffing off of "random speculative...pseudo-information."  To suggest that all unsourced information should be aggressively removed rather than tagged is utterly counter to the actual way things work here.  The quotation complicates things more than it explains them, especially for the uninitiated. Wikidemo 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's opinion 

message: This policy article says, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.". I suggest  that "third-party" be changed to read "supporting".  Wikipedia itself, of course, is not a third-party source. Other open wikis are third-party sources.  The issue does not revolve around their third-party-ness but around their fitness to be cited as supporting sources.  If this change is made, a similar change needs to be made to the WP:RS guideline article. -- Boracay Bill 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If another Wiki is being cited as a third party source, you would expect their (secondary) sources to be included in their article / page.  If they are, then why not just cite those? If they are not cited on the other Wiki, then it shouldn't be used as any kind of source, because it could have been made up by anyone. Neil ☎ 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested wording change 

message: I don't know if in one of the many archives already here it was debated (i'm pretty sure it was).
We in wikipedia have lot of web links that are used often as sources, also because not everyone has the possibility or the will to buy an appropriate book to couver the issues, and moreover, web sources are available to be checked by all, including erroneous or bad-faith statements.
Now i want to ask to you the 'ufficial' position. It's blatalanty obvious that there millions web links here in wikipedia, and not necessarly they are links to universities or whatever 'istitutional'. In stead, there are many sites that talks, as example about history.
Now, that's the problem: in wikipedia as verifiability how these sources are handled? It's natural that they are widely used, but still, is correct to contest this or that site? As example, in F-86 page there are in references, at least 40 links. Tell me, is it right, how it appears to be in practice, to cite these web sites? 
As example, the site : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html is contested in F-86 page datas. I cannot understand how because a site is 'unusually giving his book sources' it is not allowed to be cited! So if that site gives only datas without sources used, it would be more acceptable? Differently to many other sites this one has one specific author, is well known (over 300,000 visits in http://home.att.net), and offers a list of sources to verify freely his affermations, in a work that is meant to be a sort of encyclopedia. This could be 'unusual', but it is not difficult to recon it as way more reliable than usual web sites (used as well) are. Moreover, the site owner is an author also in paper world, with two books and some articles published. So, to me it looks far more reliable than thousand web sites used freely as sources or link, or whetever.
Moreover, Joe Baugher is present also here in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Baugher ( 'who is also notable for his series of articles on aviation') and if you search him in the web you'll find    http://it.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-mdp&p=Joe%20Baugher%20aviation no less than 2,560 results, mainly related to world aviation.
In fact, he is one of the most known and widespread authors in web aviation articles. So tell me, what's the point to take out him from wikipedia aviation articles, when he is in fact one of the most quoted aviation authors in the web? This is not the blog or personal site of some obscure 'author' without identity or affidability. He is in fact both known and well accepted in the web about aviation world--Stefanomencarelli 11:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web sites 

message: Dear contributors, as you may be aware Google books are being used widely recently. However Google books has not only visible abstracts (several pages like this) but also and restricted view (few words of sentences, like this (text in right corner)). Such books' tatters being increasingly used as well. However such limited view makes impossible to see not even a broader context, but sometimes it is impossible to verify and even see the text. For instance, my newest experience regarding such tatters -  (please see, right corner - white space without any text). It was stated by contributor who used this source that actually there are such text poetka polska Karolina Proniewska (1828—1859), nazywana z litewska Karolina Praniauskaitė, notably contributor used these taters as primary mean and not original book with full text. Another example - from this tatter contributor suggested that there are such text Karolina Anna Proniewska urodziła się... w rodzinie szlacheckiej, we can see some similar words there but not all as was stated. And this is not English source as well. So does such practice with presumed text of Google books qualifies WP:OR and meats WP:V standards? M.K. 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatters 

message: Are images subject to verifiability?  For example, if I take a picture of someone that I claim is the president of an organization, do I have to back that with a citation? ThreeE 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.Wikidemo 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this one is more of an "it depends"... normally images do not need verification. This is because it is usually obvious and uncontested that the image is indeed what it purports to be. But, if someone raises a reasonable challenge, contending that the image is not, in fact, a picture of the president of the organization as you claim, you might have to defend your contention that it is.  It does not happen very often, but it could happen. Blueboar 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I thought that I had made this proposal here recently but I cannot find it in the article history. This is a second attempt.
This policy page says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources."
It occurs to me that, though Wikipedia itself is not, other open wikis are "third-party sources" relative to Wikipedia and to the subject of any particular Wikipedia article (right?). It also occurs to me that the answer to the question of suitabllity of open wikis as supporting sources turns not on the third-partyness of the source but on the questionable reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight which grows out of the openness of open wikis. Consequently, I propose a terminology change here to something like: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as supporting sources."
Incidentally, related my point above, I'll mention that there is a discussion at WT:RS#Wikitruth_as_a_reliable_source regarding (some?) closed wikis as possibly being reliable sources. -- Boracay Bill 00:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology change proposal 

