Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources

message: Queried information not backed up by a source should be removed immediately. The idea that disruptive users can make something up, put it into an article, and say, "Hey, it's got to stay there for at least 2 weeks - it's policy" appals me. If it's thought that it may be useful information, and is not libellous, information can always be put on a talk page until a source becomes available.
Also, we need to define what constitutes an acceptable source. In this day and age anyone can start up their website and lob any information on it. A source needs to be reliable, and needs to be written by someone with standing on their subject. If it's an article on a subject that is of academic interest, you'd expect the source to be written by someone of academic standing, and to have been peer reviewed. Articles on other subjects are more difficult, but clearly sources have to have some standing in their particular field to become notable.
However, the idea of having a formal policy that disputed or queried information should be removed from an article until there is a reputable source supporting it does appeal to me. I hate it when I have to give in to persistent users inserting dubious information based on no sources or dodgy sources because there is no policy to point to and I don't want to risk getting into or continuing long edit wars to remove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. For particularly disputable information, more than one source might be appropriate, jguk 14:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the proposal to bring it in line with my own thoughts. I now await universal acclamation/condemnation* (* delete as applicable), jguk 19:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you may have misread the proposal. The proposed policy only makes it explicit that things need to be verifiable (which is already policy) and proposes a standard way to put pressure on people to cite sources. Nowhere does it say that bogus claims must stay in articles for two weeks. That would of course be ridiculous, as you point out. This is clearly not an invitation for POV pushers and vandals – if someone were to add POV comments or blatant misinformation, of course those should be removed right away. The policy doesn't grant any rights regarding how long information must be kept; it merely clarifies what can be done by reasonable people to enhance the quality of articles. --MarkSweep 22:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that because I changed it. OK, to be fair, it did not explicitly say "keep bogus claims in for 2 weeks", but it did say to remove info that has been queried after 2 weeks. If we have a policy that says to remove something after 2 weeks, it will be interpreted by most as that it should stay in until those 2 weeks have elapsed. There should be no place in the main article namespace for disputed unsourced information. Full stop, jguk 23:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's not so much the two weeks in patrticular, as that a specific time limit is specified at all. This parallels the 3RR problem, where some editors interpret it as an invitation to revert up to 3 times a day, rather than a discouragement to revert if other means are possible. --iMb~Mw 03:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony here is that now that we have the word "reputable" in the policy, it is no longer specific enough to be enforcable. Where the power needed to be given to those who insist upon sources, now we have issues with sources being "reputable". What exactly does that mean? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, so maybe what's really needed is a better way of describing good sources. You're right, "reputable" is definitely one of those pesky weasel words. A better definition is hard too, given the ongoing arguments over what sources should be acceptable (a few people advocate only using paper sources, what makes for a good source varies by the subject matter, etc.). Ow, my head hurts. --iMb~Mw
I have taken on board what has been said here and made clarifications to the intended purpose and scope of what this policy covers. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputing time period

message: I can see that there is a lot of merit to removing the time frame from the policy, mainly due to the large potential loophole it gives POV pushers and disruptive editors (even though this clearly goes against the general spirit of my policy). As such, I have modified the procedure to allow editors to immediately move the material to the talk page, otherwise this will be unworkable. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time frame removed 

message: I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that this is not the place to address source quality or lack of quality. Maurreen 17:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of source

message: So, if a troll says "Please cite a source for the claim that 'A' is the first letter of the english alphabet", or "Please cite a source for the claim that Earth is the home planet for Humans", and nobody does so, then the troll may remove that claim from the article.  I don't think this would be a desirable.  I think the policy needs to allow "general knowledge" to be incorporated without having citable sources.  —AlanBarrett 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are assuming that the user disputing the fact is doing so in good faith. I also think that removing information that is obvious to all is clear vandalism - and if it happens over a number of pages that is enough for a user to be blocked. Perhaps some words to that effect should be added, jguk 19:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You know, there is a major problem here. Please define "general knowledge", and how it relates to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources! This is not the first time I've encountered this argument, and so far noone has given me a satisfactory answer. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to define "general knowledge" - after all, it would be impossible: a fact about a British soap star  may be general knowledge in the UK, with no-one in the rest of the world even knowing who the soap star is.  Users deliberately removing lots of generally accepted knowledge soon get banned for vandalism - and that's how it should stay. One or two one-off queries by users that ask them in good faith, will not get branded a vandal either - they remove info, asking for support, and receive it. We could add a note to this effect, but I wouldn't go further, jguk 21:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words, that is not general knowledge at all. No offence, but if someone from the U.S. said this, they'd get told they are elitist or an imperialist. It's really not acceptable to have such a nebulous term in the policy, as this is possibly the widest loophole I've seen for those who are determined to push their POV into an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Define "general knowledge"?  I don't have a good definition, but fortunately I don't need one.  The proposer of the policy needs to edit the policy to earn my vote (or not edit the policy, and have me vote against it), but there is no need for the edited policy to include the phrase "general knowledge".  For example, it could simply outlaw bad-faith requests for sources, and it could define a way of having a poll to decide whether facts were so obvious or well known that a request for sources would be classified as bad faith.  I suspect that sources could be found for almost all items of general knowledge, but I do not believe that it is a productive use of editors' time to track down sources for claims like "rain is composed chiefly of water", or "animals can die of starvation", or "the nose is an organ associated with the sense of smell", or "the round orange thing visible in the sky is called the sun", or any other item of undisputed general knowledge.  It's fine if some editors want to spend their time tracking down sources for general knowledge.  I do not want a policy that would allow trolls to hold editors to ransom: "If nobody tracks down sources for these items of general knowledge, then I will remove them from the article, and you can't punish me for it".  —AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's just the examples, but those strike me as being really easy facts to back up with citations. In fact, Alphabet does have references, and linking to that article (which would be natural for another article that discussed it) would cover the references requirement. Likewise, existing refs for Human look like they cover the Earth angle. --iMb~Mw 05:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were examples of general knowledge, not examples of facts for which sources are hard to find.  —AlanBarrett 16:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely-believed but unreferenced facts 

