Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 16

message: I am unsure of the specific impalementation of this policy in the case of television episodes. In an article about a specific television episode, is information about that episode not implicitly verifiable? If not, how is the episode supposed to be sourced?
The nature of this question is that Hell Comes to Quahog has been the location of a voracious edit war this past hour or so, dealing with the fact that one editor believes that content in the Notes and Cultural References sections of the article (pre edit-war version) is in violation of WP:V (among other policies). I am not a participant in the edit war, though I am trying to bring it to a resolution.
Thanks in advance for any help! –Dvandersluis 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any television episode, broadcast by say one of the top ten broadcasters, is also stored on video which may be purchased.  Sometimes you can also get these on loans from libraries.  So it is inherently verifiable. Wjhonson 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but there may be a gap of several months between the first broadcast of a television show, and the availability of videotapes or DVDs for purchase. The show might be considered unverifiable during this time gap. --Gerry Ashton 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that gap can be closed almost instantly at times with itunes and other websites offering episodes within minutes/hours after the initial airingGrande13 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Gerry Ashton is also being rather USA centric there - if the programme is popular then it is likely to be transmitted in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. within a few weeks to a few months of the first broadcast (e.g. Lost, series three started on 4 October in the US and will start on 19 November in the UK), allowing for verification. Also currently in the UK the most popular programmes (Doctor Who, Torchwood, Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives) are often repeated within a week of transmission, again allowing one to verify claims. --Neo 20:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the argument being made for family guy should have an exception, as it is consists of a much higher percentage of cultural references and callbacks and the format used for south park might not be produce the same benefits for an episode of family guy216.177.121.212 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Family Guy should not have special treatment. We're not an episode guide, and we're not here to help people understand the jokes in Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerry you're misunderstanding what I'm stating.  Every episode, broadcast by a major station, is avaliable, immediately for purchase.  You call the station, ask them for a copy, pay the fifteen bucks or whatever.  There is no waiting. Wjhonson 18:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability of television episodes 

message: I have a problem with the all-purposefulness of this "official policy"
I have a repeating problem with someone who feels he has the unquestioned right to undo any edits in a tech article where he sees no citations. And he comments his undos with the note "see WP:Verifiability".
An example: As someone who has years of experience on a specific topic, I have learned, partly from my own deductions, that certain things can be done. So I described them by adding them to an existing article. He, who has never heard (or thought) of this, undid my edit, asking me to provide a citation.
However, I can't provide a citation because it rather "new research", done by me or other with special knowledge, experience or understand. In this case, I then had to add explanations to the Talk page so others could follow my deductions to make this person realize that his undoing my edit was inappropriate.
Unfortunately, that same person has now again undone another's additions, although I fully agreed with those added statements, meaning that they were quite correct. Again, the said person removed them with the reasoning that there's no cititation to be found. Yet, more experienced people would understand that the newly added statements were correct.
On both cases it appears that the undoer is not able to comprehend the issue well, but still feels he must control it. Sure, there's also the need to educate this person that he should first ask, and only undo someone's edit after it has been discussed. But that's not my point here.
My point is: It should be made clear that this policy does not ALWAYS apply. In the cases I described, there is simply no citation to be found, yet they were correct. I do not like others to think they can question technical statements by a simple (and rather blind) reference to this policy.
Can something be done about this, please?
-- Tempel 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It really depends on the complexity of your deduction; could you show us an example please? Basic math doesn't require a source (e.g. stating that "77 is the natural number following 76 and preceding 78, and the smallest positive integer requiring five syllables in English." is self-evident). But complex deduction that may be easy to an expert in the field could be incomprehensibly arcane to an outsider. (Radiant) 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this really apply to technical articles on facts that can be deduced logically? 

message: Can we add either "question" or "challenge" to the third point of the nutshell so it reads: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to question and/or remove it." ? Harryboyles 09:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Martinp23 10:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the nutshell, it's the policy (the rest of the page being merely discussion). But the change is an improvement, jguk 15:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would posit that it is not an improvment.  Unsourced info should be removed on sight, not tagged  for months waiting to see if the editor that added it will eventually come back and follow policy.  We have been, I think, far too tolerant with unsourced claims, especially in articles about fictional subjects.  If one can't be bothered to provide a source then one's edits should be excised.  The encyclopedia is filling up with original Research, speculation, and inference of connections based on facts not in evidence.  Absent reliable sources, Wikipedia ceases to be a general purpose encyclopedia and becomes a blog. L0b0t 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: it should be removed eventually, but not instantly unless it is pure nonesense, maybe the period for which the tag exists should be a week/month so there is ample time to find proper sources or to integrate the material in some other format.  If the item cant be sourced within that time period then it can be removed no questions asked. 67.184.160.211 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, you either come correct with a sourced edit, or you don't edit the encyclopedia.  The editorial standards at Wikipedia are VERY lax and if an editor is unwilling to abide by the few simple policies we do have, then their contributions are not welcome.  Cheers. L0b0t 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: that rule could be fine for new info to be added, but for information that is currently already listed, then there should be a period to find sourcing after its tagged 67.184.160.211 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of nutshell 

message: Regulars to this page may be interested in this proposal. Please comment on the talk page there. jguk 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]] 

message: In the subsection WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) JBKramer added the following sentence:
However, for articles that are about content that was published first and even exclusively on blogs, linking to the specified blogs is not only acceptable, but practically a requirement. 
I feel this is overly broad. For the most part, content that has been exclusively published in blogs should not have a Wikipedia article about it. --Gerry Ashton 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is a very specific case. There is no need to change policy to accommodate exceptions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And not much of an exception, either.  The blog claims formed the basis for research by journalists, and were verifiably cited, IIRC.  Wikipedia is relying on the confirming research moreso than the blogs.  Robert A.West (Talk) 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally, I don't think 6 or 7 posts over a holiday weekend constitute a sufficient concensus to change the policy.  Should we discuss whether "stories that broke on blogs, then moved to MSM" (the Killian documents and Mark Foley scandal pages are fine examples) need a specific discussion, and whether it should be on WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:ATT?  TheronJ 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the big issue is.  As soon as MSM picked it up, the blog became a primary source supporting a secondary source, and we have rules for using those.  If something can come in under either of two theories, treat it less restrictively, not more.  Robert A.West (Talk) 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JBKramer's edit

message: I haven't been following this closely, but I see that the following change has been made: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge or remove it." Can someone give a short, clear summary of why this change was made? It seems quite odd to me. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it seems odd. Some Wikipedians, particularly for less controversial claims, prefer to leave information in the text but challenge it on the talk page (perhaps with adding a "citation needed" message in the text too). My understanding is that action, provided it is done in good faith, gives the obligation on editors wishing to retain material to justify it. The old text covers this situation. The revision doesn't. jguk 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: seeking to challenge is an odd way to put it, I think.  More proper would be not on those challenging it or seeking to remove it.  Putting a  tag into an article IS a challenge to whatever material is tagged.  (And I support reversing the change, with slightly clearly language.)  John Broughton  |  Talk 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused by change 

