Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 14

message: Student newspapers are not reliable; correct?--Sefringle 04:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend what they were being used to support. Generally, they're best avoided for anything contentious or for BLPs. It would also depend which newspaper it was. Some are very good, some not. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely a grey area.  They generally have useful editorial control, with at least some degree of fact checking going on.  But often it isn't good fact checking.  They meet the minimum requirements, but obviously that only means they're valid for the least contentious of uses (which you're likely to be able to find other sources for anyway). JulesH 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the The National Inquirer good? It all depends on the context! Is global warming actually happening... well according to All Gore all the scientist's reports say YES! But ask some news papers and many are skeptical and some deny it. Is it mean it's no good. I think you just have to maintain a good balance. --FR Soliloquy 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As the policy says, sources may be reliable in one contexts and not in others. IMO a newspaper is good as a source of news firsthand reported by their reporters, or opinions of reputable persons interviewed, or articles signed by experts in the domain. Any other information coming from a newspaper, if it is not attributed in it, is not reliable. Clearly, newspaper editors and reporters are not experts in math or physics, etc. The same applies to student newspapers: you must further look at the possible domain of its expertise. Clearly  they are supposed to be experts in local school news, but any other info coming from them unattributed or not written by an expert in the relevant domain is dubious IMO. `'mikka 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with the gist of all of this.  A source is not necessarily unreliably just because it is a student newspaper. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Student newspapers

message: This sentence sparked a question in my mind:
*Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
What about the case where secondary sources disagree with each other, and one group of secondary sources is very popular in the public media (or even among Wikipedia contributors)? I refer to cases where one side (frequently US liberals) claims that there is a "consensus" on any of many scientific questions. 
Should Wikipedia agree with the Liberal POV here, and say that "there is no controversy ... there is a consensus ... etc."? Or would this be giving undue weight to one side in a debate? 
How much of a majority must there be on a disputed topic, for the article to adopt one position on it as the "consensus position"? Is 80% to 85% considered consensus on scientific topics, as it is for afd and rfa votes? Would this mean that if only 10% to 15% of scientists in a particular field disagree with the mainstream, there views should be excluded from the article in question? (Or just marked as "minority views"?) 
And if a particular viewpoint is deemed "in the minority", are editors required to delete any citations which support it? Would it violate 'undue weight' to cite a peer-reviewed scientific journal article which goes against the mainstream? If so, what percent of support among scientists must the mainstream view have, before all contrary views must (or may) be excluded from an article?
I would propose that 99.8% is certainly enough for that (i.e, 499 out of 500). But what if it's only 95% (i.e., 19 out of 20)? Where is the cutoff? 
Or what if Wikipedia editors are unable to determine the percentage of support? Suppose all we know on some obscure (or deeply technical) matter, is that political advocates outside of Wikipedia are citing duelling studies? Passive smoking causes cancer! No, it doesn't! Antarctica is warming and the glaciers are melting! No, it's getting cooler and the ice is thicker than ever!
Do we just guess that it's 50-50? Or avoid estimating the percentage ourselves? Do we quote one side, which says "everyone agrees with me"? If we don't know, are we as editors allowed to leave it indeterminate? --Uncle Ed 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be undue weight, and yes, we should avoid making up percentage estimates (blatant OR). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I see the link between the sentence of policy you quote and the question you ask.  In fact, the question you ask should really be at WP:NPOV, not here. JulesH 08:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JulesH. The above is not a WP:NOR issue. It's a WP:NPOV issue. J Readings 09:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try and give an answer, anyways.  We shouldn't be trying to judge the percent of agreement and disagreement, first off.  If there is a "consensus agreement," that should only be stated if some secondary source states that some view has a "consensus."  If the New York Times says "scientists have reached a consensus that global warming is real," then there is a statement about consensus that we can use.  We basically have to trust secondary sources, else, who can we trust?  Our own opinions have no bearing on this.  Undue weight is not a problem if peer reviewed scientific journal are cited, it's only a problem when they aren't.  A peer reviewed journal is a good source, so we can use it all we want.  Now let's look at the possible downside of all this.  Say global warming is mentioned in 1000 articles; 900 say it's real, 100 say it isn't.  One could write an article with 10 refs from each, making it seem like it's more disputed than it is.  There's nothing these policy pages can really say about this; this is where we have to trust our editors.  It's an imperfect world, and we all just do the best we can.  If an editor uses the fact that there's lots of reliable sources for each viewpoint to push their POV, it just has to be worked out in the talk pages.  It may seem like using math to answer these questions is a good idea, but really it's best done through human discussion. - Peregrine Fisher 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we try to "list the prominent organizations which assert that there is a consensus, but refrain from endorsing these assertions; and also list the dissenting individual views."  All we really have is editor's judgement.  It doesn't work perfectly, obviously, but it's the best we can do. - Peregrine Fisher 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contentious topics

message: Sorry, wrong phrasing. The idea may be well attributed, but a research which promotes is still can be original, and hence unduly pushing a POV. The correct way to say would be something like: if it promotes a claim in a way unattributable to.... `'mikka 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or promotes an idea that is not obvious and common sense (for example, stating that a character is male does not need to be attributed). The problem with the current wording is that it's attempting to satisfy Wikipedia's paranoia due to the public's criticism of its reliability, which leads to overcompensation. — Deckiller 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with promotion of non-obvious ideas? You probably wanted to say something like "obvious and common sense statements such as 'this character is male' are not OR". `'mikka 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Material is original research if it promotes a point of view or idea that cannot be attributed to a published reliable source." 

message: IMO "... that advances a point" or similar phrasing is tautology and must be avoided. I did see some pointless research :-) but other policies will prevent it from wikipedia I guess. `'mikka 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested phrasing isn't "... that advances a point", but "... that advances a point which ...", which isn't a tautology.  Yes, I agree that if it just ended "... that advances a point", that would be (ironically) pointless. JulesH 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "advances a point"

message: Something I learned from Mikka's and Jules's analysis is that structurally Wikipedia's primary concern is "verifiability."  Hence, we have
* Material is original research if it introduces a claim that no published reliable source shows to be verifiable.
Under that standard, we have the following results.
: 1) The "facts" an angry spouse puts into an uncontested divorce statement would be "original research" even if you found the words in the spouse's court filings--unless you found a reliable source had published a report of what the angry spouse had claimed in the court filing showing those "facts" to be "verifiable."  --Rednblu 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly so. Two points: (1) a tangent one, but the one people tend to forget: "the 'facts' an angry spouse puts" are not OR, in the phrase "An angry wife said that...<ref. to court filings>" (2) Per se, " the 'facts' an angry spouse puts" are "dubius and biased source", rather than OR. `'mikka 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 2) The theory that a creationist states would be "original research" on evolution even if you found the words in the creationist's book--unless you found a reliable source had published an analysis of the creationist's theory showing it to be "verifiable."  However, the creationist's words would not be "original research" on a page about the creationist--because what the creationist publishes under her own name shows that the words are "verifiable" by a reliable source as to what the creationist has said. --Rednblu 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the same fine distinction: vikipedia cannot vouch for "correctness" of the creationist, but if this guy makes enough buzz, his opinion is verifiable, and, bearing in mind   the "Wikipedia:Undue weight"  rule, it may be presented in the form of opinion. Exactly like ""An angry wife said that...", but in its own scope of relevance. Also please don't forget that knowledge of misconceptions is also a useful kind of knowledge. `'mikka 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "verifiability"

message: Is there a forum where some sources may be discussed for reliability? In the context of a single article, it may be decided within this article. But what is a source is quoted in a large number of articles for various topics?
My question is triggered by the following issue I sumbled upon Talk:Qazakh, where credibility of a certain "Andrew Anderson" was heavily questioned. It seems that this professor does not have a single peer-reviewed publication (at least his defenders provided none), but it turns out that wikipedia is filled with references to his self-published website. So instead of leading the same debate in 40+ pages, I would like to resolve the issue in one page. 
Please comment, both on the particluar case and the applicable forum. `'mikka 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite realistically, the appropriate forum probably is the article's talk page, with the specific context of what the source is being used for. A given source is not necessarily always reliable or always not, it may be very reliable for certain areas and not so reliable outside its area of focus or expertise. Of course, if it's decided that a source is not reliable in a certain area it's been used for, that discussion could certainly be noted when discussing other articles that use it in a similar vein. Of course, there are some baselines (must be fact-checked/editorially controlled/peer-reviewed in some way, self-published sources should be used with great caution, etc.), that apply across the board. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for detailed but useless advice. This is a specific example of a self-published source by an author without verifiable credentials extensively used in numerous wikipedia articles. Obviously some people are pushing him here strongly. I don't want to spend 3 months endlessly repeating the same arguments in each of 40+ talk pages. I want this source in or out once and for all. The question is: how I can do this? `'mikka 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One possibility is to choose one of the article talk pages, open a discussion section there, then put notes on all the other article talk pages inviting people to come to the one selected article talk page and discuss the specific issue there.  --Coppertwig 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea <banging on my own head with a volume of EB for stupidity>. It is even easier than that:  as I said, the issue has already been discussed for over a month in Talk:Qazakh. `'mikka 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mikka, the professor can be used even as a self-published source if he's writing within his own area of expertise and if he's a widely acknowledged professional expert in that field. He can also be used in his own article. Anywhere else, it's not allowed, and the amount of links you pointed out do look like spamming. Coppertwig's idea is a good one. Pick one of the talk pages to post your query on, then invite people on the other pages to comment there. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, you are the second person in this section who gives an advice without reading the question. The discussed professor does not show any  traces of acknowledgement of his expertise  despite a long talk in  Talk:Qazakh. `'mikka 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to discuss massive dubious sources? 

message: Lately, I've been on the bad end of violating WP:ATT. The problem? I've been writing about a fictional source. I'm not saying that there should be a WP:ATTFIC right now (although it would certainly solve quite a few problems for me, heh), but something could be said about making an official policy that allows, say, the fictional topic's source material to be used without some people getting all uppity about it. Hell, at least one featured article, supposedly one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community, uses its source material for almost all of its citations. I already can expect how this article is going to go, but feel free to discuss. Scumbag 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek, I didnt notice the 'There are no policy innovations suggested' line, so I'm not sure if I'm in the wrong for suggesting this here. Sorry if I am. Scumbag 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The fiction work itself can be used as a primary source for information within that source, however, any source of interpretation or synthesis of that source would need its own reliable source. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but the problem is that where I see using a primary source for information, other people are seeing interpretation or synthesis. Never mind that the information is literally "Look at this. See this? This is what is being said." Sigh. Scumbag 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a lot easier to step over the line into synthesis then you might think, when using only a primary source. "Darth Vader kills Emperor Palpatine in order to save his son, Luke." That may seem trivial and obvious, but "just from watching the movie", it is synthesis-you don't know what was going through Vader's head. (Nor just from the original movies is it even certain that Vader is Luke's father-he says so, and Luke and Leia believe him, but that's not actually confirmed until later additions to the canon storyline.) On the other hand, of course, "Star Wars Magazine states that Vader killed Palpatine to save his son, Luke" is perfectly alright-it's attributed to someone besides "The editor who wrote this here interprets it so". That's why we should always work mainly from secondary sources, not primary. It's too easy to step into synthesis, and what can be said without it is dry and obvious. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random idea - Attribution (Fiction) 

message: Well, in the course of twenty four hours, we've typed an awful lot. How about a straw poll, at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll, to get a ballpark idea of what people are thinking about the future of these pages - after which we readjourn to this talk page and debate the merits of specific proposals for what will eventually happen. This way, we can quickly get some ideas of what people are thinking and then refine these ideas via discussion, which will, hopefully, lead to a consensus on the issue. How does this sound? (Anybody who rants about how polls are evil instead of participating will be whacked with a wet trout.) Picaroon 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think it would be a better to get some firm facts as to what everyone is thinking, it will make discussion much easier for the next step Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bingo. That's pretty much my concern in a nutshell. We still need the NOR and WP:V pages. Well put, Jimbo. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How are the two different, exactly? (All I've ever heard is that WP:NOR basically exists to tell people that "I saw it myself!" is not a valid way of attributing/verifying information.) --tjstrf talk 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw poll is fine provided the question is specific. It is best to keep policy pages short. We refer people to them on specific matters (especially from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam on people who keep adding links to their sites) and the talk pages work as pretty good FAQs on those matters. "Super" policy pages may have sections on each relevant matter but the talk pages are a dogs breakfast. So if you want to go for a big attribution page prepare a small army of helpdesk type people for the FAQs on the talk pages even if just to refer to the last bit of archive. Got an army? If so send them to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam where they could help... if not then don't try and merge them. --BozMo talk 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement that the merger was not handled as well as it could have been. When I first heard about it, it was already in process.  There were posts here that there had been "lots of discussion," but when I asked for links to these discussions, nothing was provided.  So I'm glad that the issue is being re-opened. --Elonka 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done some consistency and bias removal on the poll page.  Also restored its talk page (was a redir to this talk page, but should be separate so that issues about the poll can be discussed separately from issues about these policies.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a straw poll?