message: I removed this bullet point as it appears to be in contradiction with the "self serving" prohibition.  If statements about something's notability are not sourced from elsewhere they are clearly self-serving. - CygnetSaIad 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted someone who rolled back this change, apparently under the mistaken assumption that policy pages are somehow special.  If there is any argument about why this should not be removed, I'm happy to hear it, but please don't just revert for the sake of reverting.  Have a look at Template:Policy, and note that it doesn't say "check before editing."  While common sense dictates that sometimes, in contentious cases, we do that, Wikipedia:Be bold is pretty central to the whole Wikipedia concept. CygnetSaIad 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - this has a very interesting relationship to a nearly identical formulation that covers a different (but overlapping) scope of material in WP:BLP.  To do this intelligently I think one has to consider both sections.Wikidemo 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily.  Barry Bonds could write in his blog "Man, I fucking hate baseball" (hypothetically) - it's relevant to his notability (playing baseball, mostly) but not noticably self serving. WilyD 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That example would only be appropiate if Mr. Bond was notable for "fucking hat[ing] baseball."  In that case, we'd want something more from him than his word on his website that he was famous for it.  The presumption would be (still talking about Bond) that whatever it is that he's notable for would be established elsewhere, and his opinion as above would be found on his website.  Perhaps if we had some better examples? - CygnetSaIad 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  Just glancing at this.  The bullet point is concerned with whether the info is relevant to the person's notability, not whether the info is the person's notability.  In the Bonds example, farking hating baseball may not be his notability, but it would be relevant to it.  I'm with Wily on this one.  --Floorsheim 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example given seems, with respect, borderline nonsensical.  Is the suggestion then that anything the person stated on their blog that related to whatever they were notable for is valid for inclusion?  That is to say, since Bond is famous for baseball, anything he says about baseball on his blog can be quoted?  If that is the argument, it appears to utterly sidestep the notion that the items included in an article should be encyclopedic in nature.  CygnetSaIad 05:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but let's suppose that Bonds made a comment in his blog to the effect that using steroids helped him hit more home runs.  Now that would be directly relevant to his notability, and yet it would not be self-serving. Blueboar 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something like this.  For instance, if Scott Tremaine includes an anecdote in his blog about how he likes ice cream, that's not relevant to his notability and should be excluded.  But if he includes an anecdote about how he developed his love of astrophysics after his grandfather bought him a telescope (hypothetically, I have no idea) then that is relevant and might be included.  Relevant to just means "on the topic of the thing(s) they're notable for".  This is what it *means*, anyhow, and why its not redundant.  As an actual example, I used Peter Goldreich's page at the IAS to source that he was a Ph.D. student of Thomas Gold, when all the other sources used the more generic "graduate student" or just "student".  A science's Ph.D. supervisor is very relevant to their notability, so this is the kind of exception we're making. WilyD 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Ok, thank you both, the better examples have made this more clear to me. - CygnetSaIad 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "it is relevant to their notability" 

message: Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Wikitruth as a reliable source, Jossi and I have removed "open" from the line prohibiting the use of wikis as sources. It implied that closed wikis were allowed even though they fail the basic verifiability standards since they are almost certainly self-published and are inherently unstable. We couldn't think of a counter-example: a closed, stable wiki written by experts or published by a proper source.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, I think you were rushing out to get to that tent - Jossi removed "open wikis", not simply "wikis".  A similar change may be appropriate here, but removing "open" and leaving "wiki" in implies the software platform is the problem - when it's the self-published nature of the information that is at issue.  -- SiobhanHansa 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citizendium is I think a counter example.It's stable enough to cite, contributing is open to anyone who registers whose identity can be verified, but the  approval of final versions  --what they call "editing"--is conducted by subject experts. I do not think material there can be said to be "self-published"--at least not the part in the approved versions. DGG (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Citizendium is a tertiary source, it would be better to cite directly the source they cite, or at least cite the direct source "as cited in Citizendium". Of course that is only applicable to these few articles that have been "approved", otherwise it would not be a verifiable source, same as Wikipedia itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Furthermore, it's not part of Wikipedia either. mike4ty4 04:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just mentioning that as of this writing, the project page says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources." -- My understanding of the present consensus is that it should say: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia and/or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.", right? -- Boracay Bill 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I would go on to comment (per the preceding section) that Wikipedia clearly cannot be considered a "third-party source" in any case since Wikipedia isn't a third party within the context of Wikipedia articles.  The question here is whether it is appropriate to cite Wikipedia and/or other open wikis as supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open wikis 

message: I propose the following clarification:
:It is acceptable for an editor to cite to a reliable source not authored by him, previously published by a reliable publisher elsewhere, a copy of which also appears on a website for which he is the webmaster, without having to omit the link, especially if there is no link available to a reliable site to which he is not a contributor.
Jon Roland 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking about Convenience links... and we already have guidance on those.  Blueboar 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion is "creepy".1  - Jehochman  Talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of "convenience link" is all but deprecated, and people have not been updating or paying attention to that page for a while.  Links can pretty much be divided among source citations and external links these days, and what used to be called a "convenience link" is more or less what an "external link" is.  In Wikipedia-speak, anyway.  I think the proposed language goes without saying.  It's not self-published or anything simply because the editor is the webmaster.  The only issue is conflict of interest.  If you're going to have an external link rather than a source link, the only impediment would be linkspam, which is indeed a valid concern.  Is the editor adding external links to his own website because it truly helps the article, or simply to promote his website?  It's best to be careful, and for the most part count on third parties to add those links.  But that's a discussion for WP:EL.  Wikidemo 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing by editors who happen to be webmasters to copies of verifiable sources copied on their sites 

