Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia:Attribution was worked on over 5 months (more than 2,000 edits to the page itself, and more than 5,000 edits to the talk page by more than 300 editors),  and it  was upgraded to policy on the 15 February, 2007. The discussion was made public on various policy talk pages, on the wiki-EN-l mailing list, and  was announced on the The Wikipedia Signpost.
Jimbo's initial comments on this issue are here.
More recently,  on  the Wiki-EN-l mailing list (wiki-EN-l March 20, 2007, 11:56 PM), Jimbo Wales suggested: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, "Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?" WikiEN-L, 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The chief argument for this was that they had an extensive area of overlap. It is more efficient to state the same policy in the same place, once. When they diverged, as they did from time to time, the result was two somewhat different policies on the same issue, of equal authority.
As a lesser advantage, "verification" in WP:V was not the common meaning of "verify": confirming the truth of what Wikipedia asserted; but checking  that Wikipedia's statement could be attributed to a reliable source, and was therefore not original research. The change of name may well mean that we don't have to explain this once or twice a month to some well-intentioned soul who has just encountered our policy pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already a subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and is slated for further investigation at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll.  I don't see the point of this thread existing here on this odd page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What JWSchmidt has to say here makes a lot of sense to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After this long rant, let me answer to the "correct" question: Should the policies WP:V and WP:NOR be merged? — YES, but... (to be continued...) (and to the original one: yes, it was a useful and instructive exercise) `'mikka 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is 5 months. 2,000 edits to ATT and 5,000 comments in talk haste?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point has my sympathy.  I don't understand why, but it seems that so much work over such a long time happened in the complete ignorance of so many.  I am interest in policy, and keep many policies, including WP:V and WP:NOR on my watchlist, and yet I was completely unaware of what was happening until there was an announcement that it was about to happen.  How many editors, as a percentage of active editors, participated in the creation of WP:ATT?   SmokeyJoe 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a general problem with Wikipedia, and not an argument against this particular change. — Sebastian 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I think the WP:NOR and WP:V links should redirect to their respective section of the merged policy if they ever get merged. Wooyi 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: comment Shouldn't that be: “NO, Keep it simple”? Is it not simpler to have pages addressing specific problems, rather than one complex and unwieldy article with byzantine subsections? Freederick 10:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's easier for me to cite one policy and point people to one article when discussing edits. --Sean Brunnock 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really think this is an argument pro or con merging. A discussion about joke chess problems would be the same under the current set of policy pages as under the new proposed policy. As it is I'm unsure about these types of pages. Reluctantly I'm in favor but only if NOR is really kept to a minimum. It would be my preference that such an overview of chess joke problems would (first) published in some chess forum than in an encyclopedia.  On the other hand, especially for popular or fringe topics that may restrict too much. So, if this page were in AfD, I'd give a small keep. Sander123 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...?  Wikipedia:Attribution is shorter and therefore easier to digest than NOR, V, and RS — 2,500 words rather than 4,900. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should have been clearer >_<. I meant that it is harder to sort through the information due to the clumping together. Anyway, happy Editing! YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] have been merged at all?

message: * NO. As important as attribution is, it should never be used as a weapon to destroy an article. I see this happen a lot. Attribution should always take second seat to the cohesiveness of the article as a whole. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most will agree it is more harmful to succumb to the curse of traditional sources of information which is being limited in the available knowledge. Wikipedia is only useful if it can contribute more information with a more user friendly interface then traditional encyclopedias; this is the niche it must fill or be lost to history as a failed social experiment. Anyone can go look up something on Encarta if they wanted a more reliable source, but if you wanted easy access to an article on your local high school or why .999... = 1, you would be at a loss. Unique and not easily accesible information is what brings people to Wikipedia, and while it is nice for information to be sourced, deleting much of what makes Wikipedia great is a big mistake.--Jorfer 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If it is not attributed, delete it

message: After an appropriate grace time (for WP:BIO maybe a week, in standard cases maybe two months) it can be deleted. We could even automatize the deletion with a bot. (That would require some beginning tag, so the bot knows where to begin deleting. That would ultimately allow us to create lists of tagged statements; I can imagine that some people could specialize in finding references for them.) Grace time for bot deletion should be twice as long as for manual deletion. 
* Proposed — Sebastian 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it is not attributed, tag it  

message: WP:VERIFY                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	WP:ATTRIBUTE
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.	The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
:In reply to tjstrf:  No, that wording has essentially the same problem.  The problem is that "not truth" implies two things:  (1) true but unattributable material is unacceptable and (2) false but attributable material is acceptable.  The second of these is undesirable.  As far as the second item is concerned, it would be best to say nothing about truth, and let people use common sense and the status quo in trying to decide whether a Wikipedian writing a Wikipedia article means what that one says.  
:The word "verifiability" contains the idea of "truth" in its definition, so it negates the second item.  If "verifiability" is taken away, something else needs to replace it;  unless there is a consensus that when someone knowingly writes false statements into a Wikipedia article, as plain statements without prose attribution, they are actually helping to write the encyclopedia;  is anyone willing to admit that they support that?  And if so, what do you think the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is?  I mean, if you think the purpose of Wikipedia is to write a summary of what's in the literature regardless of whether it conforms to reality, then what is the purpose of writing such a summary?  To complete homework assignments with the purpose of getting good marks regardless of whether one learns anything useful?  To leave a record, after our civilization falls, of the falsehoods we believed so that some later civilization can learn from our mistakes?  Or what? 
:I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information that conforms to reality a large proportion of the time, and that requiring attribution is merely a method of trying to achieve that goal.  --Coppertwig 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deny that Wikipedia's sense of verifiability ever implied "truth"; it implies that the sourcing of our assertions was verifiable. WP:V did, and does, say so at some length. Our only hope to conform to reality is the faith that our sources conform to reality; if they err, we must. (To some extent, this can be avoided by choosing better sources; by acknowledging, exempli gratia, that a newspaper, however reliable on other days of the year, is not a reliable source when it prints flying reindeer stories; but this is a minor point.)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever? Try  when WP:V became policy.  It said "accuracy" and I can live with that, but verifiability was all about being able to check facts. --Henrygb 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's "sense of verifiability" may not imply "truth", but that of its readership does. People don't resort to an encyclopedia because they believe it offers information on a given topic that is "attributable", but because they believe they can rely upon it to be correct -- i.e., as close to truth as any accessible source can get. Since Wikipedia encourages readers to use it as they would an encyclopedia, it has a responsibility either to attempt to meet that expectation or to downmarket itself as a product (but so far I haven't seen any disclaimers saying, "You must check the footnotes for each statement you read in Wikipedia, and believe what it says only if you are convinced the footnote is of sufficiently high quality"). When a WP editor is constrained by policy to leave sourced but known falsehood in, while taking known but unsourced truth out, Wikipedia content will fail to pass the "smell test", and be useless for what readers come to it for. Lethiere 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree that the wording does leave the idea that: "(2) false but attributable material is acceptable." and this has bothered me, so I will speak out now that it has been brought up in this context. I understand that you can't claim truth without references, but you can't claim something you believe to be false is really true, just because you have references. And if you have a reference you believe is wrong, you don't have to include it (although I have seen arguments to the contrary). I think the concept of "verifiability, not truth" needs to be reworked. Dhaluza 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle with what Coppertwig is saying here, however, lets look at it this way.  Consider this wording: "Truth is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia.  Where any statement of objective fact is added to an article, such statement must be attributed to a reliable source" That seems to capture the essence of the "Verifiability, not truth" idea, without its inherent problems.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While we can argue about the truth of Trinity, there's absolutely no arguing about the truth of the statement "it is a Christian doctrine that states X". Correspondingly, the article should say precisely that and we should be relentless in making sure that no such article goes towards a presentation of the reality of Trinity. Pascal.Tesson 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability, not truth

message: I acknowledge that "verifiable" has problems, as detailed above. But "attribution" seems to have complementary problems. If I source some claim with "my neighbor, John Doe, address such-and-such, told me so", or even "I called Jane Dee herself and asked, and this is what she told me", by the ordinary meaning of "attribution" I have indeed attributed my claim, but it doesn't count squat for Wikipedia purposes, and rightly so. "Verifiable" alone is bad because one assumes that it is the content of the claim that must be verified, and it is not: we want the attribution to be a verifiable fact. But on the other hand, an "attribution" alone means nothing if it cannot be verified. What we need is a verifiable attribution. Can we communicate our requirements well without dropping either word? –Henning Makholm 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least here you are using the word "verifiable" in the way it's defined by WP:V, so yes, our new slogan should be verifiably attributable information only! :) --Merzul 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Verifiably attributable" is probably the real point. Again, though, I become concerned with the petty legalistic application this is liable to get. E.g., a trusted editor cites a presumably good online source; that source is later deleted and cannot be found on the Internet Archive; do we really need to put effort into re-verifying? - Jmabel | Talk 18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "attribution" a better word?

message: *Probably (although I could not give you an example off the top of my head) ... but so do all of our policies and guidelines, including those that were merged into ATT.  That's why we don't slap a big DONE sign on them and close them to further editing.  At least with the merger the flaws and debates about them are in one central place instead three or four... we won't have to have the same debate on three or four different pages. Blueboar 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of the question?  That flaws have been identified is already evident from Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus there on which are actually flaws, and there is no consensus there on which are merely flaws (as opposed to changes in policy, as per the section above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. An assertion is not the same as a proof. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So those issues should be discussed there.  If they are not resolved there yet, they won't be resolved here magically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If that is the case, then you need to go back and re-write WP:V and WP:NOR as this new page is just a merge of these policies. This discussion is not not be about re-defining policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a sincere, fair, and actionable answer to the posted question. No need to go boldface, but next time just to think carefully how to ask the question about what you really really want to know. `'mikka 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the present text of [[WP:ATT]] have flaws of detail?