message: One suggestion I have, after reading the comment about overlapping discussion on the talk pages of the separate policies. When they overlap a lot, and a merger is not thought suitable for whatever reason, is it not possible to have the talk pages merged? Or would that be too confusing. What I was thinking is that the talk page for Wikipedia:Attribution could also be the talk page for WP:V and WP:NOR? Also, regarding overlapping policies in general, Jimbo, are you aware of WP:LAP? If more policy streamlining is going to happen, that might be a good place to advertise. Carcharoth 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be unbearably confusing.  The few places I see this (e.g. Template talk:Ref harv) I can see what the rationale was, but it is still confusing and jarring.  Especially since it breaks the "x page" tab (the thing to the left of the "discussion" tab). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While seeking consensus on multiple discussion pages can be confusing, this discussion page is rather hi-traffic.  Breaking up the discussion at least would probably be a good thing.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another suggestion

message: User Jimbo Wales, I'm really glad to see your note:  another user chiming in on the side of criticizing the action, which some editors tried to carry out, of merging longstanding policy pages.
My main concerns are that I'm strongly against some of the wording in this new, proposed policy, and that there was not a proper procedure followed for a major change in policy such as this proposed merge.
The discussion was not wide enough.  Because there was no merge tag on, for example, Wikipedia:Verifiability during the months of development of Wikipedia:Attribution, many people who should have been included in the discussion were not aware of it and were not included.
In spite of the narrower scope of discussion, no proper consensus was ever achieved.  People claimed that "there was consensus", but it's hard to determine what, if anything, was meant by that.  Apparently it didn't mean that there were no objections;  it didn't mean that there were no strong objections;  it didn't mean that all the objections had been discussed;  it didn't mean that the people objecting "consented" to the new wording;  it didn't mean that there was any poll to count the number of people objecting or the number supporting the new wording;  it didn't mean that the consensus wording was developed by allowing people to freely revert the wording if they didn't like it.  Did it mean anything?
What actually happened was that objections were expressed;  there was little or no in-depth discussion of the objections (at least one question was left completely unanswered, for example), and it was declared that "there is consensus" even though there were some disagreements.  (See the "It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus." section on this talk page for a list of some objections that were raised shortly before "consensus" was declared.)
Consensus is supposed to mean that disagreements are identified and recognized;  there is discussion of the disagreements;  there are attempts at compromise or at finding solutions that satisfy everyone;  and finally that those who disagree are asked for their "consent" to proceed in spite of their objections.  This didn't happen, even among those who were involved in the discussion.
There was a merge tag on Wikipedia:Verifiability for only about 8 days, I think.  That's far too short a time period.  People need time to notice the merge tag, and to go through the long archives of discussion to see whether their concerns have already been discussed, before formulating a response.  Even ordinary article pages are suppposed to have merge tags for 2 weeks, I think.  Policy pages need a much slower process.  
I will still need more time, if it is decided to keep the new page, to think over various parts of the new page, compare it to the older pages and see whether there's anything I'd like to contribute, comment on or object to.  However, I think the original purpose of the merge was to reduce the number of pages, so if the other pages are kept as user Jimbo Wales suggests (and he has a good point about the meaning of links to the various pages), then perhaps it makes more sense to demote Wikipedia:Attribution to historical interest. --Coppertwig 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It wasn't a proper process for a major policy change.

message: Following quote from Jimbo, in reference to a section of an article which draws on court filings:
:I removed the section about the lawsuit as being (quite blatantly) original research of the sort that Wikipedia must avoid. This is actually an excellent example of what is wrong with original research in Wikipedia -- by drawing selectively on sources, the section gave an impression that is significantly at odds with the views of relevant parties to the dispute, so that WP:NPOV was badly violated.
:Wikipedia should not be held hostage by people who are doing original research in support of an agenda. If it is reported in some reliable source, then we can report on that. But we do not engage in original research
This seems to conflict with the idea of "original research" that is provided here.  Citing primary sources without drawing novel conclusions from the sources isn't OR.  Or should we go ahead and delete everything drawn from primary sources, per Jimbo's ruling?  Guettarda 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda, perhaps you misunderstood me because I was not clear.  The issue is that original conclusions were being drawn.  The result was a synthesis of facts that was significantly objected to by the subject of the biography.  This is what is wrong with original research.  I am not aware of making any ruling here.--Jimbo Wales 16:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Citing primary sources needs to be done with care. Selective citing can be misleading. Citing sources is no good if you don't present a balanced picture. That, at the end of the day, is what WP:NPOV is about - presenting a balanced picture. The sources allow verifiability, but the editorial decisions about what weight to give each part of an article determines the balance of an article. Personally, despite the punchiness of WP:NPOV, the phrasing 'neutral point of view' can be extremely misleading, as people think it means being neutral, when in fact it means presenting all relevant points of view with the appropriate weighting. Carcharoth 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is what is being done with the primary sources, not the sources themselves.  The problem is that too often editors draw (or strongly imply) a conclusion based upon primary sources.  That is clearly wrong.  However, I don't think we can completely ban primary sources.  In some cases (such as articles relating to Medieval history) they are the best and most reliable sources we have.  They can also often be used reliably (and appropriately) as citations to back statements of opinion.  The issue is agendas not sources. Blueboar 16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Summaries of legal cases seem to be prone to selective quoting. I've seen a few articles which quoted parts of testimony without mentioning the rebuttal, nor the judge's instruction clarifying what parts of the testimony were relevant to which parts of the case. Arguments in a filing may not be found acceptable in court. If possible, better to use a case summary from a law journal. Gimmetrow 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh Christ, I might have known it was bloody Langan again - that man has attracted more vanity and POV-pushing edits than any ten other articles combined, I reckon.  Anyway, I for one did not take part in the supposed ocnsensus to merge the three here because last time I looked there were a lot of people saying "nice in theory, but..." and it looked set to die a death, so I left it at that.  Wherever the discussion was advertised, I did not see it.  I saw the announcement but never thought to check the claim that it was based on consensus.  I don't think having WP:NOR and WP:V separate is at all problematic, and if WP:RS were to be merged back into an attribution guideline which referenced slimmed-down versions of WP:OR and WP:V, wich lost all the examples in the process, I'd think Jimbo would be happy enough. In as much as there was ever a problem that needed fixing, it was always with WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original research" 

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought
:False dichotomy. Not follows from the definition of encyclopedia. `'mikka 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the compendium definition?"A compendium is a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge." Possibly. Anyway, the sentence should read: " As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." The original sentence you quote does still mean that, just not as clearly. It's a subtlety of the English language. Possibly the use of an em-dash (I'm amazed - there are half a dozen type of dashes I had never heard of...) would make it clearer that the second clause is following from the first: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a publisher of original thought. Carcharoth 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sentence was good within WP:NOR (I guess it was borrowed from there), where it was, like, "nail, meet the hammer": wikipedia: No original research, period, no joking. But this page must start differently. Being the very fist sentence and lacking the context of the previous title "WP:NOR", after reading it, the impression is "Oh, really? what about great first encyclopedists who put an enormous amount of their own original thought? What about EB which is full of quite biased personal opinions of experts - authors of the articles?" or "Yup, so what? Of course wikipedia is not a publisher of cartoons or memoirs or something else, what's the big deal?" The issue is not that wikipedia is not publisher of clean-cut original thought, the issue is that the original thought is not allowed in any amount. `'mikka 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. You've distracted me. I'm now reading Encyclopédie and Cyclopaedia. Interesting stuff. Carcharoth 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and a good exercise in the discussed policy, too. `'mikka 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: mikkalai makes a good point.  The only one of our content policies that is inherent in the idea of being an encyclopaedia is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (and its ancillaries such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary).  Verifiability and no original research are not inherent in the nature of encyclopaedias.  They are consequences of the way that this particular encyclopaedia is written.  See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The Wikipedia model and sources and fact checking. Uncle G 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 1

message: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
# The phrase is based on undefined things: what is reliable source? `'mikka 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 2

message: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.
:Hidden circular logic: the wikilink pipes to WP:NOT, which is in its turn  based in WP:NOR.
::Good point. Carcharoth 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  The link directs users to a relevant page that provides useful information, and which is policy in its own right.  That it links back to this page isn't a problem, IMO. JulesH 07:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with your disagree. The link redirects directly to the section Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (a yet another example of abuse of wikilink piping IMO). And IMO it is strange for a policy to refer to its summary elsewhere: a plain waste of reader's time. On the other hand, if you wanted to bring in a reference to a yet another important policy, a proper way would be something like this: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for other kinds of information inappropriate for Wikipedia). `'mikka 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 3

message: Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed.
:1ts half is a repetition of the very nearby sentence #2. 2nd half must clearly give an impression that it is not OK, despite the "inpractice" clause, because this way of phrasing hints at cutting some slack: yeah, it is 65 mph speed limit, but 71.5 is usually OK. You cannot state policies in this way.
:*Again, half the problem is in attribution not verification.  The other is -able.  Statements in articles should be capable of being checked and providing sources helps that, with the onus being on the editor who introduces the statement.  But when statements can be easily be checked, sources need not be included and, at least for unpolished articles outside WP:BLP, lack of sources is not in itself grounds for removing statements in articles.  Lack of sources combined with other contra-indications (including general implausibilty) is more likely to be. --Henrygb 01:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *:Sorry to disagree: "when statements can be easily be checked", sources may be added just as easily as that. What's the fuss? Just do it, and and done with it. `'mikka 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *::WP:V used to have a guide to fact checking and told editors that providing sources would help other editors.  Instead we are heading to a position which encourages mass deletion of useful content. --Henrygb 02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *:::Here I have to agree with you, surprize :-) In case you didn't notice this is already happening, and I wanted to bring this issue to our attention as well, but unfortunately I have a short attention span. Glad you brought it in. When today's dust settles down I'd like to duscuss how this precaution must be incorporated into the policy. There is a huge amount of articles created in early days of wikipedia when there was no such drive for attribution, and now they are under the threat of AfD or butchering by overzealous purists. In early policies I remember there was something about "due diligence" of fact checking before deletion. After all, this is a collaborative effort. I'd suggest to think of incorporating this "due diligence" clause somewhere related to the implementation of the policy. `'mikka 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *:::User:Uncle G/On sources and content#How to deal with unsourced content continues to make that point, if it helps. ☺ Uncle G 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 4