message: Is there a specific template that would alert editors to this problem more specificlly? As of right now when ever I am spoting those errors the only template that would fit the spot of the problem is Template:Failed verification. Now what seems to cause most of these Cite Errros if the use of named References and its transclusion over and over again. Whenever someone makes an edit of a section and ends remove the base reference of this the same transclusion of that same named reference becomes a cite error 8.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be possible to write a bot to fix this problem automatically, by fishing the old reference out of the page history. Perhaps put this idea on Wikipedia:Bot_requests?—greenrd 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite error 8; No text given. 

message: This stuff about "verifiability, not truth" violates wikipedia's own policy against weasel words. To verify means "to make true". Wikipedia uses that term to mean that an article can be "made true" by providing reliable references. To say that it's "not about truth", is not true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood. Wikipedia does not claim its articles are "true", only that the content is verifiable to published sources. Verifiability, in our case, refers to ascertaining the correctness of a text in comparison with a provided source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "to make true" the words in the article in reference to a source. I understand that. But the policy is (ab)used to say "it's not about truth", which is not true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You probably mean that some people are confused about the meaning of this policy. In these cases is best to be armed with lots of patience and kind manners and tell these people to get clued about the real meaning of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording is very carefully worked out.  The problem is that "Truth" is ofen hard to determine.  POV often defines what is "true".  So we rely on verification (in the sense that it is "true" that a source says something).  It does not matter whether something that is stated in a reliable source is "true" or not, if that statement is relevant to an article, we can include discussion of it in our article.  The amount of space devoted to that discussion is determined by WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe, and a host of other policies and guidelines. Blueboar 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: His point may have something to do with this:  Even though we say that what goes on Wikipedia is precisely what can be verified by outside sources, the whole point of that policy is to try to make sure the truth gets represented on Wikipedia and not something else.  To suggest that our intention here has nothing to do with expressing truth is a little bit misleading and maybe somewhat "weasely" as well.  --Floorsheim 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at all... let's take an obvious, if extreme example... There are all sorts of scholarly books (accademic texts from eminent theologians) that state categorically that "Jesus is the Son of God".  But is this statement "true"?  To a Christian the answer is "yes"... it is the "truth"... but to a non-Christian the "truth" is something different.  What can be verified, however, is that eminent theologian X states that Jesus is the Son of God.Blueboar 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a tendency to use its own definition of words like "verifiable" and "consensus". While literal definitions may be at odd with our policy, we do make an effort to make it clear what we mean. 1 != 2 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify = To Make True 

