Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

message: There's an RfC about the applicability of WP:ABOUTSELF to an article on a religious organisation happening at Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article, which might interest watchers of this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC concerning [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] 

message: Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion about usage examples at linguistic articles, and whether they require sources: Talk:Franglais#Are usage examples "original research"? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested on whether usage examples require sources 

message: I propose that this is an opportunity to spell out the verification requirements for categories. At the moment categories are not mentioned in the body of the text; they are only mentioned in a footnote that says "For a disputed category, you may use " with no help as to what "unreferenced" means and what can be done about it other than tagging. At WP:CATV there is a little more: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So I propose a new version:
Version 5
: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, captions,  must be verifiable  that directly supports the material. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation 
: Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Zerotalk 12:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, I love your suggestion and will support it. I should point out that you, and others, have opposed me doing exactly what you are doing. We have bits and pieces of valuable information, like what you mention here, that are mentioned in other places, and that it would be good to mention here, but I have been opposed at nearly every such attempt. Most of my improvements of this nature are opposed. I'm surprised to discover how conservative so many editors are, and how they are opposed to progressive ideas that can improve content, but that's the way it seems to be here. If your conscience will still allow you to do this without reciprocating the favor to me, I will still support you. That's how I role. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also categories 

message: A sub-sub-section under Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source says (only) this:
"The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."
I agree with this wholeheartedly.  However, I question whether this belongs on this page.  I am thinking that it may be a little WP:CREEPY and redundant (e.g., with NPOV, which it links to).  A source can be reliable for a given statement even if it's not a best source, and even if it doesn't have any of these desirable qualities; therefore material can be reliable even if it's not in the "best sources".  It doesn't define reliable sources, and it doesn't impinge on verifiability.  I wonder, therefore, whether we should remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best sources