Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 7

message: Really, I find that Light current's view is not so much in opposition with what we are doing. Please read the section #The role of truth in WP policy. --Lumière 07:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lumiere, perhaps this discussion could be continued on a subpage? I've set one up at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/truth in case anyone would like to do that. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but the section #The role of truth in WP policy should stay here because I think it is interesting for every one. I will copy, not cut and paste, the part that I think is useful. Others could do the same. --Lumière 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone who disagrees with the status quo a TROLL?--Light current 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Can a statement of the form "Mr X has expressed the opinion that President Bush is ..." be accepted for inclusion in an article about Bush and sourced in the website of Mr. X on the basis that telling the opinion of Mr. X is an information about Mr. X?  In my opinion, it is safer to clarify this issue. --Lumière 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if Mr. X is notable, and Mr. X website is a reputable source. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I, for one, don't know what you mean. Jossi gave you an answer. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh please, if you don't have the answer, just say nothing. Also, I have the right to check with others if I have a serious doubt about Jossi's answer. --Lumière 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't have serious doubt about Jossi's answer, (S)he is correct.--Sean Black (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also find your question confusing. If you mean, can you give a web site as a source for a given statement, the answer is yes, and it doesn't matter who made the website, so long as the website is a reputable/verified source. ··gracefool |☺ 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are right, then what exactly is the significance of  the sections "Self-published sources as primary sources" and "Self-published sources"? Especially, of the section "Self-published sources"? Give me some sentences that are excluded by these sections (but would be acceptable for inclusion otherwise) and explain why it does not apply to the above sentence. --Lumière 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oups I see that you did not read carefully the question. The question did not say any website, but the website of Mr. X. I think it was clearly mentioned. What you say raises an important issue: What is a reputable website in general? This is not the question here. --Lumière 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In case it is needed, I repeat the simple question: Is a sentence like "Mr. X has expressed the opinion that Bush is ..." acceptable for inclusion in an article about Bush, if the sentence is only sourced in the website of Mr.X? --Lumière 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether a website is "reputable" is up to community consensus. What this project page says is, don't use a source of dubious/controversial reputation as a third-party source. So if Mr. X's website is a dubious/controversial source, it should only be used in articles about Mr. X. ··gracefool |☺ 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if someone stands on record as saying something, even if self published on his own website., then this should be admissible in a WP article. After all, this would be almost from the horses mouth itself!--Light current 05:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, it seems that we are not reading the same sections "Self-published sources as primary sources" and "Self-published sources".  Sorry, I cannot connect anything that has been said above to these sections.  However, I will not go as far as saying that you are all wrong. One  explanation is that the sections have been rewritten, and you didn't notice.  Read them again. Another explanation is that some have expressed what they think should be the rule, but not what is written in the sections. Perhaps also it will be useful to have more inputs here. --Lumière 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lumiere, please read the policy. Self-published material is not acceptable as a third-party (secondary) source, and that includes personal websites, except where "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, I conclude that the answer is NO! Note that the question say "only sourced in Mr. X website". Therefore, it was not previously published by any third-party publication. --Lumière 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend who Mr X was. Read the policy, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean? My interpretation is that Mr X cannot be the owner of  a third-party publication, and this is by definition of third-party. He is the one that has the opinion. A third-party is an independent publisher. I would say that even if Mr. X was by profession a reputable publisher, he would not count as a third-party publisher. If someone has another interpretation, I am curious to see what it is. --Lumière 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether there's a language problem here or some other, but you've misunderstood the polic, Luminere. I'm sorry I don't have any more time to explain it, but I'd say it's fairly clear to most people. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You maybe right about the problem of language. Can someone give me what is the definition of "third-party publication" in the above context? I thought that it meant that the publisher is not connected in anyway with the content that is being sourced.  --Lumière 05:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not self-published. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well! Who is the "self" in self-published here? It must be Mr. X. So, we cannot use the website of Mr. X as a source. Right? --Lumière 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes well this shows the ultimate nonsense of the policy of V over T if you cant even quote someone who has said something and also recorded it (wherever). It is certainly verifyable that he has said it if its on his website with his electrinic sig. So whats the problem?? Notice I am not saying that the person should be allowed to self cite on WP, only that other editors should be allowed to cite him a s source.--Light current 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er.  No it doesn't.  I've read the above section, and it's very confused, but Wikipedia custom, and general common sense agree about this: If someone says something on a website, and we want to say that they said it, we can use the website as evidence that they said what they said.  This is not in any dispute, although it seems to be the subject of a considerable amount of confusion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if it's a personal website. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose it would be prudent to make sure it was archived in the Wayback Machine first, but AFAIK, if we are writing an article on someone with a personal website, and something they say on it is relevant to the article, we certainly can quote them, and provide the URL to where they said it on the website as a source.  If this is not the case, I'd love to see some examples, etc. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the policy says. Self-published sources may be used as sources about themselves i.e. as primary sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  So, I'll assume your comment "Not if it's a personal website." was just a mis-reading, only referring to using a personal website as a secondary source, which we both agree is not OK. (Oh, and Sean, I don't mind that you removed my (attempted) humour.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure where was the mis-reading. In any case, I read the sections again, and when I look at the context, it seems very much that "third party publication" means that we have an independent publisher, typically a large independent organization.  The policy says that self-published sources are fine if the content is about the owner of the source. The example makes it clear: Mr S website can be used as a source in an article about Mr. S ( but not in an article about Mr. Bush.) This part of the section could not have been more clear! --Lumière 06:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not we should change the sections is another issue. Right now, it is more important, IMO, that we agree about what these sections say. Then, it will be easier to discuss possible modifications. --Lumière 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-published sources as sources on themselves

message: DO NOT REMOVE.  
It is not because we have a subpage about the role of truth as a complement to verifiability that we cannot say a word about it here. Just a simple question. Was there a consensus to highlight verifiability, not truth in the first sentence?  See  Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/truth for more details about this issue. Also, this subpage presents an interesting example of a rule in NPOV that is advocating something related to "truth" as a necessary complement, if we consider that "significance" is related to "truth". They are certainly both very subjective.  --Lumière 06:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpage about the value of truth (as a complement). 

