Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 19

message: I suggest the following phrasing for this section:
:Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are not usually acceptable as sources.
:Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by a well-known expert on the topic of the article whose work has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.  However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: information in self-published sources has not been subject to independent fact checking, and may be less reliable than professional-published work by the same author.  For this reason, it is usually necessary to provide a prose attribution for material sourced to self-published works.  Self-published works that make controversial claims are not usually considered reliable sources.
:Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.
This seems to me to be a reasonable start.  It relaxes the requirements on the writer of the source to be a professional researcher, now only requiring them to be a "well-known expert" (i.e., it must be documented somewhere reliable that they are an expert on the subject), but requiring them to have been published on the same topic by a reliable source (rather than merely having been published as is in the current text).  It also requires a prose attribution and suggests that controversial claims should not be sourced from self published works, both of which should help reduce the problems of undue weight being placed on contentious sources.
Any comments on this suggestion? JulesH 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.  The word "expert" is good, especially "expert" and "same topic" and "reliable source" all mentioned together. --Aude (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "whose work in the relevant field [or in the field in question] has previously been published..." I'd also suggest dropping "well-known" for "established". Marskell 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd also leave in "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Another formulation I've thought of previously "editors should ask themselves if the person needs to self-publish because reliable publishers would reject the material" or some such thing. Marskell 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources: suggestion 

message: Many of the people involved in this discussion have done excellent work writing articles, with many featured articles, though covering different topic areas with different issues.  I haven't followed SlimVirgin's articles closely, so not familiar with what problems she has had with WP:RS and guidelines/policies on self-published sources.  I'm more familiar with what Tim Vickers has worked on, the climate/global warming articles that Raymond has worked on, and some of the work done by Marskell.  Reliable sources definitely follows a continuum, from scholarly peer reviewed works (should generally be expected on science articles), to reputable journalists and news media outlets, to some other works (e.g. blogs or other material published by known experts in a field; for biographies and history articles, books and material written by people involved in the event likely would be good sources, etc.)  But then we have the arbcom case on pseudosciences that should also guide us.  What other examples and situations do people have?  --Aude (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sources/publishers such as the Kipling Society have been mentioned many times by reputable news media such as the New York Times and the BBC.   This BBC news article, for example, mentions the society in a way that indicates it is indeed a reliable source and authority on the topic. No reason that we can't include such societies in the guideline. --Aude (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this might be covered by an exception saying that if multiple reliable sources cite a self-published source as an authority, this source may be used in a similar manner on Wikipedia. Tim Vickers 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *The Old Readers Guide was supported by the society, but it was definitely self-published.  (I am lucky enough to live near a University that has a copy and have personally seen it; every page is printed with something along the lines of "For private use only").  The New Readers Guide gets a lot of information from this Old Readers Guide, but it is far from complete currently, so in some case you will have to refer to the Old Readers' Guide.  This is the most extreme example of a source I can think of which, I feel people use and regard as reliable, but has few of the benchmarks that are used here to judge reliability.--BirgitteSB 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's a way of formulating language to cover that issue. Many blogs get some kind of favorable nod from columnists writing in reliable sources. We don't have a system where a reliable source can make another source reliable by giving it a good review. The trouble with self-published sources is that they may not be consistent from one period of time to another. We already exempt self-published people who are acknowledged experts writing within their field of expertise. Why wouldn't that cover the Old Readers Guide?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really "exempt self-published people who are acknowledged experts writing within their field of expertise"? I don't see anything in WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:RS that says so. Raymond Arritt 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)The man behind the Old Readers Guide is described here when he became president of the Society:He was a Banker all his working life, and retired in 1946 after twenty years as Manager of West End Branches. From 1911 he was an officer in a Territorial Battalion of The Buffs, and served for over five years during and after World War One, mostly in the East and much of the time as a Brigade Major. Then it describes his work done for the Society or towards the Society's goals (amoung others things For many years he has given invaluable help to the past two Hon. Librarians, and his knowledge of our Library and indeed of all Kipling's writings is encyclopaedic.).  I guess the real question is where does someone cross the line from "enthusiast" to "expert".  I honestly don't know how we judging if someone qualifies as an expert right now.--BirgitteSB 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Incorporating the suggestions generated in the discussion above. Please edit and comment. Tim Vickers 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new draft

