Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 6

message: I was chatting with an ex-user, answering some questions on policies, when I realized I'd written a mini-essay on our verification and citing policies; somebody on IRC suggested I post it here, so...
=== Essay ===
One big question: Why don't we require primary source material?
Well, we do- it's official policy even to provide sources, with primary sources being ideal. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
That said, there are some reasons why we don't require sources for every edit:
first off, Wikipedia is founded on the idea that making it easy to contribute will provide sufficient gains in interest,
editing, contributions &etc. that it can make up for all the crap and erroneous stuff that making it easy to contribute
is guaranteed to let in. So far, this has proven to be a good idea. What its theoretical limits are, we don't know.
That's one of the arguments for traditional encyclopedias against Wikipedias- while they may not receive as much material
or use as a Wikipedia, their paranoid exacting process will ultimately provide a higher quality product. Again, whether this is true is hard to tell as of yet- we know that Wikipedia processes can in some article instances beat EB, but whether this are freak instances attributable more to a few fanatic contributors or vindications of the proces... Yeah. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this-  that there's an unhappy medium between EB and Wikipedia, where the cntrols on the process are too restrictive to get anyone to work on it casually, but not tight enough to motivate anyone to work on it academically/seriously.
We're rather afraid of falling into that unhappy middle; there was quite some grumbling after the Seigenthaler episode when anonymous users were blocked from creating new pages. So requring sources for every edit... Straw, camel, back. --maru  (talk) Contribs 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, who gets to decide which edits don't require any references? Requiring that everything in an article have a verifiable source is not being paranoid: it is the road to building a reliable and reputable encyclopedia. Now, edits for style and readability obviously don't require sources, but every fact in an article needs to be sourced (and all we put in articles are facts). -- Dalbury(Talk) 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini-essay on requiring sources 

message: One big question: Why don't we require primary source material?
Well, we do- it's official policy even to provide sources, with primary sources being ideal. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
That said, there are some reasons why we don't require sources for every edit:
first off, Wikipedia is founded on the idea that making it easy to contribute will provide sufficient gains in interest,
editing, contributions &etc. that it can make up for all the crap and erroneous stuff that making it easy to contribute
is guaranteed to let in. So far, this has proven to be a good idea. What its theoretical limits are, we don't know.
That's one of the arguments for traditional encyclopedias against Wikipedias- while they may not receive as much material
or use as a Wikipedia, their paranoid exacting process will ultimately provide a higher quality product. Again, whether this is true is hard to tell as of yet- we know that Wikipedia processes can in some article instances beat EB, but whether this are freak instances attributable more to a few fanatic contributors or vindications of the proces... Yeah. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this-  that there's an unhappy medium between EB and Wikipedia, where the cntrols on the process are too restrictive to get anyone to work on it casually, but not tight enough to motivate anyone to work on it academically/seriously.
We're rather afraid of falling into that unhappy middle; there was quite some grumbling after the Seigenthaler episode when anonymous users were blocked from creating new pages. So requring sources for every edit... Straw, camel, back. --maru  (talk) Contribs 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, who gets to decide which edits don't require any references? Requiring that everything in an article have a verifiable source is not being paranoid: it is the road to building a reliable and reputable encyclopedia. Now, edits for style and readability obviously don't require sources, but every fact in an article needs to be sourced (and all we put in articles are facts). -- Dalbury(Talk) 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: Under section "When Adding Information" we define "full citation":
"Giving a full citation means that, if an online source is removed from the website at a later date, readers will still know how to track down the original article." 
Could we rewrite this so that it is 100% clear that the definition of full citation refers to offline sources as well as online sources?  I envision something like 
"Giving a full citation means providing sufficient information that readers will know how to track down the original article, even in the case where an online source of infomation is removed." --Ryan Utt 09:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "Full Citation"? 