message: Why is SV trying to hide legit posts away on sub pages that no one will see and erasing other legit posts about the format of the discussion. I wonder if this will end up on a sub page or will it just be archived, or will it be deleted like my other posts on this page? --Light current 07:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secreting 

message: Slim: Why is not sufficient to say just verifyibility?. --Light current 08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I think I know the answer. It is very simple. It is important for some that the policy does not use truth. They think it is great because in this way the policy relies less on the judgment of the editors. So, they want to inform the readers of this "objective" approach that they consider very fundamental. Of course, the reality is that they are confused. They think that WP policy should not rely on the judgment of the editors, but there exists plenty of WP rules that do rely on the judgement of the editors. For example, in accordance with NPOV, "non significant" views should not be included, and it is explained in the NPOV talk page that the precise meaning of "non significant" depends on the situation and must be determined by the editors. --Lumière 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree, if it is what you say,  that even if the current policy does not explicitly use truth as a criteria, it nevertheless partially remove innaccurate contents, and thus we should not present the opposite impression.  I agree that mentioning "not truth" does create the wrong impression and also agree that it is not absolutely necessary to insist on it. It still remains that the sentence is not false: the policy does not use truth. Do you think that it should use truth or is it sufficient that we only remove "not truth" in the formulation? --Lumière 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The purpose of my answer to your question to Slim was to present and discuss the perspective of those who really want to keep "not truth".  I tought it could be useful. --Lumière 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why negation of truth? 

message: How can this page be WP policy if it changes every 10 mins?--Light current 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light current, you're trolling. If it continues, you may be reported and blocked for disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PolicY 

message: Whether we like it or not, the current policy does not use truth to filter for inclusion. The purpose of the first sentence is to explain the policy as it is.  Therefore, I support that we keep the first sentence with the "not truth", even if it stupid, because this is the situation. 
However, I also support that we change this policy to add a very simple rule that uses "truth". This proposed rule is very similar to another rule that uses "significance" instead of "truth". This other rule, which is implicit in the current NPOV policy,  says that if the editors agree that something is not significant, they should not include it in the article. If you ask the experts behind NPOV what is the precise meaning of "significant", they simply say that it can be determined amongst the editors.  It would make perfect sense that we do the samething:  If all the editors agree that something is not true (or say innacurate), they should not include it. What is wrong with this?  --Lumière 08:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first sight this looks OK to me. I would rather truth not be mentioned at all rather than in a negative context which is why I tried to remove it from the page. It was reverted of course by SV who now seems to be soley in charge of this page.--Light current 08:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The current policy does not use truth at all as a threshold, even though it should.

message: Well any changes we try to make are immediately reverted by the admins and if you try to change them back you get accused of 3RR or trolling.  I have tried to change the page for the better a number of times and Im in danger of being blocked again for 2 helpful changes I made (This is called trolling if you put something on the page that an admin doesnt like). So I cant really make any other changes to the page myself today, but others could.
I dont see what can be done except to accept that WP policy is not made by the users but by one or two admins.--Light current 08:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are just very attached to the policy, like if it was the bible! I feel as if we should not touch it until after we become members of the order! They won't like it otherwise. They barely tolerate us in the talk page. --Lumière 08:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Lumiere 

message: I ve removed the reference to tabloids because its out of date and is not NPOV. ie it presents the view that tabloids are unreliable- most are reputable these days. Also mentioning a specific newspaper The Sun and casting doubt on its reliability is again POV but Ive left that for the moment.--Light current 14:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would not use a newspaper to source a scientific content, but it might be fine for some other contents. The main issue is the last part. A criticism of The Sun should be notable and well sourced. Otherwise, if it is not notable it is POV and if it not well sourced it qualifies as original research, a research on quality of newspapers. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, a criticism of the sources sounds like totally off topic and inadequate in an encyclopedia article. What about the sources that are used to support this criticism. If these sources are also tabloids, should we also critic them, and so on. --Lumière 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloids 

message: Of course! Ordinary users must not interfere in wheel wars or they are lible to get blocked. I have just learned this valuable lesson!--Light current 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheel Warring 

message: I encourage others not supply anymore of it.  Watch the page, revert ill-formed, misguided or bad faith edits, and leave it at that. FeloniousMonk 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding troll food