message: I added the following to the section on foreign language sources: "The burden lies with the editor who added the source to demonstrate evidence of the content of foreign language sources.".
It now reads:
English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. The burden lies with the editor who added the source to demonstrate evidence of the content of foreign language sources.
My motivation is the use of foreign language sources I see in edit wars and controversial articles. Any comments? (I'm non English btw). -- Steve Hart 09:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of the sort of thing you are trying to prevent, and how an editor might meet the burden? Robert A.West (Talk) 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll be back with examples, I'm generally concerned about obscure partisan websites. Originally, I included the words when language translation tools or other means of verification are not readily available, and I believe that or a translation by a third party editor would be sufficient. -- Steve Hart 10:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the translation is reliable, then the translation can be cited as the source, with the original cited indirectly.  If the translation is not reliable, it should not be used.  Robert A.West (Talk) 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently practice seems to be that foreign language sources is as good as english sources, even if no translation is available. Do you suggest that sources where no translation is available should not be used? -- Steve Hart 10:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am having trouble figuring out what change you want, and am probably guessing wrong.  Having a foreign-language source presupposes a large enough body of interested, fluent Wikipedians to verify.  If that exists, no problem.  Original translation is a fine courtesy, but is not verification.  You suggest automatic translation.  While it has progressed beyond the "Vodka is strong, but the meat is rotten," stage, it is IMO still woefully inadequate except as an aid to one's own translation. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need a body of interest (I think that is more of an academic discussion given the audience of the namespace). I'm not suggesting automatic translation (which is why I left that part out). FWIW, I don't think the method is very important, the concern is verifiability. I have no problem with foreign language sources per se and I have used them myself on a couple of occasions. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The question above all is, in my opion, verifiability, since it's the heart of Wikipedia. I don't think we can apply a different standard to material which relies on foreign language sources. So we need to verify. If we agree on that, the next question should be where the burden lies. I believe the burden ultimately needs to be with who added the source. This policy states that the burden of evidence lies with the editor, to provide a source when content is added or restored, and I would argue that the burden is to provide a verifiable source. What should be avoided are editors who add foreign language sources under the impression that someone will come along some day and provide a translation. The third question should then be what types of translation are adequate. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good examples, but they are not representative for Wikipedia based on my experience (e.g. ). Neither do I see where in the old text it says that a translation must be included. It talks about in principle and says that published translations are generally preferred over editors, but it doesn't mandate translations. Furtermore, editors aren't required to make a distinction between a published translation and one provided by the editor, a rather crucial question for both readers and other editors. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the policy does not say that translations are required.  The policy also doesn't spell when inline citations are best, or when a simple bibliographic reference is sufficient.  This is policy, not a cookbook; details have to be worked out on the basis of what is best for each article.  If there are numerous footnotes to the same translation, it might work to reference only the translation in the footnotes, where page numbers are vital, and to mention the original only bibliographically. If there is no translation available, the foreign language source is short and the article could not exist without the source, then inclusion of an unpublished translation on the talk page is probably best.  There is a difference between a source written in Ingrian and one written in French.  These are all practical questions concerning how to apply policy to specific cases.  Ironing these things out is what talk pages are for. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First thing first then: Should there be a requirement for published translation of foreign language sources? Personally, I think that's a good idea. In that case, I assume the translation needs to meet WP:RS too? -- Steve Hart 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all concerned about the two cites from the Zeevi article, they were given as an example. Nor am I embroiled in any controversy about this, but the question of verifiability has been on my mind for a while. I note that the missing paragraph from WP:CITE says "should" and not "must", though. I also think that the reader (and other editors) should be told (as opposed to assume) when text is translated by editors, it goes to the question of credibility. Maybe. -- Steve Hart 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Re. "It is now being used to justify removing translations... period." - this seems unlikely to me (who? where? someone must have been misreading something). I'd rather refer to Wikipedia:don't include copies of primary sources if I thought a translation was too long, inappropriate, or otherwise doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WP:V#Sources in languages other than English rather is a very limited policy-level exception to Wikipedia:don't include copies of primary sources for sources that aren't accessible for language reasons to users of the English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on foreign language sources 

message: Until a week ago, this text could be found at WP:RS:
----
== Sources in languages other than English ==
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.
Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
* Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
* Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
----
Allegedly (and I happen to believe that) this "full version" was developed by many Wikipedians as the consensus.
Just a few days ago I was thinking that maybe we should get this back in WP:V (since the language of a source is not in itself a reliability issue, but it can cause a practical verifiability issue for a Wikipedia that targets readers that not necessarily need to know any other language than English).
What I learn from the "full version" (that is not in the current paragraph at WP:V) is that if one uses a non-English source where no original English source or external translation is available, one provides both the quote in the original language (i.e. copy a quote from the source text that most briefly states what you want to make verifiable), plus a translation of that quote in English. If another Wikipedian, that does not speak the language, wants to verify, (s)he can always ask a random Wikipedian speaking that language (there are categories and lists of Wikipedians per origin/language, e.g. :Category:User de for German) and ask to check whether the translation is OK. This is consistent with a description that used to be in WP:CITE (but apparently is no longer there).
Not so long ago I initiated an article that exclusively relies on sources in a non-English language (De Standaard, Belgisch Staatsblad, University of Ghent website,...), applying the technique as described above.
Somebody asked for problematic examples: The one I know of is the Sathya Sai Baba page. Well, it was problematic all over (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba). The "translation of source quotes" issue was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive7#Two problems with using non-English sources that I do not know how to solve. What I find today (e.g. Sathya_Sai_Baba#_note-saiparadox) is imho acceptable. --Francis Schonken 11:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good examples, but they are not representative for Wikipedia based on my experience (e.g. ). Neither do I see where in the old text it says that a translation must be included. It talks about in principle and says that published translations are generally preferred over editors, but it doesn't mandate translations. Furtermore, editors aren't required to make a distinction between a published translation and one provided by the editor, a rather crucial question for both readers and other editors. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the policy does not say that translations are required.  The policy also doesn't spell when inline citations are best, or when a simple bibliographic reference is sufficient.  This is policy, not a cookbook; details have to be worked out on the basis of what is best for each article.  If there are numerous footnotes to the same translation, it might work to reference only the translation in the footnotes, where page numbers are vital, and to mention the original only bibliographically. If there is no translation available, the foreign language source is short and the article could not exist without the source, then inclusion of an unpublished translation on the talk page is probably best.  There is a difference between a source written in Ingrian and one written in French.  These are all practical questions concerning how to apply policy to specific cases.  Ironing these things out is what talk pages are for. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First thing first then: Should there be a requirement for published translation of foreign language sources? Personally, I think that's a good idea. In that case, I assume the translation needs to meet WP:RS too? -- Steve Hart 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all concerned about the two cites from the Zeevi article, they were given as an example. Nor am I embroiled in any controversy about this, but the question of verifiability has been on my mind for a while. I note that the missing paragraph from WP:CITE says "should" and not "must", though. I also think that the reader (and other editors) should be told (as opposed to assume) when text is translated by editors, it goes to the question of credibility. Maybe. -- Steve Hart 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Re. "It is now being used to justify removing translations... period." - this seems unlikely to me (who? where? someone must have been misreading something). I'd rather refer to Wikipedia:don't include copies of primary sources if I thought a translation was too long, inappropriate, or otherwise doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WP:V#Sources in languages other than English rather is a very limited policy-level exception to Wikipedia:don't include copies of primary sources for sources that aren't accessible for language reasons to users of the English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-inventing the wheel