message: The following language has wide support at WT:RS. It originally derives from this page, and is general; it should, in some form be here as well:
:The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used when scholarly publications are not available, such as in topics related to popular culture or current events.
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This wording forms part of the proposed new section which is being discussed above. Tim Vickers 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarship

message: I've protected the page for a few days. There seems to be an edit war going on. I had actually been hoping to take a closer look at this page some time, but there's so much going on that I wouldn't know where to begin or which side I'm on. Can you come to some agreement without reverting? The protection expires in four days, but if you most of you want it unprotected sooner, just let me know. ElinorD (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was probably a good idea. I expect you will have protected the wrong version, but that's to be expected. Tim Vickers 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: A number of users who are editing the article St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) have used the College Roll to demonstrate the attendance of certain individuals at the college. The roll is where students sign up to the college (actually a residential institution). A particular user claims that this use is not acceptable. Any comments from other users? Ozdaren 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a reliable primary source. Blueboar 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ozdaren, this is a difficult one, and it would depend how the source was being used. First, it may not be notable that the individuals attended that college. Secondly, they may only have registered, then left. Third, they may not be the same individuals you think you're writing about. If there's an objection, it's always better to find a secondary source, particularly if it concerns living persons. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments.Ozdaren 05:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources (online and paper) 

message: Can an web archived source be used, when there is a superseding that would appear to contradict it? The case in point is as follows:
The Web Archive source is as follows:
16 April 1999 
:Leonard Peltier has now spent twenty-three years in prison. Amnesty International considers Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues to legal redress have long been exhausted. The US Government has repeatedly denied requests for a special executive review. Amnesty International recognizes that a retrial is no longer a feasible option and believes that Peltier should be immediately and unconditionally released.
Now, from a AI Bulletin on April 30, 1999 
:USA: Amnesty International calls for release of Leonard Peltier [News Service 080/99, 27 April 1999]. Amnesty International is not able to take a position regarding Leonard Peltier's guilt or innocence, and does not consider him a prisoner of conscience, but has decided to call for his release from prison because of continuing doubts about the fairness of the legal proceedings against him. A retrial no longer seems a feasible option. 
Now, an AI July 15, 2007 statement: 
:Amnesty International has investigated this case for many years. Although Amnesty International has not adopted Leonard Peltier as a prisoner of conscience, the organization remains concerned about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted.
I suppose my question would be, can we use a dead link as a source stating that AI believes Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner, even when the source is no longer active, and material published at a later date would indicate that AI takes the opposite position? 
Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources indicate that AI's position on Leonard Peltier status as a political prisoner is unclear. Say so and use all three sources as your reference. WAS 4.250 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would not the two more recent statements, where they do not take the position that he is a PP or PoC, be the current position of AI considering that the first link has been taken down by AI? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say that when using the same source, the most recent info/opinion that source has regarding a person or issue is the one to go with.--MONGO 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there is clear evidence that the source is not divided against itself. The differences in opinion may not be temporal in origin. WAS 4.250 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably refer to all three statements. It would be worth looking around to see whether a secondary source has written about how Amnesty changed its mind within the space of two weeks. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that it is quite possible that "political prisoner" and "prisoner of conscience" are not the same thing. AI affirms the first and denies the second.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point. I suppose that's the danger of relying on primary sources: we don't really know what they meant. Could be the first statement was a mistake by an intern or something. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well spotted. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web Archive Sources