message: WikiPedia strives to use only published sources, but in many cases where documented sources exist, publishing them may not be feasible due to biases in the publishing industry.  The most brilliant prose on a topic may not find a publisher because they are just not interested in the subject, the subject is too short, the subject isn't sexy enough, a publisher doesn't exist for that topic, it's not "important" enough, everyone's too busy to bother with it, etc., all of which may prevent good documented information from being used by WikiPedia editors as verified sources.  For cases where verified, documented sources exist but are unpublished and publishable if publishers would let it be, maybe we can establish a "Provisional Source" classification and a Source Commons, so that articles that would stand if the legitimate sources did get published would not be hampered.  "Provisional Sources" could be classified as "verified, documented sources that would be published, provided a publisher were available".  Provisional Sources can be marked as such.  Articles using Provisional Sources can state something like, "This article or section contains information that has been verified but not published. Please help by replacing unpublished sources with published sources where possible."  What qualifies as a verified, documented source can be hashed out here, but I think it can include third party corroboration of an article's facts, through affidavits, email requests for confirmation, interviews, and other factfinding methods used by publishers.  This would take the sources beyond Original Research by using only third party corroboration and not creating one's own sources.  This would be particularly helpful for articles on social phenomena where few if any published sources are available due to publisher bias, but can be verified through third party corroboration, such as local interest, or special interest groups and fandoms outside the mainstream.  (Publishers are especially biased about the latter, interested only in yellow-journalistic reporting if they're interested at all, which frustates any well-sourced articles.)  Provisional Sources would satisfy the condition of verifiablity, while stressing that published sources are prefered, and quell arguments about well-known facts that have no published sources but can be corroborated.  --Coyoty 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no. There are usually very good reasons why unpublished manuscripts are unpublished. The policy say reliable published sources. That gives us something to point to when an item in an article is questioned. If the source is not one that is generally available to other editors (i.e., in libraries, at bookstores, or on the Internet), it can't be verified by other editors and readers.  Also, 'verifiable' does not mean that some person has verified the information before it's put into Wikipedia, it means that anyone else can go to the cited source to verify that the source supports what has been put into the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right, Dalbury. Coyoty, you're using another meaning of "verify," and what you're describing we call original research. Wikipedia has no established fact-checking or research process in the way newspapers or publishing houses do, which is why we rely on material already published by reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Just think of the massive can of worms we will be opening if allowing these "provisional" sources. Material that is good, will be sooner or later, published. Let's not forget to look at WP as a work in progress! ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Provisional Sources