message: Very often, when I've added specific fact references to an well-fleshed out article, I provide the direct quote from the source that I cite, following the citation.  I have been asked to start a discussion on this, and I have done so on Wikipedia:Citing sources.  Please comment there.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct quotes in references 

message: Please read the sixteen point introduction at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews: Sixteen reasons why this should become a fixed Wikipedia policy and related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession#Proposed amendment: remove all Jewish-related lists. Thank you. IZAK 11:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to delete 99% of all Lists and Categories of Jews 

message: I would like to propose the following as another example where verifiability is important: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm.  Lumiere 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of concrete examples 

message: Discussion of possible interest to watchers of this page at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards#Academic honesty. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic honesty 

message: I've recently rewritten the above page, and there is currently discussion on the talk page regarding the viability of certain websites as reliable sources.  Comment would be appreciated. Hiding  talk 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability (websites) 

message: For instants, if you input it to an online calculator such as
herethis and integrate (with respect to x),
(cos(b+a)*cos(x/2)*sin(x/2)+cos(b-a)*cos(x/2)*sin(x/2))
/sqrt(1-(cos(b+a)*sin(x/2)^2-cos(b-a)*cos(x/2)^2)^2)
it gives back this monstrocity:
-1.*log((cos(b+a)^2+cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)+(-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)*cos(.50000000000000000000000000000000*x)^2)/(-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)^(1/2)+((-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)*cos(.50000000000000000000000000000000*x)^4+(2.*cos(b+a)^2+2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a))*cos(.50000000000000000000000000000000*x)^2+1.-1.*cos(b+a)^2)^(1/2))/(-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)^(1/2)*cos(b+a)-1.*log((cos(b+a)^2+cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)+(-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)*cos(.50000000000000000000000000000000*x)^2)/(-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)^(1/2)+((-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)*cos(.50000000000000000000000000000000*x)^4+(2.*cos(b+a)^2+2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a))*cos(.50000000000000000000000000000000*x)^2+1.-1.*cos(b+a)^2)^(1/2))/(-1.*cos(b+a)^2-2.*cos(b+a)*cos(-1.*b+a)-1.*cos(-1.*b+a)^2)^(1/2)
*cos(-1.*b+a)
but all that reduces to (or SHOULD reduce to)
 acos(cos(b+a)*sin(x/2)^2-cos(b-a)*cos(x/2)^2)
Is it okay to use that reduced equation or do you have to use the one
given by the calculator and would the calculator be considered a vallid
source for verification purposes? (a "math geek") 18:08, 7 January 2006
(UTC)
:My opinion - but get others! - is that what needs to be traced to a verifiable source is a particular formula, not its application.  Keep this in mind: E=MC(2) is well-established and it is very easy to provide a verifiable source for it.  We do not have to provide all of the math that one must go through in order to arrive at that formula.  So, what is this a formula for?  Is it well-accepted, what this formula is for and how it is to be used?  IF so, provide its most common form - such a form should be easily verifiable. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are online calculators verifiable sources? 

message: Are there any further comments before the rewrite on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp goes live? I don't want to rush things, I just want to be clear as to whether there are any outstanding points, and if so, what they are, jguk 11:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead sections of the policies referred to should all be standardized so that there is no conflict. All of them should refer to the others as key policies that must not be interpreted in isolation. Currently WP:NPOV and WP:NOT do not have that, and WP:NOR refers to 3 key policies. If we don't have consensus to get that in each article then we don't have consensus that it is official policy. Fortunately I think it's clear we do, but again, we need to be consistent. - Taxman Talk 18:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The requirement for a reputable publisher (which is what is meant by reputable source) is already in the policy. You want to completely modify the current policy. Also, I don't see how a requirement for a reputable source can help pseudoscientists. On the other hand, what I see is that it doesn't help groups such as skeptical organizations that make a living by bringing non scientific debates to the people, while pretending to be scientific as it is clear from their names, for example "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal". To help people in not getting confused with paranormal issues, one just have to point out that the claims were not verified scientifically. Period. The burden of the proof is on their side. Period. If these organizations want to continue their cruisade  outside of science with experimental setups that are not peer-reviewed, etc., they should stop pretending that they conduct scientific studies, and use different names for themselve. Lumiere 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. The requirement in the current policy is that dubious sources be named and shamed. Only extremists are not reputable. The section on dubious sources is removed. I must request it be readded. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what you mean. There is still a section on dubious source in the current version of the verifiability policy. Moreover, the requirement for a reputable source appears right from the start. If you are saying that some have proposed to remove the need for a reputable source that is  adequate for the content, then I hope this proposal is carefully considered before it is adopted. Lumiere 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any further comments before the rewrite goes live? 