message: *Yes. Wikipedia:Attribution does not provide Wikipedians with the tools they need to:<BR>1)  support careful fact checking,<BR>2) support identification of unreliable sources and their blacklisting from Wikipedia and<BR>3) make the needed distinctions between<BR>a) required secondary research for critical analysis of what cited sources say and<BR>b) unwanted attempts to insert original research.<BR>Wikipedia would be better off if it went back to its roots of developing these needed tools at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia:Attribution dilutes and glosses over these needs because it tries to cram too much into one page. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ is one clear indicator that the cramming failed. --JWSchmidt 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then you need to go back and re-write WP:V and WP:NOR as this new page is just a merge of these policies. This discussion is not not be about re-defining policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a sincere, fair, and actionable answer to the posted question. No need to go boldface, but next time just to think carefully how to ask the question about what you really really want to know. `'mikka 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools needed

message: I would like to make several points in relation to NOR and the entry on Christopher Michael Langan, which was discussed above (I am an involved editor, if only for the past week). I will try to keep discussion of the details of the entry to a minimum, while still giving enough information to demonstrate what I consider important policy considerations arising from the dispute. I apologise for the length of this comment, but hope interested parties will see the importance of the conclusions arising from this case study.
*I believe the policy against NOR is extremely important in relation to biographies of living persons, and I agree that there is a tendency for the policy to be interpreted leniently. But it is more than a question of leniency, and it is more than a matter of "good editors" not understanding the policy correctly. The problem is that a good editor of one entry can at the same time be a bad editor of another entry. What makes the difference?: the editor's perspective on the subject of the entry. Thus it is possible, for example, that an editor may be productive in relation to the entry on "intelligent design," working diligently to keep out original research, while at the same time utterly fail to see when they are themselves violating NOR in an entry on a person they consider a proponent of intelligent design. This problem will of course be particularly acute where the subject of the biographical entry is not very well-known and there are not many editors prepared to invest time and energy defending the entry (thus, even though more people hate George W Bush than hate Chris Langan, there are also more people prepared to defend the Bush entry from original research). It is extremely difficult to defend such entries from original research violations, especially when a group of editors share a similar antipathy for the subject of the entry, and thus can act in concert.
*When a failure to understand the applicability of NOR is combined with a failure to understand that neutrality means more than merely a neutral tone, and combined again with a failure to understand the need to edit living-person biographies sensitively, and combined still further with a failure to understand the need for such entries to avoid controversy, a powerful cocktail results. The outcome may be disastrous for the person who is the subject of the entry, and by extension this is disastrous for the Wikipedia project. (All this occurred with the Langan entry, due to a confluence of factors I cannot go into here.)
*Thus when User Jimbo Wales deleted the section violating NOR from the Langan entry (in brief, a section about a minor legal dispute between two High-IQ societies), this deletion was attacked as incomprehensible. How, they cried, could reporting what is said in court documents constitute original research or biased editing? Opposed editors could not grasp this possibility, even though they knew that Langan did not show up in court to contest the case, and thus knew that only one side was represented. They could not understand, in other words, how the editing strategy they were using was in fact the very strategy used by tabloid journalists to justify one-sided but “factual” reporting of court cases. In fact, of course, it is possible to factually report what court documents state, and still be engaging in original or biased research. Naturally they also could not envisage the possibility that their desire to include the section constituted bias or malice.
*Additionally, they could not understand how factually reporting the contents of court documents necessarily means selectively choosing what to report from primary sources, and thus, in the absence of secondary sources, necessarily constitutes original research. Mr Wales stated very clearly that, lacking secondary sources about the case (since there is no evidence that the case has ever been discussed in any newspaper, magazine, TV news story, etc.), reporting about the case almost necessarily constitutes original research. From this, however, some opposed editors drew the conclusion that one must not ever refer to primary sources for an entry. They therefore claimed to have found a reason to argue against other material in the entry.
*Also compounding these problems was the difficulty opposed editors had in connecting the different pieces of policy together. Thus they might see the point about original research, but fail to see the connections between this and policy regarding sensitivity toward living persons, policy regarding the need to avoid controversy in relation to living persons, or policy about what counts as notable and important in an entry on living persons. Thus the argument was put, for example, that if the Langan lawsuit was not notable enough for inclusion in the entry, then Langan himself must not be notable enough to even have an entry. By failing to see the interconnected nature of policy, opposed editors were able to permit themselves long-term serious violations of several policies.
*At least two conclusions follow: Firstly, policy should be written to make clear that living persons have a legal and moral right not to be the victims of original research in their biographical entries. When editors violate policy in relation to living persons, and especially when they do so by engaging in original research, they violate the rights of the person about whom they are writing. The seriousness of this should be made much clearer than is currently the case. At present, WP:BLP states in its rationale that the information in biographies of living persons "can affect the lives" of such persons. The implication of such a rationale is that editors should understand this fact, and therefore use sensitivity and judgment when editing biographical entries for living persons. What the policy does not state is that living persons have a right not to be the victim of violations of BLP and/or NOR. The current formulation does not make clear that when an editor violates these policies, they also violate the rights of actual living persons. This allows editors to think in terms of their obligations to the Wikipedia project, rather than in terms of their obligations to actual living persons. This increases the chances editors will feel justified in resorting to NOR or other policy violations when editing contentious biographies. Hence my view that the current formulation is too weak.
*Secondly, the way such policies are written should emphasise the interconnections between policies, to encourage editors to understand how it is the constellation of policies which really defines a policy situation. When two or three or four policies are involved in a single issue, this amounts to more than the sum of the parts. This is particularly the case when a violation of NOR is combined with a violation of BLP. If editors do not see the connections between NOR, neutrality, notability, sensitivity, and avoidance of controversy, then they really do not understand each one of these policies singly. I acknowledge that the subtlety of this point is easily lost on editors (especially editors in dispute), but I do believe policy can be written in a way that encourages this understanding. It may be that merging policies is a way to make this clear, but merger alone will not suffice, unless the text of the merged policies also makes these interconnections very evident. It may in fact be the case that merging policy about NOR and about attribution in fact clouds the fact that NOR is more than a matter of attribution. I do not claim to have the final answer to this question, but I strongly believe that those who have invested energy in these important issues should keep firmly in mind the considerations I have pointed toward. FNMF 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOR and the entry on [[Christopher Michael Langan]]: lessons

message: :Wrong venue.  A random talk sub-page that hardly anyone knows exists is not the proper place to determine how policy is made.  That's what :WP:PUMP is for.  Also, I object to the suggestion that this is some kind of special "opportunity".  WP is a Wiki. Every minute of every day is an opportunity, and an equal one.  Just the mere idea that that we should take the "opportunity" to change policy  for some reason, off in this Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion hinterland is kind of grotesque and scary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Hiding says below, that's why there's a link from WP:PUMP, ain't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: * Jimbo suggested that for these type of changes, the process should be one that includes a checkpoint in which we seek Jimbo's input, followed by a poll to assess support, and followed by a "closing process" (to be defined) in which the changes are certified. I have tonnes of questions about this, though... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Jimbo these same questions, and his response was that (a) he wants to be involved and consulted in any major policy change or re-structuring of policy; (b) he believes that many editors did not know about ATT, despite the announcements and the 5 month of discussions, and asserted that there was no wide consensus for ATT; (c) He requested a wide discussion and a vigorous debate on the virtues of ATT; (d) he also requested a poll and a defined mechanism to close the poll and "certify the decision", and (d) He very clearly stated that he will abide by the consensus of the community after that process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that proposal is quite misguided. WP:CONSENSUS is clear about how to test consensus: if an edit sticks, there is consensus for it. The idea that all participants would agree in writing to the same thing, rather than just abiding by it silently, contradicts everything I know about the nature of obstinate people. CMummert · talk 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What process should be used to change policy structure or policy in the future?

message: Mind you, I'm not directly objecting to the existence of this page, I just don't understand what the point is, and have concerns that between Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll that the discussion is going to become too fragmented to follow.  Yes, I realize I'm the one that undid the redir from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll that was going to Wikipedia talk:Attribution (and if you look at how much discussion about the poll and its details there are this was a good idea, I maintain).  But I can't discern at all any purpose difference between Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and Wikipedia talk:Attribution, that isn't already intended to be covered at the poll.  Indeed, this new page appears to be phrased as a poll asking roughly the same questions as the poll (I say "roughly" because the questions keep changing). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading all of this, and seeing that it is simply repeating debates already covered elsewhere, I do directly object to the existence of this page.  I propose merging this immediately into Wikipedia talk:Attribution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page exists to consolidate discussions being conducted elsewhere. I oppose merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do directly object to such a proposal and solemnly declare opposition to any merge.  Hiding Talk  00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth would that not take place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth would it?  We're discussing four, maybe five pages here. Hiding Talk  00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is "Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion", not "Wikipedia talk:Community discussion of Attribution, Verifiability, Reliable Sources and No Original Research", so your response doesn't seem to address anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else support this objection? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I don't see the point and it seems likely to cause rehashing of contentious arguments and their linked inter-personal disputes, but whatever...  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Up until this page appeared, there was a lot of useful discussion on Wikipedia talk:Attribution.  If the effect of this page is to dissipate the discussion of the very real policy issues, then I think this page is a bad move.  --Rednblu 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the request by Jimbo at the top of this page. Jimbo undid the merger; Jimbo requested this discussion as a prelude to a poll, and thus we are having it. If you do not want to discuss it, you do not have to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a blatant straw man argument; no one here has suggested that the discussion should not take place, some of us simply don't think that forking it onto a new page is a good idea.  Given that someone just went and archived over half of the still-active discussions at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, including all but the most recent disputes (and see comment above by Rednblu), I think this concern is a genuine one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, relax, SMcCandlish. What is the reason for such intensity? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am relaxed.  I'm not trying to come off as any more intense that usual.  If anything, I've been pretty chill all day long.  My observation above is pretty simple, and doesn't make any new arguments, just reminds that some concerns have been raised and what they are.  Not everyone thinks the discussion should be happening here instead of at the main talk page, and given that disputes are being shuffled off into the archives before being resolved, these concerns may have some merits.  What's intense about that?  I don't think the honest concerns raised should be dismissed as allegedly counter-communicative.  They aren't. That's all. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that it is a bit too late to beat the drum of "not here". The discussion has been advertised widely and it is happening here, while the talk page of ATT is used to address editors' questions as usual. 30 odd comments in a short period of time in this page, and the use of "blatant", is what made me make that comment. If that is not the case, and indeed you feel cool and collected, please accept my apologies for that comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the horse is already out of the barn, but I don't think that that erases the concerns; rather they simply shift, e.g. to something like "let's not forget that these issues have in some cases already been discussed at great length on WP:ATT's talk page, and that those conversations haven't simply gone away or become moot because this new page exists, not even after they've been archived for some reason."  I'll "counter apologize", if "blatant" seemed mean or something; I meant it the sense of "obviously", not "unforgivably".  ;-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, try "flagrant."  :-)  —David Levy 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have advertised it in WP:VPP, in all the talk pages of related policies and guidelines, and the Wiki-EN-l mailing list. Do you have any suggestions on how to advertise this better? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is an excellent idea, in my opinion. It will take time to become known and for people who don't usually edit policy pages to join in. We need to be able to evaluate this discussion as the step before the poll, and that will be easier to do when the merger alone is being discussed rather than other things to do with the policy pages. Otherwise Jimbo would have to pick through threads to find out which bits were a specific attampt at consulting with the community on the merger. SMcCandlish is welcome to disagree with that, but I am surprised that he wishes to repeat the same opinion so often. qp10qp 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this page exist?

