Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 23

message: Please come participate in the discussion here. It involves image use policy issues far beyond the template itself. Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about image use and  WP:NOR 

message: This section of the policy now says:
:Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
:Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
I wonder if this statement is sufficiently nuanced. For a well-covered topic like George W. Bush or lung cancer, I seriously doubt if any fact or opinion worth noting would have appeared in a blog or self-published book, that has not also appeared in a mainstream source. For topics like these, I think it's safe to say that self-published sources are practically never acceptable.
But because Wikipedia is not paper, the encyclopedia now covers many below-the-radar subjects for which the best sources may indeed be self-published. I occasionally find editors aggressively removing citations from self-published sources, because they believed (per this policy) that such sources are considered categorically unreliable in almost all circumstances. The focus of the section should be on indicia of reliability, rather than blanket (or near-blanket) statements that put a patina of grave doubt on an entire category of sources.
The section has a footnote that is similarly flat-footed:
:Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. 
Newspapers' interactive columns aren't just called blogs; generally, they are blogs. This well founded exception ought to be integrated into the text, instead of being relegated to a footnote. (I do agree that "reader comments" are practically never reliable.) Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree entirely with your thrust Marc! Go ahead and propose a change more directly. N.b.: The (only?) exception on reader comments is when the blogger writes one directly, clearly distinguishable as an admin comment. John J. Bulten 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources (online and paper) 

message: Proposed change
:
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;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* if contentious or unduly self-serving, it is indicated to be a self-published statement;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Rationale</br>
1. Missions statements are technically disallowed by the current policy, but they are obviously relevant and important. Here is an example from Wikipedia:
**Amnesty International "defines its mission as 'to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.'"
2. Self-published statements should not only be allowable, they are essential, especially for controversial topics. Here are two valid statements from Wikipedia that under the current policy are disallowed:
**"According to Campus Watch, the organization 'reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them.' The organization further states, 'it fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds.'CampusWatch.org. Retrieved on 2007-10-20." Note that later in the article it is stated that "Opponents of Campus Watch describe it as an attempt to stifle any criticism of Israel in American academia."
**"According to Kevin Trudeau, [his] book contains the names of actual brand name products that will cure a myriad of illnesses." ... "In some cases Trudeau has told his supporters, via his newsletters, that he has been “attacked” on a particular program or by a particular interviewer." Note that Kevin Trudeau is an oft-criticised man.
3. By insisting that the material be indicated to be a self-published statement, we avoid sentences such as "Kevin Trudeau's books offer cures for a myriad of illnesses."</br>
— DavidMack 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me.  I don't think it will open the door to abuse and misuse (and if it does, we can always go back to the current wording)... so with a modicum of hesitation, I agree with the proposal. Blueboar 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me, too. Leadwind 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that; though the section includes also questionable sources, the clause excludes them. Just happened to notice this because I proposed a change to this page also, which (without being too subtle) you might want to review above. John J. Bulten 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm confused. Would you please clarify for me how mission statements are allowable? As shown in the examples above, they are self-published statements that opponents may see as unduly self-serving, which violates current Wiki policy. — DavidMack 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. — DavidMack (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves 

message: I think we need to add a minor clarification in the first paragraph: change "any reader" to "any reader conversant in the language of the source" If an article's sources are all in Russian, I obviously am not able to check that the article's material has been previously published in reliable sources, nor is any other reader who is not conversant in Russian.  Thoughts/reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That strikes me as a pedantic clarification. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is that editors are using the current wording to argue that articles without any English sources are not verifiable.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to a large degree this is true. If the only source is in Russian and this has not been published in an English translation, then we are reliant on wp editors a) having the requisite skills to translate from Russian, b) applying their skills accurately, and c) not abusing their inside track by allowing pov to intrude (not that any wp editor would ever do that). This smacks too muck of OR for my liking. IMHO citing foreign language texts that have not been published in English is valueless except to back up English citations and even then they are only of secondary importance. This is not to be xenophobic but it is in the cause of verifiability. Abtract (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your reasoning, the guidance on linking to non-English-language web sites, even as cited sources, is less restrictive. See Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language content and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites. -- Donald Albury 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at all. If the WP article says the same thing as the non-English-language source, but in different words, it's not OR. Furthermore, it may be much easier to find an editor to verify a source written in Spanish than to verify a statement sourced to a rare, out-of-print book - but we allow the latter as a source, so why shouldn't we allow the former?—greenrd (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course we accept and have always accept non-english language references--how else can we write a w that covers the entire world in a non-discriminatory fashion. Since this is enWP, the articles are in English. The references are in English if possible, but if the best or the only references are in other languages we have always used them, accompanied if necessary by a translation of the key points. There are dozens or hundreds or thousands of active people at enWP who known any given language, and any questioned translation can be quickly verified. for the example given, w have no shortage of editors who can read and translate Russian. All the more reason we should cover topics for which the sources are in Russian, since we provide the opportunity for English speakers who do not know that language to find information on them. Anything notable anywhere in the world for which we have editors willing to write an article belongs in WP. To the extent we have greater coverage of English-speaking places, it  is merely the greater knowledge and interests of the available editors. I hope those who know Russian will greatly expand the number of articles on notable people for which there are only or predominantly Russian language sources. DGG (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then aren't we still left with the problem of the wording of this policy, which says "ANY reader" (emphasis mine).  How about this as an alternative to the pedantic addition I first proposed: I change "any reader" to "readers"?  UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any doubting reader can ask any active contributor fluent in that language to go and verify. The idea that non-English sources are not verifiable seems quite strange, and their being excluded for that reason, quite ridiculous. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I must say  this does makes a lot of sense; pity I didn't read it a while ago. Abtract (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language clarification 