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School#RFC over whether a school newspaper is a reliable source and how information sourced from it should be represented, if at all?  Thoughts welcome to build a consensus. Hiding Talk 16:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  School newspaper: verifiable? 

message: Is this expression a hang over or do the three policies cited really differ in nature to the other two in the top policy content box? --BozMo talk 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the other three in the policy content box.  And no, I don't think they're any different.  You need to consider all of them to determine if content is appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One of three content policies" 

message: Ok, I've checked some of the sources on one of today's "DYK" articles and the citations are highly dubious and definately NPOV.  I'm tagging it as NPOV but I also want to put something on there to indcate that the sources do not say what the article says it says.Balloonman 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: By reading this policy I see this Any edit lacking a source may be removed.... Since this is a binding non-negotiable policy does this mean if someone continues to add the unsourced material over and over you can continue to remove it until they provide a source?--Crossmr 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; it does mean that somebody else may remove it though.  Read it again: it doesn't say any user may remove the edit. It just says that it may be removed. 3RR is pretty unequivocal; it has a number of exceptions, but they're usually interpreted narrowly.  Removing material not allowed by another policy isn't one of those (unless the policy in question is a legally-inspired one, not simply a content policy). JulesH 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Biographies of living people are an exemption to the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. In other cases, there is less sense of urgency and we expect discussion and consensus to prevail. One can go to Wikipedia:Third opinion, a WikiProject noticeboard, or other places to request uninvolved parties to help sort out Wikipedia:Verifiability problems without Wikipedia:Edit warring. Jkelly 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some potential for abuse there then. It gives an editor who wants to push in some content the ability to jam it in there for some time while they force a wait for a third party, consensus, or other intervention. Burden of evidence also states that its the requirement of the editing wanting to add the material to provide those sources. Yet even if they fail to do that, the material could still sit there while its sorted out if they insist on it?--Crossmr 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a person editing who has no interest in following our content policies, that's a user behaviour problem.  Edit warring isn't the answer to that.  Jkelly 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an edit violates policy, there should be more than one editor who object to it.  The 3RR applies to each editor, not to groups, so if there are three editors who object to the unsourced material and only one who wants it, the material can be kept out while obeying the 1RR.  If the three have listened and considered the arguments for the material, then I would consider that an enforcement of consensus, not edit warring.  (75% is a pretty good functional consensus).  If the lone wolf persists, then dispute resolution is in order.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily agree that 75% represents consensus.  75% might be ok in some situations, but in others it isn't.  For example, there is an article that I watch that has 3 rabid editors who I suspect know each other (it's a university article.)  They are all very liberal and believe that their position is right.  There are also a few alumni who believe their edits are full of POV.  We don't edit much because they will, en masse, revert our edits and come dangerously close to WP:CIVIL violations.  Their edits are, IMHO, wrong... but the only way to overcome it is to do an RfC.  So while, your guideline works most of the time, it is not fool proof.  (I still won't do a 3RR, but I do not believe a voting block necessarily represents consensus.)Balloonman 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it sounds like you are not discussing 75% agreement:  Based on your description, there are three rabid editors, and a somewhat larger number that have let themselves be intimidated.  If the majority is silent, then there is little that anyone else can do about it.  Qui tacet consentire.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V and 3RR 

message: i cite blog and people say it not verifiable  so they remove.  but blog provides pictures and links to back claims up.  still not verifiable, tho, according to people who cite WP:V#SELF.  week later, news.com.com come along, talk about same story, and not try at all to prove anything .  they just say and u have to believe.
WP:V#SELF is ad hominem. if a argument boils down to rules of logic then it no matter whether blog notable or not. if a argument boils down to "im right because i have credentals" then yes, a blog posting from a non-notable blog is not sufficient. if a argument boils down to rules of logic then it no matter whether blog notable or not.
i propose WP:V#SELF be rewriting.  it should not imply that blogs are bad sources no matter how cogent there argument is.  that kind of knee-jerk reaction is why sexism exists - "she a girl, so her point is a piece of crap". sexism is wrong and so is your knee jerk reaction to blogs. judge people or posts for their points - not for some superficeal quality. 72.36.251.234 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idealistically, I agree with you.  When something is obviously right, we should be able to use it.  However, there is often substantial disagreement over what exactly is "obviously right". This is why we need some sort of standard beyond the apparent quality of the argument. We need to know that people who really know about the subject agree. That's where a reliable publisher comes into play. Publishers check facts, they make sure arguments are correct (usually). By relying only on what they've published, we can make Wikipedia more authoritative. This is at the cost of sometimes not being able to make points that we know are right, but which have never been published. Often, a publisher comes along later, at which point they can be used. Sometimes, that doesn't happen. JulesH 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As a good example of what I mean by disagreement here - your source for corruption at digg is disputed in its own comment thread by the accused digg user. There's no easy way to tell what, exactly, the truth here is. JulesH 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not cite the references which the blog cites? Horus Kol 09:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as i said, the blog also contain pictures.  screenshots.  should i upload them to wikipedia?  should i include them in article?  i think it deserve mention - i do not think it should take up disproportionate space on page 72.36.251.234 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if its notable, then why not? as for pictures - only if they are properly licenced... Horus Kol 08:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:V#SELF is stupid

message: I was recently engaged in a debate on the Administrator's Noticeboard where I was being chastised for using wp:v as a basis for PROD tagging articles that did not have any sources cited.  The argument was, that verifiability is not a basis for deletion unless the topic cannot be verified, but should not be applied if the article lacks sources, but some suspect on personal knowledge that it could be verified.  I propose we consider tightening the language in the Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence section to reflect consensus.  One editor suggested the word topic implies that we must consider the verifiability of the topic, not the article itself.  See the Discussion Alan.ca 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if they no like policy, they should post here - not u. it there responsibilety to change it to what they like - not yours. 72.36.251.234 05:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *And once that search has been made and no sources can be found to verify the article's material, that should be a non negotiable deletion criteria. We'd have a lot less hand wringing over at AfD if that were the case. The only argument would be on what are reliable sources and that's where the argument should be. - Taxman Talk 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Uncle G beat me to it, but that is essentially my understanding as well.  As a practice, before I AfD or PROD anything for failing WP:V I do some investigation (Google; Google Books, library database search, etc) to see if there is a chance that a source exists out there.  If there are sources out there, I try to source the article.  If they are offline sources that I can't access I tag the article as unsourced.  If I can't find sources, I PROD/AfD.  Showing evidence that no sources exist (empty google search etc) definitely helps your case if you are arguing something is unverifiable.--Isotope23 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ditto.  There has been some discussion under Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles of demanding that new non-stub articles after a date certain have sources and allowing for routine deletion for those that do not.  While I think that we should be that hardnosed for biographies of living persons, I don't think that it is necessary for other articles, provided that closing administrators ignore WP:ILIKEIT votes.  I do, however, think that five days is a little short for checking on the availability of sources -- I would prefer that verifiability deletions go through a two-week process where comments are strictly limited to finding and evaluating sources.  I have, however, found few supporters for that idea. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps the problem is it was presented as a speedy deletion criteria. If we split it off to a process like you mention and if the consensus is the sources aren't there to support the material, perhaps we'd have something. - Taxman Talk 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *In support of the aforementioned statements, maybe we should consider drafting some wording for a procedure for checking basic verifiability? Alan.ca 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **Such a basic check, though, should not ignore the fact that most sources are not available on-line; verifiability predicated on internet availability strongly favors the West (geopolitical) in representation here and that is a systematic bias the we should try hard to overcome. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet checking also favors the modern age, specifically the last five years.  There are many people, famous in their own day, who you cannot find on the internet even yet.  Even with Google books.  Simply because Google books is a project that is not finished by a long shot.  If the article's claim is that a person was notable in some specific location, in some specific century, then the effort to check a relevant source should be made that is specific to that time and place. Wjhonson 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the responsibility of the editor who first adds an article to provide a source. Supsequent editors who come upon unsourced information have the option of finding a source, adding an appropriate citation needed template, or proposing the article for deletion. The fact that the subsequent editors are more apt to add sources if easy-to-find online sources exist, and thus create biased coverage, is the fault of the first editor who neglected to provide sources, not the fault of the subsequent editors. --Gerry Ashton 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability as a basis for deletion, Burden of Evidence Section