message: The current rule is that personal web sites are not acceptable as sources, except if the person is well known, such as a well known researcher in a relevent field.  However, just after, there is a reference to WP:RS for more information, which is more complex. There it is said that a personal web site is never acceptable as a  secondary source. It can only be used as a primary source, which, if I understand well, means that the sourced statement must be about the owner of the web site or the web site. My question is whether or not this includes a statement that presents the opinion of the owner of the web site.  In other words, "Joe says that Einstein theory of relativity has a flaw" can be inserted in an article about the theory of relativity with a reference to Joe's website to support it. This is because stating that Joe has this opinion is a statement about Joe, which make Joe's website a valid source.  Is this correct? If it is, I think that the text of the policy should clarify that point. 
Also, the exception (for the famous person) that is mentioned in WP:V is not mentioned in WP:RS.  Is that mean that personal web site can be used as secondary sources when the owner is famous, despite a statement to the contrary in WP:RS? Does it mean also that Joe in the above example, which was discussed in the light of WP:RS, does not even need to be famous?  --Lumiere 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: If Joe's thoughts on relativity are to be included in the relativity article, Joe better damn well be someone who's thoughts on relativity are somehow relevant.  In other words, he better be an important physicist, not just some random person.  This is true no matter what the source for Joe's thoughts are. Friday (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How about if we just cut right to the chase and linked you the relevent discussion page so you can stop going from policy page to policy page begging people to say something that you can go use to try to browbeat your POV into an article, L? Talk:Natasha_Demkina. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand what is your problem. I am trying to understand the policies. I don't mind that we link to the Demkina page, if it is what you mean, but I didn't feel it would help here to explain my question. I am not just concerned by the Demkina article. --Lumiere 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess my problem was that WP:RS does not support that understanding in anyway. Because, it is given as a reference to learn more, we would expect that it will include this concept and say even more. Because it does not contain exception for famous persons, in view of what Friday just said, WP:RS has to be interpreted as saying that Joe's personal web site can only be used to source statement of the form  "Joes says Y" in which Y is directly about Joe himself or his Web site, not about something else like a new theory or whatever. It will be useful that WP:RS also mentions the exception. Note that I am not sure that I like this exception. If Joe is so important and the statement is relevant, why don't he publish this statement in an article in some reputable source.  --Lumiere 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for use of personal web site 

message: Question about interpretation of WP:V.
When challenged to source an assertion that
:"In the Tom and Jerry cartoons, each of the character's leitmotifs are inspired by Rhapsody in Blue and other Gershwin works."
a contributor responded by citing 
:http://www.recordhall.com/george-gershwin-biography.html
Anyone interested, could you please look at that reference... which is anonymous and I think is from an open Wikipedia-site allowing contributions on the same or on a less restrictive basis Wikipedia does... and then comment here. My issue is that I don't believe a source is valid unless it can be traced to a person whose identity is known... and that a publisher imposes no publication requirements and therefore does not serve the quality control function implied by "reputable publisher." 
Of course, if the cited source itself cited sources meeting WP:V that would be OK... as those sources could be used. But it doesn't.
TIA. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help wanted: request for comment on WP:V interpretation 