message: Slim, I thought we were done advancing hardline and white line sourcing distinctions across thousands of articles without any regards to individual cases. Sometimes self-published material belongs in a BLP. It needs to be handled with editorial discretion and care. You can't solve problems on individual articles from a policy page - you can just lay out principles for doing so. The wording you advocate would mean that Michael Moore can't easily be quoted in George W. Bush, Neil Gaiman's comments on his blog about his lawsuit with Todd McFarlane aren't valid sources, J. Michael Straczynski's Usenet postings about Babylon 5 can't be used to describe events about the production of the series beyond what he personally did... and that's just the three I can think of with 2 minutes effort.
We really, really need to stop making white line content policies with the expectation that they will apply universally to thousands of articles. Sourcing is complex and requires a lot of judgment based on individual details of a particular situation. You cannot Taylorize it, no matter how much you try. Phil Sandifer 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, as before, I recommend that discussions of sources be handled through a guideline, not a policy, keeping the policy pages simple. There will always be fact situations that represent exceptions to any simple statement on these matters. Statements that attempt to cover all possible or even all likely cases can only do so by being overly complex, as bureaucratic rules (which tend to expand to cover exceptional cases) tend to be. Beliefs that it is possible to construct rules that cover all possible situations tend to result in chimeras. See Zipf's Law and the Pareto Principle for a more theoretical explanation. Guidelines, which claim to cover only the general case and permit exceptions, are Wikipedia's way out of this dilemma. So is WP:IAR, but I think in general it's better to create guidelines when we know we'll have lots of exceptions than to create policies and then ask people to ignore them. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think, in the event of the lawsuit between Gaiman and McFarlane, Gaiman's publicly made accusations about McFarlane's conduct are relevant. Note that this would be preferable to the current situation, where that lawsuit is described mostly from Gaiman's perspective without any sourcing. A well-written paragraph on this, though, could easily read something like "Gaiman claims that McFarlane *quote from Gaiman's blog*. McFarlane claims *any relevant McFarlane quotes, though I'm unaware of his public comments*. The courts ruled *cite a nice little news story here*." That's a very good overview. But it depends on self-published sources. And, notably, one that does not depend on those sources will not be as comprehensive and NPOV. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever considered that if no one has ever written a secondary source on the respective views of Gaiman and McFarlane, that they might not be suitable for an encyclopedia? I'm sorry, but your interpretation completely guts the qualification that SPS claims must be non-controversial, non-derogatory. We can always quote an SPS by name, and it's non-controversial that X blog said Y, but controversial SPS claims just don't belong in third-party BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to break this discussion off into it's own section, since it's not discussing either the "no self-published sources about living persons at all" position or the "non-controversial only" position that we reached on WP:BLP. "No hardline distinctions" is a third position, but the consensus for it needs to be established separately, and I don't want to let the argument over it interfere with the discussion over "non-controversial only". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a good number of secondary sources. Pretty much all of them use the blog entries as major sources, meaning that they are inferior accounts in that they summarize and cut down on material that is readily available to us in a more complete form. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there are, which is why I found it such a strange example. I think that would be allowed as a sort of primary-source quoting. In any case, secondaries, not self-published sources, should outline the article. In cases without secondaries, we should not use the material. We're free to quote Moore's opinions on Bush, but only when someone besides Moore has taken enough notice to repeat them. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is bad writing - and, in fact, is why the primary/secondary source distinction needed to die in WP:RS (and, mercifully, has died. Praise Jesus.). Secondary sources are vital for establishing what we are so unfortunately calling "notability" these days. But they are not the best sources for citation in all cases. Secondary sources are what tell us that we should report on what Michael Moore or Neil Gaiman says. But the primary sources remain superior for the actual act of reporting. Phil Sandifer 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I see it a lot, where someone is frustrated with a specific policy that is hamstringing them on a specific article, so they drive a policy change that will allow that info, but the wider ramifications are disastrous. I have learned to let those content bits that I want in fall by the wayside, because it may keep one article from being marginally improved, but the greater good is served. - Crockspot 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To be clear, there is no content dispute on this issue that I am aware of or involved in - it was the real-world example that sprung to mind. Or, more accurately, one of a few real-world examples that sprung to mind. While carving out exceptions for particular cases is indeed unwise, not considering particular cases in creating sweeping policy seems a far worse idea. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the guidelines , the policy are  intended to serve the goalof producing an encyclopedia. The point is not  whether things meet formal rules--the point is whether they are indeed meeting the basic standards of NPOV and V in their basic meaning. The interpretation of policy is in the hands of the peoplewho edit WP--that's us, and its based on our judgment and common sense and discretion. If we were produced WP by a AI machine, then we would need definedrules for the automaton that writes it. But we are producting it ourselves, and if we can show what we are doing is fair and honest, this is what is really required.  DGG (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but in practice policy is often applied rigidly. Our best policies resist this. Our worst encourage it. This approach encourages it. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No hardline distinctions 

message: I have never liked that line - too many people think it means that things just need to be verifiable, and it doesn't actually matter whether they are true or not - I realise what it actually means is "something being true isn't enough - it has to be verifiably true".  
I would like to suggest changing that opening line from "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to "For inclusion in Wikipedia, information has to be not just true, but verifiably true", or something similar.  Thoughts? Neil ☎ 15:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against. It would make many editors think they can remove well-sourced material just because they are personally convinced that it is not true. PrimeHunter 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there really a large number of people who go around adding information that they personally believe to be false, but verifiable? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't like the change, because it would allow people to simply claim things are false and remove the content. This is a problem we've  had before on many articles where we've pointed to this and said "If you really think otherwise, get it published somewhere and we'll note that". Tampering with this could lead to many problems. JoshuaZ 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with JoshuaZ. --Coolcaesar 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we tried to determine "truth", then we would be committing original research. Unless we has a source to verify it was the truth... well you see we are back at "verifiability" again. 1 != 2 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you come across some fact that you think is an "untrue" statement (I will assume it is cited), one way to deal with it is through attribution.  Change it to a "statement of opinion"... as in: "According to Source X such and such is true<citation to X>".  This makes it a "true" statement (it is true that the source does indeed say this and it can be verified that the source says it)... but informs the reader that it the truth behind the statement is simply the opinion of the source and may be in doubt.Blueboar 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good advice. 1 != 2 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I agree my version isn't great either, but there has to be a better way of wording it. Verifiability is how we know something to be the truth, it isn't instead of the truth, and the current wording is confusing some users (see my talk page, for example). Neil ☎ 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you are wrong. Verified truth would have much more weight than verified lies. The point of the threshold is to require that some reliable sources be cited. If there are none, then whether truth or lies, it is just a useless unverified waste of bytes. - Crockspot 05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wrong about what?  If a "reliable" but transient source (like a newspaper, where errors are incredibly common) errs and it is published as fact, despite the obvious falsity, then is picked up by a more permanent source, such as Wikipedia, then the Wiki is utterly useless.  That's my point. Araphel 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose a major US newspaper quotes a prominent world leader, but will not say where or when the statement was made, or who heard it, or who translated it into English. Does this satisfy WP Verifiability? Or how about those "news" stories sourced from unidentified "officials"? It seems that if these are repeated often enough they become "notable" and therefore can be referred to in WP even if they are total fabrications - they are "verified" by citing numerous newspaper reports. Fourtildas 05:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" 