message: This statment is misleading, since WP:NPOV (the thing about "significant" views), WP:NOR, WP:NOTE, WP:DELETE, WP:NFT and more all form parts of the "threshold" for inclusion. 70.101.147.224 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: V not T means verifability is the threshold as opposed to truth. It doesn't mean it's the only threshold. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so but the statement still seems to have that suggestion of V being a sole criterion. 70.101.147.224 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It arguably is. Notability rests on it; if sourced carefully, material won't be OR etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. If it is truly verifiable it is likely to be notable. NPOV is a different matter as it refers to how we handle the information after it has passed over the threshold. If material is verifiable but presented with POV, then we fix the presentation by making it neutral rather than by deleting it. -Will Beback · † · 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What word should I use in this example? Someone says, "Real donuts are made from moon dust" and cites as a source an article by Astronaut Joe Blow in Donut Shop Magazine. If I can find Donut Shop Magazine at my local library and read that Astronaut Joe Blow really said this in his article then I have done what? --Gbleem 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Verifiability not truth" is THE threshold for inclusion 

message: Is there a tag or something to bring such articles to somebody`s attention?--Tresckow 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which articles are "such articles"? There are plenty of tools in the toolbox and plenty of template messages. Uncle G 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: A wikipedian is an unreliable source.  Not only are their own translations self-published, but they are not independent of the projection of that translation upon the encyclopedia.  That is, a wikipedian may use a translation to foist a POV surrupticiously upon the project.  If the language is sufficiently obscure or the material is, it may go for quite a long time before being caught.  We don't want to be in that situation.  Therefore I propose that we only allow reliable source translations to be cited as sources.  And we as wikipedians should not be arbitrating whether the translation is "accurate" whatever that means, we should be arbitrating whether it can be cited and verified. Wjhonson 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not prepared to see this *guideline* raised to policy with NO discussion.  As an editor it is simply not my job to verify if a translation is accurate, it is not my job to link to the original language and it is not my job to even prove that the published translation cites the original.  It is simply my job to cite the translation, period. Wjhonson 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, your position is, no published english translation, no citation?  We have articles whose only reliable source is a foreign-language source translated by a Wikipedian. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allowing editor-provided translations seems internally inconsistent with this policy. These are arguably OR, and even with a full citation that allows another editor to check, doesn't seem to get over the bar, because the policy requires that "any reader" can check the source. It doesn't say "an editor with the appropriate language skills". The point of RS, which dovetails into this policy, is that WP relies on other parties to provide editorial checking — because WP can't. If there are whole articles in the English language WP whose only source is in another language, doesn't that suggest that those are likely NN? MARussellPESE 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If a foreign language text is the only source for an individual fact/opinion, that's probably okay, as translations are possible, and therefore available to any user. This same argument is sometimes made to exclude offline sources, which is pure madness. On the other hand, an article that solely bases itself on foreign-language texts may not have a place on the English Wikipedia as a standalone article (though certain mathematical/scientific concepts may be exceptions to this). -- nae'blis 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for coming in late, but I have to disagree here. This is an encyclopedia about all things of importance anywhere in the world, and the encyclopedia is written in English. This is not the encyclopedia of all things of interest to English writers. One of the great aspects of Wikipedia (well, any encycloepdia) is learning about things you knew zilch about beforehand. I am a contributor on European comics, and there are different authors with millions of books published, with transdlations in four or five languages, and no English sources (or no WP:RS English sources, only some webpages which may or may not be acceptable). It would be a great loss if Wikipedia could not have articles about such subjects, and I would leave Wikipedia if this was to be policy. Of course we should use English sources whenever possible, but the rule that when no English sources are available, foreign-language ones are acceptable, must be kept. Fram 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Any reader" is meant (mostly) to exclude specialized knowledge that few interested readers share.  If an article requires calculus to comprehend, then we don't expect someone with only first-year algebra to be able to verify much.  I would agree that a knowledge of Ainu is specialized knowledge.  I am not so sure about knowledge of French, which is shared by a large number of Wikipedians.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you can find more people that are able to verify a translation language than people who are able to verify the use of a source in some advanced topics in physics or mathematics, even if the source is in English. A translation is not original (at least in some contexts such as copyright), it's a derivative work. If we can trust wikipedians to read a source from a journal, book or newspaper and write something correct and verifiable about it, we should trust them regardless of the language of the source. If you want to verify a translation but don't speak the language, ask someone who does. Many wikipedians happily advertise their language skills in their user pages, and I'm sure you'll be able to find someone willing to help. And finally, for many topics regarding non-English-speaking countries, the best (as in "most official", which is especially important if you are writing about topics such as government institutions) sources are not in English. Itub 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources only in a foreign language 

message: In a few different articles, I've seen content cited to a particular TV show. Given the difficulty of finding a tape of a specific show (when a date or episode number is even given), do these citations really meet verifiability? (Citations to something generally available on DVD or VHS would be different.) In one case, I am almost certain a TV show citation was simply made up to satisfy demands for a citation. Guidance or comments on this? Gimmetrow 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked about something similar and I got a comment from one person that said difficulty of verification should not be part of the criteria. --Gbleem 13:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But possibility should.  If it is not possible for an arbitrary user of wikipedia to get hold of a copy of the source, it isn't an acceptable source.  In the case of a TV show of which copies are not available commercially for purchase and for which the producer will not provide a copy either, I'd say WP:V isn't met. JulesH 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Video clips may remain on the web for a short time.  For some news programs, transcripts are available, but I don't know if they remain perpetually in print.  These are good, solid sources, but verifiability may become a problem after a time.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Same comment as in the section above. Transcripts are available, even if they are not free, therefore it's still a valid source. The "anyone can verify" is meant to exclude personal conversations and untraceable statements, in my view. -- nae'blis 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is a valid source, but the difficulty of verification leads to practical editing issues. How do you handle dubious information that is "cited" to an old TV program? It can be tagged with  or . How long should those tags remain before it is OK to remove the "cited" content? Gimmetrow 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficulty of verification isn't a factor.  As long as the source exists and it's possible to get a copy, it's a valid source.  This isn't unique to TV shows, the same thing could happen with obscure books, periodicals, or audio recordings.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The validity of a TV show or obscure book as source is not disputed. The question is: how do you handle any dubious information that has been cited to a difficult-to-verify source? Gimmetrow 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on current WP policy, it looks like you have to get your hands on that source to verify it.  It's a tricky situation - on the one hand someone could fake info by referencing it to something obscure, but on the other hand someone could delete valid info with the excuse "it's too hard to get that source" (I've seen it happen).  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Television shows are much less obtainable than books or periodicals. The vast majority of editors can obtain a huge number of references through inter-library loan. Even if I do not happen to live near the British Library, for example, the University of Tennessee library still contains millions of volumes, and will mail them to the local library. And hundreds of editors do live near the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Boston Public Library, the University of Sydney library, etc. There do exist some extremely rare books that would be difficult to find, but those would be more analogous to a 1950's one-season show (though even that is not close rare books). The problem mentioned here appears to be finding any television program. Does my local library have episodes of the Brady Bunch? I don't know, but every local library in the English-speaking world will contain the most famous books. —Centrx→talk • 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What about including a link to an episode summary?  Try Tv.com, Imdb.com, plus web sites belonging to the network or show. Squidfryerchef 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about a fact revealed in the show, episode summaries are quite likely not to include that particular fact. JulesH 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing TV shows 