message: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
:Wrong. Everything must be attributed. I may only guess that the author wanted to say that "not every sentence must be supplied with an inline reference". It is quite possible that some text is based on some thick book, possibly not readily available. It is quite natural that someone at the first glance may question some phrases. To preclude a possible waste of time on discussions, it does make sense to provide inline refs "for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" in addition to the corresponding entry in the "References" section.
::This point, and the above one, are more issues of editing practices. We don't want to discourage laissez-faire contributions from anon contributors, which dedicated long-term editors can later tidy up (wikify, format, correct layout, copyedit, and, gasp, attribute). We want to emphasise attribution without forcing people to include it everytime they write something. It is terribly tempting to write something and then leave it for someone else to tidy up. "Oh, no-one will challenge that. I'll come back and add some attributions later if anyone raises any objections". Of course, the right way to think about it is "If I could come back in 100 years time, would what I wrote still be here? Hmm. I'd better add some attributions if I want my contributions to be of any lasting value, and not merely swept out with the next bout of spring-cleaning." Personally, I agree, we should just make the rule that everything must be attributed, and then leave it unwritten that in reality people do add unattributed stuff that is only attributed and tidied up much later. Carcharoth 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: laissez-faire contributions from anon contributors most probably don't read our policies, don't worry about them. Anyway, I know what you are talking about, but as I was pointed out in this very talk page, "editing practices" belong to FAQ. `'mikka 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is silly to say that statments like  "The sun rises in the east." or "The Thames flows through London" needs to be attributed in every article that mentions such a fact. This needs to be qualified with a statment like that in OR "— or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." --Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the better lines.  Though I would say "reliable sources are required for attributed quotations and for ..." Attribution is simply X said "Y", and it is the source that matters.  But if something is unlikely to be challenged because it is both accurate and uncontroversial then sources are less relevant.  Take this edit  - I had never heard of the Vysochanskiï-Petunin inequality as such before that date, but I would have changed 5/9 to 4/9 and 0.062 to 0.04938 even without a source simply because it was wrong. On the other hand the √(8/3) comes from the source (which took some time to find). If the article had required a source before it was written nobody would have written it. Now we have a sourced article, exactly because we didn't insist on everything being sourced. --Henrygb 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, colleague, just as well I can bring you a dozen of examples when out of the blue an anon changes the population of Zanzibumbia from 200,000 to 210,000. Am I supposed to believe him just because it is so hard to find books about Western Murumbai? A policy is a policy is a policy. Any slack is at the discretion of editors. After all, we do have Be Bold and stuff, dont we? `'mikka 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use real examples. You don't need attribution for saying the Battle of Trafalgar was a British victory.  You may need a source for saying what is the GDP per head of Equatorial Guinea, because reliable sources disagree by a factor of 20.--Henrygb 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "real examples": are you kidding me? I am reverting half a dozen of such examples daily. Please let me repeat again, please don't confuse "quoting" and "attribution". Please allow me to repeat again: a valid attribution would be one big thick book in the "References" section. It will cover all non-controversial text in one fell swoop. `'mikka 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you, but nowadays people will slap  on the article if you do that, citing this policy. --Conti|✉ 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you list  on TFD and let me know, I will gladly vote for it deletion. IMO it is an instrument of abuse for those who are lazy enough to place  where they are needed. There are quite a few people whose 90% of edits are greeting of newcomers, spreading smileys, signing guestbooks, and having other fun, including wikilawyering and policing. `'mikka 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Inline attribution is not a requirement of this policy.  If somebody is reading it as if it is, then they are very wrong.  I quote the relevant section, excising unnecessary details and introducing highlighting: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote [...]; other methods [...] are also acceptable. JulesH 07:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mikka wrote "a valid attribution would be one big thick book in the "References" section." This is very true, and I'm sure some inappropriate fact templates have been slapped on sentences because the person placing the template didn't have, or didn't read, the general references provided in the References section. At the same time, if one is writing an article on an advanced topic, such as integrated circuits, one might not feel the need to find a book on high-school level basic electricity to back up a fact that was too elementary to be mentioned in the integrated circuit texts. Such a basic fact would be attributable, but not attributed.--Gerry Ashton 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't forget the power of wikilinks. If you are writing on an advanced topics and you need a "V = IR cos Phi", most probably there is a high-school level article to link to, where some college grad already provided a ref to his favorite teacher's textbook.  `'mikka 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read the policy, there is no need to attribute the elementary, uncontroversial fact, neither with a footnote, nor with a general reference, until such time as it is challenged. I would also argue that not only is that what the policy says, but that is what the policy should say, because attributing incidental facts that readers of the article probably know already is mere clutter, and does not benefit the reader. (By the way, V = IR cos Phi is at least freshman electrical engineering, not high school, and does not come up much in integrated circuits, since they operate on DC rather than AC power.) --Gerry Ashton 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK let's start from the very beginning, to establish a rapport.  May be we are speaking about different things or I am not writing clearly to fit your train of thought. Please give me an example of an "elementary uncontroversial fact" and the context where it is mentioned.  `'mikka 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "There is no need to attribute the elementary, uncontroversial fact, neither with a footnote, nor with a general reference, until such time as it is challenged." Theoretically, yes. But we have enough people who challenge every sentence without a shiny <ref>-tag on principle, and so our de facto status (supported by this policy) is that we indeed have to cite absolutely everything with in-line citations. --Conti|✉ 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is a very cheap price to add a reference to a general textbook than sit and watch the watchlist waiting for some troll to request a quotation to the fact that an average human has 10 fingers. Yes, you have to sit and watch and wait, because "a challenged material may be removed" per policy. Even a whole article may be tagged by  and if you don't respond in a couple days it is gone with a whim. And I personally restored several such pages after noticing sudden appearance of red links in some articles. (It indicatess that certain areas of knowledge are understaffed in wikipedia.) `'mikka 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, the two most obvious cases where "humans have ten fingers" is stated, I would actually consider worth referencing: Finger goes on to explain that "Some English speakers may consider the thumb to be a type of finger, leading to the conclusion that humans have five fingers on each hand. Others may consider the term 'finger' to apply only to those four digits that are medial to the thumb, leading to the conclusion that humans have four fingers on each hand," while Decimal states "It is the most widely used numeral system, perhaps because humans have four fingers and a thumb on each hand, giving a total of ten digits over both hands.". Although extraordinarily rudimentary facts like that might not need refs by themselves, it's the act of putting it into context where refs matter. Nifboy 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that my examples here hit the nail of the policy. After reading the above text in the article, I double-checked with dictionaries, and this is not what they say. The dictionaries say something like "One of the five digits of the hand, especially one other than the thumb." or "one of the five end parts of the hand, sometimes excluding the thumb". the key difference is that dictionaries say that in certain contexts (I guess when the distinction is important) we have 8 fingers, in others we have 10. A quick google check seems to confirm: when I want to play guitar, I have 4 fingers, but when I learn typing I have all 10 of them.  In other words, the "Some English speakers" text smacks someone's interpretation, rather than fact. `'mikka 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 5

message: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.
:Why don't you say it directly: "The burden of attribution"?
::I agree. Carcharoth 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no consensus on attribution rather than verifiability. --Henrygb 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate. If we don't have a consensus about attribution what the heck this very policy was doing here? Second, what type of "evidence" you have in mind other than attribution? `'mikka 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts are in the talk archives.  The policy should be about encyclopedic accuracy by making verification possible, not through mandatory attribution of everything.  I cannot see a policy consensus on attribution in the archives either here or at WP:V, or in the general practice of editors.  --Henrygb 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not answering my question. We are discussing a very specific phrase here: "The burden of evidence" vs. my version "The burden of attribution". If you give me an example of another kind of evidence admissible in wikipedia other than attribution, I will gladly close this item, because my goal was to be as specific as possible here. `'mikka 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because "the burden of evidence" is a common phrase that captures the meaning we want to convey neatly.  "The burden of attribution" will require readers to think about what we mean more, because it's an unfamiliar phrase. JulesH 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly because  "the burden of evidence" is a common phrase, it requires the reader to think about what we mean more, because this phrase means different things in different contexts. In particular, the reader may stop pondering: are there other ways to provide evidence other than by attribution? Do you have an answer to this question in the policy? ""Because it is an unfamiliar phrase": if a person ener heard the "BurOfEv", they will readily recognize the meaning of "BurOfAttr". There is even a term for this kind of rhetorical device of slightly tweaking a common say (I cound not find it in wikipedia, though). `'mikka 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 6

message: If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
:"Should not" is sloppy wording. A reference to WP:AFD is required.
::Possibly. Though Wikipedia:Deletion policy might be better. Carcharoth 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that it is the topic, not the article, being described.  And that is how it should remain. --Henrygb 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I noticed this. Note also the language: "article topic", implying that there is an article. Which "should not". Hence immediate relevance of a reference to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is quite cheap to insert. How else you can decide that  "topic has no reliable sources" other than bringing the issue to a broad attention, unless you can read in all human languages and have read it all? `'mikka 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there should be such a link here. JulesH 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In what way is "should not" sloppy wording? JulesH 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had explained this in the next equally short sentence. Because it is incomplete: "should not", but it has. What shall we do? You and I know what to do but some users don't. A problem major is to find the place where a required policy sits in some cases even for experienced editors. `'mikka 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 7

message: Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies.
#Must be the very first sentence, according to the long-standing tradition of wikipedia that the article title must be present in the first sentence (and I see no important reasons to do otherwise here). 
#:This entire paragraph was the first paragraph during an early draft of the writing process, but was moved down to its current location so that we could introduce the more important concepts of what attribution is and why it is important before discussing what it means that it's a policy.  I'd suggest unbolding the page name in this sentence and introducing a new sentence at the start to introduce the concept if you think this is necessary. JulesH 07:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 8

message: The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
:If S 8 moved on top, this must be uttered differently.
::Again, I oppose moving this to the top, because it is less important than the information already above it.  But I suggest a complete change, in line with my removal of the number of policies anyway.  This paragraph needs a substantial rewrite, IMO. JulesH 08:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 9

message: Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view.
:Empty pseudosignificant statement: 
:#what the heck is "type and quality"? The words are so broad that meaningless, often used only to create an illusion of something improtant. 
:#The "that is" is a repetition (i.e., waste of reader's time and brainpower: I don't know about others, but when I read such things I am jumping from one sentence to another comparing them and  painfully trying to figure out what important I (moron) am missing here, only to see that yep, the same exact words, nothing new).
:::Well, different readers react differently. Some find more words helpful, Some find fewer words helpful. The important point is to provide a range of documentation so that different readers can find what suits them. Some will avidly read all the policy and guideline documents. Others just want a bullet-pointed list as an aide memoire, while others again will want a long and detailed FAQ, and some gluttons for punishment will want to endlessly debate minutiae of details and examples (um, I guess that last section is us, right?). Carcharoth 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about "more or less words." I am talking about repetition in the same short intro. I would be totally OK, if this sentence were basicaly the same, but in different words (I agree that different readers react to one and the same text differently, but I doubt that literal repetition within the scope of a pair of sentences is anything else but waste). What is more, the policy is a reference.  All repetitions and explanations must go into FAQ, where it is quite normal that each answer may repeat one and the same, most probably slightly rephrased, to fit the question. `'mikka 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When we had this discussion during writing this sentence, the consensus was that the repetition was useful because it emphasised the core point of the policy. JulesH 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetition makes sense when things are repeated beyond the attention span. I seriously doubt that repetition side by side serves any useful purpose. On the contrary, it looks dumb: "Wikipedia:Attribution  and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view together mean that content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view." `'mikka 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 10

message: Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one
another.''
:Pseudologic. Nothing is "because" here. Compare: "because the policies are complementary (i.e., cover complementary, i.e., different aspects)", they may be considered independently." Sounds equally plausible.
::"Because the policies are two sides of the same coin"? Probably too metaphoric. I wonder... Two sides of the same coin. No, it was too much to hope for. Carcharoth 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're using an odd definition of "complementary" there.  The Compact Oxford uses "combining so as to form a complete whole or to enhance each other".  "Because the policies combine so as to form a complete whole, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" makes perfect sense to me, and is totally logical IMO. JulesH 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is odd. "to complement" means to "add what is mising" ... "is often applied to putting together two things, each of which supplies what is lacking in the other, to make a complete whole: " (Random House Unabridged Dictionary). Further, what "complete whole" they represent? If you are thinking about this neat "two core content policies" phrase, there is also a bunch of non-core but just as important content policies, such as WP:NOT. The sentence sounds plausible, becase the conclusion part ("should not.. in isolation") is basically correct. There is a poorly known law of mathematical logic which basically says that the statement "if all sheep are black then the Earth rotates around the Sun" is true. But surely you would not use such a sentence to defend Copernicus. In our case a truly cause-and-effect phrase would be something like this: "Because the policies cover different aspects of the same topic, i.e., of the content of wikipedia, they should not ...etc.", the key point here being  "of the same topic", rather than an accidental fact that there are only two of policies (under a certain agreement of counting), so that they happen to complement each other.  `'mikka 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 11

message: For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ. 
:To refer to FAQ without describing the "key aspects" first looks illogical. One may easily think that all written above ARE  the "key aspects" (they do look like the "key" ones to me...) and jump right into FAQ. At the very least the phrasing should be, e.g., "The key aspects are summarized below. For detailed explanations and examples, see FAQ.
::I agree. Carcharoth 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the rephrasing suggestion, although I disagree that the current version is illogical. JulesH 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S 12