message: This is the question that keeps nagging at me.  Not the discussion, but Wikipedia:Attribution.  This is not a fundamental change, this doesn't affect policy, so what's the point in a) fixing something that isn't broke, and b) creating enough confusion that people think something new is happening? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The need for merging V and NOR was assessed necessary by those that worked in the proposal. This, in addition to attempting to fix RS, that  five months ago, was most definitively broken to a point in which its value as a guideline and consensus about it was strongly challenged. WP:ATT simplifies the understanding of our policies to those thousands of contributors that join the project every month, and assist more experienced editors in content disputes by being able to point people to a well-written, and concise page that explains the principles upon which this encyclopedia is being developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A valid question that should not be discounted.  Perhaps there are other editors—like myself—who didn't get highly involved in the ATT writing because we didn't realize Wiki's most fundamental policies would be replaced/merged/changed/whatever without a much broader discussion and consensus.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this necessary? 

message: I know this is a bad proposal, but I'm still curious about one thing: is there any correlation between what area editors are focused on, and their opinion on the merger, especially the diminishing role of truth that the name change seem to imply. Try to pick one term that broadly defines your area, such as "humanities" or "sciences", or "pop-culture", or just "everything" or "gnoming"...
=== PRO merger ===
* philosophy of religion. This area will certainly benefit from a policy that says explicitly and emphatically that truth is absolutely irrelevant. --Merzul 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that no change was made, but if there is a perceived change, even if that perception is faulty, it will still effect opinions. --tjstrf talk 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes totally agree! As I said above on the first poll, I think the merger has brought attention to the long-standing wording in WP:V, which in fact says verifiability has nothing to do with truth and has everything to do with checking whether the attribution is correct. Having said that, there is an ongoing debate about the role of truth, and it is related to the discussion because people do confuse the two matters. I didn't want to make the introduction to biased, but I am making it clear here: the rule of truth has not diminished. --Merzul 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has clearly changed.  WP:V was about using reliable sources for fact checking and greater accuracy.  WP:A is explicitly is not about whether statements are true. --Audiovideo 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting a bad proposal, but still good poll: Do we need different thresholds for different fields? 

message: * philosophy of religion. This area will certainly benefit from a policy that says explicitly and emphatically that truth is absolutely irrelevant. --Merzul 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRO merger 

message: *Politics and British history. However, I edit lots of articles outside this area, and I don't see that it's especially relevant to policy discussion. I also comment on a lot of AfDs, which has influenced my views on policy far more. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral on issue of merger

message: I disagree with the premise of this mini-poll.  There has been no diminishment of the "role of truth".  The WP:ATT policy says the same things that WP:V and WP:NOR say.  Blueboar 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that no change was made, but if there is a perceived change, even if that perception is faulty, it will still effect opinions. --tjstrf talk 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes totally agree! As I said above on the first poll, I think the merger has brought attention to the long-standing wording in WP:V, which in fact says verifiability has nothing to do with truth and has everything to do with checking whether the attribution is correct. Having said that, there is an ongoing debate about the role of truth, and it is related to the discussion because people do confuse the two matters. I didn't want to make the introduction to biased, but I am making it clear here: the rule of truth has not diminished. --Merzul 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has clearly changed.  WP:V was about using reliable sources for fact checking and greater accuracy.  WP:A is explicitly is not about whether statements are true. --Audiovideo 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: faulty premise

message: Silly question: As this is such a massively HUGE thing changing (four core policies), shouldn't this be posted on the general header for all of Wikipedia to get attention to it? If not all of en.wikipedia, then at least... the Wikipedia: name space...? - Denny 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not silly; it was done for the fundraising drives, and this is comparably important. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a good idea to me.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not so sure. Only a very small subset of editors are involved in policy discussions, and this is not such a huge thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: isn't it good to get more people involved...? - Denny 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The precise problem with this whole policy implementation was that too few people were involved. Even today most don't know anything has happened. I agree with opening this up as widely as possible. Orderinchaos78 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with the proposal, either way.  I think Jossi's concern is resolved by limiting it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I don't think the concern is a huge one to begin with:  People regularly ignore that which they are not interested in (like, um, WP fundraising drives), so it won't hurt anyone.  If the fundrasing banner code were recycled, it is even dismissable after it has been seen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What would be required to make this happen? Where does it get requested/done? - Denny 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that WP:PUMP in the tech section is probably the right place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that something on that scale should happen;  I posted a few times and then largely ignored the first discussions of ATT, as I (apparently, mistakenly) didn't realize fundamental Wiki policy could be changed without a wide-ranging and extensive discussion.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yay! It works! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That would likely require some scripting and using a cookie. For now you can add #watchlist-message { display: none; } to your monobook.css. —Ruud 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on finding a good way to notify an appropriate section of the user community. (Obviously ;-) the people you want to reach are people who are addicted to checking their watchlists! Sdsds 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The watchlist idea is a great one. Now people will actually realize something big is happening. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, except that it's vanished all of a sudden... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I thought it was a great idea to solve the problem handily.  What happened? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone removed it. See MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the watchlist note.  Note also that I and others have requested merge tags; see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#NOTE: There is a proposal to merge this page into WP:ATT.  This would be another way of alerting users, if it were carried out. I don't remember seeing anywhere any explanation of why not to have merge tags. --Coppertwig 23:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I dunno, I would suggest leaving it up until the discussion is done, replacing it with a different notice each time a certain milestone is reached in the process.  The current form includes a link that will dismiss the warning, so users who don't want to see it can get rid of it.  Meanwhile, if we had someone who came back from a vacation just after the discussion was taken down per your suggestion they'd miss out on the notice.  Frankly, for something as important and impactful as this I see no reason why we cannot just leave the notice up until the matter is resolved, especially considering how long the fundraising notice stayed up. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing will be reached if we don't order this talk page. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General en.wikipedia header? 

message: As Jimbo himself is directly involved and no one has given a good reason not to have the notice on the Watchlist page, perhaps leave it up for five or ten days, then take it down--that will give everyone absolute notification of this (per Jimmy Wales) very important discussion is happening... then, when it actually goes to a Wales-mandated Poll, the notice will go up again, to let all users know about it, so that all editors can weigh in. Everyone needs to be absolutely aware of this, and this... is the only reasonable way to do it. aside from people complaining that its annoying, I don't see a valid reason to not do this. why would we not want every eligible editor to see this? what can be gained for any sense of keeping this quiet? It should be known to everyone it affects (which is everyone!). If anyone can give a reason why every editor shouldn't have a chance to weigh in... then that is a reason to not do it. otherwise, it should stay up. - Denny 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, I would suggest leaving it up until the discussion is done, replacing it with a different notice each time a certain milestone is reached in the process.  The current form includes a link that will dismiss the warning, so users who don't want to see it can get rid of it.  Meanwhile, if we had someone who came back from a vacation just after the discussion was taken down per your suggestion they'd miss out on the notice.  Frankly, for something as important and impactful as this I see no reason why we cannot just leave the notice up until the matter is resolved, especially considering how long the fundraising notice stayed up. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing will be reached if we don't order this talk page. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: 5-10 days now, duration of Poll

message: I've drafted an invitation template at . Invitations should be neutral, and it might be just as well if we agreed on wording. The indirect compliment to recipients at the end may help spread goodwill towards this project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral?  I don't think so.  The wording in that ATTCD template indicates very clearly to anyone understanding English who is right and who is wrong.  Can't you see it?  Maybe it is the glare from the angle of the lighting.  --Rednblu 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this old version was fine....  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see the resemblance to neutrality, yes, in that version.  Good eye!  But wouldn't it be a good idea to give just a taste of the widely varied opinions among editors that have already looked at this merger in detail?  --Rednblu 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that was the version I originally looked at.  The problem with giving editors a taste of the widely varied opinions is doing so neutrally.  We are having enough trouble writing something neutral without getting into that.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :)  --Rednblu 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Current version is not neutral; it's loaded.  I agree with that version.  I encourage involved editors to embrace NPOV, erase history, and really encourage and allow broader discussion this time through.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reverted. This is an invitation, not an argument. Those arguments do not need to be made in the invitation, in part because they are made in the headers; and in part because they will be perceived as tendentious by some recipients, which is contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention it was about 3x too long.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would just like to say that I support Jossi's removal of Jimbo's quote.  The best way to make this neutral would probably be to ruthlessly remove anything we don't all agree on.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote was cut and pasted from the headers, and I think its removal an improvement. We do need to indicate that the purpose for this discussion is to ensure that the policy structure decided on does have adequate consensus,  though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation template

message: What about other, side questions, such as about the process that was (or wasn't) followed, what process should have been, whether process should be clarified, etc.?  I think there are probably a lot of opinions on this.  Even the very first reactions to Jimbo's stepping raised such questions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about process questions?