message: i donno if im in the right place to ask or not hehe , anyways , just wondering ; do famous places such are cities and landmarks which are shown in public need extreme sources ( for each new addition ) or not , because i was disscussing with some friend :) Ammar 01:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncontroversial/uncontested statements do not need a source in every instance, but if something is challenged (removed with a request for verification, for example), then the person re-adding it should provide a source, yes. Not every single sentence needs a citation, but anything that even hints at opinion "best, friendliest, warmest, etc" should have one from the start. -- nae'blis 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question ! 

message: I just recently saw the proposed WP:ATTRIBUTE and I'm very excited about it. My main point: many editors, especially me, do not read the policies. All we know are the titles and wikipedia abbreviations. We argue saying "that's not WP:NPOV" and sometimes even use subsections like undue weight. But unfortunately we have our own interpretation of what these labels mean, especially when it comes to WP:VERIFY. I have been on wikipedia for a while now, and I didn't know the "not truth" part of "verifiable, not truth". This knowledge would have been very helpful in an argument that I recently had. The reason I'm excited about ATTRIBUTE is that it is a significantly better label than VERIFY. I can verify that 2+2=4 without external evidence, I can verify that a philosophical argument is correct through my reasoning, and I can verify that God exists by praying for long enough with an open heart. My point is that the label VERIFY is not effective, and the label ATTRIBUTE captures the essence of WP:V and WP:NOR in a way that gives us a much better arsenal of labels to back up the core content policies. Take a weapon like WP:NOTTRUTH, it could single-handedly end all the edit-wars on wikipedia :D --Merzul 05:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed how naive I was to think using policy as a weapon could even be effective... I still believe attribution is a better word than verifiability. If we can get the people who annoy me to understand attribution and people like me to understand WP:CIVIL, then Wikipedia would be an easier place to work in. --Merzul 13:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Merzul. I'm not sure about your 2+2=4 arguement. To me, and I'm sure many other people, we would all agree that 2+2=4, but as far as I understand the policy, one would still be within their rights to delete "2+2=4" and insist that someone cite sources for it (which in this example would be quite easy to do). However, for more complex maths, it might be more of a challenge, and if sources could not be cites, then it might be argued that some maths constitutes original research. I'm not saying I would argue this, but I'm sure some would - particularly those bad at math perhaps!! --Rebroad 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ATTRIBUTE (again...) 

message: I have recently been involved in an argument about whether an author should be allowed to cite his own self-published material.
Specifically the author is quoting "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." from here (WP:V) along with "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." from WP:NOR.
In my interperetation, these two statements are not intended to apply to the same person, or at least attempting to apply both exceptions at once is a tight stretch. Isn't citing your own self-published material more or less just spam? Is it worth amending this guideline to mention that someone should not cite their own self-published work? Or is my interpretation off the mark here? - Rainwarrior 09:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are absolutely right, self-published material should be avoided as much as possible, and these exceptions should not be combined. I'm not sure how to amend the official policies in this regard, but I added the following very harsh statement to WP:ATT "self-published sources should never be used to argue against or contradict information from well-established peer-reviewed academic journals or publishers, but used only when no such information is available" Since WP:ATT is a proposal, you can be more aggressive in editing it! :) I think editing and discussing that proposal will lead to more discussion and better understanding of these policies. I've noticed there are many different understandings of what they all mean.  --Merzul 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the material is relevant and important, I see no harm in allowing its author to add it.  But it should be noted that there is, generally, a presumption against using self-published sources (described both here and at WP:RS) unless they provide important information.  If the editors at the page feel the source is inappropriate, it should be removed.  The same applies to any dubious souce, regardless of who added it to the article. JulesH 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self published vs. Original research 