message: Could somebody have a glance at User talk:Brockmanah#General verifiability? I'd appreciate outside opinions about the sourcing for various Brockman family articles. I'm not happy about the reliability of citations in family scrapbooks, either self-published or from very small publishers. 86.140.106.125 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to the sources added thus far I will be adding the following:
*Burke’s "Landed Gentry" Burke's peerage Ltd; Jubilee edition, Mr. Bernard Burke, Mr. Gordon Pirrie (Author/Compiler)
*Hasted's History of Kent,: Corrected, enlarged, and continued to the present time, from the manuscript collection of the late Rev. Thomas Streatfeild and ... the public records, and other sources, ASIN: B000874L4G 
*Harris's History of Kent. 
*The history and antiquities of the county of Essex,: Compiled from the best and most ancient historians; Philip Morant, Reprinted and sold by Meggy and Chalk (January 1, 1816), ISBN: 0715813013, Another republishing, 1978.
*The Brockman Papers, (Records in the British Museum).
*The Brockman scrapbook;: Bell, Bledsoe, Brockman, Burrus, Dickson, James, Pedan, Putman, Sims, Tatum, Woolfolk, and related families (Unknown Binding)
by William Everett Brockman, ASIN: B0007E8Y48 (Out of Print), this information provided courtesy of Paul Brockman (Virginia)
*Record of the Brockman and Drake-Brockman family (Privately Published)
by BRIG.-GEN David Henry Drake-Brockman C.M.G. 1936 provided courtesy of Hugh-Drake Brockman (UK), ASIN: B00089U71U (Out of Print)
*Brockman & Drake-Brockman Family Tree : the Australian Branch 1830-1993.
(Menora, WA : Alan Jackson, 1993)  ISBN: 0-646-18200-5
I will be working to Harvardize and elaborate on these sources, and I haven't added the Virginia Families Volumes yet, which I will, if you give me some time.  I think that this sourcing is pretty good even if some of the books are rare (most of them are listed on Amazon.com, some of them were published with multiple editions over many decades, eg. Morant's Essex republished 1816.
Thanks Brockmanah 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the discussion.  I agree that the sourcing here is good and up to wikipedia's standards.  I can see the editor's point that the books are not widely published, but there is a lot of referencing and a great many people seem to have access to the books.  I think it would be better to see how the article stands up to other editors over time, who have collected other data or viewpoints from the web or other sources.  I think the material presented compares well with other wikipedia articles of a biographical or geneaolgical nature, particularly referring to a family.  Furthermore, if we demand only sourcing out of major publishers, we will only have biograhies of major figures (Bush, Clinton, the Windsors, et cetera) and it would be pleasingly egalitarian to allow more families to have material like this available.  Finally, the sourcing here compares well or better than that of other "Encylopeadic" biographical dictionaries like Burke's Peerage and others.  In my opinion this article is better sourced than those dictionaries, which occasionally allow mythological anecdotes in the interest of selling more copies.66.30.202.173 01:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputability of Out-of-Print Books from Small or Unknown Publishers