message: I do some work with small historical sites, mostly those listed on the NRHP. I am curious about how I should go about using information I glean from signage at the site. It seems to me that this is usually (but not always) a version of self-published information, so I limit my use of it to small factual matters. I use other sources to establish notability, etc. An example of my aproach can be seen at Barnsdall Main Street Well Site. Is this an acceptable approach? Should I upload images of the signs in question? Should the title of section 2.3 be changed to Self-published source (Online and on paper, wood, metal, stone, or any other substance) :)? Dsmdgold (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signs as sources 

message: Wikipedia seems to have a fundamental problem with sources. If you cite online sources (articles and such), well... what happens when that article is no longer around? In theory, an entire article's sources could disappear from the Internet. What if there were plenty of sources when the event occurred, but absolutely none ten years later? Does that make the event any less significant? I do not believe so. I think this is a fundamental long-term problem with Wikipedia that will eventually have to be resolved for its articles to have verifiability for many decades. --Ihmhi (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two solutions.  1. Cite to Web sites that are already regularly archived by the Internet Archive.  Even if the IA falls apart for some reason, its collections are so valuable that someone will certainly step up to give them a new home (just as Google did for the old Deja.com archive).  2. Cite to sources that are preserved in other formats besides the Web---that's what scholars have always done and still do in most intellectual work product.  For example, even though I find most of my sources for Wikipedia through Google Books or ProQuest or InfoTrac, I am always careful to cite to such books and articles based on the hard copy pagination as reflected in those databases. Keep in mind that libraries will continue to preserve books and periodicals in paper format for several decades more until e-book technology matures. Judging by the very slow progress of e-book readers (which engineers have been playing around with for over 20 years), it will take at least another decade before e-book readers are good enough to replace regular books, and then another decade after that for paper books to be phased out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is a big problem. The majority of reliable sources (at least for contemporary articles like BLPs) are news stories. Most of these are preserved in news databases that can be accessed from libraries, even the ones that are not also in print. In theory, such links are for convenience only, and the articles can still be cited even when the online content disappears. Cool Hand Luke 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a service specifically for that problem, called WebCite. It's like the Internet Archive, but archives on request, rather than crawling in general. I keep meaning to use it for important articles... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources disappearing? 

message: It would be good to think about how to handle knol references before we start getting links to them. I've started a discussion to get editors' opinions:
*Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#knol's implication for policies and guidelines
Your inputs there are welcome. --A. B. (talk)  17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google's new [[knol]] project 

message: I notice in country articles that government agencies are cited as sources (often via the US Central Intelligence Agency "Factbook"). We do not like individuals or corporations to cite themselves - shouldn't governments be subject to the same rule? But there seems to be an unwritten rule in WP that "we've always used the CIA Factbook, so don't question anything it says". Fourtildas (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government agencies cited as sources about countries 

message: Congratulations Wikipedia, you are on your way to becoming a collection of uninspired senior-undergraduate essays before they are proofread by a native speaker.  Verifiability?  Nuts, I say. Need a reason why?  I give you Ralph Furley.  C'mon already. As though the NPOV b.s. were not bad enough... 129.128.67.23 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is mostly why I have left 

message: Back in October 2007 we discussed the ban on open wikis.Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 22#Open wikis I had proposed removing the word "open" and others suggested that a few wikis, like Citizendium, are reliable enough to use. Then another user finessed the matter by removing the entire phrase, because "WP:SPS already covers this issue". That seemed reasonable at the time, but now I don't think that leaving it implicit is sufficient. We mention "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs". I've restored "open wikis", adding it to the list in order to make it explciti.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open wikis 

message: The  "challenged or likely to be challenged" language is fine for for flat assertions of fact (e.g., "The Holocaust never took place"), 
However, it conflicts with WP:NOR when it is applied to  Interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is unable to draw conclusions of any kind about primary sources, ever, period. That is the job of secondary sources. Uncited conclusions... [and by uncited I mean, without explicit reference in the article body to the source of the analytical conclusion being presented] regardless of whether they reflect consensus in a field.. are presented in Wikipedia's "voice" and thus are instances of treating Wikipedia as a secondary source. In other words.. the wikipedia editor says it is the consensual view, but without a specific citation to a reliable source, all we have is a wikipedia editor acting as a secondary source. Hum. 
The "challenged" wording is OK  for flat assertions of fact, but not for any sort of conclusions... drawn from facts. Those always and everywhere need to be explicitly cited in the body text of the article.
Ling.Nut (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Items are challenged and removed as POV all the time. What's the problem? -- Donald Albury 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the prob is that WP:V has no language to distinguish between information presented as "fact" and information presented as interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims. It frequently makes sense to refer to the "challenged or likely to be challenged" language with respect to the former, but not the latter. Unfortunately, because V does not distinguish between these, the latter category can remain uncited by using "challenged or likely to be challenged" as a safety blanket argument against , based on assertions that the synthesis represents academic consensus. However, academic consensus is wholly irrelevant. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, cannot ever make interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims without explicitly citing them (in the body text of the article) to one or more reliable secondary sources. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't buy your argument. Opinions, analysis, etc. in WP articles are just like 'facts' as far as verifiability is concerned. If a source for the fact, opinion, analysis, etc is not cited, it can be challenged and removed. Statements of opinions and analyses are 'facts'. You can say, "It is a fact that Professor Gremlin has called The Da Vinci Code "the most important piece of historical research of the 20th century." If you can cite a source, then the fact that he holds such an opinion is verifiable. The statement that an opinion is the 'consensus of the field' is a statement of fact (that the the consensus exists), and therefore must be verifiable. -- Donald Albury 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed an uncited statement of interpretation, analysis or sythesis can be removed on two grounds... as a violation of WP:V and as a violation of WP:NOR.  NOR goes a step further in that some types of statements can be challenged even if they are cited (it depends on how the statemnent is worded and on whether they go "beyond the source").  I don't see any conflict. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy that you feel that way when discussing the question  abstractly — but in practice, the "synthesis" argument is commonly (and quite successfully) used as a means of subverting WP:V. This argument needs to be explicitly addressed. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you give an example? In any case, good editorial judgment is always needed when applying policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sneaky overlap between [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] 