message: Two points 
* Most pertinent is the need for clarification that while not every bit of information or sentence needs a footnote attached to it, every bit of information or sentence does need to be verifiable and "attributable". There is a stark difference between the two and it should be clear that asking that every bit of information be verifiable and attributable is not asking for a footnote on every sentence. Rather, it should be a reasonable and fair expectation that every bit of information can be attributed to one of the references that is used in the article. Being clear in this regard is vital to staving off original research, "I heard it somewhere" factoids and potential inaccuracies when memory is not as clear as it could be. 
* An area of compromise that I see is developing something that parallels Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It seems the biggest ire from CyberAnth's AfD was the editors who wanted him to take it to the talk page first prior to just deleting it. I can see the fairness in that request and I wonder about the benefits of a Attempt, Request, Edit cycle. Attempt to find a source for the info or article yourself. Request a source with a tag on the troublesome info and note on the talk page. After giving sufficient time (yes, which can be subjective), the editor should be free to boldly Edit. If another editor objects to this deletion and want the information to return, they should be bound by the Burden of the Evidence to provide a source in a sort of Revert & Cite cycle. 
Any thoughts? Agne 07:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too much here to read through, but it's worth pointing out that the policy doesn't say any unsourced edit should be removed. It says: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source," and that's what it means. It goes without saying editors should use their common sense when applying any of our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it should go without saying . . . The point seems to need to be made again and again.  Robert A.West (Talk) 11:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it can be very frustrating when people use the policy as a weapon. I was recently asked for a source showing that most animal rights activists are either vegetarian or vegan. :-( Then when I produced one, from a well-known academic who specializes in animal rights, I was told he was too biased. But we can't change the policy to accommodate editors who are being disruptive in that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that more and more often lately - an editor will refuse to accept a reliable source (such as a book published by an expert in the subject) because the author is claimed to be biased. So "reliable source" = "agrees with me". CMummert 12:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can one be blocked for repeated POV?--HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 12:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree with CyberAnth. Whether your change is an improvement or not is not the question. There certainly has not been any concensus for any change to be made to WP:V- some have argued it should be stricter and others that it should be more relaxed. I would describe the discussions that have taken place to have ended in stalemate, not in any particular concensus. WJBscribe 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two of you are overlooking the discussion that also occured on WP:ANI due to CyberAnth nominating for deletion numerous sexually related articles because they did not yet have sources.  Most them were sourcable.  The feeling at WP:ANI and at those AfD's was over-whelmingly in favor of imrpoving articles first, and deleting them only as a last resort. Johntex\talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have restored the JKelly version as a compromise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I think the sex articles AfDs were a completely separate incident. AfD noms are not what the change to WP:V CyberAnth reverted was about. Changes to policy require strongly established concensus, to synthesise it from a number of only tangentially related discussions is a problem. I suggest starting a new section at the bottom with the proposed changes and inviting comment on them. If a concensus is then demonstrated for a change to WP:V, by all means make it. WJBscribe 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular I don't believe a concensus has been established to include the sentence: "It is not practical nor desirable to remove every unreferenced statement". Many would see that as precisely the ultimate goal- doing so overnight is in my view a bad idea but many users supported CyberAnth's actions here and at WP:ANI. WJBscribe 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you agree to a solution that omitts that sentence?  I would also be willing to include it with the modifier "currently".  I myself am a devoted proponent of heavy referencing.  I have even been accused of putting too many references into articles, an assertion I find ridiculous.  Never the less, it is true that we are so far away from that right now.  Deleting every unsourced sentence in Wikipedia would cause havoc.  Please see dumpling and beef and shrimp for just three examples. It is not just sexually related articles that would be susceptible to over-zealous deletion.  I mention the sexually related articles only becuase that was the specific incident. Johntex\talk 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't really what I'd support. You can make me happy with very few changes to your version. But I cannot speak for the community. As it is this discussion is lost halfway up the talkpage and most people probably have no idea its going on. It needs more users to contribute to it before anyone can say a concensus can be achieved. I agree with you that trying to delete every unsourced statement from Wikipdia overnight causes chaos. I argued that point with CyberAnth on his talkpage. But his present removal of controversial material from BLPs, noting the deletions on the appropriate talkpages, is necessary and effective. I understand your need to achieve something after all the discussions that have taken place, but I don't think there is concensus for any change to the policy, sorry. WJBscribe 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that you and I would decide this by ourselves.  I am just asking what you could support because you are part of the community and part of building the consensus.  I will start a new section here, but it will take me a little time to prepare. Johntex\talk 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: I too like this proposal, as it encourages discussion between editors and it encourages people to look for sources. As an example, I added a  tag to the Eurostar article yesterday . Eurostar claim that their services are directly responsible for "a saving of 393,000 carbon dioxide-producing short-haul flights". A claim was added today that this figure is inaccurate because many people who travelled on Eurostar would not have made the journey by air had Eurostar not been an option. 
This could be true, it could be spin made up by airlines on the defensive or it could be original research. If it is the former then it should be easily verifiable, for example by passenger surveys or hard figures (if the total number of travellers on all modes decreases during periods when Eurostar is not operating for example). If it is spin from airlines, it should be verifiable that the source of the statement is the airline industry. If the statement is verifiably true, then not including it would potentially harm the neutrality of the article, so had I immediately deleted it as not verified when I saw it rather than giving it chance to be verified then I would be doing NPOV a disservice. If however it turns out the figure is neither verifiably true, nor verifiable as having been stated by the airline industry, then it should be deleted. I do not have a source for the statement, but that does not mean there isn't one. Thryduulf 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An example

message: Without a doubt, we should insist upon verifiability and references.  However, if we deleted or blanked things with no cites, then we'd probably be down about 75% of the encyclopædia.
Rather than slapping an afd or prod tag on an article, try and find some cites.  It's a lot more constructive, and it makes Wikipedia even more reliable!
Lankiveil 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too much here to read through, but it's worth pointing out that the policy doesn't say any unsourced edit should be removed. It says: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source," and that's what it means. It goes without saying editors should use their common sense when applying any of our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it should go without saying . . . The point seems to need to be made again and again.  Robert A.West (Talk) 11:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it can be very frustrating when people use the policy as a weapon. I was recently asked for a source showing that most animal rights activists are either vegetarian or vegan. :-( Then when I produced one, from a well-known academic who specializes in animal rights, I was told he was too biased. But we can't change the policy to accommodate editors who are being disruptive in that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that more and more often lately - an editor will refuse to accept a reliable source (such as a book published by an expert in the subject) because the author is claimed to be biased. So "reliable source" = "agrees with me". CMummert 12:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can one be blocked for repeated POV?--HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 12:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree with CyberAnth. Whether your change is an improvement or not is not the question. There certainly has not been any concensus for any change to be made to WP:V- some have argued it should be stricter and others that it should be more relaxed. I would describe the discussions that have taken place to have ended in stalemate, not in any particular concensus. WJBscribe 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two of you are overlooking the discussion that also occured on WP:ANI due to CyberAnth nominating for deletion numerous sexually related articles because they did not yet have sources.  Most them were sourcable.  The feeling at WP:ANI and at those AfD's was over-whelmingly in favor of imrpoving articles first, and deleting them only as a last resort. Johntex\talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have restored the JKelly version as a compromise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I think the sex articles AfDs were a completely separate incident. AfD noms are not what the change to WP:V CyberAnth reverted was about. Changes to policy require strongly established concensus, to synthesise it from a number of only tangentially related discussions is a problem. I suggest starting a new section at the bottom with the proposed changes and inviting comment on them. If a concensus is then demonstrated for a change to WP:V, by all means make it. WJBscribe 04:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular I don't believe a concensus has been established to include the sentence: "It is not practical nor desirable to remove every unreferenced statement". Many would see that as precisely the ultimate goal- doing so overnight is in my view a bad idea but many users supported CyberAnth's actions here and at WP:ANI. WJBscribe 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you agree to a solution that omitts that sentence?  I would also be willing to include it with the modifier "currently".  I myself am a devoted proponent of heavy referencing.  I have even been accused of putting too many references into articles, an assertion I find ridiculous.  Never the less, it is true that we are so far away from that right now.  Deleting every unsourced sentence in Wikipedia would cause havoc.  Please see dumpling and beef and shrimp for just three examples. It is not just sexually related articles that would be susceptible to over-zealous deletion.  I mention the sexually related articles only becuase that was the specific incident. Johntex\talk 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't really what I'd support. You can make me happy with very few changes to your version. But I cannot speak for the community. As it is this discussion is lost halfway up the talkpage and most people probably have no idea its going on. It needs more users to contribute to it before anyone can say a concensus can be achieved. I agree with you that trying to delete every unsourced statement from Wikipdia overnight causes chaos. I argued that point with CyberAnth on his talkpage. But his present removal of controversial material from BLPs, noting the deletions on the appropriate talkpages, is necessary and effective. I understand your need to achieve something after all the discussions that have taken place, but I don't think there is concensus for any change to the policy, sorry. WJBscribe 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that you and I would decide this by ourselves.  I am just asking what you could support because you are part of the community and part of building the consensus.  I will start a new section here, but it will take me a little time to prepare. Johntex\talk 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A step in the right direction

message: It would be really nice if Template:dubious was mentioned in the guideline, because I really hate seeing those massive disputed tags on top of pages where there is a dispute about some one detail, and I think it is also useful for more complicated questions such as quoting out of context. There is now a draft that probably reflects some of the points from the above discussion at WP:ATT#How to cite and request a source, except I have already inserted my support for Template:dubious. :)  However, none of this should soften our stance against information that is embarrassing to wikipedia: crackpot science, crackpot history and crackpot philosophy should be aggressively eradicated. --Merzul 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant advertisement: Template:dubious 

message: I found this pretty amusing: under the 'Burden of evidence' and 'Biographies of living persons' sections, the references quoting Jimmy Wales do not contain the quotes printed in the article.  Is this incorrect?  Currently it's reference numbers 2 and 3.  Joie de Vivre 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-incorrectness!  Incorrect source on quote claiming importance of sources

message: A rather iffy secondary source (The Skeptic's Dictionary) makes some extreme claims via quotes from an affidavit. The Skeptic's Dictionary gives a link to the text of the affidavit that's hosted on a POV site. This page says that the affidavit was presented in a 1986 court case. I've examined the Docket Entries List for that court case, and the affidavit isn't part of the court record. Therefore, the oiginal affidavit is unverifiable. It only exists on POV sites, and has the text only -- no pdf or jpeg with the original text and signature.
Can these extreme claims from the affidavit (which the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary doesn't corroborate) be quoted in an article in Wikipedia? Does WP:V apply in this case? Or could it be argued that The Skeptic's Dictionary is a qualified secondary source, so it makes no difference that the original affidavit isn't available? Thanks! TimidGuy 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any documented evidence? Does the other side not deny the validity of this document? Otherwise it can indeed be argued that we can rely on the skeptic's dictionary. If this information is wrong, then we are not to blame. However, if the situation is highly suspect, then you might try to convince other editors to use prose attribution as explained in this proposal to distance Wikipedia from those claims; but it is not our job to actively try to refute available sources. --Merzul 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, using a source which there is good reason to believe is inaccurate (as in this case) seems like an unwise choice. JulesH 08:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks much. These are very helpful comments. Jules, are you referring to the primary source or the secondary source? TimidGuy 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe he is referring to the skeptic's dictionary, but the problem with his suggestion is that in this case there must be many editors who believe using that source is extremely wise, otherwise I don't think you would ask for advice here. There is one more thing you could do, write a polite letter to anybody in a position to place a response on a reliable source, if you explain that you are trying to defend them etc I think they would be willing to help you, but the point is that you need to have a source outside Wikipedia that can take responsibility. Then you have a much greater chance to convince those editors, and at the very least you can add to the article that the validity of this document has been called into question. --Merzul 12:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Thanks! TimidGuy 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of the missing affidavit 

message: I have been calling for the Speedy Deletion of Benjamin M. Emanuel, which hopefully by the time this is read will be deleted for being an attack page. I maintian that the article is an attack page because it cites anti-Semitic blogs as its source to assert that its subject the father of US Rep. Rahm Emanuel is a murderous terrorist. On the talk page Talk:Benjamin M. Emanuel I cited and quoted the wiki-standards that called for this article to be deleted. I was opposed in this by User:Mel Etitis who I have been told is an Admin. He wrote on the talk page "Moreover, WP:V#SELF simply doesn't rule out the reference to a blog, it rules out the use of blogs as (the sole) source for what articles say about their subjects.  if the article said that he was a murderer, and cited a blog, that would be wrong; if it says that he's accused of murder in a blog, that's very different." Apparently he feels that because the article uses qualifiers like “asserting… speculates…not to document his sources…tinged with anti-semitism, and also does not cite all of its sources…assert…speculates" that this prevents this article from being slander. I replied "The use of skeptical caveats does not allow for wiki-pages to use unsubstantiated charges that come from non-reliable unnotable sources. Saying 'While most people are skeptical that Joe Smith is part of a terrorist network, private investigator Sam Incognito insists that this is true' is no more allowable than just saying 'Joe Smith is part of a terrorist network'. Then another Admin User:NawlinWiki told me that the page should stand unless the regular AfD process decided against the question of notability. NalinWiki was the admin that removed my first call for speedy deletion and the title of her edit in the history page stated "doesn't seem to be an attack page, has sources". Is this really the case? Can any charge be repeated from a blog as long as you say it came from a blog and add caveats around the claims? I thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability banned such things, but now admins are posting on my user talk page that I'm "misusing templates", being "disruptive" and "abusive", causing an "edit war", and that I'm the one "misinterpreting the guidelines concerning blogs". Please instruct me.--Wowaconia 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he right that is my question--Wowaconia 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that, as far as living people go, definitely not, per WP:BLP, which demands that we use a higher standard of verifiability when dealing with living people, especially with potentially libelous matters.  Now, had a newspaper columnist read JohntexEatsPuppies.blog and written about it, you've got a whole different kettle of puppy eating fish.  Personally, I'd extend the same courtesy to dead subjects, too, although that's increasingly edging towards gray areas that Wikipedia policy hasn't quite come to terms with yet.  Serpent's Choice 11:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't libelous to report that somebody has accused somebody else of murder.  Unless of course the accusation was never made. JulesH 12:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clear that WP:BLP rules out an accusation based solely in blogs. If, however, the New York Times (say) were to report that a blogger had accused someone of murder, then we have a reliable source. In the end this is an issue outside the formal scope of WP:V. That said, in this particular case the accusation isn't the problem; the article is about a person who is otherwise unnotable. That indicates there is no reason to have an article. The fact that Emanuel's father was in Irgun is reported in the WaPo and other sources so can be used; the accusation of participating in particular terrorist acts, though, is not sourced satisfactorily. Disclaimer: I have voted delete for the article in question. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note on WaPo: actually the Washington Post only says he was a member of "the pre-independence Israeli underground". There is a big jump between "the underground" and a paramilitary force - if you shelter Allied pilots in WWII France, your part of the underground that doesn't mean you took up arms against the Nazis. Had the post mentioned Irgun I would have just deleted the refs and quotes taken from the anti-Semitic blogs and quoted the WaPo about Irgun.Wowaconia 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can one create an article that centers around the fact that blogs accuse the person of being a murderer? 