message: on My Watchlist.  Where was the decision to put the banner up discussed? :) Seriously though, it is a very bad precedent not to mention annoying and I want it to go away.  This whole merger thing sounds like a desire to change policy pages without actually changing policy and as such seems to be a large waste of time that I don't want to be reminded is actually going on.  --Tbeatty 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been downgraded from the in your face blue to a simple message.  I agree, though; there's a lot of people (myself included) who don't know/care about this, and it's just a nuisance on what is likely your most visited page.  DoomsDay349 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The new box is more annoying.  DoomsDay349 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of us have recently made it less in-your-face.  It can be commented out in your skin sheets with div id "watchlist-message". — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To hide this message (but not future messages), use the ID "attdiscussion" instead.  —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree a link to remove the message would be appreciated. —Ocatecir Talk 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Casual reader are likely not very interested in this discussion. —Ruud 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Casual readers are likely not willing to login. --wL<speak·check> 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being?  —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on experience, usually when most people come to Wikipedia to learn something, they usually go to the site and get what they need. They usually have no desire to edit the article. Also not everybody uses a watchlist. Being such a large policy change, I feel it should be shown to all who decide to edit (those who login). The Anonnotice will still show "", so those who get info will not notice it. Or in other words, those who login are more likely to edit than those who don't. --wL<speak·check> 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I.e., casual readers won't see it, of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  This is for editors, not casual readers.  —David Levy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, where was this discussed before it was put into place? Announcements like this are good enough for the community portal. It is not imperative that every person see this discussion. I think this is getting ridiculous and it should be taken down from the watchlist pages. └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't read community portal, and I'm an admin. --wL<speak·check> 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  As far as I'm aware of the history, the pages were merged, a lot of people got upset about not being properly informed, Jimbo interfered, unmerged the pages and called for a big community discussion. I don't think the watchlist message is that big of an annoyance (I don't think most people even noticed the Commons Picture of the Year Election spam there that was there a few weeks ago.) —Ruud 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think including it warrants other discussions to randomly be placed on MediaWiki:Watchdetails. And we wouldn't want that, so I say don't set a precedent of including discussions on the talk page. While semi-important, this shouldn't be blown out of proportion and including it on the watch page setup makes this seem like it's a huge problem and important crisis when it really isn't. Less drastic and invasive ideas may be including something more bold on the comm. portal, writing an article for the signpost, etc. There are alternative solutions that have yet to be implimented. └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion you are underestimating the importance of this discussion (Jimbo rarely interferes personally in policy discussions) and overestimate the importance of the watchlist message (maybe we should even consider using it more often?) —Ruud 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It should probably be made dismissable after a couple of days. Is that possible? Xiner (talk, email) 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working on it... but the fact the someone just removed the message makes debugging quite difficult. —Ruud 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Like ? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like getting the notice of such important issues. --A. B. (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, it yields a lot of people making unnecessary posts about their irrelevant opinions. Just like the preceding sentence. But seriously, the people who care are already here. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Ezratrumpet 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, how much more flippant and self-important can you get.  I'm sorry, but the opinion above is not irrelevent.  There are plenty of us who don't normally content on policy, but are regular editors of the encyclopedia.  There seem to be issues of WP:OWN around policy as much as there are around articles.  An invitation like this does attract people who would not normally comment -- and that is the point.  -- Pastordavid 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly... this is why I posted the suggestion. I can't understand why anyone can honestly feel that anyone shouldn't be trumpeting this like we did with the banner everywhere... everyone's voice is of equal value here. - Denny 03:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - we have democracy now? ;) Seriously though ... I might not wish to contribute another irrelevant opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know what's going on, so thanks for the banner. --Stephen Burnett 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we get rid of the banner? 

message: Reading through this discussion there is one very significant omission occurring too frequently. This discussion is about original research, reliable sources, verifiability yet the discussion talks but doesn't practice its own standards. There are any claims about positive and negative affects like these: "People were always complaining about the policies being spread over two pages", "the debates at AfD began to move away from the subject test" or ". The debates at AfD make this evident."diffs these claims should be supported by diffs , diff not intended to single out any editor just an example. Gnangarra 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this page doesn't comply with content policy. No talk page does; this is not encyclopedia text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point remains... there are claims being made with no evidence to back them up.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for kicks I will add a reference section below Jorfer --Jorfer 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Standards 

message: The above header gives my opinion. People are nitpicking on details when people need to focus on what will make Wikipedia easier to edit and that would be to have all the guidelines as far as sourcing on one page so I say merge, merge, merge.--Jorfer 03:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jorfer, you took the words right out of my mouth.  The articles in question are related to an extent that requires merger.  In addition, having on article to read will be easier and less time consuming.--88wolfmaster 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and it might boost Wikipedia's credibility showing that we can have one umbrella policy, that we value sourced statements, and are not divided over credibility issues.  Plus it'll become much simpler and easier to understand.-Randalllin 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And four pages of rules is somehow less intimidating?--Jorfer 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, when I first came here to Wikipedia I wasted a lot of time just reading through pages of policy that could have all been put into one. It's really annoying that I go to read about a policy or guideline and the page I'm reading has me go to another page, then that other page to another page. Sometimes I end up not finding the answer to the question I had in the first place because I end up going from one page to another. Please merge the pages. --Leon Sword 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! The rules are too scattered. Salad Days 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: if you took a look at the voting page then you would have noticed that their is an option to merge the topics but keep the original pages up as in depth references.--88wolfmaster 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not? Look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it's a veritable Swiss Army Knife of things. Salad Days 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it simple stupid 

message: This discussion also involves the WP:REF which should be the main page.. I think and then have all these other pages merged into a "Supportive content" section --((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Citing sources is patently irrelevant to this discussion. It is a style guide, not a content guideline. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:REF ?

message: I generally prefer smaller singular policy pages.  The nutshell looks good, but then comes the second principle:
2)Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, and this line:
"In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses.
I assume you mean "books and journals published by university press publishers," not "books and journals published by universities," as not all university press publishers are a close part of the university they are affiliated with in name.  Even our article on University presses gets this right.  I would like to have seen such a sweeping policy change have really been dug at by a large portion of the community such that basic details were correct--no, I haven't researched it, but I didn't write the policy.  This is not a small detail way down in the article, this is prominent, the second principle tells Wikipedia editors to go to reliable sources and then mistates the reliable sources.  University presses are subsumed in the last part of this also, as they are known publishing houses.
It is requested on WP:ATT that the page not be changed, however I suggest that this sentence be corrected to say "books and journals published by university press publishers," as I think is intended.   This should also be changed elsewhere in Wikipedia on reliable sources.  I will change it there if I can find it. KP Botany 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it not say "academic presses"? Presses such as Routledge are just as respectable as Cambridge University Press.  They also require their books to go through a rigorous peer-review. Awadewit 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that academic presses and university presses are the same thing.  Routledge is an academic press, an academic arm of some mainstream publisher, not at all the same thing as a university press.  It is, or should be covered, under mainstream or known publishers.  KP Botany 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]] with so much editing (300 editors, 5000 edits) should start out stronger 

message: I believe the intro to this discussion is in direct violation of WP:NPOV.  "Jimbo stated that despite the very good work done at by people laboring on ATT"  For shame.  Also, what kind of sense does "work done at by people" make?!  None!  As the obsessive-compulsive nerds that Wikipedians are, why has this matter not been addressed before?  ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 10:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see a grammatical error, just fix it yourself. There isn't a need to apply WP:NPOV outside the mainspace. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've edited it so it at least makes sense now, whether the whole statement should be removed or not is another matter, I didn't want to be too intrusive and delete it as it would basically degrade what followed as that leads on from the aforementioned statement. Ashnard talk 10:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes Michael, I see how your comment was so diverse to mine that it justified its addition (above mine as well).Calm down Ashnard, I must stop getting terratorial over a discussion page. Ashnard talk 10:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NPOV 

message: Think! What is the primary use of these separate pages? As quick references in edit disputes, primarily as justification for rejection of material. Compare the likely understanding of a new editor when his material is removed with a pointer to WP:No original research versus WP:Attribution. The only people who could love this monstrosity are those who spend more time arguing about policy than writing articles --can't we find a separate project for them to work on so they don't interfere with the rest of us? This is a no-brainer! alteripse 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he has a point! The laudable desire to have a small number of official policy pages collides with the need to have quick and succinct policy pages newbies can be pointed to depending on the case at hand. This can be alleviated by having shortcuts to h2 sections of the big unified policy page, but that isn't really all that different from having the different points on individual pages. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly each side of the idea can make strong arguments for their own sides, but in the end, what matters the most is that the policies work together, nomatter if they are on one or three pages. Unless there is any conflict between them then just do whatever is easiest and move on to greener pastures. Drogheda 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hear hear, don't spill too much virtual ink over a simple "h2 sections vs. separate pages" question completely irrelevant to the actual content of the policy. dab (𒁳) 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: combining is a really bad idea