message: I've done this tedious exercise to substantiate my expressed opinion that WP:ATTR was "poorly structured, repetitive and confusing text", which someone considered as a merely incivil remark to be ignored (and rightly so). If someone tells me that it would make some sense, I may continue this enumeration.
`'mikka 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the above. I find this sort of nit-picking very helpful. I do it myself to some extent, but it is tiresome to quibble over what at the end of the day is style versus clarity. You can argue til you are blue in the face, but some people really won't see much difference with these tweaks, and some will prefer the 'wrong' version. :-) I agreed with most of what you said though. Carcharoth 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your opinion is noted. Just be aware that the issue brought up by Jimbo was not about the content of WP:ATT, but about the change of structure of the separate policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be aware that I don't care where my opinion is noted by you or not. Since you are not discussing  the essence of the proposal, allow me to consider your bashing me as trolling. Your habit of speaking about yourself in passive voice as if you represent some kind of an authoritative oversight committee is also noted. `'mikka 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To those who may think that Jossi is entitled to interpret Jimbo's words (even though they are right here, even unarchived), let me directly quote: "and the result is completely incoherent.". In other words, Jossi's statement that "Jimbo was not" is false.  `'mikka 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that many of the issues you raise above, were and continue to be official policy with or without ATT. ATT did not change policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that your persistent refusal to discuss any changes is duly noted and disagreed. `'mikka 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You could have made your argument without making value judgments such as "bossy", and that would have been better received. As I said before, if you want me (or others) to take you seriously and respond to your comments, then avoid making such value judgments of your fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Although the texts of the pages is pretty similar, the titles give them different meanings.  Take a small town like Selma, Oregon, for instance.  I'm sure there exists reliable sources to prove its existence, but right now it's only reference is google maps.  I don't know if that is a RS, but it didn't even have that a few months ago.  If someone put it up for AfD, it seems like Keep per Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Delete per Wikipedia:Attribution, would both kind of roll off the tongue easily.  The first seems to ask "can we find reliable sources," the second seems to ask "have we found reliable sources."  Maybe small towns are AfD proof, so it isn't the best example, but you can see what I mean. - Peregrine Fisher 07:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really, AfD debates shouldn't be deleting due to lack of sources. It should be - do we need this article in the encyclopedia? Not, has someone made this up? If it obviously exists, then the article merely waits for someone to come along with more references and sources. Deletion in that case would be destructive and unecessary, requiring recreation later. Carcharoth 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really, this is not what actually happens during AfD debates. "If it obviously exists," then one must have no trouble to find a valid reference. If you don't provide it in 5 days, goodbye article. And I strongly suspect you cannot change this. The policy for quite some time clearly says in one way or another: "the burden of evidence is on the author". `'mikka 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Population 1,934 is doubtless from the 2000 census, as the date would indicate. Checking this would be a service to Wikipedia, but not one I feel inspired to make at the moment.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution sounds way different from Verifiability 

message: Thanks to the confusion over whether this supersedes Wikipedia:Verification or not, the shortcuts are now messed up. WP:V redirects to Wikipedia:Verification, as before, but Wp:v and other alternative capitalisations redirect here to WP:ATT. Similar problems exist with WP:RS and WP:NOR. Please can someone clarify whether this is current policy, and whether WP:V and WP:NOR are current or defunct policies? This kind of confusion is going to really mess up the AfD process, particularly as WP:N is now under dispute as well. What happened to clear, simple and unambiguous policy statements, like we used to have back in the halcyon days of February? Walton Vivat Regina! 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, things are now in a total mess...

message: There is some discussion of renaming/moving Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (discussion here). I know this is OT but I thought I'd mention it here to make people aware, since a lot of people interested in policy are checking it out. And to make it on topic, I agree with the point above that the part where it says "Together with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the two determine the type and quality of material" but for a different reason. By referring to only the two, it ignores the fact that BLP also determines the type of information. To be fair, we do mention BLP in this policy so provided we emphasise enough that BLP is a consideration, I guess it's okay. I've tried to improve this by mentioning privacy. Privacy is an important, additional consideration which doesn't really have much to do with sourcing (obviously we need good sources) or negative material (someone's birthday or kids names is not usually negative material). Nil Einne 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: Whatever this huge mess turns out to be, I have a humble request: In the Bright New Future, Please keep this verbiage:
: Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
(My emphasis) As well as the FAQ entry that says that the preferred way to deal with the lack of sourcing is to try to provide sources, tag the problematic parts, and only delete as the last resort.
The way I saw it, the old WP:V policy was used as a cop-out: "I want this thing deleted. Oh, looks like this is like 90% of all Wikipedia articles, devoid of sources. That ought to do it. What? I don't need to look for sources anyway, that's the author's job! I'm just the guy who deletes stuff!" It's frustrating when people bring articles to AfD just because they don't have sources! I've seen articles survive AfDs because the sources were handed to the people on silver platter, then a bit later the nominator says "funny that the sources haven't been added to the article"! Oh, please have a nice cup of , the people did already provide the sources!
The Attribution policy at least tries to encourage people to be a little bit more proactive and try to fix the situation first. And that's the giant big good thing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, to a point. The nominator should try to find sources, but that's out of courtesy so that people don't have to waste their time arguing against deletion when there were plenty of sources readily available. It's still the authors' responsibility to find sources, not the nominator's responsibility to prove that they can't. Because it's nearly impossible to prove that there are no sources for something, which doesn't mean we should keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. -Amarkov moo! 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of this is that an author should do his research and have his sources lined up before he adds something to the article. Blueboar 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, but the Verifiability says that everything, I mean everything, has to be sourced, and you're evil if you let that stand in the article. You can delete almost everything from most article lead sections: "Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection." Says  who? Lies... "This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species." Really? Really? Should I slap s here, or delete them right away as the old WP:V demands? A question of etiquette... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yep. Which is why I like the model presented in FAQ: If it can be easily demonstrated that at least someone has tried to resolve sourcing problems, then there's really nothing to be said. I'm not having problem with stuff that can't be sourced; I'm more of having problem with people who say "well, I spent whole two minutes on this AfD nomination, I got 1,500,000 Google hits, but they're all probably worthless anyway. Let's delete this." ...and after 5 days it turns out to be very significant. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand... at some point we have to draw the line ... I frequently surf around and find articles with no sources.  If I know nothing about the topic, I can not add anything substantive to the article, and I usually don't know where to begin looking for reliable sources. My usual practice is to tag the article with an  tag and come back in a month or so... only to find that the article still has no references.  At that point I nominate it for deletion.  This usually results in a flurry of "Keep" votes from people who like the topic and think it is worthy of keeping, and  my practice is to say "OK, I will withdraw the Nomination to allow people time to find sources".  I then sit back and wait another month or so... at which point I nominate it again because no one bothered to actually add any sources to the article once I withdrew the nom to give them time to do so.  I then Repeat this process a few times until the article is either fixed (a very rare occurance) or deleted (this usually takes a few repetitions).  We say... "source, source, source" but do we really mean it? Blueboar 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do you really think that adding  to an article will help? We have tens of thousands of articles with that tag, and one more won't get it any kind of additional attention whatsoever. And AfD is a place for deleting articles, not to ask for sources. Maybe we need a new page, Wikipedia:Request for sources. One could nominate an article there, and instead of the endless "Delete, no sources!" - "No, keep! There are sources out there!" discussion, the goal of a nomination would be to actually find sources for a certain article, instead of discussing whether there are possibly sourced out there. If no sources can be found, AfD might be an option. --Conti|✉ 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia:Request for sources": I also was thinking about suggesting to complement each policy with a request page, but on the other hand, there already are categories which list artciles tagged as problematic. The solution would be to create the corresponding WikiProject with a dedicated task force which would not only bug authors of ill-fortuned articles, but proactively search for references and pinpoint the problematic places by replacing the global "unref" tag with strategically placed 's. This is what I usually do when I see an underreferenced article on AfD: If I am interested in the topic enough to vote to keep, I am also attempting to salvage it. `'mikka 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever the heck this mess turns out to be, please keep this stuff... 

message: Are there any guidelines or even essays on "Further reading" sections?  Can anyone suggest a better venue to discuss such sections, or is the best place to do so? --Ronz 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See our guidelines on the poorly named "external links" section. "Further reading" is merely a better name for the "external links" section". At least it was. Lately I've seen some people try to draw a distiction, which I believe to be a mistake. Conceptually we have internal links in a see also section that in a perfect article would either be incorporated into the text itself or be part of a navigation box; sources (both with and without links); and further reading (both with and without links). WAS 4.250 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally "External links" was to hold all external links in one place for easy maintenance, rather than to spread them all over the article. With the acceptance of inline quotations this goal became kinda unattainable, but still all ext links would visually land downwards (at least per guidelines) and one may keep an eye on spam, outdated, unreliable, etc. relatively easily, compared to early texts, full  of  this  unmanageable  kind  of weblinking. `'mikka 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have occasionally seen editors use "further reading" as a second "references" section for references to print sources that were not actually cited in the article. This is in addition to an "external links" section and is condoned by the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. CMummert · talk 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why "condoned"? I see it described and approved. the Guide gives some slack as to the usage of these tail section, insisting only that all refs used as source be found in the "Ref" or "Notes" sections. `'mikka 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're absolutely right; I was just being understated. CMummert · talk 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading is what I was looking for.  Sadly, it doesn't say much.  These sections can easily grow the same way a linkfarm does, though as a long list of related books and publications.  I suppose WP:NOT#REPOSITORY should apply though. --Ronz 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are significant efforts to keep linkfarmins/spamming at bay; in addition to WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, see Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. There is even a special template, , which warns that there  is a threat of linkfarming/spamming in a particular article. `'mikka 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's not so clear that these guidelines and policies apply to a list of books. --Ronz 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no problems with too long lists of books. For example Joseph Stalin#Further reading, has a really long one, but no one complains. One cannot invent all possible precautions and safeguards in advance. If ever we face the problem of abusive "book spamming", I am sure we will deal with it. `'mikka 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue that at a minimum, these should carry the same burden as WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. But it asks to avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources". Does it mean that any links in the article must satisfy WP:RS?  Actually, links like that Links to his articles Links to articles about him can be very helpful. I guess, these specific links do not  mislead the reader, so they are probably O'K as supplementaly links but not as a source. Biophys 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It also say: "Links normally to be avoided... Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.". One could argue that wikis like SourceWatch have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors".Biophys 01:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Further reading" sections

message: I was afraid this would happen... as soon as we made NOR, V, and RS active again people started trying to change them.  This is not the time to let these policies and guideline change.  People need to see things in the version they were when the merge took place to decide if they agree with it or not.  May I suggest that all the relevant pages be locked until the poll is over at least. Blueboar 00:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that wholeheartedly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do also, and I have protected WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS until the WP:ATT situation stabilizes. Crum375 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please protect also ATT. It is now only protected for new/unregistered users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Crum375 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please unprotect ATT.  I was in the process of making changes that have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, and which are necessary to bring the definition of original research we have on this policy into alignment with the definition used at WP:NOR, which they have now strayed apart from, particularly by not specifying that material is only original research if it serves to advance a position. JulesH 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I don't want to edit; we should have some page on which to try wordings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that from now until at least the poll results are in and there is some semblance of stability, we refrain from changes to the policies proper unless there is a wide consensus agreed upon on the ATT Talk page. Crum375 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with slowing down things a bit for a while. We need the stability until things can become clear on how to proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with slowness; but a freeze is beyond slowness. Nobody has been edit-warring, as far as I can see. Amd waiting for a poll which may not come off (see its most recent comments) is a bad idea.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see these protections staying for more than a day or two. It simply affords us some respite until things become clearer on how to proceed. We do not need to rush anything given what has happened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has a suggestion for a change, they can always raise it on the talk page, to be discussed and implimented once we know where to impliment it. Blueboar 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see #Original Research definition -- unified discussion (hopefully) above.  I believe this change is important and should be made ASAP to prevent a contradictory definition  of OR existing. JulesH 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:RS should not be protected, as its ultimate disposition is an entirely different matter than the current ATT/V/NOR dispute.  I'm also opposed to protecting any of these pages, but the lock-down at WP:RS in particular appears to be a conflict of interest.  There is no consensus to protect that page, and the protecting admin is an active party in the debates here.  (NB: I am not referring to :WP:COI, I mean "conflict of interest" in its more general sense, and I am not alleging any bad faith.  Just to be clear, since a number of people seem to enjoy misinterpreting me around here. :-)  NB: The RS protection has locked the page in a state in which material was removed from it without consensus.  Maybe that sounds like a "Wrong Version" argument, but at least myself, Centrx, DGG and Thoric want to restore the deleted clarification, and no one that I recall has questioned the restoration.  Even the reverter, Blueboar, says "I understand the points you are all making... but right now is not the time to be fixing it."  Give that consensus for merging :WP:RS into :WP:ATTFAQ has been questioned, :WP:RS is in fact an active guideline, so now emphatically is the time to fix this problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we freeze everything while we work on this? 