message: Some editors are using transcripts of radio interviews and labelling these "reputable published sources". I would argue for a distinction between a published source in which fact checking and editorial review processes are in place, and such interviews in which the person interviewed, can very much say whatever he/she wants. We can assert the verifiability of the interview taking place, but we could not assert the reputability of the source, just because it was in a media outlet. Any comments? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, I don't know if you care about my opinion, but I totally agree with you that we should distinguish between something that is merely brought to the public attention (even in a way that can be checked later) and something that was published in a reputable source. As your comment suggests, the term "verifiability" was not well chosen at all. Most people interpret it as if it means that we can verify that the author is really the author and that the text (or the video, etc.) was not modified by others. Of course, they did not read the policy to have such an interpretation, but still there are plenty of editors that do have this interpretation. In fact, the policy even goes further in the opposite direction and mentions that what is a reputable source depends on the type of content. For example, for scientific content, peer-reviewed journals are recommanded. Also, the policy refers to guidelines which strongly suggest that we check the reputability of the publishers (to make sure that they only publish accurate material). -Lumière 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that if the transcript of the interview is available from a reputable source, then it can be used as a source for what the interviewee said. We do have to be careful that the transcript is trustworthy. We do not want to be putting words in somene's mouth that we cannot prove can from a reputable source. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean "came from" not "can from", right? Lumière 01:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In general, interviews should only be used as a source for the interviewees opinions, because, as User:Jossi points out there is no vetting of their contents. But I fail to see the difference between a print interview and a broadcast interview, other matters aside. If an interview is "published" by posting the contents to a reliable source, such as a radio station website, then I'd be inclined to give it credence. -Will Beback 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Sean Black (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why it is any good even for the interviewees opinion. Perhaps you meant "interviewees opinion about himself", because then indeed the interview can be used if it self-published by the interviewee, but only in an article about the interviewee.  -Lumière 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine George W. Bush gives an interview to "60 Minutes" and says that Vladmir Putin lied about the Russian nuclear forces. Of course we wouldn't use that as a source for Putin being a liar, but we should be able to use that in articles on Putin or the nuclear forces as a source for a notable opinion on those topics, IMO, not simply in the article on Bush himself.  -Will Beback 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If an interview in a TV program can be considered as a reputable source for some kind of content, tell me what kind of content?  As pointed out before, the problem is that no fact checking and editorial review processes are in place. What kind of content should not have this form of quality control?  I disagree that we can use an interview as a source to include Bush's opinion about Putin in an article on Putin. I know, it seems like a strong suppression of information, but this rule is necessary to guarantee that only fair and accurate stories appear in Wikipedia. Say if another important man says something bad about the pope in an interview, can we include it in an article about the pope? I don't personally care that much about the pope, but if we want to avoid a bad impression we better be sure that we only include content that was carefully filtered for unfair or innacurate stories. -Lumière 02:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I think the discussion has strayed from the question regarding this policy. I'd say the point above concerns Wikipedia:reliable sources. A blanket ban on using interviews in anything other than the interviewees' biographies is indeed harsh and unnecessary, IMO, but it does not sound like the issue is whether the interivew is verifiable. -Will Beback 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry about my opinion. Just read the policy again and ask yourself if it provides rules to determine what is a valid source. Put some attention to the section WP:V#Sources. Whether or not it is my opinion doesn't reall matter. -Lumière 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The question is: how can you give "credence" to an interview, in which the interviewee can say whatever he/she wants. As Dalbury says, given WP:V, we can only assert that the intervieee said A, B and C. Period. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I mean by credence: that we believe that the interview correctly reflects what was said by the interviewee. Since print interviews are sometimes transcribed incorrectly, radio/TV interviews may be more credible than print interviews. Certainly whether the interviewee is correct or not is a problem no matter what format the interview appears in. -Will Beback 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that's an issue with any personal account, like an autobiography or essay.--Sean Black (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just asking about making a distinction between what we consider a reputable source, and an interview. A reputable source is described in WP:RS as being reliable because  Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. An interview's content does not have that imprimatur. The interviewee can say A, B and C, but we cannot assert that A, B and C is reliable information. But if the Times of London says A, B, and C, we can assert that as reliable information. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree. It is policy.  -Lumière 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  An interview would be used to source opinion, and per WP:RS, An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion. As long as the interview is archived in some form, either in a media file "as broadcast" hosted by a reliable source, or transcribed with the transcription agreed, again hosted or printed by a reliable source, or a quotation has been run by a reliable source, there is no concern.  An interview can also be used to source facts the interviewee may give regarding themselves, the interviewee being primary source and the interview itself being the secondary source.  You are correct that we cannot use an interview to assert A B and C where they are unrelated to the interviewee: if George Bush claimed there was an alien invasion due tomorrow we could not assert an alien invasion was imminent; we could however, assert George Bush stated on the 12th February that "an alien invasion is due tomorrow".  But again, only if the interview was available for verification.  I am unclear as to how possible it is to gain access to tapes or transcripts of radio and television transmissions for verification purposes from the broadcasters - that would be a flaw in the verifiability chain that would have to be examined. Hiding  talk 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are saying that the transformation of an opinion into a fact, as explained in the NPOV policy and as you reexplain above, together with a weak notion of verifiability without a reputable  source, is sufficient to transform anything that is not acceptable for inclusion into something that is acceptable for inclusion.  For example, a crackpot theory about the universe is not acceptable in a respectable WP article on this topic, but if you transform it into the fact that Joe  proposed this crackpot theory and this is sourced in some interview, it is OK to include that crackpot theory into this WP article. This is in conflict with the WP verifiability requirement that says that the fact that Joe proposed this crackpot theory must be supported in a reputable source before it is acceptable for inclusion. You are in conflict with an essential part of the Wikipedia policy.  --Lumière 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you say that I misunderstood you, I say great! I say it is great because I was in total disagreement with what I understood, and I would prefer to be in agreement. What may have confused me is that you never referred to the concept of reputable source, which is basic to the verifiability policy.  The part that I like to hear about the verifiability policy is that a reputable source must provide some kind of review process to guarantee fairness and accuracy. -Lumière 18:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The gist of the discussion is making a distinction between the ability to verify that an interview took place, and the ability to verify the assertions made in an interview. Being able to verify that an interview took place, and being able to verify that the transcription of the interview is correct, does not give this interview the imprimatur of "reputable/reliable source". A reputable source is described in WP:RS as being reliable because "Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia". That is clearly not the case with an interview, in which the interviewee can say pretty much whatever he/she wants. Clear now? A ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Jossi! Very clear! -Lumière 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, I think you're slightly confused here.  Yes an interviewee can say pretty much what they want in an interview.  That doesn't negate it as a reliable source; it merely entails us to remember that what we are sourcing is generally opinion.  However, were George Bush, for example, to announce in an interview that he is resigning as President, that is a fact, is sourcable and is verifiable.  Note what needs to be verified with interviews is that the words were actually said, and by the person whom they are presented as being spoken by.  Many broadcasters are reputable sources, consider for example the BBC. Hiding  talk 09:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think Jossi is confused. What might be confusing is the term "reliable" instead of "reputable". Again, the main points of the policy are stated in  terms of "reputable sources", not in terms of "verifiable sources" (see WP:V#The policy). So, I assume you meant "reputable source" when you wrote "verifiable source". The policy is clear that a "reputable source" is a source from a publisher that provides fact checking, etc., which is obviously more than only checking the authenticity of the authors and protecting the material against tampering  to make sure that the attribution is correct. -Lumière 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're confused too.  You have missed the part where I ask you to consider the BBC as a reliable or reputable source.  However, since you state that what we're arguing about now though, is not verifiability but reliable sources.  Are an interviewees own words opinion?  Yes.  Therefore, per WP:RS, If there is text, audio, or video available of someone expressing the opinion directly, it is preferable to include or transcribe an excerpt.  Hiding  talk 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio interview 

message: I've just removed a couple of inappropriate notices from Wikipedia:Verifiability/Jguk's version. But at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Jguk's version#Big Bang, User:Jguk says I'm therefore being BOLD and, after tweaking the wording of this proposal to state explicitly that there is no carte blanche for mass deletions, making this version live. 
That was on 31 January. It doesn't seem to have happened, and I can't find further discussion of this proposal. Maybe I've missed it. Or as User talk:Jguk reads If you wish to send me a message, please email me here. Otherwise assume I have not seen and will not see your message. Thanks, jguk, maybe the discussion continued on email, where nobody can find it. Or, maybe they merely meant this edit by going live.
I don't think we can have two different versions both belonging to :Category:Wikipedia official policy, and bearing a notice claiming to be official Wikipedia policy (let alone a notice saying WP:V redirects here... no, it doesn't). It may be obvious to those in the loop what is happening, but it's not all that obvious to the rest of us.
Personally I think this big bang is a very bad idea, and I also have my doubts about Jguk's experiment with their user talk page. 
(And this talk page is also badly in need of archiving.) Andrewa 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So where are we at