message: (Mellower now, sorry)  I guess what I need is someone to tell me whether the following series of statments is true:
# Facts supported by a verifiable source are acceptable
# Facts without any supporting reference are de facto acceptable (if you have worked on wikipedia long this is an undeniable reality)
# Facts supported by a difficult to verify source are unacceptable
That's my whole point. This application of the policy seems to value Wikipedia's ideals without a reasonable acknowledgement of Wikipedia's current reality.
ike9898 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Stevage's #1 is realistic.  In my attempt to comply with the verifiabily policy I have sought to support my new edits with references.  When a solid reference was not immediately available, I went with the best reference I could find at the time, in this particular case a personal communication.  But in this case the facts were uncontroversial and could probably be verified by some reference I am not aware of. With Stevage's #1, I would have left these uncontroversial facts unreferenced until I could locate a reliable source.  However, I get the feeling that many of you don't agree with this. The first response I got to my question (@ start of this section) was "if a supporting reference cannot be found, the information should be removed from Wikipedia".  Do you really think that is realistic?  Really? ike9898 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do. If I decide to edit an article that has no sources, I leave in only what I can find sources for. If someone else wants other material to stay, they can provide the sources. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I guess we disagree. But I think you would get a reality check if you removed all the unreferenced material from 20 random articles. (Don't do it - it would violate "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" & it certainly would be disruptive). ike9898 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do you bring in the strawman argument of deleting material from random articles? I said I feel free to delete material when I am working on an article and providing references. If I can't readily find references for material, why shouldn't I remove it, when I am going to the trouble of providing references for what I leave in or add? Again, if someone else feels strongly enough about keeping something in, they can find the references for it. I object to any attempt to protect unsourced material from being deleted. If it's deleted, and it's important enough, and verifiable, someone can put it back in with sources cited. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep in mind that we're all independent editors here and there are differences of opinion on a lot of things. This is one of them. Some editors are quite bold in their deletion of unsourced claims, even if they're uncontroversial; most are not, as you can tell by the content of most WP articles. Eight people happened to see your question here and respond so far, and four of them said no unsourced statement should be included - but since they're not running around mass-deleting articles, I'm not sure why this bothers you so. The policy page, not the talk page, reflects the current consensus... and when there are disagreements over specific edits, we resolve them by talking about those edits, so it's not a disaster if the policy fails to pre-judge every case with crystal clarity. If you add something and no one argues with it, it's in, until someone else takes it out, and then we can all argue and come to a consensus. In this case, you're trying to argue a principle that could have really bad consequences for WP if it were generally applied... and you're using a really weak case, because as far as I can tell, the fact you were trying to source was not only uncontroversial, but already sourced. ←Hob 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK ike9898 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ike, obviously your statement #1 is true. #3 is basically true, though in the case of citing personal communication it's "impossible to verify", not "difficult to verify". As much as possible should be cited - but everything must be verifiable. As for #2, it depends on the facts; as Stevage's list shows, some common sense is involved and there are different remedies for different situations. Why is this not "a reasonable acknowledgement of Wikipedia's current reality"? ←Hob 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to quibble, but the substance of a personal communication IS difficult BUT NOT impossible to verify.  I'm sure your imagination can fill in the details of how a third party could could verify a personal communication reference.  ike9898 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how can someone else verify the contents of a personal communication? If the contents of the communication can be found in published sources, cite those. Otherwise, don't put the information in Wikipedia. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's from spoken conversation, then the only way is to contact Carol Tyler; if any significant number of readers started doing that, she would quickly take steps to make it impossible, and it'll become permanently impossible in a few decades anyway. If it's from a signed letter in your possession, it's useful to historians but it's still not publicly available. If it's an E-mail, forget it. Have I left anything out? ←Hob 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A written commication can be scanned and posted to a non-wiki website. An email can be simialrly posted. A verbal communication could be so posted if it had be recorded, or the person could ask the source to confirm in a written communication. For the matter of that, an individual could publish a personal account of a conversatiuon on a website and then cite that publication -- not a high-quality source, perhaps, but not nothing at all, either. DES (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those methods would violate the spirit, if not the principal of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources and/or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If it's something that someone has simply posted to the web, how can anyone verify the material actually exists. That is why we have the guideline on Reliable sources. Now, if you can get a newspaper to publish the material, then it becomes citable. That is the general picture, if the material is published by an established and reputable source of information on the subject area, then you can use that source in Wikipedia. Self-publishing doesn't cut it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A scan of a physical leter including letterhead and signature, while not unfakable, is pretty good evidence, IMO. A web posting of an email or an account of a conversation ios of littel value, it is true. DES (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Dan Rather is now retired because he accepted what he thought were the original typed copies of documents. Sorry, no, on principal a scanned document is not acceptable as a reliable verifiable source. -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: point noted, but many of the sources cited in publsihed histories stand on no greater strength than that the author says s/he saw a physical copy of a document, and trusted it. Such evidence, while as i said is it not unfakable, might be reasonable support for non-controversial statements. But i won't labor the point futher. DES (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an author falsifies material in a book, or violates copyright, or libels someone, he or she (or, at worst, the publisher) can be called to account. If an anonymous editor does the same thing in Wikipedia, it is the Foundation that will get called to account on legal violations, and Wikipedia as a whole that will suffer for publishing falsified information. If we can point to a published source for whatever is in an article, we can't be accused of inventing it. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, to answer the original question, yes personal communication is considered unverifiable. If information exists *only* in unpublished information, it should not be included. Think about it. "George Bush has admitted to taking heorin[1]" [1] Personal communication. Such information should be removed on sight. If the information has *also* been published, then you should just include it without the personal correspondance citation, as per generally begrudgingly accepted practice. If you actually know the citation where the information was published, then by all means include that. In all three cases: do not cite personal communication as a source. Stevage 18:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about really uncontroversial facts: A bio article about a newly appointed bishop (with university career, published some books) the official note of the church gives the year he was born. Usually Wikipedia gives the full date of birth, but this is neither in an official communication nor in any of his books. Upon asking the bishops office, there comes a mail with the exact birthdate (and a foto with GNU licence). The fact (exact birthday vs. year) is really uncontroversial and it does not qualify as vanity text, and the bishop himself could add it per Wikipedia:Autobiography. Moreover, it could be verified by anyone through another mail to the bishops's office - but to add such a fact looks to be illegal by now, because the source is unpublished. As it happens, the fact in that case has also been published in the local newspapers of the time (as all births), so, actually, there exists even a "reputable source", which is a local non-English European newspaper issue some fifty years ago...). The "personal communication" could be verified by mail - the reputable source, well, you'd have to go to a European University library with a real good archive... so that's in actual practice rather not verifiable. Would it be ok, today, to add such a fact and give the source? - And if added without giving the source, would there really be someone who deletes it, just for having no source - not the least indication it is controversial? Or should I add as source "Berner Tagblatt", July 19xx - something anyone could give as source out of the blue air and, in case of an uncontroversial fact, be pretty sure no one would really take the pains to verify? Irmgard 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current practice