message: I'm just going to pull out one sentence of Tim's to unpack it: "One suggestion would be that for any "well-known" fansites or blogs to be used, these should have been mentioned in reliable sources, such as magazines or newspapers." I had three principal problems with the exception (noted in part in Colin's link). One was the circular logic involved: if the whole reason that Usenet is not reliable is because we cannot ascertain who posted what where, how can we ascertain that "named, or well-known pseudonymous, individuals with a known expertise in the area" are behind the material? The qualification continues to beg the question. Thus I think wording similar to Tim's would be appropriate. Everybody's favourite example was Spoo, a FA which uses Usenet as a source. Thus the requirement would not be that you have to source the particular fact to a reliable magazine or newspaper, only the general fact that the individual involved did in fact use the medium. If "everybody knows" that one of the developers of Spoo used Usenet, source that to a reliable magazine etc., and then you can use Usenet for the specifics in the article. 
That's one of three. Two of three: how are we defining pop cult? This is obviously of importance. Three of three: this does create dual standards, however you look at it. While we need to be sensitive to the editors who desire the exception, the reverse problem will likely occur: threads here to the effect of "when the heck did this happen?" Marskell 13:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the answer that you are going to find it hard (impossible) to define a general rule, it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In one area a fan site will be a respectable tome, another far more unreliable. Yet within either, some stuff will be good quality, other stuff poor. Perhaps that is the only wording: Where reference is made to non-scholarly sources, especially informal publications such as fansites or blogs, a judgement needs to be made as to the quality of the site and therefore the value of the citation on a case by case basis. It is not just a problem for blogs, it is for newspapers, USA Today is probably a less worthy source than the Herald Tribune, The Sunday Sport less than The Independent. Spenny 16:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifying the individual

message: To help focus the discussion, the policy now states:
:"...non-academic sources should not be used as the sole support for bizarre or extraordinary claims." 
:Again, if the claims have recveived attention, they should and they must--how else will people know the facts. 
What claims are we talking about? Please feel free to add examples to the list below.
( I comment in italics)
Bizarre and extraordinary
*Machines that break the laws of thermodynamics. 
but if they are talked about, they must be explained. --with NPOV
*Alien lifeforms regularly visiting Earth in secrecy
those that people discuss, we must discuss
*Non-relativistic time-travel
I do not consider this necessarily bizzare--just outside present scientific knowledge
*Faith healing bringing people back from the dead.
again, if its discussed, and there's evidence, it must be mentioned and countered
Unusual, but not bizarre and extraordinary
*Political corruption and dirty tricks
*Criminal activity
*Minority scientific views
Having a requirement that any of these really strange ideas need very solid sources to support them reinforces the NPOV policy in that it requires that for a bizarre idea (in medicine/science/history) to be included, it has to have reached the level of prominence of being mentioned in academic sources. If people can think of real-world examples where this exclude material that needs to be in Wikipedia, please list them here. Tim Vickers 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ive done that--Tim--don;t you see--we have a responsibility to represent the information that people need for self education. Not to educate them, not to tell them what to believe, but to present a balanced view of even the most absurd suggestions, and tell them what qualified scientists think of it. Otherwise we are letting the bizarre have the run of things unopposed. The only things we can omit are those where there is no public interest or knowledge and the advocate(s) desire to use WP in order to attract some initial attention. DGG (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I like the wording. "The appropriateness of such sources always depends on context and non-academic sources should not be used as the sole support for significant or extraordinary claims when describing an academic subject." This would allow us to use newspapers for the President ordering a burglary, which is significant and extraordinary but not an academic subject (that's exactly where we should be giving newspapers priority) but not allow their use in the troublesome examples mentioned. Would you like "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation" changed to "In biology, evolution is the controversial idea that there is change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation" with "controversial idea" sourced to a non-academic article about the Kansas School Board? Back on the circle (though surprised I'm on it with you). Marskell 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed sentence states "..non-academic sources should not be used as the sole support for bizarre and extraordinary claims." I'm not sure where the word "significant" came from in your example. Such creationist/evolution discussion is covered by the NPOV policy, this proposal does not attempt to address such controversial issues. Instead it focuses on clear examples of absolutely off-the-wall additions so that it will be generally accepted. Tim Vickers 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second sentence in Marskell's post is actually another proposed sentence: ...non-academic sources should not be used as the sole support for significant or extraordinary claims when describing an academic subject. This makes sense to me. I would prefer using specific wording to the effect that using at least one academic source is required to substantiate claims on academic/scientific topics (claims that do not yet enjoy consensus in the academic community). The current version says "the highest quality sources should be used..."; this makes sense too, but is a little vague. If not specifying that one of the sources should be academic, then it should at least provide specific examples of the type of sources that can be used. And if none of the sources are scholarly, then I think multiple sources are needed. However, at the end, I still think that such claims should never be *solely* based on non-academic sources. — Zerida 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bizarre and extraordinary claims"

message: The organization of the first three sentences seems to me a bit disordered.  Wouldn't something like this be better
It seems to me that it's better to treat NPOV in one paragraph and what constitutes a reliable source in another.  (If you agree, perhaps go ahead a change the draft version above.)  semper fictilis 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight reorganization

message: The word "scholarly" seems to me unhelpful in this context.  To me, scholarly means sober, intelligent, and informed, and thus there is in my experience much that I regard as "scholarly" in works that this policy would describe as "non-scholarly", and much that is not in works that might get the "scholarly" label.  Equally, to me, the idea that anyone would use a source that is "non-scholarly" is a bit of a shock--"non-scholarly" (to me) means unreliable.  Now, those may be my own bug-bears and shared by no one else.  But wouldn't it be better if the words "scholarly" and "non-scholarly" were replaced by (e.g.) "academic" and "non-academic"?  Maybe one of the scientists can chip on "scientific" vs "popular", or such.  semper fictilis 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My OED (1972 ed) defines "Scholarly" as - Pertaining to or characterising a scholar, and a "scholar" as either a member of a university (synonym of student) or as a learned or erudite person. Under this definition (and the OED is the final word in everything! :) ) the suggestion that we should use "non-scholarly sources" is, under this definition a very strange idea, as these would be produced by somebody with no learning on the subject in question. I have therefore changed the draft to use "non-academic", as you suggest. Tim Vickers 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "scholarly"

message: I'm fine with just "accuracy", my old wording of requiring both "neutrality and accuracy" might be seen as excluding some sources such as newspapers with a definite political leaning, which still print factual material, just mixed with slanted editorials and however much I dislike it, FOX news is still arguably a reliable source in some contexts. I have also removed the second use of this phrase. Tim Vickers 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neutrality and accuracy"

message: I've been wondering about how verifiability for images is established. For example, how do we know that :Image:Nc3.jpg is an image of Elijah Shaw and Naomi Campbell, as the uploader claims? And that they're performing the activity that the uploader claims they are? The description of the image ends up being used in articles, too, as a caption. Not to pick on this example specifically -- there are hundreds of images with no real verifiability. Some are inconsequential; some could be mis-representative or defamatory. Are images at all verifiable? -- Mikeblas 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR specifically note that images enjoy exceptions to the usual enforcement of no original research.  A similar philosophy applies here. WilyD 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link! Is it just me, or is that incredibly dangerous? -- Mikeblas 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I'm not sure its that dangerous. Pragmatically, it would be difficult if not impossible to obtain "free-but-citeable"  images (whether photographic, diagrams, maps, etc) for Wikipedia. From a "but is it correct?" standpoint, images have to go through the same community scrutiny - "bad" images don't tend to last long. -- MarcoTolo 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, we don't know what images are bad. Look at the image at the Prostitution page, for example. Is that really a prostitute? Is she really from Germany? Or is it just a picture of an exgirlfriend that somebody's vengefully mad at? This seems like a big liability for Wikipedia, and that's a big danger to the project. It also seems very dangerous to allow images that "seem to be correct", without verifiability, to be attached to a site that has a lot of credibility. After all, very many people blindly trust Wikipedia, despite the disclaimers. -- Mikeblas 01:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are at the point now with images where we were with text in the early years of wikipedia when people just wrote what they thought was true without feeling the need to prove it with a cite. We'll get there with images sooner or later. This is all a process. WAS 4.250 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a way to make the process for images less painful and more expeditious than the process was for prose? -- Mikeblas 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability for images? 