message: I have a strong objection to the new, proposed wording "not whether it is true" in a context unqualified by a word such as "verifiability".  I request that users SlimVirgin, Crum375 and jossi indicate recognition that I have a strong objection;  that there is a dispute;  and that there is not currently consensus for this wording.  I invite these users and anyone else interested in this issue to discuss it in the "#Role of truth" section on this talk page with the purpose of arriving at a consensus about what the wording should be.  --Coppertwig 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a matter of process, I would suggest that the new material at issue be removed until consensus is reached on it. That seems reasonable to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: NB: See also #It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus., which also raises some concerns with the passage in question.  I'm not offering an opinion on the matter at this time, because I'm trying behave more mediatorially than opinionally. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: At very least User:Coppertwig, User:Beit Or and User:Lethiere all seem to share the same (i.e. non-random or not out-of-left-field) concerns about this text, at #Role of truth, so I think that is a clear indication that it doesn't have consensus yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong objection 

message: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion 
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Propose merging of that new page into this one, to prevent any further fragmentation of the debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merger as disruptive. That discussion is already taking up a dozen sections on this talk page, and many elsewhere. Better to have it at one place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose being labelled "disruptive", as an unprovoked and unjustified assumption of bad faith and therefore a direct personal attack; already cautioned others here against such accusations.  To get back to the point, the very fact that the discussion is already taking up a lot of room here argues against creating yet another page to discuss it on.  It will result in an enormous pile of duplicative arguments, many of them already too heated.  This seems like simply throwing fuel on the fire.  It is better to have it at one place: here, where it's already been. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I find this "disruptive" label really ironic given that I have spent literally all day long in here trying to moderate disputes and reduce the heat of the arguments. <sigh>. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Do directly object to merger proposal, as detailed elsewhere. Hiding Talk  00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As do I. The new page is a good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand the difference. What should be discussed on this page, and what should be discussed on that page? --Conti|✉ 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is for people to give their opinion on the merger of V and NOR into one page here, ATT; it's a meta page, in other words. This talk page is to discus the policy itself, ask for clarification, ask for advice about sources, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. --Conti|✉ 03:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That actually more or less works even for me, but with caveats already given at the new page about not dismissing debates that have already taken place here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *That's a reasonable distinction, but if we're going to make it (as opposed to merging) someone should watchlist both and move any threads that spring up in the wrong place to the other side. >Radiant< 09:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]]: Join the discussion at 

message: Is  a reliable source for this:
:"The south end was opened up in 2003 and the new plan was put into effect on September 20, 2004."
It's self-published, but the author has been cited by newspapers, including:
:New York Times: "They were converted from horse power to an electric conduit system around 1898, said Joseph Brennan, a railroad and subway enthusiast who has created an..."
:New York Sun: "There are eight completely abandoned subway stations, a subway historian, Joseph Brennan, said."
:Columbia Daily Spectator: "According to Joseph Brennan, Columbia Senior User Services Consultant, who also studies subway history and life, the City Hall station was one of the first..."
I have not been able to find any newspaper articles or MTA press releases describing this change, but multiple sources which may be unreliable confirm the September 20, 2004 date. --NE2 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody dispute the assertion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I know. --NE2 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NE2, he wouldn't be an RS for anything contentious, but if this isn't disputed, you could perhaps use him but attribute the edit to him in the text. Something like "according to Joseph Brennan, a private xxx enthusiast ..." Strictly speaking, only professional self-published sources may be used, so if anyone objected to that edit, it would have to be removed, but the point is that no one is likely to object (reasonably) if the material is completely non-contentious. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know that some people object to such references on principle, right? Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with using the source in this case, but there's always someone who'll remove such a source because "it isn't a reliable source". --Conti|✉ 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should there be a lower standard of verifiability for non-contentious material? Aren't there people who come along and read the encyclopedia every once in awhile rather than just editing? Isn't saying a source is good enough until challenged pretty much the same as saying it is not a reliable source?—eric 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources have limitations and if we only had claims that were without doubt by anyone we would only have a blank page. The point is to be as useful and credible and accurate as we possibly can be so we have all these policies to help us do that. But the policies only work in the context of intelligent people using good sense. The policies can not substitute for actual informed understanding and reasonable judgement. Keep in mind our objective to produce an unbiased free (libre) credible encyclopedia and you won't go far wrong. WAS 4.250 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Completely non-contentious" could cover 80?, 90? percent of Wikipedia content. Would this source be appropriate for a good article? a featured article? or only the obscure articles which few editors are likely to visit? If, as you rightly suggest, an editor familiar with the subject matter uses good sense and decides this source is appropriate to use why should some random editor be able to come along and force it's removal? Or why should an editor working on non-contentious material be able to slack off and apply a lower standard of verifiability? I read SV's statement as: this source is good enough for our readers, but not good enough for any random editor that stops by the article.—eric 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a reliable source?

message: The current policy currently states that if A and B are both reliable sources, they still cannot be used together to advance opinion C. Specifically, "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."
But I have question on basis of logical reasoning. In philosophy, we call the idea hypothetical syllogism. The argument goes as follows: If Q, then R. If P, then Q. Therefore, if P, then R. This is a deductively valid argument. If P and Q are both true, then R is logically true as well. For example, consider the following argument: All cats are mammals. All mammals are warmblooded. Therefore, all cats are warmblooded. If we provide a reference for the first premise (all cats are mammals) and different reference for the second premise (all mammals are warmblooded), would we be be allowed to use that as justification for writing within an article "all cats are warmblooded"? ~ UBeR 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi UBeR, deductions are fine so long as they're obvious and don't serve to advance a position. If they do, you would need to find a source who made the argument in relation to the topic of the article. See here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi UBeR.  To expand on SlimVirgin's response, it's important to note that in controversial cases, where facts and arguments are widely disputed, we need to be particularly strict about sticking closely to sources.  For an article about biology, it would be perfectly acceptable to draw the conclusion about cats that you draw above, as this is a noncontroversial conclusion that is not in conflict with relevant sources.  However, in a controversial case, such as reporting on a political dispute, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to put forward arguments even if they are logically valid and the premises are based on impeccable sources.  This is because Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia is to report on the debates that have actually occurred, not to participate in these debates or provide a platform for people to advance new arguments. This is why the edits to the article you were editing at The Great Global Warming Swindle were labelled as original research. Enchanter 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. ~ UBeR 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for both the question and the answer. The question effectively nails down the common misconception that it is not original research if you provide bits of data that are individually verifiable from separate sources, and then either draw or lead the reader to draw an essentially original picture as a conclusion (whether deductive or otherwise). The answer explains why we do regard this as original research unless the conclusion itself is either non-controversial or attributable to a secondary source. Basically, we are not here to conduct our own investigations but merely to report what is already "out there". For that reason alone, the prohibition on original research is not just a matter of individual pieces of data being verifiable. There can be grey areas ("How controversial is this conclusion?" might sometimes be a question) but if the conclusion drawn is somehow tendentious or potentially harmful to someone we definitely regard it as controversial. Metamagician3000 03:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Formal logic is a wonderful thing. Did you know that "If (all cats are ten feet tall) then (black is black)" is logically speaking a necessarily true statement in formal logic? WAS 4.250 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's still not valid logic because it's a misuse of the if-then format. It's only true because if the premise has nothing to do with the conclusion, then I own a pet rabbit. --tjstrf talk 07:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tjstrf is correct. WAS 4.250, your argument implies nothing. Your premise is false. Discern between valid and true. There's quite a difference, albeit not mutually exclusive. ~ UBeR 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The difficulty here is that while it's easy to think of phrases like "All As are B" and "Jones is an A" as stone fact in formal logic, we rarely meet such an animal in the real world. We find that very few things are true of all "A"s -- there seem to be exceptions here and there. Then we find out there there are different views on whether Jones really is an "A" or not, different views of what it means to be a "B", and whether any A is a B or not turns out to be just someone's conjecture or opinion and someone else disagrees. So it often happens that when we put two people's opinions together to draw an inference, we end up with an original view that neither of the two sources (and perhaps nobody else) would actually agree with -- the person who thinks Jones is an A might have a completely different idea about what an A (or a B) is from the person who thinks all As are Bs.  Best, --Shirahadasha 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said; these are all very good points. When editors apply formal logic to justify the inclusion of OR, they often ignore the fact that they're (perhaps unintentionally) making a number of assumptions. The world is full of exceptions and loopholes and almost never operates by formal logic. ChazBeckett 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you said well too. Even the words "or" and  "and" may have different meanings in formal logic and in English language. `'mikka 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To address your specific situation first, if the film only "basically implies" something, why should be presenting it any differently? The article should include only what is presented in the film. It's up to readers to decide what the film implies. To address your points more generally, it's a fundamental mistake to equate the imprecise language of everyday speech with the precise language of mathmatics or logic. Trying to apply formal logic to someone's comments is a futile endeavor. Your pundit example clearly shows the problem with attempting to synthesize a person's comments. Some people are fond of exaggeration and hyperbole, making it nearly impossible to parse their statement in a logical manner. ChazBeckett 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for your explanation, ChazBeckett. One problem I think it's based off in climate related articles here on Wikipedia is that it is common for people to write "Scientist X goes against the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change" (they often use that article for the basis of their claim), despite the fact Scientist X never stated that! Instead, Scientist X is merely presenting other data that argues against what most climate scientist agree as anthropogenic global warming. This issue, if in fact it constitutes synthesis, is widespread among the climate related articles. I think that in creating articles, such scientific opinion on climate change and scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which, in my opinion, are most likely POV forks, only foster to spread the idea of original synthesis. ~ UBeR 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An inquiry on the [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] policy (copied from [[Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#An_inquiry_on_the_synthesis_policy|here]]) 

message: In my opinion the WP:ATT introductory sentence should find a more "topic-like" sentence feel. Currently it uses a perjorative tone. I think something more along the lines of:
::"When editing a Wikipedia article it is important to take a Neutral point of view, be Respectful to living persons and families of the departed, as well as contributing Accurate information. One can be sure their information is accurate by using Reliable and Verifiable sources; Also, do not contribute Original Research or personal ideas."
And then we can add the - This is not your f'n playground, so walk carefully, you are on thin ice:P Niubrad 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution introduction

message: Now available at /Role of truth.
: We are exploring the extent to which WP:ATT 1) does or 2) does not include operationally the standards set forth in "Verifiability, not truth."  --Rednblu 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of truth

message: Please be aware of the proposal for a microformat for marking citations in (X)HTML. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a one editor project to advertise a product of questionable notability, and potential WP:COI Signed Jeepday 14:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how come there are several other editors, already helping to build microformats into Wikipedia templates? What "product" do you think I'm advertising? Since when was notability a criteria for discussion on talk pages? WP:AGF! Andy Mabbett 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One concern that I see here is the claim for a copyright. I would hope that the copyright experts can rule on its status before it is incorporated into Wikipedia, potentially tainting Wikipedia's free status. I also don't see how this issue belongs in WP:ATT. Crum375 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have previously raised concerns about IP-related wording on the microforamt wiki, and have now done so again, citing your comment. The intention, though, is for an open, free standard. In any case, the format is still being "brainstormed", and you or any other person are welcome to comment in that or any other issue, on that 'wiki'. I mentioned the proposal here, as a courtesy, so that people interested - and with expertise in - making attributions had the chance to say how they think they should be represented in HTML. Might I suggest that further discussion belongs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats? I'm no longer watching this page. Andy Mabbett 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: All I see is a claim that the specificiation of the format is copyrighted, which is appropriate and normal IMO.  Most such specifications are subject to copyright.  See, e.g., the XHTML specs. JulesH 06:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microformat for citations 

message: Also posted to the general discussion page... I notice that there is a lot of confusion and disagreement about how RS fits into all of this... some people think that RS has been merged into ATT, some people think it hasn't. Some think that ATT elevates RS to Policy, others ardently deny this.  I thought I would comment - 
The problem is that RS has always been a unique case... falling into a grey zone between policy and guideline status.  Both WP:V and WP:NOR discuss the need for reliable sources to back our edits... so, to some degree, the concept of RS has always been a Policy statement.  Saddly, neither WP:V and WP:NOR explained what was meant by the term "reliable sources", or how to determine if a source was reliable or not - so a guideline page, "WP:RS", was created take care of this.  Unfortunately, the creation of that guideline page put RS into a half in / half out status... on one hand editors could say "RS is Policy" since it is prominently mentioned in several Policy page... but on the other hand, editors could say "no-RS is only a Guideline. See, it says 'Guideline' at the top of the page".  Those who wanted to inforce the concept as expressed on the Policy pages, edited the Guideline to emphisize its "these are the rules" nature, those who disagreed with this enforcement edited the guideline to stress it's "this is just guidance" nature.  And so we ended up with a Guideline page that stated both "guidance" and "rules" ...  Neither betwixt or between.  
Now let's look at what happened with the creation of ATT ... some people have complained that ATT "elevated" WP:RS to Policy... others have complained that it "demoted" WP:RS to little more than an essay.  But in reality it did neither.  The conceptual, "these are the rules" side of RS was re-incorporated into the Policy discussion and made clearer, while the "this is guidance" side of WP:RS was shifted into the FAQ page, to be worked on and eventually made back into a guideline (I would recommend renaming it to something like "Determining reliability").  This was not an "elevation" of WP:RS to Policy status... nor was a "demotion" of WP:RS to something less than Guideline status ... it was a needed breaking up of something that had alway been a little bit of both.  
That's how I see it, in any case... comments? Blueboar 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not have expressed this more eloquently. Thank you, Blueboar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is well-said.  I'm not sure I 100% agree with it (bears more thinking), but I really think it's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words... and yeah, it is in the wrong place... I posted it here thinking I was at the community discussion page... which is indeed where it should be discussed. Blueboar 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, Blueboar, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A look at WP:RS and how it fits with this 