message: I posted my above topic on Foreign language and verifiability because the policy was was not written in a clear fashion. There was discussion (in which, incidentally, the consensus went against my idea that translations be provided for foreign sources used) and a number of topics seemed to have general agreement. I incorporated those and edited the section so that it was clear.
;Before
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
* Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
* Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
;After
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. However use of a non-English source does not, of itself, violate this policy. Readers that seek to verify a non-English reference may seek out a translator off-Wiki or request help from one of the editors listed at :Category:Available translators in Wikipedia.
Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Translating quoted material is of special concern. There is often a degree of interpretation done by the translator in deciding exactly how to translate something. This interpretation can cause conflict with Wikipedia policies on original research (see WP:NOR).
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
* Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
* Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
;Discussion
So ain't my version better? --Alfadog (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see comments added above to #Foreign language and verifiability --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis, please tell us what you object to in my edit so that we can reach a compromise. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, above: #Foreign language and verifiability --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your objection is pointing people at help translating when it is better to do one's own translation? Two points; 1) that is the only bit that you left in and 2) if one can translate themselves then one will, there is no need to stress that. No matter how much the polyglot, there are languages that one will need help with. I will leave it at that. --Alfadog (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with the sentiment of the addition... but I do have questions and concerns.  To me it is a question of emphysis... The original language made it clear that, while non-English sources are permitted, every effort should be made to find English language sources before using a foreign language source.  The addition shifts the line a bit... reducing the emphysis on locating English sources. I am not completely adverse to this shift (but not completely for it either)... in any case we need to have more discussion about it so that everyone is on the same page. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see where you are coming from. I am not sure that your concern can be avoided without leaving the policy ambiguous. It is kinda like "Don't ask, don't tell", meaning that if we spell it out then we are saying something - better to leave it ambiguous and say little or nothing. I disagree with that kind of thinking, at least in this case. --Alfadog (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was unclear and I fixed it. 

message: Does fansites count as unreliable sources?. Mythdon (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without knowing the exact site, or how it is being used in the article, we can not say yes or no definitively... but in very gerneral terms they are not considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: What if a prominent person owns a blog (like Gilbert Arenas) where he regularly posts his thoughts. Is this a violation since it's not really a third-party source? --Howard the Duck 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the phrase "reliable, third-party published sources" has produced some consternation of late, leading some to believe that it precludes the use of primary sources. The wording is a bit iffy, but Wikipedia policy, and current widespread usage of such sources, clearly allows the use of that player's blog as a source for article material, as long as: 1) it is verifiably his blog, and 2) information in his article sourced from the blog relates only to the player or his area of notability. Best regards, Steve T  • C 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Howard the Duck 12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and 3) as long as it's not trivial nonsense: ("On October 3, 2007, Arenas said he had salmon for dinner.") But I guess you already knew that. Best regards, Steve T  • C 12:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an official MySpace, for example, an artist omits a certain musical genre, can that be cited? --Howard the Duck 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you have a specific example in mind? I assume you mean something along the lines of listing an artist's influences by citing his saying "My music is a blistering fusion of jazz and opera" even when secondary sources have noted that the artist's influences also include, er, heavy metal or something. In that case, the secondary sources (from reliable, recognised authorities on the subject) would still be valid cites, IMO. Best regards, Steve T  • C 13:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was mostly what I had in mind. I'd just look for cites supporting an artist's claim that the artist isn't supposedly classified on that genre. Thanks again. --Howard the Duck 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements coming from a person 