message: I would purposed that we change the line “Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.”
by adding in the word “reliable”, as thus:
“Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.”
This line was originally added by SV on 16 December 2005 under the heading “When Adding information” which read:
:The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed.
Since that time, WP has aged or matured, and the need to cite a source and thus avoid OR is more or less covered under WP:OR, while Verifiability speaks to the quality of a source, rather than the simple need for one. 
This is particularly noteworthy under the section title “Burden of Evidence”, as the burden spoken about is that editors provide a “reliable” source. Brimba 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should, if we are tinkering this section, note also that it is querrelous and disruptive to demand sources for material you do not doubt the accuracy of. This misuse of the fact tag remains a favorite of rules-lawyers and trolls, and should be disclaimed explicitly. Phil Sandifer 18:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that  an editor does not doubt the accuracy of specific material in an article, does not mean that our readers would not doubt it either. When I come across an article about which I know nothing about, the only way for me to accept the material as accurate, is to check if it is sourced or not. Material that is verifiable, if challenged, should be supported by a source, so I do not see the need to dilute this important distinction. As for Brimba's suggestion, I see not harm is explicitly declaring that the source needs to be reliable, as per WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the notion but the wording (can one word be a "wording"?) needs fine-tuning.  The problem is that "reliable" is used in at least two senses on Wikipedia - one as a threshold, one as a scale, from absolutely unreliable to unimpeachable.  If we simply say that information must have a reliable source, it is likely that some people will impose an incoherent standard of reliability when the issue is actually pretty subtle - you know, extraordinary claims requiring extra reliable sources and all that.  I would say "sufficiently reliable" but that would only confuse people more.  Any thoughts on wording?  Wikidemo 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody but me have concerns over the wording or is everyone happy simply adding the word "reliable" as proposed?  I just made a friendly (I hope) revert so we can make sure there's consensus.  As I was saying we my concern is that some people would take the new wording as a more permissive standard for deleting content. But it's just a concern, no strong position.  Thx.  Wikidemo 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating clearly what is understood, but not stated 

message: I hope this addition will not prove controversial, as I just added it to the non-English source section. But if it is, I realised its importance recently when a highly POV editor added some criticism to a BLP. The word-for-word original text he supplied appeared to back up his interpretation, and he was complying with WP requirements in citing it, but when the surrounding text was considered it showed  that the original author was writing in a wry, even affectionate tone, and to take it literally would be quite wrong, unfair to the author and to the subject. Rumiton 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered under WP:UNDUE. — BQZip01 — talk 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't followed any discussions about translation recently, but is there any reason now to shift the focus to the intention and point of view of the author rather than the accuracy of the translation?  They both seem a little obscure but the new one perhaps more so.  I'm thinking of a very matter-of-fact kind of sourcing, say that a particular castle was built by King X in year Y and had Z rooms, located Q kilomters outside of city R.  What difference does it make what the author intended?  The point is to get the facts right.Wikidemo 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this addition is important and I approve of it. Here is a prime example: The present President of Iran was alleged, by the bulk of the US mainstream media, to have said that he wanted to wipe Israel "off the map". Some have interpreted this as meaning he wanted to nuke Israel, or something like that. But others have argued that in fact, what he really meant was that the present Israeli regime is illegitimate (e.g. let's say, because it is essentially a European colonial settler state that denies the "right of return") - and therefore the *state* currently ruling over Israel and its occupied territories, should be replaced by a more legitimate state. I don't want to get into the details of this argument, but whatever your views on this matter, it is clear that the intention of his statement matters a great deal to the veracity of the translation, politically and indeed for future historians.—greenrd 23:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A similar example occurred in 1956 when Nikita Kruschev famously told the west: "We will bury you." The right wingers had a ball with it, rendering it word-for-word into English, and using the "clear threat of nuclear attack" to justify the massive defense build-up that was taking place. But the speech was about economic and social competitiveness, not warfare. In the context a better translation might be: "We will leave you for dead." If Wikipedia had existed then, history might have been changed. Rumiton 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the actual intent behind the statements of dictators promising the destruction of Western nations has to do with the legitimacy of a translated source.  Even in the original example, any source using a "wry" or "affectionate" tone that has to be decyphered is not an entirely reliable source.  That goes to the assessment of non-English sources as reliable, not the accuracy of the translation.  I just don't see what the intentions behind a journalist working for Le Monde have to do with anything, any more than the intentions behind a Wall Street Journal reporter.  - Wikidemo 10:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that when an unbiased translator is sincerely pondering which word or expression to use from perhaps 5 dictionary alternatives, the intention of the original author has to be the decision-maker. It is his or her thoughts that are being conveyed. Biased translators might try to overrule this. Seeing more of the original context lets the reader decide if this has happened. I agree that the "wry" and "affectionate" writing was not a useful source for Wikipedia, but without reading more of the original, the reader would not know that it was wry and affectionate. It could be presented as straight information, which is what the POV editor did. Rumiton 11:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We do have to remember that Wikipedia has other Policies that may come into play here.  The problem comes with our knowing what the intent of the author actually was.  If we (wikipeida editors) try to interpret what that intent was for ourselves, we end up violating WP:NOR.  To avoid this, we need reliable sources that talk about the intent. If two or more reliable sources offer contrasting translations or contrasting views of the author's intent, then we may have a situation where WP:NPOV comes into play... we may need to discuss both views.  I don't think this is something we can summarize in one or two sentences in a Policy.  It needs to be determined on a case by case basis. Blueboar 12:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see that other policies come into play, but it seems to me the reality is that Wikipedia editors do need to sift information, to exclude extraordinary claims, and to produce a work that presents a neutral and coherent statement about a subject. Our understanding can never be perfect, but getting the best possible grasp of a source's message is a part of this. It is surely not Original Research. Is it? Rumiton 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We must be careful. Reasonable people can differ on the meaning of a message. If there are reliable sources offering different interpretations, we have to acknowledge that. We cannot offer our own interpretations, but have to rely on reliable sources. Yes, we have to sift through available information and decide what is pertinent to an article. But, trying to decipher what someone 'really' meant is not part of our mission. -- Donald Albury 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly see the need for care, really I am advocating more of it, not less. As an example -- the page on the German religious figure Kurt Krenn contains an unsourced, presumably translated attribution: "I can do whatever I want." It isn't OR to say that this creates the impression of a petulant, arrogant old man. I would like to see not just the exact German words he spoke, but the context in which he spoke them. (I should declare that I have worked professionally for some years as a German-English translator.) Rumiton 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the problem is that there is no source. If a reliable source is cited, the reader can judge for themselves. It is not our place to question the accuracy of the translation. If the translation is disputed in a reliable source, or another reliable source offers a different translation, then we cover the dispute. But, we do not ourselves (the editing community of WP) decide whether or not a given translation is accurate. -- Donald Albury 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would also have to distinguish between English sources that contain translated quotations, sources that are translations of non-English versions, and translations performed by editors.Wikidemo 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated works may require some context, not just the original words being translated 