message: I believe that sentence is a bit ambiguous, and I think it should be clarified.
The way I read it, it seems to prohibit even the minimum of aggregation and reformulation that separates an encyclopedia from a mere selection of quotes and summaries.  I'm worried about what Wikipedia would look like if all the content were indeed written by people who have fun solely summarising what they read in external sources, without any creative process whatsoever.
I think it might be better if this said that WP articles should only use such information, or "contain material" were replaced by some clearer term -- one, I would think, that made it clear that it is okay for articles to include sentences that I might not be able to find a single source for, by combining several sources.  If I can find a source saying that world population in the 1940s was around 2.3 billion, it should be okay for me to write that world population during World War II was around 2.3 billion, without having to find a source that includes this specific statement.  (Of course, as the policy currently stands, it seems to suggest it would be perfectly okay to remove that statement if it didn't provide a source for the time World War II happened.  I'm glad most people seem to apply more common sense than required by a strict reading of the policy.)
RandomP 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree!  I would use the expression "supported by reputable sources" instead of "published in reputable sources", but it could be something else. Whatever is the expression that we use, the concept should be clarified in the policy. To put this issue into its context, I would add that this is only one half of what we need to clarify. The second half is what we mean by "reputable sources". -Lumière 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 

message: Sorry, this section went on for a bit; I thought it would be good to start fresh.  let me admit my bias: to my mind, the purpose of an encyclopoedia is to inform, and this is more than the presentation of mere data.  any time you put two sentences about some topic near each other, the human mind will naturally and inevitably try to draw those two sentences into some over-arching relationship, and I don't think a good editor should ignore that.  I think he or she should try to aid the reader in making balanced, informed conceptual structures.  this thought is already built into wikipedia, mind you, in disambiguation pages (which structure valid content domains).  
I think one issue I have with the verifiability policy is that it's designed with scientific theories in mind, and that model doesn't necessarily extend itself well to other kinds of information. for instance, the insistance on publication by reputable sources is fine for excluding untested and unproven theories in physics or chemistry, but it becomes much more difficult to apply if you shift to the social sciences, and impossibly congested when you enter into history or the humanities or out into the broader social world.  I can think of numerous instances in psychology, anthropology, political science, etc., where mutually contradictory theories are held and published concurrently, even in the same journals, the situation is more difficult when you get to cultural and literary criticism, and it's impossible in the real world.  really, what holds knowledege together is logical induction, not logical positivism; if you disallow logic as a valid source, you might as well disallow discussing anything you can't poke with a stick.
don't get me wrong, I understand the issues.  we want to:
*exclude unproven and untested scientific theories
*exclude misinformation (intentional or not)
*exclude the presentation of distinct opinion as fact 
*exclude material that is intentionally offensive, argumentatitve, or overly-narrow
:*(noting that it's the intention at issue, not the material)
all of these things are undesirable because they misdirect and generate disagreement and confusion.  but if the goal is not to misdirect, well...  one can misdirect just as easily through what isn't said as what is.  There are times when you just can't make sense of a topic without weaving a logical basket to put all the separate facts in, and I don't think that should be excluded as a matter of policy. (whoops, forgot to sign) Ted 05:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  logic, NOR, verifiability: retake

message: My interpretation of "reputable sources" is that they are sources with good reputations, i.e. "trusted".  Would it be less confusing to say "trusted sources"?  --Coyoty 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer reliable, the phrase used for the page itself, Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  They are sources which have been proved to be reliable. Hiding  talk 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputable sources

message: The number of references in articles which are making it through FAC has been rising, seemingly inexorably, for some time now.  I often object to articles with more than about 40 references because I think it's almost always unnecessary to cite so many sources, and very distracting for readers to see so many footnotes in the text.  In every case I object to, people are citing things which really don't need citing, like uncontroversial facts and things which are just common knowledge, and they commonly respond to my objections by saying they're only following guidelines here.  So, I think it's time to include guidelines on when citations aren't necessary, and possibly a guideline on how many citations are likely to be appropriate for articles of a given length.  What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this in here before. What you think is common knowledge may not be known by someone else. Remember, Wikipedia is being written for everyone in the world (the English version for everyone in the world that can read English), and many potential readers do not share the "world knowledge" of North Americans, Britons or Australians. Take a look at something like Upanishad and see how much is "common knowledge" to you. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upanishad has 7 references so is not one I would complain is over-referenced.  I think it gives me enough information to verify what's in the article, should I need to.  Of course, what should be considered common knowledge is very subjective; I suppose what I am saying is that there are things which don't need citing because they are so easy to verify, such as 'the sky is blue' or 'the earth is round' at the extreme.  Worldtraveller 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have an impression of "déjà vue". It seems that Wikipedia policy asks editors to provide references that other encyclopedia (with the same kind of audience) do not provide.  IMO, if the request for references in Wikipedia was in all cases about the same as in other encyclopedia, there would be no impression that some Wikipedia articles, such as those seen by Worldtraveller, are over referenced. -Lumière 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Maclean25, you took the words right out of mouth!  My previous comment was just an invitation to a comment like yours. This was the next point I wanted to say, but I am glad you did. Now, maybe it is impossible to have the best of both worlds: (1) the type of fact-checking that we need amongst editors in Wikipedia together with (2) the type of not over-referenced articles that readers expect from an encyclopedia. -Lumière 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Rob mentions an important point in the first part about school students. In Wikipedia we might not want to make a distinction between a user that is a reader and a user that is an editor. Every user can become an editor and check for accuracy of simple facts, etc. We should not distinguish between two roles, reader and editor, as far as the use of references is concerned.  Also, one key point to consider is that it must be clear to the readers that every fact in Wikipedia, unlike in other encyclopedia,  should not be trusted and needs to be checked all the times. This is the purpose of over-referencing.   -Lumière 10:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The second part about the highly educated people is where the real problem is. It is not sufficient to request them to "prove" things "everybody knows" in their role of editors, but they should also see all these references when they are just readers so that they are invited to check them. This is because Wikipedia would not trust an editorial process that would separate the reader-role from the editor-role and provide an over-referencing that is only seen in the editor-role. The over-referencing must also be seen in the reader-role to invite all readers to participate in fact checking.   -Lumière 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-referencing