message: There seems to be a disagreement over mnemonics.
On the one hand, we have people who delete mnemonics
(see Talk:OSI_model#Mnemonics),
apparently following the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day guideline.
And certainly mnemonics are things that someone made up one day -- they are not facts about the physical world, and they make no sense when translated to other languages. (The mnemonics in those languages also make no sense translated into English).
On the other hand, we have people who seem to feel that Wikipedia is supposed to help us learn things, and mnemonics are a good means to that end.
Some even feel that some particular mnemonics are notable enough to earn their own Wikipedia article: Roy G. Biv, All Students Take Calculus, FBI mnemonics, List of mnemonics for star classification, and others in :Category:Mnemonics.
Should we delete all mnemonics from Wikipedia?
If not, how do we distinguish which mnemonics are "encyclopedic enough" to include in some article?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to distinguish between an article on the concept of mnemonics and a mnemonic that appears in an article about something else.  In the article Mnemonic, it is certainly appropriate to list a few commonly used examples... even if they are "something made up in school/office one day".  It might be appropriate to mention a particular mnemonic that is commonly used to, say, remember a physics formula in an article about that formula (however, we would need to demonstrate that it is commonly used... so the mnemonic should be cited to a reliable source). I don't think we should have an article about a specific mnemonic.  Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: mnemonics that are frequently referred to in sources, like anything else, could have an article--this would include any frequently  referred to in multiple standard textbooks. DGG (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mnemonics 

message: There appears to be some desire to use political satire (such as Colbert and Jon Stewart) as a source for political articles.  Recently some editors have attempted to use Colbert to advance a position on the Media Matters article. [] However, Colbert is acting as his alter (fictional) ego when making the statment as part of political satire.  I have removed the material twice, however there is debate as to whether it is a reliable source.  Jon Stewart is also used in several articles as a source for commentary when performing political satire for his fake news show.  How is this information to be treated?  Are commedians a reliable source for articles, especially when their political satire equates to criticism (in the form of comedy)?  By my understanding these sources would fall under extremist sources since by there very nature they present an extreme view of the subject as part of the satirical presentation. Arzel (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. The London-based magazine Private Eye is largely regarded as a satirical magazine. However, many of its articles have a serious bent and are clearly allegations written in a slightly cynical manner. As a result they have been the reciprients of numerous libel Writs, notably from Sir James Goldsmith and Robert Maxwell. In addition many of the letters they print (or used to print) have been deadly serious responses to the lies they have printed about others. So the question posed under this sub-heading, from a Private Eye perspective, is important. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Comedians providing political satire 

message: I have come across a reference and I would only be able to view the article it links to if I sign up with the website hosting it. Am I correct in thinking this is a wholly inappropriate article to use as a Wikipedia reference? (I've actually already removed the reference but would like to be sure I did the right thing in case its contributor decides to revert) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is acceptable as a wikipedia reference. Even sites that make you pay to see their info and books that are not on the web at all are acceptable as wikipedia references. You can even refer to an out of print book that Amazon doesn't sell!!!. The important thing about references is that they should be authoritative and many authoritative sites still ask users to register or even pay. If you can find a free site which has the same info then you can add that reference as well however if the paysite is the origin of the information then it should still be kept as the primary reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with above — BQZip01 — talk 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for your feedback. I certainly see the point made and will abide by this in future. Regards, ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website links question 

message: Lists of mathematics topics doesn't provide any references to prove that the items on the list belong on the list.
Should it have to?
And how should this be covered in WP:VER?
   — The Transhumanist    23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V only requires that things are verifiable. In this case it is blatantly clear that the topics on the list are mathematics topics. References have never been required for such lists and I see no benefit to adding them. Of course, you are free to add them yourself if it pleases you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be an exception for table-of-contents-like lists? 

message: List of mathematics articles is a 28-page alphabetical index of all the mathematics-related articles on Wikipedia (or at least it tries to be).
* List of mathematics articles (0-9)
* List of mathematics articles (A)
* List of mathematics articles (B)
* List of mathematics articles (C)
* List of mathematics articles (D)
* List of mathematics articles (E)
* List of mathematics articles (F)
* List of mathematics articles (G)
* List of mathematics articles (H)
* List of mathematics articles (I)
* List of mathematics articles (J)
* List of mathematics articles (K)
* List of mathematics articles (L)
* List of mathematics articles (M)
* List of mathematics articles (N)
* List of mathematics articles (O)
* List of mathematics articles (P)
* List of mathematics articles (Q)
* List of mathematics articles (R)
* List of mathematics articles (S)
* List of mathematics articles (T)
* List of mathematics articles (U)
* List of mathematics articles (V)
* List of mathematics articles (W)
* List of mathematics articles (X)
* List of mathematics articles (Y)
* List of mathematics articles (Z)
There's a growing number of indexes on Wikipedia.  See:
* List of anatomical topics
* List of aviation topics
* List of biochemistry topics
* List of biology topics
* List of chemistry topics
* List of conservation topics
* List of ecology topics
* List of economics topics
* List of game topics
* List of history topics
* List of literature topics
* List of musical topics
* List of optical topics
* List of philosophical topics
** List of philosophical topics (A-C)
** List of philosophical topics (D-H)
** List of philosophical topics (I-Q)
** List of philosophical topics (R-Z)
* List of plate tectonics topics
* List of physics topics
** List of physics topics A-E
** List of physics topics F-L
** List of physics topics M-Q
** List of physics topics R-Z
* List of psychology topics
* etc.
None of these provide any references for any items listed on them.
Should they have to?
 