message: For anyone who may be confused by the arguments, I've created a draft of a summary of why the merge took place at User:SlimVirgin/Attribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You call this a draft?? :) It's a very lucid summary of all relevant points, an absolute must read for anyone wanting to vote on this policy. If the people who object to the merger, would create an equally succinct summary of their view, I would be most interested in reading that as well. --Merzul 08:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, excellent overview which clearly explains the rationale. Khukri 09:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While I can't say that represents all sides of the issue, it does explain some things well.  I think certain parts of that should be merged into WP:ATT to make it easier to understand.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of why the merge was initiated

message: In third paragraph, please consider replacing "the two" by "both", or (better) restating it as in WP:NPOV
: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Attribution. Jointly, these policies determine [...]
(Rjgodoy 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I thought that WP:ATT's proponents have been maintaining that it says the same thing as WP:NPOV and WP:V in the first place... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't checked WP:V, but since now there are two policies it would be nice that both of them display the same text. (Rjgodoy 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the circumstances I think it is better to leave the page alone until consensus is determined. CMummert · talk 20:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit protected 

message: I need other user's opinions as to whether I have a right to place a dispute notice at the top of this talk page.
Background: Some time ago, rather than placing a dispute tag on the policy page itself, as a somewhat less obtrusive way to indicate the presence of a dispute I placed this notice at the top of the talk page, under some other notices at the top of the talk page.  I consider that this dispute is still ongoing.  A user whom I consider to be a party to the dispute, SlimVirgin, removed the notice about 28 hours later and stated that "There is no dispute", also asking me not to put the dispute notice back up and calling the dispute notice "disruptive editing".  The reason I consider the user a party to the dispute is that the user has reverted both my edits to WP:ATT, (edits which I intended as logically partial reverts to the proposed new wording "attributable ... not whether it is true" because they eliminate or partially eliminate a new meaning that the new words introduce about the treatment of false but attributable information), and I still object to the new wording which has not been changed.  I hereby repeat my invitation to user SlimVirgin to participate in debate with me on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth with the goal of achieving mutual understanding, and of achieving persuasion one way or the other, or compromise, or a better solution, and of achieving consensus.  Numerous other users have expressed opinions in this issue, including some quite similar to mine.
My position about having a dispute notice:  I believe that the usual procedures for dispute tags should apply to this notice.  I believe the usual procedure is that if a user puts up a dispute tag, other users are supposed to leave it there until the dispute is resolved, and if someone removes it before the dispute is resolved there is nothing wrong with the action of putting the dispute tag up again.  I believe that the usual procedure when some parties claim that there is no dispute is to leave the dispute tag in place on the grounds that there is, at least, a dispute about whether there is a dispute or not.
Seeking input:  Please comment on the status of the dispute notice, whether the dispute notice should be there or not, whether I have a right to have it there even if there is no consensus for having it there, whether it would be wrong of "disruptive" of me to put the notice back up again, and whether it would be wrong for someone to remove it again before there is agreement that the dispute is resolved. --Coppertwig 17:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, I can't see any rationale for reverting the good-faith talk page edits of others, generally, unless there is something demonstrably wrong about them, like putting  on Talk:Bugs Bunny), or archiving talk page discussions that are still in progress, or making personal attacks (scratch that; that is not a good faith edit anyway), or the post was obviously made to the wrong page because the editor forgot which edit window they were in, and so on.  But doing so with the rationale that "There is no dispute" would obviously be nonsensical POV-pushing, since the dispute is self-evident right there for everone to read.  We don't normally flag disputes in this way (usually we use non-talk page dispute templates), but we don't normally preface talk pages with POV statements either, and as the project page is locked, it seems like a rational way to note that there is a dispute.  In this particular case, I think your notice is POV itself, because you signed it and directed readers to a specific topic you want them to see.  A simpler statement to the effect of "However, not all editors agree that the intention of policy innovations has been achieved." on the end of the existing notice would do the trick and is much more neutral. WPians are smart enough to read around and make up their own minds without been led directly.  That's my take.  PS: No, it wouldn't be "disruptive" to post this again, and reverting it could be if the reversion rationale were nonsense again.  PPS: Given how hot tempers have been around here, I wouldn't bother, since the wording change to "claimed" already makes the point that there are disputes about whether the intention has been achieved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK.  The current version of the notices on this policy page and at the top of this talk page are OK with me.  Thanks for posting your opinion -- I appreciate it. --Coppertwig 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute notice on talk page 

message: On the poll talk page, some of us have objected to the use of canonical, including myself.  I am worried that some might not understand it, and I think "definitive" could accomplish the same purpose.  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll#canonical_vs_definitive.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That change would work for me; it is true some do not know of or agree with the tongue-in-cheek secular use of "canonical". I don't feel strongly about it either way.  As it is not an edit to the content of policy, it seems harmless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're stuck with it because it's Jimbo's word. Anyway, perhaps we should have faith in the vocabulary of Wikipedia users, particularly those interested in policy. qp10qp 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not actually; please see the discussion linked to.  Jimbo used it as an adjective not as new designation (i.e. not an addition to Policy, Guideline, Historical, Rejected, Essay).  Policy is policy, non-policy is not policy, period. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to make the point clearer, if we invent a bogus new designation, "Canonical Policy" this logically means that all other Policies are "Apocryphal Policy" or otherwise denigrated. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  What about Wikipedians whose native language is not English?  Not knowing all the vocabulary does not imply a lack of intelligence.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, but why don't we wikilink it to the wiktionary definitions, rather than the Wikipedia article?  I find the wiktionary definitions more concise and to-the-point.  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either works for me. --tjstrf talk 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Canonical is a common enough word with a well understood lay meaning.  It lacks some of the nuances of "definitive" and may in some circumstances be a useful alternative.  In fact using "definitive" to describe written policies on Wikipedia is probably a very, very bad idea.  For instance, someone might get the idea that our policy is composed of fixed and immutable words. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone get that impression in a wiki with clear policies about such things and an "edit this page" tab on the page, and a discussion page talking about edits?  I'm not convinced "definitive" is the right word, but this didn't do anything at all to sway my opinion. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical vs. definitive (or another word) 

message: My congratulations to those who put this proposed guideline together. It is extraordinarily well done.
I do have one small point. Let's say Mark Cuban, in his [blog], says, "Bill Gates is a buffoon for reasons XYZ." If I am reading the the section on "self-published sources" correctly, this policy would prevent us from using that material (in an article where it would be appropriate to mention opinions of Bill Gates). But if the Podunk Weekly Tribune reports that Cuban says Bill Gates is a buffoon, we can use it. 
That seems to be a little backwards, but perhaps that's the only feasible way the policy can be framed. No policy will be perfect. -- Mwalcoff 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I agree with that assessment.  Nothing could be more authoritative about what Mark Cuban says that Mark Cuban, so the blog in this very narrow instance would actually be a more reliable source for that fact than the random village newspaper (especially since that newspaper's source would almost certainly be the blog in the first place!)  Neither are reliable sources for the alleged fact that Bill Gates is, said, or did anything. The little newspaper would be a good source for such an alleged fact if it were quoting a US District Attorney on what filing Microsoft made a hour ago in one of its court cases (though it is likely that less podunk sources could be found for the same quote unless they somehow got a scoop.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One little point 

message: Please see above discussion for its relevance to WP:ATT. Tyrenius 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please at least summarize, or no one is going to bother. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Change "Reliable Sources" to "Acceptable Sources"]]

message: Wikipedia, when it began had only one rule: "ignore all the rules".  Since then a lot of well- meaning (and not so well meaning) people have made wikipedia a bureaucratic Frankenstien, with a million different rules. 
Often those veteran editors who know wikipolicy the best are able to push their pet version of wikipedia than those who don't know all of the bureaucratic abreviations WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:RS etc.  
The more veteran an editor, the more benefit this editor gets in pushing their view of wikipedia by knowing all of the bureaucratic rules.  So these policy wonks who would be the most influencial in abolishing 99% of the rules, won't because all of the myraid of rules benefit them, because the rules handicap new users.  In otherwords, veteran editors won't give up their power. 
A few admins have personally complained to me that many admins and veteran users don't even write articles anymore, instead they frequent ICQ and socialize with like minded editors. These editors are here to push their vision of wikipedia, using wikipolicy. 
SUGGESTION 1
I suggest we abolish 99% of all these rules, including the ones debated here.  I know 99% of the editors here (including the same policy wonks who make and protect policy) will come up with all kinds of slippery slope arguments why we should keep the million rules,  so the proposal to abolish 99% of the rules is dead in the water.
SUGGESTION 2
Since abolishing all the rules is a pipe dream, why not create rules that help build wikipedia, not delete articles on wikipedia?  WP:RS, WP:OR are often used by editors as an excuse to remove content. Aren't we all here to create content? We have WP:NOT but were is WP:IS? 99% of the rules we created are negative: you can't do this, you can't do that.  If I could change one thing on wikipedia it would be to remove the word "encyclopedia" from the title.  Wikipedia is much, much more than a encyclopedia.  Too many editors get stuck on the idea that since this is supposed to be an "encyclopedia" there needs to be a myrid of rules making wikipedia an encyclopedia. This is short sighted.
The longer wikipedia is around the more rules veteran wikipedians impose upon themselves.  These rules make it harder for new wikiusers to join wikipedia, and it leaves a negative view of how wikipedia is run. 
For example, the WP:RfC page is a nightmare of rules which only makes the admins job of screening out RfC's easier, but is a nightmare of requirments.  Do we even need WP:RfC page?  Do we need an arbcom?  A body of supreme court wikipedia judges? 
Personally, I hesitate to write any articles anymore  because I am afraid some wikipedian will come along, and citing policy, delete everything I have wrote.  
Wikipedia was a great idea, it is too bad that we all ruined it. Odessaukrain 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is emphatically not the right place for that proposal.  Take it up at the village pump please. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets abolish 99% of the rules

message: Hi.
What was the point of protecting this page? Was there an edit war going on? There are other pages that are "disputed" but are not protected, so what gives? mike4ty4 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many WP:ATT proponents (but not all, and probably some WP:ATT opponents, but a minority) feel that WP:ATT (and pages WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS) should be frozen for "stability", meanwhile most WP:ATT opponents (with exceptions, and joined by a few WP:ATT proponents), and most of those who are neutral but have unresolved concerns with WP:ATT's wording, think this is a violation of WP:PROT (a policy not a guideline) among other problems.  It's been discussed several places above, at WP:RFPP, and at WP:AN and has come to an uneasy and perhaps temporary compromise in which WP:RS has been unprotected (and, notably, the "chaos" that WP:ATT proponents predicted would result has not materialized at all), and the rest have remained protected, at least for now.  That's the situation as I see it.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only things that can be "frozen" are Foundation mandates.  Everything else is subject to consensus of the community, and consensus can change. — Omegatron 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People use "freeze" as synonymous with "full-protect" all the time.  I agree that this is ambiguous; I certainly wasn't intending to imply mandate-style freeze, I just got tired of typing "protected".  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  So then it's to preempt the possibility of edit warring, then? mike4ty4 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons were never really clear. A few people wanted to have a static version of the page for the poll, but that could have been accomplished just by making a copy and anyway is not a proper use of protection. —Centrx→talk • 05:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with Centrx on this one.  No good has ever come that I'm aware of (examples, anyone?) from locking down contentious policy/guideline pages for any longer than is utterly necessary to stop ongoing revertwarring and convert it into discussion.  There's been discussion and then some, on an almost unprecedented scale, for two weeks now.  I get flamed (usually out-of-band, i.e. e-mail) for being "disruptive" (cf. WP:DE and WP:VANDAL for the actual WP-defintion of that term) for pointing out things like this and not crawling into a corner when I'm ordered to shut up by people who would rather not hear such objections and points; but c'mon folks, this is a Wiki. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection? 