message: Part of the problem of getting people to provide adequate sources is that it's seen as a chore.  If sourcing were to be promoted as part of the fun of editing, or even reading, I think people would be more inclined to do it.  We can make sourcing out to be a kind of scavenger hunt, and a way to build up articles instead of ripping them up for lack of sources.  A good example of how this can be done is the Al Lewis article, where the editors are gleefully trying to sort out Grandpa's tall tales.  As for myself, I've been trying to find sources where needed to improve articles, instead of automatically dismissing things as bunk.  (I don't always succeed, but I'm trying.)  --Coyoty 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the problem that was originally mentioned is not that editors refuse to provide references, but only that too much of them were provided because the policy imposes it. So, yes it was confusing to say that the main problem is that some editors don't want to provide references.  I think the problem was well captured by a few amongst us in a previous discussion: there is a need to formulate the policy so that not every thing needs to be sourced. As it was said previously, a line must be drawn somewhere and it is OK if it is ultimately decided amongst the editors when there is a dispute or when the question is raised. What is too strong is to say that, a source can be requested for every single statement in the article, irrespectively of any consensus.  -Lumière 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, so we can have a problem on both sides! -Lumière 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Under-referencing: Painting the fence white

message: I think we need some kind of specific policy statement as to what constitutes verifiability for a statement about the contents of a movie, e.g. List of movie appearances of the Statue of Liberty. Personally I think a movie can be considered a source, but that a source citation should be required that references a specific edition of the movie (e.g. a particular DVD release) and the number of minutes into the movie.
Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Movies, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifying assertions about the content of movies? 

message: How would I cite something I found in a book? Evan Robidoux 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can follow the examples at Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style#Books. Don't worry about getting it perfect, someone else will come along soon and copy edit any glitches. The main thing is to get all the pertinent information into the citation. Anyone can fix the format, but others might have problems finding the source information if you don't include it. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 03:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Evan. I will respond with a quick "how to" guide, on your talk page. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: Is Wikipedia a valid resource for historical investigation?
:Is it a good resource for historical inquiry? Yes, it's excellent resource as a starting point. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evaluate a Wikipedia article much as you would a book or other source. There are plenty of books that are neither fun nor "valid". Hyacinth 13:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO, it is not a valid secondary source. It has not achieved this status. It is highly used, but in the sameway as the Internet (Google search, etc.) is also highly used -- people don't necessarily trust it. Studies indicate that Wikipedia seems to do fine as far as accuracy is concerned for standard encyclopeadic topics. However, a lot of material find its way in Wikipedia under POV pushing that would not normally be found in an encyclopedia, and to my knowledge the level of accuracy of Wikipedia is not known in these cases. A more serious problem is that the balance amongst views in a Wikipedia article can be biased by a small community of people that put a lot of attention on this article. Even if every statement in the article was true, the article can yet be completely biased. This  issue is serious because it means that, even as a starting point, Wikipedia could mislead the readers with regard to what is important, etc.  -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true we're not a valid secondary source.  But, we never try to be.  Articles that cite good secondary sources, can be a good starting point in research.  Wikipedia will never be an "end point" for research.  At best, we're a good starting point.  On POV, I disagree.  We're probably better than most sources in terms of POV.  Most publications have POV pushers.  But, Wikipedia is one of the few that let everybody "push back". --Rob 07:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, as you say, everbody as the opportunity, but especially those with a specific agenda will do so intensively. Perhaps some see it as a good thing because then Wikipedia is a platform to allow these people to pass material or criticisms that would not pass in other credible third-party publications. Wikipedia can then become the voice of these people. In some cases, it is perhaps a good thing, but how can we evaluate that?  It is a very difficult problem. Wikipedia uses WP:verifiability, WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view to address this problem (and also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.) This global content policy is used to define the level of filtering and quality that Wikipedia attempts to achieve.  I invite you to consider what is the basic approach of this policy.  It basically tries to achieve its goal by only allowing in Wikipedia what was already published in standard reputable publications and only in the same proportion as in these publications. The details are more complicated than that because there are many different kind of contents, but this is the basic idea. The implication of this approach is that Wikipedia should not be a platform to allow editors to pass a view to counterbalance for what is not said enough in other reputable publications.   In other words, what some perhaps think is a good thing is exactly what Wikipedia policy tries to avoid.  My point is that Wikipedia did not really succeed to achieve its goal. The problem is partially due to the fact the policy is simply not applied. The people with a strong agenda ignore the policy or understand it in a way that allow them to go ahead with their agenda.  The consequence is, as you say,  'Wikipedia is one of the few that let everybody "push back"' .  So, what some consider a good thing is exactly what Wikipedia policy tries to avoid, but without success. Of course, Neutral point of view says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. However, this does not mean at all that we should let everybody "push back". There is also the opposite problem, which is that some articles do not receive the attention of all parties, and therefore is biased because some interested people have pushed their view, without the other views being fairly represented. In other words, Wikipedia let everybody "push back", but sometimes, even if it would be acceptable in accordance with policy, it simply does not happen enough. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 14:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes or no question 