And how should this be covered in WP:VER?
   — The Transhumanist    23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this what Categories are for?  I can understand how something like "List of mathematical concepts" would be more appropriately done in list format... but articles and "topics" should be in Categories, not listified. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lists are superior in many ways.  See WP:CLS.  But that's not the issue here.  Since these lists aren't likely to be deleted in favor of the category system, how should they be covered in WP:VER?     — The Transhumanist    00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that membership in a list of this type requires a citation - in the end such inclusion is by necessity an editoral decision.  IANAL, but even if you picked a reference for, let's say, list of psychology topics, the referenced list would be copyrighted so we couldn't use it to form ours.  Based on my understanding of it, the only way around that is if ours is a unique, creative synthesis of cited lists, in which case we're back to editorial discretion.  Besides, I don't think that such references would actually help any readers out.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: we probably do need a statement that lists of this sort are self-verifying--they are lists of articles in WP , and an exception to the rule that  WP does not establish notability. Any dispute about whether an article belongs can be discussed on the talk page of the list (or the article).  DGG (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Categories may fulfil the function of a navigational aid, but lists are better in some regards. I'd for instance argue that list of numerical analysis topics is superior to :category:numerical analysis, at least in some respects. For such lists, that contain all Wikipedia articles on a certain topic, citations are not necessary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be.--Phoenix-wiki 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be what?  And why?    — The Transhumanist    23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Lists fall into at least two categories - lists for which there is no reasonable dispute as to whether a particular item qualifies, and lists for which the notability of the list items is given but the classification as being part of the list is not.  In the latter category would be things like "list of business failures", "list of serial murderers", "list of genocides", and so on, where those who regularly help maintain the lists may legitimately decide by consensus to ask for reliable source citations as a necessary condition of putting an item on the list - not to establish notability but to establish validity of the claim that it belongs there.  For something like "list of mathematical topics" they may decide that the categorization is self-evident.  Wikidemo (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of a list based on 'notability' is :List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. There has been much discussion in the past as to what 'notable' means on that list. It is not an easy question. -- Donald Albury 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be an exception for indexes? 

message: I see in the sources section "...books published by respected publishing houses;" and "reputation for fact checking".  In an era where we are seeing easy 'on demand' printing of books; how is an editor to quantify 'well respected' or 'reputation for fact checking'?    For instance, I might guess that Duke University Press is well respected with good reputation, though some editors would disagree.  Or, for instance, I could also guess whether Paladin Press is well respected, but some editors would also disagree. Or, what about Praeger Press?
In short, what good is having a policy that depends on guesses.  Is there any way to objectively measure a publishing house's 'respect' and 'reputation' as defined by WP:V?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should discuss these in the article's talk pages and reach consensus. Do not expect that a list of "reputable publishing houses" will be made available here... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'respected publishing houses', how to tell? 

message: In an article like Pepsi Blue, where the items cited (in this case, advertisements featuring popular musicians) can be viewed at YouTube, can that video link be used as a good reference even though YouTube is a user-generated content site? Is additional print-media coverage (EW, USA Today, etc) necessary when the YouTube video allows the viewer to become a second-hand source (having seen the information), or should print reference trump YouTube for a reference citation?  Thanks!  --BizMgr (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general you would want a secondary source to stand for the proposition that a particular musician appears in a particular ad, rather than citing the primary source (the ad itself).  It's a very light example of original research, but it really is original research for you to look at source material and ascertain for yourself that a particular person appears there.  It's not 100% reliable, plus it's a lot of work to verify.  Maybe better if there's a credit sequence or some other utterly indisputable statement you can find.  That same logic applies whether it's an ad, a film, a photograph, anything.  You could link to the Youtube video as a helpful external link if you believe it's used with permission, i.e. no copyright violation.  I would try to find a more reliable site than youtube and use that if available, and even though it's not required, leave a comment in the edit summary or discussion page explaining why the link is legitimate because otherwise someone might just remove it.  People are justifiably suspicious of youtube links.  (note - a lot of this is just my opinion, not policy)  Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: I was bold and made a suggestion. Discuss if interested. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Samsara thank you for your contribution it's much appreciated and may improve the policy.  However since V is such a sensitive page, please post here first and seek consensus from other editors before making a change to the policy page.  Thanks and have a super day. Wjhonson (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Samsara, the policy is already more specific; see below the part you edited. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now. The footnote shouldn't have been where it was. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Samsara. I see that all you did was move the position of the footnote from the end of the sentence to the word where it was most relevant within the sentence.  Personally I like your way of positioning footnotes, it seems more clear to me.  It's the way I tend to do it myself.  Have a super day. Wjhonson (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I meant that the text itself, not just the footnote, is later more specific about self-published sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid vague statements 

message: In the page section on self-published sources, the policy had said, in part: "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it..."
I changed "wrote" here to "authored" so we can clarify that the policy does not only cover writen material, but any self-published material, for example an audio tape or a film.Wjhonson (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources 

message: I have written an essay about assessing the reliability of different articles. I was hoping to get other editors to review, add to it and edit it. Currently, it is in my userspace at User:Billscottbob/Assessing reliability. Thanks for any input you may have. If you have anything you wish to discuss about it please do not discuss it here. Please discuss it on the talk page of the essay. Billscottbob (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: What is the procedure for making changes to this policy?
Do I simply suggest them here and then make them if nobody objects? Do I need to get an admin to sponsor my idea? Is there a separate forum to post on? 
perfectblue (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent question.  As in all of Wikipedia, changes are made by consensus.  So post your idea here, and others who keep an eye here will respond.Wjhonson (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no procedure. You can edit the policy directly, discuss it here, or any combination. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you could.  However bold edits to policy have a tendency to be reverted within a very short time.  Which can lead to bad feelings, warring, and entrenchment.  So I'd still suggest using Talk to discuss the change first. Wjhonson (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Policies carry a wide acceptance among the community, so if you think your choice would be widely accepted then go for it. I find the best way to find out if the community will widely accept it is to post here at the talk page. (1 == 2)Until 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making changes? 