message: The page User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy has been created for the purpose of developing a concise summary of the arguments against merging or against some aspects of how the merge is carried out.  Users who are "against" in one sense or another are invited to help edit the page, according to the rules on its talk page.  --Coppertwig 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How that is different from Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion? That is were the community discussion is being held.  If you want to write your comments in a sandbox, that is fine. But Wikipedia:Canvassing is not appropriate.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And BTW, to say that the page "has been created", is err... strange? Why not to say: "I have created a page"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question might be why some parties seem so amazingly perturbed by the idea that that SlimVirgin's Poll-mentioned essay might have one or more contra-counterparts (see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll at various points).  "Things that make ya go 'hmm...'" — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: More grammar flames?  Please.  Wikipedia is not Usenet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reviewing various policies and guidelines I have the impression that essays are written by a single user or by all users, not by limited groups of users.  For this and other reasons I've decided the user page will be edited by myself only;  but input is welcome from all users on the talk page of the user page.  When it's finished I plan to move it to policy space, as was done with SlimVirgin's essay.  I've put the same message at [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll# and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#Summary of Conclusions....--Coppertwig 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but you should be aware that when you move it to the WP namespace, it becomes subject to community consensus and anyone is be free to edit it.  This was relatively well established by the "Wikipedia is failing" event a few weeks back. CMummert · talk 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page for creating collaborative expression of arguments against 

message: Please take a look at a new section "Role of the truth 3", which I placed high above, since I understood that thee discussion of truth is to be confined to one section. Mukadderat 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussion about truth 

message: I would like to request the change of the ar interwiki link to:
ar:ويكيبيديا:سياسة الوثوقية
Please note that the Arabic language is written from right to left. Thank you. --Meno25 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone who knows Arabic please look into this? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really important to me and many other people, but off-topic question: Is there a place to request micro-translation (not to mention "is target article valid" check-ups) like this?  No disrepect of any kind whatsoever intended toward Meno25; an answer to this would solve issues with many articles on various small points. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No objection on my part; I was just wondering if "Hey, can anyone who knows Japanese check this manga title translation over at (whatever article)?" requests have a place to go. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can search the "Wikipedians by language" categories and post a request on someone's talk page (I did that once for a Japanese article, and got a helpful reply).  That is part of why the babelboxes exist.  Other than that, um, aren't there translation Wikiprojects?  That might reach a more general audience, if there is one for the relevant language. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link 

message: i find that the relevant policies do not say enough about negative derivations from sources, which should be rightly classified as original research. what i mean here is that we are to detail what the source does say, not what the source doesn't say, especially when it's used to forward a POV, and especially when that source is a primary source. for example, if a source says "He pleaded not guilty to murder", yet one cites it postulating: "He did not plead not guilty to manslaughter". another example would be a source which says "Do not kill innocent men", yet you cite it saying "Source X says nothing about not killing innocent children". there are hundreds of things that a source may not mention, and to utilise that is a manipulation of the source. i have come across an editor doing exactly that: . he has been warring, persistently, and against numerous editors, to include this negative derivation which is clearly intended to forward a POV. he is not interested in ceasing this behaviour despite having the policy explained to him, including by an admin. ITAQALLAH 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is adequately addressed in the current policy. An editor cannot attribute to a source what the source doesn't say; this is equivalent to a ban on negative derivation. For example, one cannot attribute the statement "Source X says nothing about not killing innocent children" to source X because source X contains no such statement (I presume). Beit Or 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a problem ... but I think it is a NPOV issue more than a NOR issue.  The relevant policy for any addition on this would be WP:NPOV. Blueboar 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree that the ban on negative derivation can essentially be deduced from the policy (i just think it needs to be a little more explicit). the issue here, as opposed to attributing something to a source what it does not say, is actually making the observation that the source says nothing about X. Blueboar, i was thinking it would be more of an ATT-based issue because negative deductions, regardless of their accuracy, are essentially OR. is it possible to have a word or two just making this explicit so editors don't have to waste time responding to justifications like this? ITAQALLAH 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think negative derivation should be banned, although we should be extremely careful with it. Suppose, for example, some editor insists on adding that Daniel Webster introduced a bill on telegraphy to the moon in 1835, and cites some crank in support of it. It is extremely unlikely that any reputable source will have bothered to deny the claim; but we can say that no biographer (including X who lists all of Webster's legislative actions) mentions it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This suggestion of ban for negative derivation is a manifestation of danger of decreasing the priority of "goal-oriented policies" in favor of "procedure-oriented" I was speaking in the section #Role of the truth 3 : "Sweeping Responsibility under the Rug" or "Axiomatic Introduction into Wikitruth". If we think of WP:V as primary rule, then this is a non-issue: absence of a separate statement is just as equally immediately verifiable as its presence, with the only difference that the verification will take twice as long time on average: you have to read the whole source for negative derivation. Mukadderat 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After second careful reading I see that this section in fact discusses 4 different things. In particular, the referred  "editor doing exactly that: " violates a yet another rule of common sense: of course "Koran" doesn't write that master is not forbidden to shave female's slave genitals and not forbidden to feed her with only sahlep and dondurma and ... The issue is relevance: wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. At the same time the quoted statement would make sense in the context of a general discussion of consent to sex in Islam: since Qur'an is #1 one authority for Islam, the fact that a certain issue is not covered deserves mention. On the other hand, what Qur'an says and what says not cannot be judged by a random wikipedian: it says more than a layman may read.  Mukadderat 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regrettably there doesn't seem to be a policy against derivations from absence of something in source - in fact negative derivation seems to be used in one of Wikipedia's own policy statements.  At least that's the only way I can interpret the so-called example of new synthesis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SYN - you have to assume that a negative deribvation is made by the authr of the text complained about (and I do mean assume - that author suggests no such deduction) to call the thing a synthesis (the synthesized conclusion isn't stated by the author either, so it would be a bad example even without requiring one to assume a negative derivation). 81.138.97.98 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research by negative deduction 

message: Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:
Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration
To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deny any such consensus; and two hours between a major change of text and going live is unrealistic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see 

message: The example in the section on unpublished syntheseis is somewhat flawed.  First it misses the point that the offending paragraph is self-contradictory, so the statements in it can hardly have come from a reliable source.  Then it claims that the whole point of the offending paragraph is a conclusion that the offending paragraph does not in fact draw.
If comeone wants to claim that the thing isn't self-contradictory they have to explain how one can use a source without using any of its information, ideas, words, or structure!  Or perhaps explain to me why someone should be allowed to cite this comment as a source supporting the idea that pigs can fly just because it doesn't say explicitly that they can't. MichealT 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unpublished synthesis or something quite different 

message: I suggest that the two main subsections of WP:ATT ("Reliable Sources" and "No Original Research") be reversed so that "Reliable Sources" comes first.  The reason is that "Reliable sources is positive instruction (telling people what to do) and "No Original Research" is negative instruction (telling people what not to do).  I believe the human mind handles instructions a lot better when the positive instructions are given first.  Then the person can form images in their mind when reading the positive instructions, and modify those images when reading the negative instructions.  Putting the negative instructions first can lead to blank images in the mind and a feeling of frustration with the question "Well, what am I supposed to do then?" until the person gets to the positive-instruction part of the page.  From then on you have a user who was experiencing frustration while reading one of the key policies for the first time.  Also, I expect that the positive instructions will need to be referred to more often, since people are more likely to need details about how to do what they are actually doing, than details about what they're avoiding doing -- I could be wrong on that point, but in any case it helps to have the more-often-used part first. --Coppertwig 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The order of the two sections 

message: Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll
Thank you. - Denny 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the MfD was a Speedy Keep - Let's get back to work on the Poll folks... New voices are needed to break the current deadlock over language.  Please help out. Blueboar 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll]] 

message: I think it would be a good idea to add the paragraph shortcut for the "NOR" section. (as for example in WP:SYNT) --BMF81 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no big hurry, while there is a consensus poll going on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph shortcuts 

message: I am currently in discussion with someone about whether the long form of an acronym is well known or not. I stated that the majority of people refer to that train system (MTR) by its acronym and are unlikely to know the long form. The other poster states that I need evidence to show that it is the case. And yet the website of that corporation, along with its customer site refers to itself as the acronym. Hence by common sense, most people who want to learn about the corporation will know the system by its acronym. The only documents mentioning that train system in its full form are government documents and tourist guides, which, I assume by common sense, most tourists and citizens won't read. So, how am I going to show that I am correct if it's impossible to find any strict academic statistic indicating that it is true? Apart from this, the other poster is challanging the current title of the present material. Who has the burden of evidence, if needed?--Kylohk 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just change your claim to say that the company refers to the system as simply "the MTR"  and this is its common name. This is attributable and conveys essentially the same information. You may also be able to point out a tourist guide that uses the terminology. This should be enough to use the word "usually" or "commonly" instead of "often". There seems to be little difference between this and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which runs the T in Boston, or the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which runs the MARTA in Atlanta. These articles illustrate how the common name can be convenyed. CMummert · talk 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should also see how the article: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) deals with acronyms... the Article gives the full name at the start of the article and then uses MTA for most of the rest of the article. (note that the acronym "MTA" is too common to be used by any one article as a title, so the situation is not completely similar.) Blueboar 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out one more thing, the company that runs the train system is simply known as MTR Corporation, without any long form. Also, if the MTR website is an attributable way of showing that the train system is almost exclusively known as MTR. Also, when I check abbreviations.com , MTR is most commonly used to refer to that metro system by a large margin, does that make the acronym a viable title?--Kylohk 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For those who have never heard of the Mass Transit Railway, e.g. tourists and many people not from Hong Kong / Asia, the full name is much more descriptive than the acronym.  Hence, it would be a better title.  Once establishing that MTR is the acronym for the Mass Transit Railway, you may as well use MTR for the rest of the article.  The problem with "common sense" is that it is frequently not universal.  If there is nothing else on Wikipedia that goes by that acronym, you could certainly redirect MTR to Mass Transit Railway.  Otherwise, MTR would need to be a disambiguation page.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right — there's "common sense" and there's "informed common sense". Askari Mark (Talk) 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving something that is "common sense" without any academic sources 

message: I wish to point out something that is not getting much attention here, and it is that WP:NOR has really been a very sloppy policy.  It takes care of the worst offenders, but others can slip through its cracks.  Unlike the current WP:NOR policy, this one very forcefully makes it clear that verifiability and not truth are the standard for this encyclopedia.  The latter is very important since everyone who wants to post their original research here is screaming "this it the truth" (or even "this is Truth")!  
The hole in WP:NOR comes from there are new ideas out these that do get placed in peer reviewed publications so that they can be considered and debated.  Most of these get very little attention, and you gat a primary source either without secondary sources or secondary sources that refute the primary source.  Such items are not notable, and perhaps more importantly are not verifiable since they lack a comprehensive "paper trail".  Being on a stronger footing with respect to keeping ideas of this ilk out is an asset to Wikipedia.
If you want to know where I am coming from, I am doing original research of my own.  I have considered the point at which it would become proper for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the answer that I come up with is when my ideas become debated amongst gravitation specialists.  This will not occur as of its initial publication, and any such debate nmay take years to develop even if my ideas are correct.  It is that higher bar that WP:ATT seems to aim for, and I applaud it for doing so. --EMS | Talk 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP:ATT and [[WP:NOR]] 

message: I see the efforts put in all this but there should be a far simpler idiot's guide version at least for the vast majority of new editors and anonymous editors. Not that it makes a difference, I guess. Just my opinion. Zuracech lordum 04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with WP:IAR. Do not do anything a second time if you are rebuked for doing it the first time. You don't need to read policy at all unless you want to contest someone's rebuke that was based on a policy. WAS 4.250 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this page: Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset. --qp10qp 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also WP:ENC for those that are little slow to catch on. NeoFreak 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idiot's guide