message: In the policy the following statement is made:
:"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
Can I first say that I completely agree with this sentiment and would like it to be followed through on everywhere on Wikipedia. I would however question its location. It basicly seems to sum up the content of the primary notability criteria (which I also completely agree with). My point is in terms of verifyability in some cases reliable, third party sources are probably not needed. I'm thinking particularly about articles on fictional topics (Although I'm sure there are other example) where the original text or comments from the author are often given to verify a statement. I personally do not think that such articles (which are pretty prevelant) belong on Wikipedia because they do not meet WP:NN but I do not see how they actually break with the verifiability requirement. Elsewhere on the page it only mentions the need for reliable sources;
:"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"
:"Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
and in these cases surely the first party sources are the most reliable. Whilst I agree with the third party part of the statement I think it belongs elwhere (it is already made clear in WP:NN). Additioanlly as this statement basicly sums up what is in WP:NN and is part of a policy page (whereas WP:NN is only a guideline) it pretty much makes the notability criteria pages and subpages redundant. Just my thoughts. [[Guest9999 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Party 

message: I feel that a recent rewording of WP:FICT now directly contradicts this policy (among others) - I have brought up the issue here - if anyone would like to comment. [[Guest9999 12:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FICT]] 

message: Could we get language here or in RS discouraging the use of other encyclopedias as sources?  I don't mean banning since having some reference is still better than nothing, but it also strikes me as a special sort of dumb when facts in Wikipedia are referenced to Brittanica and the like.  See also:   -- Dragons flight (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to see WP:PSTS... a subsection of WP:NOR that discusses this. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I've always thought our primary-secondary-tertiary classification did more harm than good, partly because the distinction is arbitrary and is inconsistent between fields.  My experience in scientific literature is that the view of p-s-t is much more like  this than the Wikipedia usage. -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, you may want to get involved in some of the discussions going on currently at NOR... the wording of the PSTS section is being reviewed. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedias 

message: Hi. Id anyone able to point me at information which states what our policy is on using Googlebooks as sources, and how citations from them should be formatted? Thanks SP-KP 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been using them for awhile. Use the "More about this book" to get the core bibliographic details. That +  keeps me fed with nice references. Now, the books themselves still have to pass WP:RS and such. Don't go citing Mein Kampf in any old article about how people should be treated without fully understanding what you are doing :) spryde | talk 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books is a wonderful resource that opens up so much more material for us, that and New York Times and others putting their archives online.  Is it best to link to the main page about the book, or the page of your citation?  I've been linking to the main page on theory that people might want to look at the book first before they flip over to the page, also that the pages Google chooses to show and how they show them might be unstable.  Wikidemo 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think you did it quite  right there. You were correct to cite the actual book, but then you should also have given the link to google Book Search, so that other people could conveniently find it. DGG (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, everyone, keep in mind that ProQuest and InfoTrac are available at most public libraries in English-speaking North America.  If your local public library has the sufficient tax base (and most do) then they will offer proxy access so one can search 100 million articles without leaving the house.  Sure, InfoTrac and ProQuest pale in comparison to LexisNexis but are a lot better than what's available on the public Web.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Googlebooks as sources 