message: :Image:Verifiability artwork.jpg is from Flickr. The creator put it under CC-by especially for us. One image can communicate great slabs of policy text, I think. Any deep objections? (other than "humor is intrinsically inappropriate" or equivalent) - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So we're the Inquisition? It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. -- Donald Albury 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the artist upon telling him where the image ended up, "aahhahaha.. Thank you! I'm soooo proud! It's an honor!" :) He also stated, "I really appreciate wikipedia. I love your work and passion." Just passing it on, since it's so nice. :) - cohesion 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see the benefit, frankly. How does that image communicate anything about the verifiability policy? It also has the technical problem that the antialiased text looks very bad my monitor (because of a different pixel order or something).  But, even ignoring technical details, I'm simply not convinced it does any good. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the image fun, not of use for the WP:V page itself though. I didn't even see anyone propose to use it on the WP:V page here on talk. I moved it to WP:Department of fun. Sorry for my wrong, insinuating Galileo being put to death. He was only gravely convicted. All other points of the edit summary were correct though. Especially, that this has no relation to WP:V. That's what makes it so funny. Galileo was wrongly convicted for Original research. Haha. And the religious tribunal swore so to say by "truth, not verifiability". That makes it even more funny. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it would make much more sense to place it on WP:TEMP rather than here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability artwork 

message: Since Wikipedia pages are open wikis and considered self-published sources, they cannot be considered reliable sources?
What about open wikis that have strict verification processes and policies, such as this site?
I haven't been here long, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia, by its very design, is a publication with a greater "degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work" than most magazines and newspapers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Snyder (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While our policy calls for verifiability from reliable sources, we cannot assume that any article is reliable at any given time. Many articles are currently incomplete and poorly sourced, and any article can change drastically at any time. -- Donald Albury 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is explicitly not a reliable source. Please use the source sources, and if none our available, the article itself provides no support. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as an SPS 

message: What is the policy with regards to verifying image content. Users are actively encouraged to create and submit images but in most cases we only have their word that they depict what they say they depict. Obviously good faith should be assumed but this alone is not always sufficient in other areas where verifiability is the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR#Original_images also applies here. If it is controversial, it probably shouldn't be here. — BQZip01 — talk 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about more basic issues; as a random example how do we know that the person in :Image:Cher.jpg is not a Cher impersonator or if the picture was taken at a dress rehersal (if they have such things) and not the concert itself? Guest9999 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images Question 

message: FYI, this section is fascinating here. Please read and weigh in there. An editor is asserting it could be OR and unacceptable to make an article from sources that wouldn't be readily available to everyone, or using old harder to find sources. Lawrence § t/e 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of interest on hard to find, archaic sources 

message: Is it ok if I can get a list of reliable third-party publications?Megagents (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source needs to be evaluated in the context of the subject or article in which it will be used. There is no such a thing as an absolute in this regard. If you have doubts about a reliability of a source, discuss this in talk page with other interested editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The talk page of the specific article that you're editing. --Lquilter (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An opinion from me, and it just MY opinion - but a very good one:-)... particularly where BLP is concerned, very few newspapers pass the reliability test. Yes, some do, and have a very good reputation, but I so often see rumour and gossip that came from sensationalist (mostly, but not restricted to, England based) rags such as the Sun, the Daily Mirror... even News of the World. Look at a history of any notable England footballer involved in transfer speculation over the January transfer window and see how many times thay have been changed and changed and changed back again - even with quotes from these rags --ClubOranje (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a reliable third-party publication? 