message: There seems to be some (understandable) confusion in the above discussion.  Let me use an example.  If I attend a speech by Notable Person, and NP says in the speech that they attended University U. and I then add that fact to the article, I have added unverified information.  I'm being lazy, insofar as I am expecting some other editor to find a source that confirms that, but I have a reasonable expectation that the information can be sourced.  If, however, after the speech I have a coffee with NP and ask them if they knew a certain professor at Uni. U., and they respond "I haven't thought about that person in years!  Why, upon consideration, they had a profound impact on my understanding of the development of [something completely unrelated to NPs field]!" and I then put that in the article, I am adding unverifiable information which does not belong in Wikipedia.  I hope that this example helps to clarify why there may exist vast amounts of unreferenced material on Wikipedia and yet many editors are concerned about the idea of adding "personal conversation" material to articles.  Jkelly 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add the information, you should provide verifiable sources for it. To quote [[Wikipedia:Citing sources}}, In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject. Adding information without providing verifiable sources is lazy and disrespectful to other editors. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and is common practice. I think the correct terminology here is that adding adding information without references is adding "uncited" or "unsourced" information. "Unverified" would mean that you've provided a source but no one has actually checked it yet. "Unverifiable", as correctly stated, is information for which a source is very unlikely to exist. Of course there is a lot on Wikipedia that is in the murky area between these two terms - information for which published sources may or may not exist, and for which those sources may or may not be reputable.Stevage 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, unsourced. But still, how can I tell if something is verifiable if no sources are provided. It should not be my responsibility to hunt around for sources for something someone else added. If the editor adding information is unable to cite reliable sources, it should never be added. If I do decide to work on an article that has no sources cited, I feel free to drop anything I can't find sources for. The simple fact is that if an item is unsourced, it's unverifiable. It is only when a source is provided that the item becomes verifiable. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified vs. unverifiable 