message: I have had no previous involvement to this discussion. Some time ago, when I read that several of the "classic" WP policies had been merged into Wikipedia:Attribution, I immediately thought it was a great idea. Now I hear that the merger has been called into question. Discussion is always good, but I for one think it will be best for WP if the merger is upheld.
Wikipedia:Attribution is:
*Clear
*Strong
*Intuitive for new contributors (i.e. a good guide) and passive onlookers (i.e. a good PR tool)
*Will further NPOV by promoting valid individual POV's that can be backed up with stable and reliable sources, and even pertinent quotes.
*Will ultimately lead to the documentation through footnotes of nearly every claim made in WP articles.
WP:ATTR is the best way to summarize and clearly state the closely related policies that will ultimately make WP into not only the largest organized body of knowledge ever assembled, but a highly reliable one as well. WP:ATTR does this far better than "no original research" or "verifiability" and the like.
I suppose nothing I've said here is extremely original since the discussion has apparently been going on for quite a long time, but I wanted to make sure there would be a voice for those of us who see this whole thing as both positive and sensible. Dovi 12:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Will ultimately lead to the documentation through footnotes of nearly every claim made in WP articles." This is the first time Ihave heard this argument.  WP:ATT makes it clear that not all attributable material needs to be attributed, and SlimVirgin's explanation at User:SlimVirgin/Attribution explains that this was intentional. CMummert · talk 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If I thought WP:ATT would have that effect, I would oppose it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the merged guideline and article.  It is confusing to have several guidelines about the same type of stuff.  WP:ATTR adds clarity and is very helpful.  Abridged 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Attribution]] with strengthen Wikipedia 

message: I make this "Request for Clarification" (maybe I have been advocating too much in ArbCom cases recently!) aimed for all responsible wikipedians discussing here:
#Clarify what is this page for: URGENT. At the beginning, this page was to discuss WP:ATT-related changes and now we're discussing the way policies should be made and whether Jimbo likes voting or not. Please, we should define the topic and stop any unrelated discussion. If not, the whole talk page and discussion will have been useless.
#Define methods: After defined what is the topic, define the way it will be discussed and how discussion-derivate changes will be applied (vote, poll, or even de facto... something!).
I think it's simple. May I have your help, please? (This is an attempt from an Harmonious Editing Club member to have a constructive experience here) --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to supplement the above comment, I must also point out that I tried to follow the discussion but after so many sections, sub-sections etc. I feel lost! I don't know! Could we somehow summarize the problem, Jimbo's stance (expressed as I see not by himself but by third parties), where do we stand now (if we stand anywhere), and what are we supposed to do from now on? Thanks!--Yannismarou 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear I felt the same. If we don't bring this in order, all of it will be useless... believe me. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I know what is the key-discussion, but I see that the topic is being lost. I'm for merging all policies into ATT (but not guidelines as RS to ensure an easy newbies' access to rules). I beg for order so the discussion can give a consensus-builded solution. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Including WP:NPOV?  WP:NPOV is very well-written right now, in my opinion.  Any significant change, and most minor ones, would be more likely to bring it down than improve it.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ups, I wasn't clear enough... or my non-native english tricked me again. No, I was talking about merging WP:V and WP:NOR (policies) into ATT, but not merging WP:RS (guideline). NPOV is a great written policy and, if someone proposes to merge it anywhere, I'll be hardly against it. Hope this clarifies my position and that I didn't any mistake at this message... Excuse me! --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 17:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clarifying!  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Request for clarification" 

message: If one of the middle options is chosen, one concern is the people might be ignored if they make suggestions for changing policy on the talk pages of the subordinate pages.  In order to help prevent this from happening, I'd like to make the following suggestions:
* If Wikipedia:Attribution becomes the definitive policy, I think Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:No original research (and WT:RS, if that stays merged as well) should be substed into Wikipedia talk:Attribution.  This will also help split-up the conversation, as WT:ATT is very hi-traffic.  Anything discussed on WT:V or WT:NOR would most likely be of interest to WT:ATT contributors anyways.
* If Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research stay the definitive policies, suggestions for policy change made on WT:ATT should be copied over to the relevant policy talk pages, with appropriate messages explaining that the discussions were moved.
This assumes, of course, that one of the two middle options on question 3 (see links above) is chosen.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why anyone would be concerned there is very little input from the community on this.  I bow out.  KP Botany 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.  Have fun, I guess.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think KP Botany was making a sarcastic comment meaning it's quite funny, with all this discussion going on on this page, that anyone would be putting up watchlist messages or worrying about whether the merge tags are up.  --Coppertwig 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making sure people aren't ignored just because they make a suggestion on the wrong talk page 

message: I agree with this and most mergers. I think Wikipedia policy is too complex, too lengthy and has too many holes in it. I often find myself encountering contradictions in the policy. Even if they are not the same, they are similar and merging them and cutting them down into a single page makes much more sense for the sake of simplicity and manageability.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Well argued.  --Coolcaesar 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that lowers the barrier of entry for new contributors, while keeping policy intact and concise, is helpful. Adm58 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Grace Note 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Policy should be concentrated not spread over many small and overlapping pages. Sander123 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Navigating WP Help/Guidelines is an absolute nightmare. I'm in favour of anything to consolidate and organise it. Rocksong 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting down on pages... 

message: Not sure if this was brought up here, but I'm reminding of and somewhat expanding on the issues I brought up here.
Basically, the old policies had this small problem: People interpret "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" as "la la la, I can't hear you, I don't believe you". The policy is obviously meant to be "you, as an expert, should provide a published source for anything you add, or any of the facts you agree to be correct"; however, it's misinterpreted as "It's the adding editor's job and no one else's job at all to add the sources, and everyone else's job is to remove things that aren't sourced", which is obviously incorrect and harmful - but it does happen.
WP:ATT does clarify this a little bit: the FAQ says that the best practice is to add sources first, then remove it, and the WP:ATT itself admits not everything in practice is sourced. I'd definitely like to see some of this clarified further in the resulting policies - to reduce the amount of articles that get dragged to AfD just for the lack of sources, and to make it clearer that adding sources is everyone's job. 
This is an interesting issue that intersects both the verifiability requirements and assuming good faith, and regrettably if we slip too much to either side the results are equally nasty; we can't be lax about this and obviously need to take sourcing seriously, but that doesn't mean we have to be  utterly paranoid and uncooperative about things either. We need good wording for the burden of proof and applicability and adding of the sources that encourages proactivity rather than destruction and disbelief. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On proactive sourcing 

message: The first question is simple enough: do you support the proposed merger or not.  Yet some hotshot included the helpful hint, smack at the beginning: You do not have to support the merger in its entirety to vote "yes".  Why this particular wording?  It would have been just as valid to say: You do not have to oppose the merger in its entirety to vote "no".  As it stands, the hint encourages middle-of-the-roaders to vote YES, even it they mostly oppose the merger; thus biasing the poll.  I suggest removal of the biased hint. Freederick 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased hint

message: *WP is also in dire need of a policy to inhibit insidious linkspamming through the use of refs. Policy already prevents linkspam in the "External links" section, but this doesn't adequately cover spamming through citation.--Take for example, the hundreds of articles with references to "cais-soas.com": This site has no academic legitimacy whatsoever, and although it has no affiliation with soas, purports to do so anyway, so leaving the casual observer with the impression that the site is a legitimate academic resource. Further, it "copies" articles and images without attribution or permission from reputable sources, so giving its own theories/platorm (which then appear amongst the legitimate ones) credibility. While cais-soas.com is a particularly bad example (200+ articles in the main namespace, and again about as many in images), I'm certain that the owner of that site (present username, confirmed socks) is not the only one doing this.--Be that as it may, IMO, a spamdexing ref should automatically disqualify as an valid source, particularly in cases of "conflict of interest" (which is however a guide and not a policy). The question is, can such a policy (within the framework of WP:A) be made? And how could such a policy be phrased?
:-- Fullstop 12:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *CAIS-soas doesn't seem to be a reliable source but I would take great care with any attempt to ban something just because it is being spammed by someone. This would open up the door for people getting sources banned by spamming them. Nil Einne 14:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see your point, but isn't that giving in to the rabble? An academic source that is cited by a number of users is surely different (and identifyable as such) from a site that one/a few editors will exclusively/consistently cite. -- Fullstop 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misusing citation as "is not linkspam"?

message: Ok...think about it. Wikipedia editors have always referred to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR when dealing with content policies. These policies have been embedded into our brains for the several months (years, for some people) we've been editing articles. Furthermore, we have regarded these rules as seperate policies for a very long time. 
As we are working on merging three policies that were previously regarded as distinct, we must assess the possible consequences that this might have on all Wikipedia users and anons alike. For example, this merge would cause confusion among established users that:
*don't participate in Wikipedia activities, such as gnomes
*are inactive, semi-retired, on wikibreak, on vacation, serving in the military, etc.
*don't read the Signpost, don't look at their watchlists, or were not notified of this discussion
In addition, we need to consider the several anons that edit Wikipedia frequently. Anons don't have watchlists, and the notice above my watchlist was the only indication I had about this discussion. This may cause confusion to them as well.
Are there any other possible consequences to this change? That's something to ponder. All I'm saying is...be careful with what you're doing. No matter how well-intentioned your actions are, this policy change may cause more problems than good results in the end.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally never viewed V and NOR as separate concepts, but apparently I am in a minority there. The original formulation switched the olds shortcuts to the relevant section of the new page, so older returning members who cited WP:V would have promptly found out about the new name. Also, if we're thinking about how it would affect things in the future, we must weigh the potential benefit to new users. The smaller number of policies will make there be less reading before one understands the basic principles, and therefore a lower entry bar. --tjstrf talk 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are talking in terms of it has to be all or nothing, which (as I mention once again) is not the case.--88wolfmaster 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To a certain extent, it does have to be all or nothing. Not because there isn't any way to have an in-between option, but because this is a case in which the perceived benefits from each side are found at the extremes of the scale. If the end result is maintaining WP:A, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS all as separate and active pages, then we not only made our policy complexity even worse, but also increased potential confusion to new and old users alike, and the entire effort became counter-productive. The "happy medium" compromise here would be one that made nobody happy and would probably be the worst of all possible options. --tjstrf talk 16:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Countries dont merge laws because they create said laws at different times (just look at the Constitution of the US certain aspects were combined upon creation and others were later added were not merged with them because of their later add date. Outdated laws remain on the books because removing them would require another law.)  But, Wikipedia isnt a hard copy (its not set in stone) its a constantly changing constantly adapting reference source. That being said their needs to be one unified policy (WP:ATT) and the orginal pages need to be kept in a more detailed guideline capacity.--88wolfmaster 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand that this encyclopedia constantly needs to adapt to new ideas. However, we need to plan on our transition as well. Don't forget that when a government introduces a new law, it gives a certain date as to when the said law begins to be enforced. That way, civilians and law enforcement personnel would be adequately informed about the change. Likewise, I think that we should develop a method to minimize all possible confusion to all Wikipedians as much as possible. This includes assessing possible consequences to returning users, anons, and readers. (This might not be relevant, but some policies do affect the rarely-editing readers)--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, would it be possible to have multiple messages regarding the progress of this transition on places other than the watchlist? Don't forget, the registered users only make up a small percentage of Wikipedia editors. Therefore, I think that we should have a notice above every WP page, almost like those Virgin Unite fundraising banners. Or perhaps we can have notices placed on the editing boxes.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we try to figure out how this would affect WP in the future? 

message: * Support I support the merge because then articles which can be attributed, won't pile up as Prod candidates. --Paracit 16:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's not a democracy (WP:NOT, WP:PNSD)--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh I was responding to the message on my watchlist page and assumed it had, SqueakBox 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Merge 

message: This is not a question from me. It is more of another food-for-thought issue. I still view this site from an inexperienced editor point of view. When I first joined, simple changing of a few things per article here and there was no big deal, but everything else was overwhelming. I did not know where to ask questions on certain issues because, unlike a single chat room, you have this whole world and one specific article is the right place to ask. It felt (and still does at times) like trying to find a single grain of sand on a beach but you do not even know which one you were looking for but hope you might recognize it when you see it. What I am trying to say by all of this is unlike standard articles which you try and keep shorter, when dealing with a WP: or Help: article, isn't it more efficient and easier on those who actually need the help/understanding to combine all of the same general ideas in to the same single article? I personally would rather have one longer article telling me all that i need to know about a subject than 5 telling me bits and pieces that are all related in some way. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saldly there are a lot more policies and guidelines.  Try Wikipedia:Five pillars for a summary --Audiovideo 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly the type of answer I was looking for, but it shows my point. When I was first welcomed to the community a template was placed on my talk page that had 50 links for things to help get you started. Depending on the variation in discussion, you could be lead to any one of the links being discussed here (though WP:V seems to be most popular probably because of it's ease to remember). That means the others are probably missed by those who are new and need to know other similar information. This site could probably use a page containing all of the "In a nutshell" boxes, but that is a different matter. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it helpful to have separate articles? 

message: Should we merge WP:NOR with the other things as seen on my watch list? Well, I am not really sure about this. Any ideas, comments or questions? I would gladly help out if I can. Sjones23 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Am I the only user who doesn't want ads for policy discussions on my watchlist?  This notice wasn't too disruptive, but I hope that this precedent won't lead to many lines of spamlinks to policy discussions all across wikipedia of which I am only marginally interested. Borisblue 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a topic for this, above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You have actually chosen to waste more just typing that, just ignore it if you aren't interested. Ashnard talk 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just click "dismiss" and it will go away.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearing the history/cache of your browser seems to do it - which is annoying for me as my browser does it automatically. I agree with the sentiments above - there are better places for these "ads" than in my watchlist. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Come on people, does it really matter, so what; you have to look at it for a nanosecond before you click dismiss, it is a non-existant problem. Ashnard talk 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually If you have ad block plus as well as the element hiding helper you could mark the html element as an ad and never see it again.  Not the ideal way to solve the problem, but it would work... --T-rex 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? The Boy that time forgot 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the fence as to whether or not it's a good idea to advertise the discussion by the described means.  However, I will note that any argument that amounts to "why are you discussing this" is completely counterintuitive and hypocritical. Stack 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversations seems to overlap into this thread above--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Conversation seems to overlap".  Yes, that's why there's a "Resolved" tag here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriateness of message on watchlist?

message: Stop me if this has been covered before. My concern is that writing WP:ATT to give such prominence to WP:RS causes increased risks of systemic bias, and it works against NPOV. That's because my own simple take on NPOV is about "being fair to the evidence" and "being fair to the subject". If we elevate the prominence and status of WP:RS (previously a guideline) then that tends to squeeze out evidence from sources of weaker reliability, even where minority viewpoints or aspects of balance only exist in such types of evidence. My example is an article I was editing yesterday - a living public figure probably most famous for an extra-marital relationship with a President. (No, I'm talking about a Mexican. My notes are here.) English-language international sources for the relationship easily meet WP:RS and quite frankly they're all biased (i.e. not NPOV about this individual - she's cited for one angle only). My feeling about NPOV and being fair to the subject makes me want to find attribution for the claims about her status as a pioneer in public service; but that kind of evidence is more likely to be lower down the hierarchy of reliability, in Spanish, and maybe  not internet-accessible. So I feel there are increased risks of bias, worldwide, if we push editors too hard towards WP:RS as a priority above NPOV. The balanced answer for WP:ATT would be to emphasise instead that sources must be fit for purpose and keep WP:RS unmerged as a guideline, supporting both ATT and NPOV equally. VSerrata 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policy on which sources are useable as a reliable published source for a claim is widely and energetically debated among long time contributors with general concensus on general advice; but the experts agree that it boils down to specific claims on specific sources evaluated by research by wikipedians into both the claim and the source. Unfortunately, you can't write most of common sense or expertise into policy and so the editorial judgements needed for many cases simply can't be reduced to a page or so of policy. WAS 4.250 07:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the specific case you mention, I would think that Spanish-language sources would probably be considered more reliable than at-a-distance English-language reports.  Internet accessibility is irrelevant to reliability (although I realize that there are editors who have trouble acknowledging this fact).  And WP:NPOV remains Wikipolicy; RS is not being "elevated above" it.  So, unless these sources you have in mind are completely unreliable, I suspect there will be no trouble in adding them.  (And if they are completely unreliable, I suspect you would have trouble with them in any case, as WP:RS is, and has been, one of the most accepted of WP's guidelines for quite some time, considered by many to be more of a clarification of WP:V than something separate.)  Bottom line, though, I don't think the problem is as big as you suggest, because RS is merely being elevated to the same level as NPOV, not above it.  NPOV remains absolute, indisputable policy.  Xtifr tälk 11:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think RS is being "elevated" at all.  Both WP:NOR and WP:V (as well as WP:NPOV) clearly state that reliable sources are a must.  Thus, the concept of RS has been Policy for years.  WP:ATT does not change this, it simply restates it in a clear way.  Yes, some of the language from the guideline WP:RS has been incorporated into ATT... but that language expresses exactly what V and NOR have always said.  The bulk of WP:RS has been copied over to the ATT/FAQ... with the idea that it will be worked on and promoted back to guideline status.  A guideline that will explain why the policy is the way it is and help editors determine if a given source is reliable or not. Blueboar 12:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I am missing something... No one is suggesting that NPOV be demoted in any way.  All that is happening is a merger between NOR and V.  We are simply going from three pillars to two pillars without a change in the status of any of the concepts involved. To me people seem overly concerned that RS is being elevated... I just don't see that.  RS was always a key concept in V and NOR.  RS has always been a key concept in NPOV.  This hasn't changed.  All of these policies state that material we added to articles has to be backed by reliable sources.  So where is the difference between what NOR and V say and what ATT says? Where is the elevation? Blueboar 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm confused.  Neutral point of view is covered by WP:NPOV and attribution is covered by WP:ATT.  Adding information on NPOV to WP:ATT would be redundant; it's already covered by WP:NPOV!  Bias is properly discussed in WP:NPOV, not WP:ATT.  Reliable sources, on the other hand, are implicit to V/OR, and are quite properly discussed in ATT/V/OR policies.  I also think you're reading too much into the necessarily-arbitrary order in which the five pillars are listed.  NPOV is not secondary to ATT/V/OR/RS; it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and is non-negotiable!  Anyway, it might be helpful if you mentioned some of the sources that you'd like to use that you are afraid will be considered unreliable.  It might help us get some perspective on the matter.  Xtifr tälk 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A - That's helpful. The essay itself says "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." That rebuts Xtifr's comment above. Before people want to sign off on the concept of the new ATT, I'd suggest doing a walk-through. What will newbie editors see, in what order? Are we helping them to see the big points, or are we putting up too much clutter of lawyerly detail in the wrong eye-catching places?? My points on ATT are basically that: (1) both the first and second pillars matter, so we should avoid RS clutter while we introduce concepts; and, (2) bias is a concept that deserves an early-ish introduction. VSerrata 07:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: B - On wider issues than drafting this version of ATT I suspect I've spotted an underlying problem. Maybe we can blame the physicists for it! The kind of minority viewpoint that often seems to be in policy editors' minds for NPOV, as mentioned in the essay, is something like Flat Earth. That has one kind of matching of source and claim (many-to-one), with multiple viewpoints on the same claim. My concern, in say a biographic article, is much more one-to-many in matching sources with different aspects of a subject's life in the absence of a published in-depth biography that easily meets WP:RS. That requires more recognition of bias, and systemic bias. Try looking at Joseph Gomwalk as another example that needs tackling. What are the messages we are giving out to editors in the way that policy pages say what's most important? VSerrata 07:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for the long response time on my part, and thank you for your response.  I am glad you like the essay, much of which was stolen from WP:NPOV.  Let me know on the essay talk page if you have any suggestions about the essay.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and NPOV issues if we merge WP:RS 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Pre_straw_poll_straw_poll_for_Q1.  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of pre-poll straw poll to discuss the wording of questions and options for the poll 

message: I would like the record of this community discussion to contain this message as a record of my conditional strong opposition to WP:ATT.  Details are at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth and archived parts of that thread;  that thread includes some discussion that was moved from this community discussion page.  Discussion on the specific issue (some wording of WP:ATT) should be kept in one place and is at the link I gave. --Coppertwig 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Coppertwig.  You have made your opposition very clear in multiple locations on this discussion page... and multiple locations at the ATT talk page... and at the talk page for the poll... and just about everywhere else even remotely related to this discussion.  We KNOW you oppose it. And it is your right to express your opposition.  However, there does come a point when repeatedly stating that you oppose it becomes disruptive.  Please see WP:POINT. Blueboar 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditional strong opposition 

message: Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:
Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration
To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have a poll on that? :>)  Blueboar 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That gives two hours to decide the form of Q1, and possibly tweak it; this is unrealistic. The pre-poll on Q1 is strongly opinionated, and quite divided. I deny, btw, that rhere is any consensus other than to avoid doing this poll over April Fool's Day.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, looking at the squabbling about every petty detail in the poll makes me feel that opening this poll on April Fools day would be perfectly appropriate! :>) Seriously, I would like to thank those of you who have been working so diligently on the poll while we have been focused on the discussion.  I know that it isn't easy... figuring out how to fairly phrase each question on the poll (indeed, figuring out what questions to ask in the first place) is almost more contentious than the underlying issue. But there are at least a few of us that appreciate the effort. Blueboar 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see 

message: Conservapedia Commandment                                                                                      	Wikipedia content policy
Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.	The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
I find this difference very interesting and a strong reason why I prefer the current "not whether it is true", discussion is here. Thanks! --Merzul 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant add: role of truth on conservapedia 

message: Per discussions here and here, I think that reliable sources - whether merged or not - should note that sources published under governments that support censorship or force specific ideology into any publication are less reliable than others.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you include Andrei Sakharov's physics? "May be less reliable than others", please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason the title of this heading is about historiography. Few would discard Soviet (or even most Nazi - Wernher von Braun or Werner Heisenberg, anyone?) contributions to natural sciences (and good part of social sciences). That said, keep in mind the story of Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. Particulary I'd ask you to consider the case of Lysenkoism and Psikhushka branches of 'Soviet science': you can find academic publications by renowned Soviet scientists and institutions on those subjects, but if anybody thinks this research is reliable for anything else than articles about those pseudoscienses, than... we should refer him to this policy :) Or to use even less controversial examples: you can find lots of good reviews of Walter Frank from 1930s and early 1940s - but I don't think anybody today would want to touch for any purpose other than documenting follies of antisemitism. Also seriously, those colorful cases are little more then nice trivia - the real danger is the abuse of historiography, as this still leads to many disputes on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought everyone knew that Sacharov had proven the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, only to have his work censored by those Pasta hating commies in the Kremlin! - OK, seriously... you are both correct.  Of course knowing the background of a source is important, and it can impact on it's reliability... depending on what the source is, how it is being used in an article, etc. etc. etc.  It is a topic that should probably be discussed on any revised WP:RS (or WP:Determining reliability) guideline.  But we can not just make a blanket statement saying THIS is unreliable and THAT is reliable about such sources.  And we certainly shouldn't do so at the Policy level. Blueboar 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; in Anglo-American terms, this is a question of fact, not of law. We should judge on a case-by-case basis; there are plenty of tendentious and partisan works published in the West. There are exceptions to Piotrus' rule, after all:  Some Soviet historiography is on a sufficiently obscure subject that it largely escaped ideological pressures; and some questions (When was Charlemagne born?) are not ideologically important. A warning would justified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historiography and reliable sources

message: I've been looking closely at the old pages and the new one - I think that it's good work that's been done and I'm almost ready to support the new language and the merger. My only real criticism is that the "this page in a nutshell" for the ATT page is much too brief. It's nice to sum things up concisely, but it really doesn't do justice to the substance of the policies. Can't we expand it to something that is still concise but more useful, and less likely to encourage the widespread misconception that original research is confined to uncited material (making NOR just part of verifiability)? I.e., just put in the points from the "old" articles (with any rationalisation needed to avoid repetition). If that were done, I think I could support the new arrangements. I still think we need more examples and explanation of "synthesis", and more discouragement of it, but that applies in either case. Metamagician3000 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My only real gripe

message: Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
Thank you. - Denny 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the MfD was a Speedy Keep - Let's get back to work on the Poll folks... New voices are needed to break the current deadlock over language.  Please help out. Blueboar 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow at all why this was done, but at least someone dealt with it. "Speedy keep" was the correct action. Metamagician3000 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, no harm done. Metamagician3000 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll]] 

message: Just a heads up, but when doing the merger, I suggest that someone make sure that the language of the policy does not permit driveby reference spamming. Believe it or not we have managed to reduce the rate of spam insertion by 2%, and I have noticed in several search engine optimization forums frustration at the difficulty of inserting an uncontested spam link. Lets keep it that way. The new policy/guideline needs to be very clear that spam will not be tolerated, even if it is disguised as a reference. Parts that we must be very clear about is no self published sources Regards. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify, I'm not fully up to date with all this changes we are talking about, but one thing that we must be sure to do is to make spamming wikipedia very difficult. I believe that we have that in place now with the existing guidelines, and I'm very weary as to changing much of it, as I would like to sustain our decrease in spam, I will join in the talks here as soon as I get a chance to read up on the 200+ Kb of text laying around. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing to worry anymore. If you did not notice, the wiki software marks all external links in articles with the "nofolllow" attribute since a while ago. This means that these links are useless for SEO and linkspammers as these are not read by the Gogglebot and other search engine crawlers. Spammers will be wasting their time adding links... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, unfortunately not all search engines honor nofollow, have a look at what memebers of WP:WPSPAM deal with daily. In addition you can always look at the activity on m:Talk:Spam blacklist —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, an example of reference spamming can be found here. Do note that at the time of insertion the spammer actually had content there. (I asked him and he told me he was the owner of the site, presenting WP:COI issues, and issues with WP:RS), we hashed out that it was not right for him to be adding the links. Then a few days later, the spammer filled up the page banner ads that reload every 15 seconds for maximum profit. (A few links were still on wikipedia). Please do note, that this spam occurred after the implantation of nofollow. Spam is real, and we get plenty of it it. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about the merger of WP:RS 

message: Is there still a place where I can say "I've thought about this a little more, I've decided I like having WP:V and WP:NOR as separate pages for X reasons"? -- Ned Scott 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can say it right here now, or you can wait a few days and there will be a poll that will give you that option.  Blueboar 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be able to say it in the poll, Ned. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just feel like saying, I knew about this merger since it started, and have never said anything because I generally agree but don't have super strong feelings about it :) I'm only saying this because I think maybe there are lots of people like me, and if we all stay quiet I guess it seems like we don't know whats going on. Lots of us probably do, it's just that we don't disagree with the merger :) - cohesion 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So where do we go... 

message: State your opinion at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
I'm a bit worried about this poll. Despite all the prep work on it.. it seems like people are just being thrown into the poll without a way to get the full story, one side or the other. This is not the right way to go about this. -- Ned Scott 02:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll being posted here to get more notice: Something's really uncooked here... this can't be the result of weeks of collaborating.. maybe people who've been working on this have spent to much time only focusing on it, because I don't think the outside editor is getting the full story. This is an absurd joke of a poll, and it seems to have been opened now only out of frustration. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll was started on the basis of  an hour's discussion among half a dozen  people, and has begun two days before the agreed on time, 00:00 April 2. (The only item on which there was consensus) I began by supporting WP:ATT; I now have difficulty believing any of this has been done with civility or in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhat bizzarre. I hesitate to delete this section, but since the poll is not actually open at this time I put a box at the top to try to clarify the issue. CMummert · talk 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It had started, then was stopped. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sort of ridiculous, can't the poll just stay open, do we have to say our opinions again? argh :| - cohesion 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This archival may have been premature as there still seems to be some reverting going on about whether the poll should be open or not.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I double-checked that all users whose comments were previously archived here have stated their opinion in the current poll. I am removing the archive here; it is available in several page histories. Some of the editors have changed their opinions, and all of them are of course free to reinsert their comments here if they wish to. CMummert · talk 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for sorting out that mess.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you thank you :) - cohesion 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll is now open 

message: The poll was apparently opened by someone and unopened by others.  See above and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll to get an idea of the situation.  Before the poll was unopened, some people made statements, which I am archiving here.  I copied these statements from this old revision.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This archival may have been premature as there still seems to be some reverting going on about whether the poll should be open or not.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I double-checked that all users whose comments were previously archived here have stated their opinion in the current poll. I am removing the archive here; it is available in several page histories. Some of the editors have changed their opinions, and all of them are of course free to reinsert their comments here if they wish to. CMummert · talk 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for sorting out that mess.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you thank you :) - cohesion 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving statements from cancelled poll here 

message: The poll was rushed through without any rebuttal, presenting a pro-ATT summary.  It is not NPOV, and the presentation is leading.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then some.  The fact that is presently running about 50/50 says a lot, really.  The loudest proponents of WP:ATT have really shot their own ass off with the last week+ of heavyhanded behavior.  D'oh.  Good learning experience, I guess.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll is not neutral