message: Are old sources, like Herodotus' Histories, Cassius Dio's Roman History or the Alexiad, considered reliable sources? I worked on referencing the Dobruja article, and since all modern historian basically quote or paraphrase the above mentioned authors when speaking about certain events, I decided to reference those events with their original sources. Now I'm not that sure I was doing the right thing. The good part of using the old sources is that they're freely available full-text on the web, most of them with English translations, so anybody can check whether a source is used fairly or not. The modern sources are mostly non-English books, inaccesible on the web, and hardly available for verification in the usual English libraries. I should note that no user disputed the accuracy of the events referenced by these old sources, but this may be due to the fact that there are not so many users interested in the subject. Should I continue to use those old sources, freely available on the web, or should I use the modern sources quoting the old ones? Baltaci (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think modern sources would be more likely to reflect contemporary viewpoints and realize errors in the perspective of very old sources. I would directly attribute claims for the older sources ("According to Herodotus...") to make it clear that the viewpoint expressed may no longer be common. But that doesn't mean not to use the sources at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Normally we have access only to modern (since the introduction of the printing press) editions of ancient and medieval books. I think what we should be looking for is that the publisher of the printed edition is a reliable source. This more or less assures us that the text has not been mangled too badly. Clearly, such old works can be cited for what they say, but rarely if at all as currently reliable authorities. We should also include fairly recent scholarly analysis, criticism and explication of the ancient works, applying WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Relying on manuscripts directly or on publication of the contents of such by unreliable sources would be risky. Ancient works that have been ignored or given little notice by established scholars are really not suitable sources for Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referencing what an ancient author wrote about an event the best thing would be to reference the author directly. If an ancient author is the only authority to speak on an event, then perhaps he could be referenced directly. If, on the other hand there are multiple authors which discuss an event, then balancing their statements and coming to a conclusion would be originall research, and we should follow and report current scholarly opinion. I actually would be leary of using translations found on the web. For copyright reasons most of the translations of ancient and medieval authors on the web are nineteenth century or older. A new translation may very well be more accurate, as it would be based on the latest critical editions of the text.  I would be very surprised if there was any major ancient or medieval text that hasn't had a new translation in the last thirty or so years. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of multiple recent translations/commentaries/etc. of ancient works pretty much establishes the notability of such works, and provides ample material for an NPOV article in WP. One of the points I was trying to make is that if there is only one source of a translation/transcription of an ancient (or any other rare/obscure) work, we should avoid citing it, as that is an indicator that: 1. it isn't notable, 2. it has not been evaluated by more than one 'scholar', and/or 3. it is tainted (the work is of questionable origin or the translation/transcription is questionable). As the original question was whether old sources are reliable, I would say that the question of reliability needs to be applied to the recent translations, commentaries, etc. Direct quoting of works that were originally in manuscript is an imperfect process. If such a work has come down to us in more than one manuscript copy, there are almost invariably differences (copying errors) between the copies. When you cite or quote Herodotus in Wikipedia, you are not citing or quoting from an ancient manuscript (at least, I certainly hope you are not), you are citing or quoting someone's translation of what is often a reconstructed version of the document. Even if you quote him in Greek, you are still quoting someone's transcription, often with modern corrections and interpretations, of the document. You always need to cite the work in which you found the translation/transcription of an ancient work. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that we have somehow shifted grounds. The notability of a source is a different issue from its status as a relibale source. Peter Brown's Augustine of Hippo is obviously a reliable source. However, it probably is not notable enough to have an separate article.  I would certainly agree that when quoting an ancient or medieval manuscript, the edition and or translation must be cited. I would also argue that a more recent edition is better. (As a side note, even if you are quoting Herodotus from an ancient manuscript, you are still quoting a transcription, as the oldest extant copies date from at least a thousand years after Herodotus.) All of that said, if one is writing an article on a reltively obscure Saint, and the only edition of that Saint's Vita is from a seventeenth century edition of the Acta Sanctorum, then that edition can be used as a reliable source. (I assume that the Saint has sufficient coverage elsewhere to be notable.)  To answer Baltaci's original question, if one is writing an article on historical events, quoting primary sources can be a good idea, as long as the quote is balanced by modern scholarship. In essence ancient and medieval authors can be considered reliable source, indeed they may be the only sources, but Wikipedia's interpretation of them must be filtered through modern scholarship. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I have any argument with that formulation. -- Donald Albury 11:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy toward very old sources? 

message: I write a Japanese Music blog. There are no recognized English experts in this field and my reviews are subjective and critical, but they are reviews and so therefore they contain my own personal opinions of the music. I use Wordpress because I have no idea how to do any of the scripting required for such a site. My question is why my links are being taken down when so many people have no idea what this music sounds like or what it's about? I, personally, have been the victim of there not being enough information about an album, especially when wanting to buy it. It's not really about numbers, but, yes, I would like people to come to the site and learn about the artist/album/song they are interested in. On the subject of reliablility, barring severe illness, I have been posting at least once a week (if not seven days a week) since September. In closing, critics come in all forms (especially with regards to music). I do what most musical critics from major magazines do, it is just more in depth, and I would very much like to link to Wikipedia to further the depth of your resources and offer another studied opinion as I am a Music Major and do research musically about the album before posting.
Sincerely,
Patrick
vinyabarion.wordpress.com (Who's Afraid of Music?) (Vinyabarion (talk))
:I don't mean to be glib, but are you really saying that no one else in the entire world writes in English about Japanese music? That there is not one single journalistic source in English with information about Japansese music, and your blog is the only place editors can turn to? Honestly, anything's possible, but I'm not sure that's true. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are. In fact, for Namie Amuro's Queen of Hip-Pop, there is an article for it in English... but there are a myriad of other albums that do not. I didn't mean for it to come across like that. All I am saying is that my website can fill that gap of criticism for other albums.
(Vinyabarion (talk))  —Preceding comment was added at 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clearing that up; your explanation is appreciated. I have to wonder, then: If no other English-language sources are covering these particular albums, perhaps those albums may not reach the threshold of notability for English-language Wikipedia (as opposed to the Japanese-language version.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has long held that blogs are not to be considered reliable sources.  There are a few "unofficial" exceptions to that rule but, sadly, your blog does not fit any of them.  The exception that comes closest would be "a recognized expert writing in his field of expertize"... but (no disrespect intended) I am not at all sure that you really qualify as a "recognized expert".  The standard for that is fairly high.  Perhaps, with time, you will become recognized as an expert. Indeed, I wish you all the best and hope that someday you will become recognized as such. But until neutral third party sources start discussing your reviews and your blog, and the larger community starts to think of you as an "expert", we can not use your blog as a source.  Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Blog? 