message: There is a presentation at DRV asserting that WP:SPS blogs under this policy means only self-published blogs. A careful reading of the Verifiability policy shows that such an impression is not unreasonable. You might want to clarify this. -- Jreferee   t/c 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs only applies to self published blogs 

message: Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 had a number of citations pointing to the article's own talk page, which I've now removed.  However I cannot find a statement in black and white stating why this is wrong.  The article in question still has links to archived discussions on its talk page (e.g. to a Reuters story that does not exist on the Internet), although these are inline, rather than being citations per se. What's the official line here?  12:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles shouldn't refer explicitly to talk pages in general; it's a form of self reference that we don't permit. The fact that the article was referring to the talk page for citations doesn't exempt it from this general principle. And we especially can't use our own talk pages to archive an original translation of a Reuters story, then use our copy as a reference. That is a copyright violation, and needs to be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Wiki Talk pages 

message: The policy currently (and since a long time) says that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;"
This seems to me like a very bad use of self published sources. All indications and claims of notability should be sourced to independent sources, it is way to easy to claim that you have done X or won award Y or invented Z in your own book or on you own website. I can't see any instances when a claim relevant to someones notability should be accepted if the only source we have is a self published source. If no convincing arguments to the contrary are given, I propose to remove this sentence (the bulleted part, that is, the rest of the sentence is of course needed to keep the text intelligible). Fram (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand, that's not what that bullet point sentence means. "it is relevant to their notability" doesn't mean "it establishes their notability", it means "it matters to the reason we have an article on them in the first place". This is to avoid going off on a sideline: "Joe Schmoe, the famous physicist, spent three pages on a long rant on his personal web site, where he explained how wonderful he thinks Christina Aguilera is, and how overrated Britney Spears is." In general, secondary sources will avoid going off on this kind of sideline; if Schmoe is famous for physics, they will only write about his physics. But personal web sites, self-published sources, will often go off on these unrelated rants, since they are, after all, personal. Our articles shouldn't follow them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The part you're looking for that says we shouldn't write Schmoe won the Nobel Prize just because he says he did, is "it is not unduly self-serving;" - separate bullet point. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I read it the other way around. Hmm, either it needs clarification or I need better reading skills :-) We'll go with the latter for the moment! Fram (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: agreed DGG (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious sentence in the part about self-published sources 

message: There is discussion at WT:RS regarding merging the guideline back in here. Currently, seven people have commented and it's 7-0 in favour. I think it should be a step-by-step go through. For instance, this policy doesn't actually mention plagiarism and copyvio but it probably should. I'd like to collapse this RS section into a couple of sentences and add it here:
:"Wikipedia insists on reliable sources both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in articles."
Any objections? Marskell (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly object. If you did it  It will mean such a major change in many of the sections that it would be better first to try to work out a proposed merge on a subpage. For one thing, is it to be a Policy--then most of RS is over-specific. or is it to be a Guideline, then it downgrades the policy nature of this page. In this case, it eliminates all the other RS information on plagiarism and copyvio. (Unless you simply suggest we have such a paragraph here in addition to whatever might be merged or not merged. DGG (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, most of RS is gone. There wasn't much to it, even before we started going through the sections. WRT copyvio, it's already a matter of policy that we cite sources to avoid plagiarism, isn't it? Nothing particularly groundbreaking about saying so on our main policy page. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DGG, there is nothing in this page that is not already covered in WP:V. Rather that speaking about merging we should be speaking of redirecting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there will always be a place for more specific guidelines--where do you suggest they should go? DGG (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples can be refocused. It was forked out when RS was bloated last year and has been in limbo. I think it should be cut down and only mention the sources that come up most often: the file-sharing and social network sites, IMBD, blogs etc. Marskell (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In practice, most people cite to WP:RS, WP:N, and the many (many) off shoots of WP:N. It would be nice to attempt to give more focus on WP:V since it is a policy. -- Jreferee   t/c 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS merger specifics 

message: Apologies if this has been raised before, but is citizen journalism acceptable as a reliable source? MeriNews is an India-oriented news site that may function as a source for news not covered (or adequately covered) by major news channels. To be honest there isn't much professionalism with mainstream Indian news sites which presents a problem for India-related articles on Wikipedia. The MeriNews site itself seems fairly professional in terms of reportage and writing style, although I have spotted one or two articles that fall below what I would consider an acceptable standard.
So my question is: Would MeriNews be an acceptable source to cite in Wiki articles if they are used judiciously accounting for an NPOV style of writing? Thanks, Ekantik talk 01:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MeriNews, IndyMedia and such sites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The concept of RS refers to publications with reputable fact checking that these sites do not have. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizen Journalism/MeriNews 

