Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 5

message: I think I'm going to  Be bold on a rather important part of this, and would like to explain my reasoning in more detail than an edit summary allows. Here is what this looked like before my edits:
:* Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately.
:* Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations; the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to retain the material. Material lacking attribution may be removed, but use common sense: that Paris is the capital of France does not need a source. This policy should never be used to cause disruption by prematurely removing material for which reliable sources could reasonably be found. The exception to this is when dealing with claims about living persons, where unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately and not be moved to talk pages.
My problems are with the heading and the "use common sense" phrase. The heading starts slightly misleading, and contradicting the following text. "Any unsourced material may be removed" - not so simple. Following that literally would lead to the removal of every sentence without a specific <ref> tag, even the non-controversial or common sense ones. There is a better way to write that without using too many words: "Any material that can not be sourced may be removed". The idea is that if the material is not particularly controversial, it is all right if it doesn't have a specific <ref> tag, if it is supported by the references in general. "Paris is the capital of France" is an excellent example of this - we don't have to present a specific source for that statement, as every single source that we have cited about Paris will say as much. Giving that specific explanation is better than the vague "use common sense", which is often used as an excuse by people who aren't able to explain themselves. If the material is seriously challenged, then, yes, we will stick a ref tag on it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Robert on last. I have reverted the removal. For run-of-the-mill editing this is a totally sensible caveat. Perhaps the pro-Palestinian editor has a point and you need to talk about the source. There's much for which policy will provide no slam dunk—the clause is a warning re questionable sources, that's all. Marskell 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Key principles" 

message: For a long time now, that section has had two illustrations that may be described as a simple calculation and a simple syllogism.  Now it contains one, the simple calculation.  I find myself puzzled.
Except to those few editors for whom the vantagepoint of Principia Mathematica is natural, these are distinguishable classes, and in many ways the one deleted is the more certain and less likely to be abused.  A calculation of percentages that excludes minor party candidates and spoiled ballots is subtly different from a calculation that includes either or both.  On the other hand, the inference of US Birth (note we do not say "citizenship") is not subject to such problems.
I am not objecting to the calculation example.  The advantage of two easily distinguishable examples is that it focuses the policy on the intent, while a single example can create the false impression of a rigid, formalistic exception, rather than trying to avoid giving cover to those who would use policy to be a jerk.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal says "For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ." Maybe add the extra example you wish to add there??? WAS 4.250 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about adding an extra example, I am talking about replacing half of the two-headed example that has been there for quite some time.  I  haven't heard what the objection to it was. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to what is not original research 

message: "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Isn't WP:NOT also considered a core content policy?  It's certainly very important for "determin[ing] the type ... of content allowed in articles". JulesH 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, it can only be regarded as part of foundation policy insofar as it's part of Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View; separated off, I see no particular reason why this policy proposal (or the policies it combines) need claim canonical status. I think we need one policy, rather than this "two core" policy" business; but that's for another day. qp10qp 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  I look forward to the grand unification debate.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Core content policies" 

message: I think it would be good to move the section about OR under "key principles" to the section dealing with "OR". This should avoid in-page duplication of the same issue. >Radiant< 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better as it is: the "key principles" effectively gives a summary of the remainder of the document.  It's a classic inverted pyramid. JulesH 09:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout