Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 11

message: Can someone possibly help out at political machine? On the talk page I suggested what direction someone might go to get his concerns about Parma, Ohio appropriately into the article. Instead of getting my point, he seems to have viewed my talk page remarks as a reliable source. I don't think I could have been clearer that I did not have citable sources for what I was asserting. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested a source; if not supplied (and it won't be) the paragraph can go. Septentrionalis 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page remarks are not a citable source 

message: Shouldn't claims made about living persons or organizations by partisan organizations on both ends of the political spectrum need third-party source verification? Otherwise, as far as I can see allowing
unsupported assertions to be used as evidence undermines Wikipedia's credibility?
I suggest adding a rule that all assertions made by partisan organizations--groups advancing a definite viewpoint--should require some sort of independent verification, e.g. direct quotes taken in context or news articles from reliable sources. 
In biographies of living individuals, the burden of proof should be on the person/group making the accusation to remove the potential of WP:LIBEL.--146.145.70.200 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before anyone devotes too much time to debating this with 146. here, they should probably read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight first. FeloniousMonk 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability and partisanship 

message: Ok, so per WP:V you must cite reliable sources for information in articles. When there is an article about a website, and the references are only links from that same website, a common-sensicial reading of WP:V tells me that it still fails WP:V because it doesn't quote any other sources. However, in the subsection "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves", it says:
| Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves	
See this AfD for an example of users arguing that these self-references are sufficient enough for it to pass WP:V: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (second nomination). Which argument is correct? --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite simple, really: Material from self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves, with caution., but if there is no other material from secondary sources, then this subject may be not notable to have an article in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, but does it state something to that effect somewhere in a guideline or policy? --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the common mistakes that editors make is to take a single policy in isolation. If you take WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR together as a whole, you will have all you need to make a well-grounded assessment of suitabilty for inclusion in an article: The material should be verifiable by referencing it to a reputable/reliable source; it needs to be attributed to the hodler of a significant viewpoint; and it cannot not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the advice --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in cases of this sort, we need go no further than WP:V#Burden of evidence.  "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V & self-references 

message: Note that as long as this page is worded to comply with no binding descisions, I'm fine with it. :-) 
It's not very tricky to do so I should think. Could someone who is not-me (and possibly even neutral) take a look and just fix it already? 
Kim Bruning 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "non-negotiable" pretty much the same as "binding decision"? Ken Arromdee 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's how many people are interpreting it, though I think some folks are also saying that that's not the intent. Kim Bruning 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No binding decisions (again!)