message: So there is a suggested procedure for removing unverified material from articles at Wikipedia:Verifiability.  It contains lots of conditions, advice, and intermediate and alternative steps not explored here.  These two pages have to be reconciled or else there will be inconsistent guidance.  Anyone have any thoughts on how best to do that (content-wise)? -- Beland 23:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct overlap with [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] 

message: I think there should be a guide on how to identify reliable sources.  In fact, I just started one.  See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Beland 08:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The page now says: "This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given, and other policies should be used to determine whether any source quoted is good enough to support the use of information in an article."
This implies that there are other such policies. If so, I've missed them. Maurreen 10:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm, fair point. There may be other such policies (through practice), but I haven't seen them written down. Maybe replace "policies" with "factors" or "principles"? jguk 10:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? "This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given. Users should consider the credibility of sources." Maurreen 10:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it if the sentences were reversed (ie "Users should also consider the credibility of sources. This policy takes no stance on the reputability of the sources given."), and if the word "credible" or "reputable" were inserted before "source(s)" wherever it appears in the draft policy, jguk 10:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, there is (I only just found this myself!) See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I wouldn't call that a policy. It's younger than this page. Maurreen 13:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's because I started that page in response to the discussion here and the lack of any guidance on the issue.  I'm adding it to WP:RFC so it can start to mature.  If guidance does exist, it should be pointed to by this policy, even if it's only to an unsettled discussion. -- Beland 01:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I read that and thought "wow, that's just what I was thinking about!" I wondered why I'd never seen it before... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Other policies" on source quality

message: Do people think this is now stable enough to send to a vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy does not have to be decided by a vote - just consensus. A vote would just polarise views - do you like how this is worded, or not? (when in practice, those supporting it would be happy with some tweaks to the wording) Or alternatively there may be "oppose" votes by people who do not see a need for this to be policy, but are, in fact, quite happy with the principles behind it. Maybe republicise it on the village pump and RfC with a proposal that - absent major objections, it will be reclassified as a policy in a fortnight's time (say)? jguk 20:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: I think the proposal looks good and watertight from trolls now. I also think it is necessary - as it is important that editors in good faith can point to a written policy when removing unsourced information; it gives them an upperhand in any source dispute.
Before I ask for formal support/oppose statements, are there any proposed tweaks? jguk 17:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we ready to make this page policy?

message: I must be reading the wrong text. Is Beland's Alternate Proposal being ignored? The text on the project page seems to suggest that the plan is that any editor, logged in or not, who considers that any statement is insufficiently sourced will be encouraged to simply erase it? That can't be the current plan. Or can it? There are some editors who do behave this way, but they are not among the better sort. I can't believe the ten or so contributors here think that this is socially acceptable behavior, and are ready to press it as policy. Add a query in brackets [?], perhaps. Or put the unsourced statement in double brackets, so that queried statements are in a warning red, like this. Or do what every sensible Wikipedian does: remove it to Discussion, to be edited up to standard. --Wetman 18:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misread the proposal, as it already states that information that is disputed but, if sourced, would be suitable for the article, should be put on the article's talk page, jguk 20:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reassuring. I thought it said If there is a fact or an opinion in a Wikipedia article, and it has no source, then anyone may remove the material from the article. Imagine the mayhem such a policy would produce! --Wetman 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incredulous

message: I've tweaked the third paragraph, to: "Disputed statements that are not attributed may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The material should generally be placed on the talk page, to give more opportunity to editors to find and indicate a source for the material." Maurreen 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third paragraph

message: I am in the middle of an ongoing dispute on another page over whether we should link to a website that is little better than a blog (as it mostly contains essays by one man on a subject in which he has no standing). If anyone is willing to go to Talk:Common Era and offer their fourpenn'orth, it would be welcome. The dispute is entirely over the efficacy of the link, jguk 09:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue regarding credibility of sources/links on another page

message: :For disputes concerning sourced information and text, especially the credibility of sources, users should consult the article Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
I see no source for this. --SPUI (talk) 11:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your change, because you failed to provide a reference indicating that it was unsourced. --iMb~Meow 11:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't move him back then; you should move her to Talk:Wikipedia talk:Confirm queried sources. Or would they be Wikipedia talk:Talk:Confirm queried sources? --SPUI (talk) 11:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the use of "it" in the above entry.  Please provide a peer-reviewed source for this usage or retract. --iMb~Meow 11:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed my wording to use weasel terms. I hope you're happy. --SPUI (talk) 11:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that Weasel itself is devoid of sources, I now have no recourse but to bring this dispute to arbcom and demand that you be permanently banned from using pronouns. --iMb~Meow 12:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fuck you and the ground you walk on! Hah! --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, that's the last straw.  I'm telling my mom. --iMb~Meow 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statement moved here