message: :Extraordinary V Fantastic
:Where a claim is both notable and extraordinary, but is also sufficiently fantastic in nature, it can be said to fall outside of the bounders of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Where encountered, the onus is on the editor to verify the existence of said claims using sources appropriate to its nature as a fantastic claim rather than an extraordinary claim. 
::For example. To claim that a public figure had been accused of committing a serious indiscretion would require a high standard of verification from outstanding sources such as well respected national newspapers, but to claim that UFO conspiracy writer David Icke had accused same said public figure of being a shape-shifting lizard would require verification from a source more appropriate to the claim.
Rather than simply objecting, it would be more productive if people offer compromise wordings. What does everybody else consider an appropriate way to say that a while Extraordinary Claims (not capital letters) require extraordinary proof, not everything that is extraordinary is an Extraordinary Claim? The present WP:V wording imply isn't working. It's OK for serious real world issues such as politics and history, but it's highly problematic when dealing with more out of the box issues. - perfectblue (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: “Rather than simply objecting, it would be more productive if people offer compromise wordings.” Sorry, it does not work that way. It’s for YOU or anyone who agrees with your position to establish a consensus. End of story. I can see no need for this, nor do I agree with its premise. Feel free to try and reach a consensus, but do not try to force it through without one. Brimba (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Take 3

message: I don't think we're edit warring despite the rapid editing going on - we're working around a common goal and refining it.  Still, I'm going to bow out for a little while because I've already had three edits to the "exceptional claims" section today...I do like the direction we're heading by tightening things up a little and specifying what specific areas (scientific, historical, etc. claims without widespread support in the relevant community) would caution that we're all susceptible to the objection that the old version was just fine and that we haven't established consensus for any changes.  Cheers; happy Superbowl for the Americans here.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think User:brimba's change here is too broad and would represent the kind of change we need to talk about first.  There's nothing wrong with covering things that don't agree with the prevailing view, and I don't think we should even get into the business of deciding which is the prevailing view.  Covering minority views is a crucial part of NPOV and shouldn't trigger extra scrutiny or a demand for extraordinary sources.  We're talking about fringe ideas, not minority ones.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Take N

message: I'm going to suggest randomly that the above discussion might be about Television series episode synopsis.  So the issue to consider might possibly be whether a series synopsis is purely descriptive and whether such an article would be verifiable in wikisense.  This is a question, I don't pretend to have an answer.Wjhonson (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion that all series episodes were notable started with The Simpsons -- Jimbo is a fan, and originally said he didn't see any reason why Wikipedia can't have an article on each episode, since "hard drives are cheap" (I would have to do some serious digging to find this quote but trust me, it's there). Then people created articles for episodes of every TV show. Jimbo has since said he changed his mind about this (again it would take a while to find the quote, but it is there). The fact is, according to our general standards for notability, episodes are generally not worthy of articles. But there are so many of them, and the fans like having them around so much, that they're hard to get rid of. I don't think anyone's even tried for the many Simpsons episodes that lack third-party sources, even though they have for other series (and usually fail). I've had this discussion before and it always ends with "IAR for popular series' episode articles" -- and I'm really fine with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:24, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... One could argue that episode synopsis articles (whether about individual episodes or grouped into more general "season synopsis" articles as is currently preferred) are really sub-articles stemming from a main article on the TV show itself... And, as such, do not need to re-establish that third party sources exist... since third party references are provided in the main article to establish the notability of the show.  Of course, I am assuming that third party references are needed in the main article (I would think that, if a TV show - as opposed to an individual episode or season - has never been discussed by third party sources, it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia).  Does this make sense? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha you're both avoiding the point.  Very clever !  First Jimbo doesn't determine policy, he may be the catalyst for letting-the-cat-out-of-the-bag though.  And just when we finally got that darn cat bagged too!  Second blueboar, the question isn't is the series notable at all but rather, can a particular episode synopsis be created by a viewer simply because they viewed it?  That is, does viewing and writing a purely descriptive synopsis based on observation, constitute verification?  I hope that's more clear.  Not the series in general, but each episode.  Note for example our Bewitched article discusses various episodes and doesn't necessarily pretend it's using any third-party source to do so.Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Did the RfC come to any Consensus?  I haven't heard of it.  Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC is still open, but I've proposed a solution based on the numerous input which seems to have some support, though a few still don't like it.  However, the idea that episodes are automatically notable does not seem to be a strong one, and that normal considerations for notability are to be made. --MASEM 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that your proposal is currently running at dead even in favor of and opposed, I would guess it's not going to be a milestone of progress. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That reflects the consensus as I understand it... a work of fiction can be cited as the source for purely discriptive statements made about that work of fiction.  The second you start to analyze the work or go beyond pure plot discription you need a third party source. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series episodes 

message: Our sources must be
*verifiable and
*reliable
There seems be a problem when an otherwise reliable verifiable source is used in a wikipedia article on an issue in which the source has a stake. A source with an overall good reputation for fact checking and professional journalism might fail when self-interest is involved.
I think we need to add the following to the wikipedia policy:
*When a RS might have a conflict of interest on the subject at hand, all claims made by wikipedia on the basis of that source must be written as "attributed to" that source. (Not stating the claims of the source as undisputed facts.)
The next question is: when is there a conflict of interest?
I propose as a solution: 
*if wikipedia editors cannot reach consensus on whether or not there is a conflict of interest, the article must be written as though such a conflict might exist.
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I like direct quoting whenever possible.  I find it's much more helpful to read the text as it was writen.Wjhonson (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal: "independent" of interests involved