message: I'm not going to revert you for now, but I would note that this is policy and WP:CITE is a guideline, and as I understand it, guidelines should normally be changed to conform to policy, not the other way around. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 11:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Thivierr on Citing sources 

message: One thing I've noticed that should be opened for discussion: individuals who cite other Wikipedia articles as verifiable sources when they have, in fact, been primary editors on those articles.  It allows for some rather unsubtle POV pushing.  Wikipedia articles are themselves webpages, subject to the same limitation as as any other webpage.  I suggest the following modification to the 'self-published sources' section:
:Substantive points that make reference to other Wikipedia articles rely on the verifiability of those articles.  In no case should a chain of evidence cross through more than one Wikipedia article before reaching a verifiable external source.  Supplementary links (see also links, descriptive links, secondary topic links, etc.) may rely on the looser presumption that the linked page itself satisfies verifiability standards.
Ted 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go further and expand it to any collaboratively compiled document. We shouldn't limit it to merely wikipedia articles but any citing of articles on wikimedia based or styled projects. Hiding  talk 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bootstrapping 

message: It may be a surprise to some, but I have seen editors interpreting the statement that the policies should not be used in isolation as if it meant that it is OK to violate one policy, say verifiability, if another policy, say NPOV, suggested that.  An example will be that one side of the dispute has one or two reputable sources, but the other side only has a few personal websites, which are not valid sources in accordance with verifiability. In such a case, some editors can argue that, we should give priority to the NPOV policy and accept the websites because otherwise the article would entirely be the view of one side. When you see it that way, this argument to violate the verifiability policy starts to make sense.  I still disagree though, but I mention this because I think it needs to be clarified. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 18:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me an example of that interpretation. Diffs, please. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review [] Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: a close, if not perfect, example here, from the page I was discussing earlier (***).  as I understand it (haven't fully digested everything yet) the balance debate comes because one side has cites pointing to a large number of cases of Republican malfeasance, while the other side has cites pointing to ten or so cases of Democratic malfeasance.  all cites are from politicized sources...  the argument is over whether to simply mention Dem and Rep badness equally (without mention of differences in scale) or whether to minimize the Dem badness and focus on the Rep badness (because of differences in scale).  I believe there are questions raised about the reliability of the anti-Dem sources as well, though I haven't finished reading yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrigley (talk • contribs) 
Jossi, I will try to find where I saw such an interpretation. Meanwhile, can you clarify what is your position. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would rather follow Hipocrite's suggestion. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is not about an article saying (meaning, the editors of the article saying) that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad or equally good.  It is about representing all views (meaning, views found in verifiable sources) in an accurate and non-judgemental way.  This isn't "Crossfire." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
IMO, the expressions "Jointly" and "not be interpreted in isolation from one other" strongly suggest that even if a policy, say the verifiability policy, is quite clear that some material is not acceptable for inclusion, we can still refer to another policy, say the NPOV policy, to argue that the material should be included.  This is not my understanding of the policies. My understanding is that the policies have rules to exclude material, and to be acceptable for inclusion a material must respect all these rules. Each rule can be understood separately.  NPOV also have rules to determine the proportion of space attributed to each view that is acceptable for inclusion.  None of these rules can be used to violate another rule.  I have one example of an editor that is arguing with me that the policy criteria are not individual ground for exclusion. Originally this editor extended his argument to verifiability, which meant that verifiability could not be used as an individual ground for exclusion, but after my criticisms he limited his argument to notability and other criteria in NPOV.  His argument (see this edit) is to ask why they should be individual ground for exclusion and not individual ground for inclusion -- IMO, a weak argument that has nothing to do with the actual policy.  I have seen this used in practice, but it was long ago and I cannot find it anymore.  -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 13:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The statement is very clear as it is. Content has to meet all of the major content policies to be able to be included. That's what they "can't be interpreted in isolation of each other" means. Think about it, the only logical conclusion you can make from "can't be interpreted in isolation" is that content has to meet all three. You can't meet one and violate the other two and be included. - Taxman Talk 15:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman, please review []. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, now I get it. I had pretty much ignored the flood on this page before. But it seems silence doesn't work either. - Taxman Talk 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "we need the three policies" 