message: At present, we have the sentence "The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level."  I suggest that this sentence is removed, because:
* As far as I'm aware, this doesn't reflect an actual statement by  the foundation.  The document on meta that the statement links to does not mention verifiability at all, and in any case is not an official document issued by the foundation. 
* In some other Wikipedia projects and languages verifiability is not core policy - for example it has guideline status in the French Wikipedia .  (This was also true of the English Wikipedia in its first few years of existence). In practice verifiability is not a policy which the foundation imposes uniformly across all the projects, as the statement would appear to imply.
* The real reason why verifiability is one of our core policies is because there is an overwhelming consensus among Wikipedia contributors to support it (notwithstanding genuine disagreements about exactly how the principle should be applied in practice).  The sentence could give the impression the policy is there because of some edict by Jimbo or a committee, which is not the reality of the situation - like other Wikipedia policies, the policy was adopted primarily because there was a consensus in favour of it.
Enchanter 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good reasoning.  All valid points.  I agree that the sentences should be removed. Johntex\talk 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's worth noting at this point that the foundation issues have nothing at all to say about verifiability.  I don't know why this sentence is here, and I hadn't noticed it before, but it is certainly completely wrong.  The other incorrect statement we have here is that there are only 3 content policies on wikipedia; there are at least 4 (WP:NOT is also a content policy), possibly more depending on interpretation. JulesH 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Enchanter 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your reasoning is incorrect. One can provide original research that is presented neutrally, and one can present unverifiable material that is consistent with NPOV. So Verifiability is not a corollary of NPOV. — Matt Crypto 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I never asserted that verifiability was a corollary of NPOV.  I said that if we cannot verify that we are being consistent with NPOV, the principle becomes vacuuous.  Verifiability is a method (not the only possible method, but one of our methods) of implementing NPOV.  Robert A.West (Talk) 20:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Robert made the Argumentum ad Jimbonem in point 7 of his reasoning chain above. Just noting, because some Wikipedians (including Jimbo himself) think that to be an invalid step in virtually any reasoning, and because I'm going to do the same nonetheless (combined with an "Argumentum ad Virginem" so to speak, while the same quote was used on this talk page before, by SlimVirgin, somewhere in the middle of this section: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 10#No binding decisions):Actually, I consider WP:V to be so central to Wikipedia that if there were ever a significant majority of contributors who wanted to do away with it, we would have an internal war on our hands that would make the userbox wars look simple by comparison. ()No mentioning of "Foundation" or Jimbo himself for WP:V (note that for NPOV Jimbo did name himself as ultimate authority a few times, see references in WP:NPOV) - just the whole weight of deciding on WP:V *internally* (an internal war, not a war with himself, nor a war or even an "issue" with the Foundation).  Wikipedians, and that's it. So, no I don't agree with Robert's update, nor with his chain of reasoning. Please, start to feel a bit responsible, all of you. WP:V depends on all of us, there's no "magic protection" from the Foundation for this policy. There's no way of getting too comfortable (and doze off) over this, expecting that the Foundation will straighten this out if it goes wrong. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but there's no benefit in pre-emptively devolving responsibility regarding this policy to them (at a point we aren't even sure they want to take this responsibility: if you want to know, ask them, you should know where you can find them). --Francis Schonken 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow your charge that my position is irresponsible.  NPOV is central to the entire concept, and is cited as "essentially beyond debate" here.  I don't see how Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) could abandon it without becoming something else.  Absent verifiability, NPOV would be an empty platitude -- same result.  For every human endeavor there must be something that defines that endeavor.  Is the goal of Wikipedia to create something named Wikipedia, regardless of what that may be?  Or is it to create something more specific?  I see the linkage of NPOV and Verifiability as unavoidable and essential to that identity -- a position that I hold to be highly responsible.  The point is not the Foundation on a white charger (what they would do if the English Wikipedia abandoned or vitiated NPOV is anyone's guess -- for all I know they might just give up and shut down the servers) the point is that we owe it to ourselves and everyone else who has put time and effort into the project to be uncompromising about NPOV, and to do what is needed to make NPOV real.  Otherwise, the whole project isn't worth the bother.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your reasoning. NPOV is a foundation issue, granted, but even you said that verifiability doesn't necessarily follow from that. "Verifiability is a method (not the only possible method, but one of our methods) of implementing NPOV." So, if it is just a method and not a direct consequence, then it is not a foundation issue itself (and it being a guideline on the French Wikipedia proves this). Trebor 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Indeed. NPOV has been here far longer than the other two, and is a crucial goal of Wikipedia. V is not a foundation issue, nor a central pillar, nor on the original list of essentials. >Radiant< 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **Will someone please do me the courtesy of carefully re-reading the text in question?   Nowhere did it state that Verifiability is non-negotiable, or a central pillar, or any of the other things that are being disagreed with.  Thus, the fact that Verifiability is not itself a central pillar (as opposed to being designed to buttress that pillar) does not strike me as an argument against the text.  But, I'm not going to win this argument, so I will just ask for the courtesy and leave it there. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Yep. It is a vacuous truth, in that all policies are based on the foundation principles, and we already know that foundation principles are not subject to change by the community. At any rate, the entire paragraph clutters the page with meta-information, and should be removed. For instance, WP:CIV doesn't say either that "this is one of our five people policies and based upon something non-negotiable blah". Policy pages are too long as it is, without meta-info added to the top. >Radiant< 09:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ****Re. "the entire paragraph clutters the page with meta-information, and should be removed" - I completely agree with you there. WP:V is an important policy, yes, but I don't think we need to put policies in competition with each other for importance, and: surely there are other methods to draw attention to its importance. --Francis Schonken 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *****Thank you both for explaining your objections in terms of what the sentence actually said.  I appreciate the courtesy and understand your viewpoints better. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Negotiable only at foundation level?" 

message: Why are blogs not reliable for information from bands and artists, such as info about line up changes and reasons for breaking up, ect? I would say these would be the most reliable sources, as blogs are pretty much used as press releases now. Diabolical 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Experimentally, the Wikimedia Foundation often gets complaints on m:OTRS from actors, bands etc. asking the Foundation to take down "information" we have on them, sourced from blogs. Thus, no, blogs are not a good source for that. They often spread rumors and gossip. David.Monniaux 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely if they are the party responsible for the blog, it must be more accurate than a random news website and also they must want the information in the public domain, if they post it. Diabolical 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would not an artist's own blog be covered by  this section? of the policy, allowing use in articles about the artist? Gimmetrow 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed for the artist's own personal blog. I was thinking of fans' (or haters') blogs. David.Monniaux 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thanks. It's just I've seen people removing sources from blogs referencing WP:V which would be covered under that clause. Diabolical 18:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fans or haters blogs are not WP:RS and never will be, whether or not they're the first to publish news and whether or not anyone sends them press releases.  They are self-published, and can say pretty much anything they want that isn't sheer libel (and even then, who is going to sue them? -- they can just take it down and apologize).  As for also they must want the information in the public domain, if they post it, what they want is attention and (ideally) the ad revenue that comes from visitors to their website.  What they publish is not in the public domain; that has a very specific legal meaning that you might want to read up on.  -- John Broughton  |  (♫♫) 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am speaking about blogs published by bands about the band in question, not random people's blogs. Such as a band, who's page I have in my watchlist, got a new drummer and posted about it on their myspace in a blog, someone added this info and referenced the blog in question. It was later removed citing WP:V as the reason. I asked this question due to the growing nature in which bands prefer, possibly for convenience, to announce news in blogs rather than on their sites. --Diabolical 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: I wrote an essay pertaining to verifiability and original sources, which can be found at WP:NRSNVNA. Is the "see also" section an appropriate place to link to this essay? If not, where is? Thanks! - Chardish 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I consider the first sentence to be flat-out wrong, I suggest not linking to it at all. An example of an article that contains no cited reliable sources and yet is acceptable is a list, especially when the items in the list are wikilinks to articles that do contain cited reliable sources. --Gerry Ashton 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An list still requires sources - either those are in the list themselves or in the wikilinks to articles that have sources that explain why they're in the list. Unsourced lists are not aceeptable. Notability requirements aside, I can't create a list of "Politicians frequently seen wearing striped ties" without sources that would back up "Senator so-and-so always wears a striped tie." But this is beside the point, and outside the scope of this talk page. - Chardish 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that linking to an essay that propounds a theory that is far from having consensus (that unsourced articles should be deleted) from a policy page is an appropriate action. JulesH 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to essays