message: I disagree with the removal. WP:CITE is a guideline, not policy. The need for English sources is an integral part of Verifiability. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't go to WP:CITE but to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is surely the right place for it, jguk 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [WP:RS]] is also a guideline, not policy. SO if you think that it is necessary to make a change in Wikipedia policy, please seek consensus before doing so. Deleting a whole section from an agreed policy without prior discussion may not be the best way to go about it, don't you think? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ;This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Feel free to edit the page as needed, but please make sure that changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them.
(the comment in bold above was added by Jossi)
There has been a long period of discussion about this, it is not anything new. It's more a case that your edit is out of place.
This page summarises succinctly what our policy is. It is short and to the point, which is exactly what we want to be able to point to. What you are suggesting is increasing its length by 50% to discuss a rather arcane issue of when we should use references that are not in English. Now don't get me wrong, I am most certainly not saying we should remove all guidance on the subject, but I do believe that it is a relatively minor point and that by giving it undue weight here we lose some of the force of the main thrust of the policy. It certainly demotes in importance the "other comments", which refers to WP:NOR, which I see as being far more important than the issue of foreign-language sources. 
This section does most properly belong in Reliable Sources, and it's clear from the above that Francis Schonken does not see it as being out of place there. I see no problem in having it as a guideline (after all, the format of WP:V makes it clear what the policy is, with the implication that everything outside the policy box is a guideline rather than policy). I also note that since I added the section to WP:RS five hours ago, it has generated absolutely no discussion whatsoever (which implies that it has hardly caused an outrage by being added there). 
All the best, jguk 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. You cannot unilateraly delete a whole section from an agreed wikipedia policy. The burden is on you to argue for the removal of that section and gain consensus, not the opposite. As for the inclusion in WP:RS, that is a guideline and not policy as stated by the header. If you persist in unilateraly remnove agreed policy, I will ask place an RfC to ask other editors to comment. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RfC requested on this subject. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You may not be aware of the importance of this aspect of verifiability, but it is a crucial one, from my experience. As for the disproportion, you can summarize this very important aspect if you wish and provide the detail somewhere else, bot not just delete it from the policy. And yes, we need instructions about the content policies of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's right, there was extensive discussion of this rewrite to the policy. So while his repeatedly reverting the material out isn't terribly productive, neither is repeatedly reverting it back in. It's really simple people, very few edits are so urgent that repeated reverts are needed. I also acknowledge the problem that the article the material is being moved to is a guideline and not a policy, and there was extensive discussion formulating the policy on non English sources. - Taxman Talk 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the discussion, as I participated in these as well. In the spirit of what you have said, I have summarized the section into one paragrah and wikilinked to WP:RS. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read everything above; sorry, I will later. This is just a brief comment to say that this issue has  been widely discussed and it's agreed that some reference to English-language sources taking priority should be policy. We can't just move it to RS, because RS isn't policy. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources other than English 

message: The section in the old policy that discussed writing:
"Andi Mallarangeng, spokesperson for Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia's president, told reporters: "Suicide bombers in open places. You can't put metal detectors everywhere. You have to be realistic." [1]"
over
"After the bombing, a spokesperson in Bali said you can't have total security."
left the policy. This needs to be added to a guideline page, but I don't see it anywhere. I wanted to reference it to someone today. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point that you actually want to make? If they have provided a source, then rewrite the sentence that is being supported by the source so it is more precise. If they haven't, then remove the sentence until they do provide a source (making it clear what your objection is), jguk 11:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious to you and me that that's how it works. Please place that info in a policy or guideline, thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section needs to go somewhere: 

message: I have the impression that this kind of debates occur again and again. This is clearly a sign that something is not well explained. In particular, perhaps we should explain that we do care about accuracy and fairness right in the opening sentences. In fact, perhaps we should care even more than we do in practice, while remaining within policy or within its spirit.  I know that the policy must  avoid unnecessary suppression of information, not just avoid innacurate or unfair contributions. Two sides: (1) no suppression and (2) only accurate and fair content. There are people on each side fighting against the other side and there are also people fighting against both sides in favor of a weak policy that relies on consensus instead of precise rules. IMO, the side (2) is the most important. We should not compromise when it comes to accuracy and fairness. In any case, at the least, we should explain that we do care about fairness and accuracy and explain how it works in the policy so that the spirit of the policy will be better understood. The key point here is the importance of a reputable source and the fact that our criteria for a reputable source depends upon the content and its context. We should also explain the best we can what is a reputable source for different contents and contexts.  Otherwise, the policy is essentially empty. It is not true that it is fundamentally difficult. The difficulty comes only because of the fights that are mentioned above, but if we can agree on something it is not in itself difficult. --Lumière 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree to a need to clarify. But when you use value judgements such as "fairness" or "accuracy" I start doubting if this will result in clarification or more problems down the line. What is fair to one person may be completelky unfair to another. Same about accuracy, what may be an accurate statement to one person, it mat be a completely innacurate statement to another. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Lumière, I agree with one thing: This new shortened version of the policy, reduced it too much and left behind many important points and examples. My vote is to go back to the previous version and only trim carefully. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fundamental issues behind the above discussions 