message: Does anyone now claim that WP:ATT has the "Wide acceptance" promised by {[tl|policy}}? The raw results from the Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll poll were 48% Broad support; 40% broad oppose; 12 Other. While opinions of this being policy do not match the broad categories exactly, there vary in all directions, and roughly cancel.
I know a couple editors will; but is there anybody else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no way to think that the raw figures you cite can constitute wide support.  Unless you are proposing that some of the comments should be discounted because they are clearly not based in concern for Wikipedia's goals, they fail to be well reasoned, or something similar (which isn't necessarily unreasonable, but needs to be clearly articulated). -- Siobhan Hansa 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would join a consensus that they are not wide support, and therefore this page is not policy. (Whether proposed or rejected policy is another question; but do we need three policy pages on the subjects of this page?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: With so many in support of WP:ATT, it also leaves open the question of whether NOR, V and RS have "wide acceptance".  I think the status quo of everything being policy is the best way to continue until we can sort out a solution.  A large proportion of the objections to WP:ATT were not objections to its content, but its form, so I think it is fair to say that the content has wide acceptance, and that is all that is necessary (I think) to have a policy tag on the page. JulesH 07:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of WP:ATT does not have wide acceptance.  A number of users have expressed objections to its content.  I have expressed strong objection.  The proponents of the current wording of WP:ATT have shown a reluctance to discuss the reasons for the wording and possible alternative wordings.  --Coppertwig 13:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with Coppertwig.  I think there definitely is broad support for the content of ATT. Very few of the "oppose" comments discussed content issues.  By far, the majority of the "opposed" comments discussed the feeling that V and NOR express a significantly different idea and should not be merged... but said nothing about the content.  Indeed quite a few "opposed" comments expressed support for the idea of exporting the wording of ATT to clean up and imporove V and NOR.  The issue isn't content, but concept. Is it better to have one policy or two? Blueboar 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opposition said that it wasn't a bad idea to merge, but it WAS the content that was the problem.  Even excluding the RS parts, ATT subtly changes V as to how and which sources can be used.  That is a fundamental change.  It expresses the ideas of a minority of wikipedians who are very active in editing att/nor/v/rs but it doesn't express consensus. SchmuckyTheCat 15:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there is no question that a few people have issues with the content ... taking a quick look at the comments, I come up with aproximately 30 of the "oppose" comments that mention one aspect of the content or another as being an issue.  That is around 8% of the "oppose" votes and 3% of the total.  To me, this indicates that while there is not broad support for the concept of ATT, there is fairly broad support for the content of ATT. Blueboar 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't enough of the basic question in the poll about content to get good information out of it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Many of the support !votes don't endorse the content, but support the general idea of  a merger for the sake of efficiency. I don't think we need an exact count; the raw figures are much too far from a supermajority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True... I suppose what I am getting at here is that Coppertwig seemed to be saying that since there was no broad consensus in favor of the ATT merger, there was also no consensus for the language.  We certainly can't say that with the results of this poll.  Actually, what the poll indicates is that most people feel there are concerns that are more pressing than content that need to be addressed... things like which of these pages should be policy, and how we should go about it. We can argue about language once we know for sure what we are arguing about and where. Blueboar 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the poll doesn't establish that there is no consensus on the content of WP:ATT. But the poll's explanatory note to voters focused attention on the merge (Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research into a single policy page...The intention is not to change policy, but to express it more clearly and concisely, and to make it easier to follow and maintain by having it expressed on one policy page, and discussed on one talk page. What do you think of this?). Therefore, the poll doesn't establish that everything except the merge has consensus approval. Many voters may have voted and/or commented exclusively on what they felt invited to offer feedback on. I fear that if we dismiss expressed content concerns, especially those that were repeated or seconded, we set ourselves up for the proverbial fool's task: repeating the same behavior and expecting a different outcome. Let's not. Lethiere 02:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way to ensure that there is broad consensus on language is to bring up the new language at WP:V and WP:NOR piece by piece, and see if there is consensus that it is current practice, and does have approval. (The wording about attribution should be late in the process; it was widely discussed in the poll, and it may need improvement to have consensus.) Then we can talk about merger, when it would be purely mechanical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide support

message: Part of the problem with the merge is that the question of merger was commingled with all the refinements of language that came about in the process. For example, WP:V says almost nothing about when citations should be in-line, and ATT was attacked from all sides of that debate. 
I support almost all of what WP:ATT actually says; where it has new language from WP:V it does represent current best practice. I therefore think that it is worth incorporating many of the ideas here into V and NOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: ;Any unsourced material may be removed:
I have a big problem with this kind of statement, that periodically causes edition wars on fr: (the best argument to censor out an opponent is to state that his explaination of a given POV is unsourced...).
:This is taken from WP:V; see what they actually say. In the process, it includes much more caution that removing unsourced material is not to be done lightly. Please discuss it there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I'd disagree there. Sourcing is required, period, not a nicety, not only necessary in certain cases. Granted, non-controversial and very plausible information may effectively never have someone come along to demand a source. But if someone does, the information must be sourced or removed. If you need a reliable source that the chemical formula for water is H2O, it'll take you all of two minutes, arguing would take more time than just providing the source. If something is really common knowledge, that's always the case—sourcing will be easy to find. If not, the knowledge isn't as common as you thought, and a source is needed all the more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Sourcing is required for anything that a reader might not know, which is just about everything.  Given the appalling grasp of geography that I've seen some people show, I don't suspect it would take too much searching to find somebody who didn't know that London was the capital of the UK, particularly if you're asking in non-Western countries.  Limited logical deduction is OK, as long as you stay within the limits of what most readers would be able to follow and be sure is correct.  The only caveat is that you're free to leave out the sources for things you think will be uncontroversial until somebody requests them. JulesH 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, I have kids, and I've never seen "toothing causes an irritated bottom." If you put that into an article, I would be very likely to request a source. But that's exactly why sourcing is the best policy. You and I could argue all day long, and I wouldn't convince you and you wouldn't convince me. But if you can provide a medical journal, saying that's really so, then into the article it goes, and my personal experience is irrelevant. On the other hand, if you can find nothing but anecdotal evidence, it does not belong in the article. Either way, problem solved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I had quite a few kids myself and I know what this guy was talking about. Toothing is colloqually associated with fever and diarrhea. And it is very easy to find discussions of this, as long as you use proper terms, rather than "baby talk" ("sore bottom", etc.), like, thusly->here (which btw says "yes and no", in best traditions of wikipedia's NPOV :-). So I agree, if you cannot source it, probably you should not write it in wikipedia, or you make people as confused as yourself. `'mikka 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL-I'm not trying to make a point on pedicure! The point is simply: if such information is relevant, then it should be mentionned somewhere, and of course if it is supported / dismissed by medical articles, the corresponding information should be sourced. Now,since this appears to be a well-known problem (and corellates to my personnal experience): is there a relevant publication on this subject? Michelet-Me laisser un message 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability vs Attribution 

message: This is primarily for Blueboar's reference, as he requested an explanation of the changes when he reverted them, but I'd welcome any additional comments also.
Briefly, the current definition of OR doesn't work because it has lost the restriction of OR to statements that advance a point that has not been previously published, which greatly expands the scope of the definition to the point where if you read it literally it actually includes almost all content on wikipedia.  Discussion about this problem started here and continued at this section before I suggested a new phrasing that solves the problems here.  The phrasing I placed in the main page is a slight variation of this phrasing that takes into accounts the comments made on the original suggestion.
The main differences between this version and the one it replaced are:
* Insertion of the requirement that something "promotes a point of view or idea in a way that cannot be attributed to a published reliable source" before it is classified as OR.  This requirement is based on the old, now-deleted text that required material to "advance a position" before it is OR, but rephrased to fix the objections to that phrase (primarily that it didn't mean what it was intended to, as the position advanced may or may not be an original one) that caused its removal in the first place.
* Contraction of the original four bullet points into a shorter list of three points.
For reference, the text I wish to introduce is as follows:
Material is original research if it introduces, in a way which promotes a point of view or idea in a way that cannot be attributed to a published reliable source, any of the below:
* a theory, argument, idea, or definition, or
* a synthesis of information from multiple sources, or
* a novel analysis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions or arguments.
Basically the first sentence is intended to restrict the scope to unpublished ideas, whereas the bullet points show that any kind of text may be included.  The current definition lacks the restriction in scope, so we have the nonsensical result that it states "material counts as original research if it introduces a theory" (which presumably means that the general theory of relativity is OR), among other things. JulesH 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a problem with the logic or intent of your edit... but I did find your wording to be confusing.  Blueboar 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way?  How should I fix it? JulesH 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research changes 

message: When wikipedia was very young in December 20, 2001, and CiteYourSources was merely a Rule to consider  - - -  this was the status of the debate. 4.250.198.151 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always leave something undone... I like that rule a lot. Now WP has millions of editors so that may not be as necessary any more, but I think it would still be useful, as there are many more millions of people out there. Lakinekaki 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nostalgia

message: I'd like to hear your point of view concerning citing from a book review or a letter to the editor, written by an academic to a non academic publication. I'd appreciate it, if you related to a specific case, which i've described elsewhere. Itayb 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable source: a professional's book review/letter to the editor 

message: I see the section order has been changed to RS, V, NOR.  I don't think this is a good order, for a couple of reasons:
# V is the most important concept, and should be up at the top, IMO.
# RS is an in-depth and detailed section that is likely to make readers switch off.  It would be best if this didn't happen in the first section.
I propose the order V, NOR, RS.  Does anyone have any objections to that order? JulesH 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Are there any news as to what higher powers think about the future of the policy situation? -Merzul 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: support: V (the fundamental & universal objective), then NOR (formal exclusion, needed for V), then RS (which is a [consequence of / mean to] the two previous ones). I feel against the merging, but if this page is kept it should present what is important first... Michelet-Me laisser un message 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section order 

message: Is it likely this will ever gain consensus? If not, we should mark it as . —Ashley Y 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More people liked this wording than the V+NOR wording so if we are to mark anything rejected it would be V and NOR. The policy itself has not been rejected. We simply have no one specific wording of it that has a current consensus. WAS 4.250 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm refering to the poll we just took. WAS 4.250 12:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual poll results do not support your assertion at all; the vast majority of the pro-ATT vote was in support of the merger for "one-page simplicity"-related rationales; very few commented (pro or con) on the issue of preferred text that you raised in this thread.  "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."  :-)  To return to the main point, V+NOR has never (since become designated policy) had any cognizable lack of consensus, in contrast to ATT; there is no lack of "one specific wording" that has current consensus.  The fact that you assert that there is a conflict between ATT and V+NOR on this topic (I just kind of have to point this out) is evidence against the proposition that ATT didn't change policy, by the way.  All that said, I don't see any reason to mark ATT "Rejected" just yet; even I and I'm sure many other questioners (and even outright opponents) of ATT consider it to have returned to the realm of "Proposal" and to remain active as one.  But let's not engage in silliness in the pursuit of demonstrating that.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: If I've misunderstood you and you simply mean "most poll respondents supported the ATT merger" in general, even that isn't true.  More supported than outright opposed, but the neutral votes are "non-supporting".  Note also that a great many of the "support" votes should really be classified in section 3, because they were qualified/compromise support votes, not outright support votes.  Many more of those could be recategorized thusly than could oppose votes (which did admittedly include a number of votes that should also be recategorized as "compromise" suggestions.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "I'd buy that for a dollar!" The problem is really that getting there will take a lot more work, because a simple copy-paste of V+NOR into ATT will satisfy the "NO changes!" extreme, w/o providing a document more useful than the separate ones, while really compressing them into an easily understood whole is inevitably going to lead to subtle but actual changes to policy (I think this may really be what was behind Jimbo's rather harsh delayed reaction, though I'm no mind reader.)  That is, how do we restore perceived V and NOR changes while also compressing them?  It's a thornier question than I think was believed until very recently.  So, all that said, I reiterate that marking ATT "Rejected" seems pretty premature.  To me ATT has simply missed a deadline.  I'm not (yet) on board with the idea that ATT can truly replace V and NOR; I think having it eventually be "the" policy and having V and NOR (and RS, lest we forget the little sibling) as shortcuts go to FAQ/explanatory-guideline pages that explore the topics in more depth, just might work.  I'm on board for trying to make it work, anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SMcCandlish wrote: "a simple copy-paste of V+NOR into ATT will satisfy the "NO changes!" extreme, w/o providing a document more useful than the separate ones". I disagree. I supported the pure merger in the poll, with the comment: "Easier to understand, to remember, to reference and to maintain. There's still work to be done on the merged policy's content and wording". In the discussion, under the heading "Do we need to make any changes to present policy or practice, while we have this opportunity?" i wrote: "There are many flaws with the current text of the policies, but top priority is to bring about the merger. It would be immensely easier - both in terms of getting the required support as well as in terms of making the physical merger - if no essential change to the policies took place." I still stand behind every word. Itayb 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead? 

message: I've discussed the poll outcome with Jimbo, and we've agreed that it would be a good idea to form a bipartisan working party to develop a compromise, and that it should include the best voices among the yes and no vote.
Jimbo's on his way overseas at the moment, but will try to find time to make a comment about this publicly.
In the meantime, we should think about who should be on the working party. One person from the no vote that I would like to see on it is Sandy Georgia, who made some excellent points, and I would suggest a group of around five to ten people.
I'm going to post this note on a few of the relevant pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who didn't vote in the poll and has no real firm opinion toward either idea, I don't mind donating some time to figuring this out if you're looking for volunteers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should discuss the working party issue on Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working party