message: I'm very uncomfortable with the NY Times example in the current article, which reads:
:"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
This example seems to blur the distinction between original research and checking primary sources.  For example, if the NY Times published a demonstrably false article, and the falseness could be trivially proven by linking to primary sources, it would be perfectly acceptable to link to those sources in order to disprove the contents of the article.  It only becomes original research when new primary sources are being created; a distinction that the above fails to make. - O^O
: The distinction between primary and secondary sources is important in the no original research policy, but only to better explain what kind of material cannot be used to source an article. The no original research policy says that an article must be entirely supported by secondary sources:  
::"That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." 
:The emphasis is mine. This is not to say that primary sources cannot be cited if they provide useful information, but the material in the WP article must be separately sourced in reliable secondary sources.  
:My understanding of policy is that checking primary sources to obtain a conclusion to contradict a secondary source (or for any other purpose) is original research. Any material based on an analytical or evaluative process must be sourced in a reputable secondary source before it can be included in Wikipedia. Editors cannot just include such a material in Wikipedia whether it comes directly from them or from a friend or through an interview with an expert, unless it is also sourced in a reputable publication. Therefore, editors cannot argue inside the WP article against the material that is sourced in the NY times, unless their argument is also sourced in a reputable secondary  source.  However, if the verifiability policy had a rule such as:
::"If something is not true as far as the editors have ascertained to the best of their endeavours, then they should not include it, even if it complies with all other requirements of WP policy." 
:then at the least the editors would be justify not to include the NY times material. However, there is no such a rule in the policy, and I do not understand why. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/truth for more details, and also previous discussions in this talk page. The current policy says that the NY times material must be included (if it is relevant and respect all other policies) even if it is known to be false, and you are not even allowed to include your personal criticisms of this material because it would be original research. The only thing you can do is to clearly attribute it to the NY times so that the readers know from where it comes from. IMO, this is a ridiculous situation. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the assertion that we have to use only secondary sources is completely wrong.  The WP:NOR says we are strongly encouraged to collect and organize primary sources.  I do completely agree that the NPOV way of handling this situation would be to cite the NYT, and then cite the primary source that conflicts with the NYT.  However, we do not need to wait for some other secondary source to link to the primary source, we can do so ourselves. I'm going to make some clarifying edits to try to clear this up. - O^O 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions."
Fine, because of these special exceptions, it becomes a question of degree whether or not some material requires a secondary source. However, the examples that are given try to convey the idea that these exceptions are for non controversial materials. There is a big difference between "some exceptions" and "completely wrong".  Moreover, these exceptions do not apply to a case where you contradict the NY Times. It is difficult to contradict the NY Times and argue that it is a [well known] current event or an apple pie example. I don't think you have a case to change the policy here. 
In this second part of your comment, you consider the other option: if we cannot contradict it, let us not write about it.  To support this second option, you say that the policy requests verifiability and truth. You do not read the same policy as me. What I read is that it requests verifiability, not truth. My point is exactly that the policy should request verifiability and truth, as you seem to agree. User:Light current and myself, mainly Light current, tried a lot to change the wording so that it reads "verifiablity and truth".  As ridiculous as it may seem, the policy says that truth is not a consideration and that we should include what is well sourced, "whether or not we regard the material as accurate."  
Perhaps your argument is that in practice it will not happen that editors will include something that they believe is not true. Why would they do so, you may think. This is a naïve evaluation of the situation that assumes that decisions are taken in a simple manner by editors that are all thinking along in a coherent way. The reality is that most decisions require that we obtain a consensus out of opposing opinions. For example, one editor might be a proponent of a false statement. All editors, except perhaps this one, know that the statement is false. However, all editors agree  that the statement is verifiable. Because, this single editor requests that we include the statement, it will have to be included according to policy. You might say that the other editors will argue with the dissensious editor. This single editor could immediatly put an end to this discussion and say "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The problem is that the policy does not even give room for a discussion, like the one that you suggested.  -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your latter question; why would an editor cite something that is verifiable but "wrong" - it happens all the time when a good editor tries to be NPOV on a controversial subject.  If a pro-choice editor writes "the X church holds that abortion is murder", then that editor is citing a position that is verifiable, whether or not it is "true" that abortion is murder.  Moving back to primary references; primary references from reputable sources have always been acceptable on Wikipedia.  I would argue that in many cases it is better to reference the primary source than a secondary source.  If you want to quote a sentence from a speech, better to cite a transcript of the speech, instead of an article in a newspaper that happens to include the speech. - O^O 19:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times Example 

message: I am currently in a dispute that is undergoing mediation. The process has bogged down over the interpretation of criteria. Specifically, [WP:BLP] states Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable, e.g. plagiarism by an artist, fraud by a scientist, doping use by a sports person, etc. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations. To me this says that you cannot place information in an article about a living person if it infers guilt by association, ie. if it links two people so that the reader may be lead to assume that information that he has about one person will apply to the other. My opponent won't acknowledge this. 
There used to be a section on guilt by association in the Wikipedia:Verifiabilityguideline, but it was removed a month ago. I cannot find a reason for its removal. You can read it here . Was there a reason for this removal? Has guilt by association become acceptabe.
If you feel yourself knowledgeable about the guidelines and want to put your two cents in I would appreciate it. The article is here  and the mediation subpage here . Engjs 13:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy was refactored to shorten it, and to eliminate overlap with other policies and guidelines. It is my opinion that there was no consensus to change what is allowed or not allowed in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also wanted to use this section once, and was disapointed that I could not find it anymore. I could not find the equivalent elsewhere in the policy. Therefore, IMO, removing it was actually a change in the policy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guilt by association