message: Hello. Currently, the Naruto (a popular Japanese manga and anime series) task force is having a discussion about whether to call a certain character Pein (a direct translation) or Pain (a slightly altered translation based on pronounciation) on the Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto) page. As the majority (or rather, all but two or three) are fanboys and fangirls of the series and follow anything that websites that translate the series say (they say Pain for pronounciation), most believe Pain is the official translation. Unless the Japanese producers or VIZ Media, which translates the series to English, give an ifficial word, there isn't an official translation. As such, most of the members are split apart on this. As this discussion revolves largely upon this policy, I ask if someone here could give their opinion on whether or not there is a verified official translation for the character or not. You don't have to do this, however, but it was nice to take the time to read this anyway. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dispute resolution is a better avenue to taking care of this situation than this talk page. - Chardish 19:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to satisfy the experts in a field, it is to present information that is verifiable to all readers, no matter how little they currently known about a subject. Now, Wikipedia is not perfect, it is after all a collaborative effort by volunteer, and the quality of the encyclopedia varies from article to article, and within any given article from day to day. Nevertheless, verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia, and it states a goal to which we all should be striving every time we edit Wikipedia. As for "common knowledge", please see the essay at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. -- Donald Albury 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...The point of this was for it to be made clear whether illegal fan translations (yes, they are illegal, only VIZ translations are legal) are official or not, not whether Wikipedia is the most perfectly-perfect site on the internet. -_- Because about 1/2 of the series isn't in English yet, fans in English speaking nations rely on translations on the Internet (such as www.saiyanisland.com ) to know what's going on. The question is simply whether they are official or not. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peainful 

message: An editor altered a cited sentence, making it no longer match the cited source. The new sentence more closely matched his POV. (See "doctrines" and "foms" ) Surely there's got to be a policy against altering cited information. Can someone point me to it? Leadwind 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if there is a Policy statement on this, but it is certainly not the right thing to do. As I see it, you have two options... revert the statement back to a version that matches the citation, or request a citation for the new version.  In either case, you should raise the issue on the talk page and discuss it. Blueboar 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, Lima has no intention of discussing this with me on the talk page. He's been mucking with my work for a long time, and I'm familiar with his MO. Leadwind 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Vandalism says, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So I would say that deliberately altering a cited sentence to change its meaning can be construed as vandalism. However, I do believe that these changes are often made out of ignorance of our policy rather than malice. Revert the changes and leave a notice on the user's talk page ( is appropriate for a first offense}. If you are convinced that the change is being made maliciously, revert and warn for vandalism. -- Donald Albury 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Lima is not deliberately compromising WP. He thinks he's protecting WP, and the truth, from me. I wouldn't call it vandalism. Leadwind 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  altering cited information 

message: I'm pretty sure I'm correct here, but can I please have a third opinion at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Why do we include distance? The gist is that the bridge log includes the total mileage in each county, and the distance from each bridge to the previous county line (ignoring the occasional milepost equations, which are listed). Therefore, you can easily calculate the distance from the start of the route to each bridge (and therefore each interchange that includes a bridge). This is perfectly verifiable, right? Thank you. --NE2 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding numbers 

message: In WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves it says to use self-published sources it must be releveant to their notability and must not be unduly self-serving. 
Daniel Pipes, the founder of Campus Watch, is a journalist, among other occupations. Pipes has written two articles, one glorifying and praising Campus Watch’s intentions, and another refuting a criticism about Campus Watch. One of the articles was a opt-ed opinion article published in the The Jerusalem Post and the other was published in FrontPage Magazine. A user keeps adding these two articles as citations on the Campus Watch article. When I state this is a WP:SELFPUB violation, he says the sources are not self-published because the newspaper and magazine are not published by Pipes. Are these articles self-published sources or are they not considered self-published because Pipes wrote them, but didn't publish them? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editorial written in a third-party newspaper isn't self-published.  But it is unreliable.  Most op-eds are unreliable for most purposes, other than to simply establish that a particular person held or voiced a particular opinion.Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting to the article itself, if you cut out the intermediate layers the first quote in question is a self-serving statement by an organization of its own methods.  It is cited correctly in a way that makes that clear.  However, the encyclopedic value is extremely low, and has no place in the lead.  It would be better just to say what the organization does.  It's also an unremarkable quote, and utter balderdash.  Academics certainly do get critiqued and Campus Watch is hardly the first "think tank" advocacy group to do so.  The second quote is equally empty, but correctly cited.  It's basically a simple denial.  I believe it is okay to point to a place where an organization denies an accusation, and use that to support the claim that they denied the accusation.  That's using the op-ed as a primary source per WP:PSTS I think, but that's an acceptable thing if you can't find a secondary source to say that Campus Watch denies that particular allegation.  As usual, my opinion only.  Your mileage may vary.Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an op-ed is clearly WP:SPS, and FrontPage was recently held as questionable (I may disagree). But I think the proposal below for resolving this situation has merit. John J. Bulten 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can newspapers/magazines be self-published sources?