message: I've restored some of the old version that explained the rationale behind "verifiability, not truth." If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. I'm beginning to think it might be easier to revert to the old version and work from there, or do some sort of merge, where most of the old version is retained. The problem with cutting out so much is that we've lost the context of some of the points. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly support this move, kudos to SlimVirgin. We can work (slowly) on trimming and defining this section, if necessary. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this include a return to truth over verifiability? --Light current 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way is fine. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. --Lumière 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If we doubt the truth of a statement, this should be mentioned in the article by saying that this is what is stated by an authority but is not necessarily true.--Light current 01:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is precisely what we should not do. That would be violation of NPOV. 
KillerChihuahua?!? 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:NPOV.  These content policies work together. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But its still NPOV to report something as being believed by the majority to be the truth. It doesnt necessarily mean that you believe it or not.--Light current 01:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Note the word 'necessarily'. I cant see whats wrong with this sentiment--Light current 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Its the emphasis of verifyability OVER currently accepted truth that I can't accept. Both together must surely be prerequisites for inclusion.--Light current 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Light current, I wasn't online today, and I haven't read all of the above yet, so forgive me if this has already been dealt with. I was wondering: could you give me a concrete (actual or hypothetical) example of where "verifiability, not truth" would lead to a problem for Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Currently accepted truth" is taken care of by the WP:NPOV policy.  As has been stated before, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR all work together. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does it say Verifiabiliy NOT truth. No one has yet answered this question- specifically the specific denial of truth bit--Light current 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, and also already stated:  Because truth is inherently subjective.  Therefore, where there is a dispute over what the Truth of the matter is, it's better to summarize conflicting viewpoints of what that truth is, rather than trying to pass judgement ourselves on what the truth is.· Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So we dont need to worry about whether anything is correct or not as long as you got a reference?--Light current 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Provided the source is reliable, verifiable and pertinent. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not particularly. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You fail again, and again, and again, to understand that this policy lives withing the context of WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. As such, we will be happy to quote information (regardless if it is "correct" or "incorrect"), providing it is from a reliable/reputable source, and we attribute the information to that source. That is why, as editors of Wikipedia, we do not concern ourselves with the "truth" about subject XYZ, but chose instead to describe how reliable sources describes XYZ as truth (or as falsness for that matter). ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored some of the old

message: Lets change it to verifiable accuracy in the opening. Accurate is not as strong as 'true' but gives the right idea to editors.--Light current 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, as I asked above, can you give a concrete example (actual or hypothetical) of where you think the emphasis on verifiability, not truth, would cause a problem for Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im replying to Lumiere at the moment. I will reply to you ASAP--Light current 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are opionins of certain groups and indivuals. It would be innapropriate to state those as facts, just like any other opionin (including the opposing viewpoint, We sumarise arguments, rather than making them.-Sean Black (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you meant "verifiable accuracy"? Perhaps "verifiably accurate"? It maybe only me but "verifiably accuracy" does not sound right. --Lumière 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Accuracy" seems just as difficult to quantify as "truth", in my opionin.--Sean Black (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. This has served us really well. What LC is doing is looking at this policy in isolation and without considering the other two. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggestion 

message: If one leg of a three legged stool is broken, the stool will fall over! I appreciate the fact that you have decided that you are wasting your time. Thank you for your interest in this subject and Goodnight! Im sure we can continue in your absence--Light current 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if one leg is used to support the whole weight, the stool will fall over too. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but i dont unsterstand the relevance of that statement to this argument. (Im not suggesting sawing off one of the legs, but reparing it)--Light current 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That assumes that it's broken.--Sean Black (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The three legged stool has produced one of the most incredible collaboration projects ever in the history of humankind so far, against all odds, including yours, LC. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, all three legs may be just fine and not in need of any change.--Sean Black (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Or not. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a great deal of enthusiasm in not fixing what it is not broken. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A broken leg