message: The criticism on the poll page is actually very good, in particular some of the points made by SandyGeorgia, although I'm covering all sorts of things here. At the time of writing the poll is very even ATT leads by 75-67, so I think it is beyond time to actually listen to the criticism as see if anything can be done about the concerns. To begin with, would something like the following change to the lead paragraph satisfy at least some concerns?
WP:VERIFY                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	WP:ATTRIBUTE                                                                                                                                                                                                        	PROPOSED
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.	The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.	The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Attribution means any reader can verify that material added to Wikipedia accurately reflects the given sources, and does not include interpretations, opinions, experiences, or arguments that are not directly and explicitly supported by the used sources.
The writing could of course be improved, but the idea is to address some concerns that I have seen.
* You can attribute to any source! This I have seen surprisingly often. Either we need to rename this policy to "Attribution to reliable sources" or the colloquial "Rely on published sources". At the very least, the entire phrase should be bolded. Also, we might need an emphasis on NPOV and Undue weight having an important role on this issue as well.
* You have marginalized truth! Alright, we need to at least make the wikilink more prominent. Truth is great and all, but it is simply not a criteria that one can work with. Nobody includes material they think is false, we need policy to resolve issues when people disagree about the truth. In any case, the WP:NOTTRUTH section explains this well, the link should be more prominent.
* You have diminished notions of verifiability. Ok, let's put back something to that effect, using verifiability in the sense implied by WP:V to verify the attribution, I tried this above.
* You can use verifiable sources but still do original research. We could try to make the relationship between attributability and original research more clear in the lead already, again I tried this, but the sentence is getting long and confusing.
* We need a separate page to discuss the concepts in more depth. If any concept of NOR need further explanation, it is the part about WP:SYNT that needs elaboration. Everything else is in my opinion very clear in ATT, much clearer than the different policies. And SYNT is of course no more confusing here than before, it is the same example!  I think synthesis is a problem of false attribution, because one is essentially using sources in a context where the implied meaning can no longer by honestly attributed to the original authors. 
* You have elevated RS from guideline to policy. No, the title is perhaps unfortunate, all the sections, except "redflags", are copied from WP:V#Sources or WP:NOR#Sources, is there anything else in ATT that shouldn't be there? 
* The page is badly structured. Uhm, (Mikkalai), if you think creating something people will agree with is an easy task, see the discussion that went into the poll :) This policy was a compromise. I could write a much better policy (in my own opinion), but for something like this to be at all be successful, it has to be begin life as almost a copy-paste of the current policy.
* You should start from the goal not the procedure. This is, I think, the best objection. This was Mikkalai's first objection, and Mukadderat has also elaborated on this. Personally I think they are right, in theory, but I think ATT is more useful in the field. I mean, yes, verifiable and accurate information is our goal, no original research is an independent decision, and so attribution is the primary means to achieve that goal, but it is only a means not a end in itself. I agree. But I think it is more practical to have a page on attribution, and if there are other means (I'm not aware of any) to reach the goal of accuracy, then those can be posted as exceptions, such as the straightforward logical deductions exception. The fact is that without original research there are too few significant methods of guaranteeing accuracy, other than using reliable sources.
In any case, many people say NOR is a separate concept and so it shouldn't be subsumed, but I think NOR is a very bad way to counter the real problems with "original research". What should fight pseudo-science is undue weight, and what should prevent defamatory material appearing on biographies is a respect for other humans (upheld by our policy on BLP). Even if this ATT is far from perfect, it is a significant improvement over previous state of affairs, so whatever we do, let's not go back to V and NOR, let's try to find a solution on how to improve, rename, or supplement ATT! Thank you for reading, unless you skipped something, and only read this sentence. :) --Merzul 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like the idea that you can attribute to any source, from what I read, I could just put something up on the internet and cite myself. Bad idea for several reasons. Not the least, is that I can allow the link to get hits, and google traffic, then fill with adverts, and remove the content. (this has been done before, see my prior post above). —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But even now as it is, WP:ATT says attributable to a reliable published source, where does this misconception come from? --Merzul 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the criticism 

message: This may have already been proposed, but if not, I'd like to throw another idea into the discussion. What if we cut out all the information about what constitutes a reliable source from WP:V and WP:NOR and just link to WP:RS? It's another option worth considering. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this approach is that ends up with WP:RS being de-facto part of the policy, and WP:RS has often said some fairly dubious things in the past that nobody here really wants to be policy.  Making WP:RS a non-normative explanatory note seems much beter, and for that to work it has to not be referenced from the policy itself (except perhaps as a 'see also WP:RS which gives additional advice on this subject'). JulesH 12:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS said some pretty dubious things in the past because people tried to make it doctrinal; this is reliable at all times, that is not reliable.  That quickly turns into a lengthy list of specifics and easily becomes mutually contradictory.  I see the potential for it as being supportive to the editorial process, but I'm very conscious that many aditors aren't comfortable with ambiguity in that sense.ALR 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just link to WP:RS 

message: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#Invert +/- for rest of poll
This could probably use more community input, as right now it is only being discussed by people deeply involved in the poll's "mechanics", while I think it is much more about the poll's ultimate meaning and value to the community as a gauge of consensus.  Wish I'd started it here instead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll bias issue

message: With transclusion we can have have our cake and eat it too. Everyone can have what they want.
The Attribution policy page can consist of:



and the talk pages of V, NOR and RS can redirect to the ATT talk page. WAS 4.250 09:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea.  I'm afraid it will lead either to the individual policies being incomprehensible or ATT containing redundant information, but it's certainly an interesting idea.  I can see it working alongside a policy version of RS that basically contains only the text we have here; references to the same ideas could then be edited out of V and NOR, which could have  to include the same explanations.  So RS becomes a refactored "stuff that's in common between V and NOR, i.e. basic details of what kinds of source are acceptable".  Each policy would need a <noinclude> header to explain how the individual parts relate, and we'd have to ruthlessly watch to make sure that nothing crept into that section that changed the meaning of the policy.  But it sounds workable. JulesH 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea : transclusion 

message: The three policies being discussed, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, all intertwine. I can show this with four statements. 
*If an article has reliable sources, then it is verifiable (WP:RS = WP:V).
*If an article is not verifiable, it has original research (WP:V = WP:NOR)
*If the article does not cite reliable sources, then the article has original research (WP:RS = WP:NOR)
*Thus, WP:RS = WP:V = WP:NOR.
All of these concepts can be combined into one, hence WP:ATT. Sr13 (T|C) 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I think you could argue that WP:RS => WP:V => WP:NOR, though. JulesH 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: However, if it is emphasized more, then could WP:ATT be more workable? Maybe you could draft up a revised proposal on your user page. I still think this merger can work if it's done right. To me it seems like a good idea -- I can see the close relationships between WP:V and WP:NOR, even if the original poster didn't quite get it right, and to summarize and collect these into a single unified policy seems like a reasonable idea. It might still be possible to keep the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (although perhaps renamed to Wikipedia:Attribution/Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution/No original research to emphasize the fact that they are two branches of the larger ATT policy) pages though to provide more information on the details that would otherwise bog down a single page. It would also make some sense to have WP:RS bumped up to policy, too. mike4ty4 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ATT contains text about synthesis, but a number of those objecting in the poll stated they found ATT confusing. The concepts of attributing facts, and attributing arguments or ideas, are distinct to many people. Perhaps it is too much to try to make a "larger" policy sufficiently balancing these concepts. Could ATT achieve focus as the "smaller" policy that facts must be attributed? In this view, ATT would be like the minimum requirement in a ladder of content requirements: 1) attributable, 2) verifiable to reliable sources, 3) not an original thesis, and 4) neutral and without undue weight. Gimmetrow 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A concept

message: I don't think it's appropriate to make such a big deal about the numerical results of the poll, such as posting the results on everybody's watchlist, if only because it's not technically a vote.  If anything, the "result" was no consensus. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a survey or straw vote or structured discussion on how to best word and structure/modularize our content policies. The result was a lot of good data on how to best word and structure/modularize our content policies. We will take time to analyze it. Then we will apply lessons learned. WAS 4.250 06:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "we" here? Is there a task force for analyzing the data from the poll and extracting lessons? And – out of curiosity – the result was no consensus, but does that mean that we remain in the status quo ante, and which of the two is actually the status quo ante, one merged policy, or two policies plus a guideline?  --LambiamTalk 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the "status quo ante" is: A bit of confusion as to what should be done, with everything in a sort of limbo. We definitely do not want to rush around declaring that one or the other is "not policy". I know this will cause a few arguments, but I would suggest that (for the moment) all of the pages be treated as if they were active.  Give people time to sort through what these poll results might mean and how to move forward.  If you are involved in an AfD, and need to quote active policy, quote all of them that apply... buttress your arguments by pointing to ATT and V (or NOR as the case may be) so that it is clear that, no matter which policy ends up being active, your argument stands. Blueboar 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the "status quo ante" is the way things were before. We should revert to this state until such time as a consensus is reached that things should 'have been'/'be' changed. --Fergie 09:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So which of the two is actually the way things were before we should revert to for now, one merged policy, or two policies plus a guideline?  --LambiamTalk 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logically it should be the reverted to the original state of two policies plus a guideline.--Fergie 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think so. Think of that as the 'stable' version of an article. Revert to it and lock it while the discussion proceeds. Hornplease 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Results? 

message: Article states:
1. According to a study by the USDA,[3] an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day.
>This mean s approx 1 kg /person /day or about 1/3 ton co2 per person annually or 2 billion tons annually for world population
2. Article: "Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.[8] Human releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by volcanic activities."  
Lets call this 200 million tons by volcanic activity annually
That would mean human respiration generates 10x as much co2 annually as volcanoes, or 1000% not 1% - and of course counting "human releases" only as respiration releases
?Is there a policy / forum that only examines internal consistencies of wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.33.55 (talk • contribs) 
:Not that I'm aware of.  Probably the best approach would be to discuss it on the article's talk page.  In this specific instance, it seems that somebody changed the article only yesterday to read as you saw it, and it has already been changed back to the former version, which is supported by the data.  Still, I'd like to see the 1% figure attributed somewhere. JulesH 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of the CO2 generated by human respiration ultimately comes from CO2 that was extracted by plants from the atmosphere. So there is no net addition. Of course, this discussion belongs on the article's talk page, but it is a good example of the limits of Wikipedia's attribution policy in insuring an accurate encyclopedia. We still editors who know what their subject.--agr 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion really does not belong here. This is the discussion page for the merger (or not) of WP:V, aspects of WP:RS and WP:NOR into WP:ATT.  --LambiamTalk 20:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal math consistency of Carbon dioxide article