message: Hi, the discussion is too much for me to wade through without being frightfully interested in it, but I've scanned this page briefly, and I think the atmosphere seems friendlier than it did when I protected the policy page. How near are you all to reaching a consensus? Any signs of a compromise version being accepted by most editors? Forgive my laziness in not reading though the whole discussion in order to answer my own question. ElinorD (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are asking, is it safe to unprotect the page, I'd say yes. The warring is over, it appears that consensus is forming. I don't get the impression that people are going to go awol if you unlock. Spenny 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeable to the draft above under "feel free to edit." Perhaps we should unprotect, add, and then reprotect, to allow people to express opinion on the addition without rv'ing over it? Marskell 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody has objected to the proposal above, it might be better to apply WP:BRD and just add the consensus wording to an unprotected page. If anybody reverts, they can explain their objections on this page and we can see if they can be incorporated. Tim Vickers 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Let's unprotect; then add the draft above under "feel free to edit" to the policy (after the first paragraph in the "sources" section). WAS 4.250 08:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just looking in 

message: Okay, I've unlocked the article, I hope you can all work it out without edit warring again.  Remember, one bold edit, one reversion, and then lots of discussion to consensus, and then the next bold edit, the next reversion, the next discussion and the next consensus, and then the next...
Good luck. Hiding Talk  09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: User: Until(1 == 2) started decimating several lists, such as List of ethnic group names used as insults, which are annotated lists of wikipedia articles. His position is: "please provide citations to addition to the article, Wikipedia cannot be a reference to itself". I find it inapplicable for the cases of lists. I asked for Third Opinion (pointing to Talk:List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity#WP:V), but no one hurries to join the discussion. 
It occurs to me that User: Until(1 == 2) will not be the last one with this attitude, and I even don't want to think about th emoment when someone will start chopping lists like List of Romanian actors demanding provide reverences (in the list) taht they are Romanians and are actors. Therefore I  think that the phrasing of the policy must have more common sense as to where it is reasonable to request citations (now it says "in the article"). `'Miikka 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with demanding citations in lists... I know of quite a few where doing so is a requirment for adding a new entry.  In the case of your specific list, I could see the requirement for citations as cutting out potential neologisms.  Blueboar 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a requirement, if it is a list of entries that do not have their own wikipedia article. If there is an article, all references must be there, where a NPOV picture of the term is to be presented. If an article is a "potential neologism", then the article is a subject of AfD and then delisting. If there is an alive and well wikipedia article, it is a valid entry for the list. `'Miikka 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did Wikipedia become an acceptable source for list entries? Each article/list must support itself wrt references. Lists are not exempt from WP:V, nor are they a special case. Colin°Talk 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't you go and put List of Romanian actors for deletion? It does not contain a SINGLE reference! Wikipedia has always been a source of reference for its lists. Lists are lists are lists. They are navigation/summary tools. Next thing you start requiring references for categories and navboxes. `'Miikka 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been a contentious issue for some time. When I last checked, the consensus was that citations must be included if the material is challenged, per this policy, but as you say there are many lists that have no references at all. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Miika, you seem to be the only one supporting your position.  I looked through Wikipedia:Verifiability and could not find anything that said Lists are the single exception to the core content policy Verifiability.  Can you propose an argument on why it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia not to require references on lists? P.S. I have seen categories with  on them. Jeepday (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Miikka, I agree completely: such lists should be deleted en masse, and the sooner, the better. Lacking references guarantees that we are misinforming the public at least some of the time, which is completely unacceptable.Proabivouac 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, AfD all these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Articles don't tend to fail AfD just for being unreferenced, and the editor who brings such suggestions is generally chastised for it,  Jeepday (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because much of the community lacks a sense of scholarly responsibility appropriate to the gravity of our mission.Proabivouac 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, for exactly the shortcomings we're discussing. If and when the day comes when all Wikipedia articles (and lists) are well-referenced and well-reviewed, then we can cite them.Proabivouac 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Mikkalai the suggestion is to delete the unreferenced lists, as that would be keeping with policy.  If you attempt to create NEW ARTICLE you will notice this statement in bold print "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." immediately above the edit box.  The reality is that if if the article (or list) appears to be attempting to cite reference and is moving towards improvement then it is generally not considered for deletion but is an article in progress.  Take for example List of rail trails which is partially referenced, which has references and is improving (slowly).  Another reality is that articles with content are not generally deleted for lacking references, but everything unreferenced in the article may be removed as unreferenced per WP:V leaving a blank or nearly blank article which is then subject to  or  then it is gone. Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason citations need to be in the list article is that when you just link to an article it can look like there is a citation when there is not. See Talk:List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity#Finding_sources_for_removed_content, it looked like all the entries were cited through wikilinks, but when I actually looked through it I found over half were not cited. Just as the policy says now, all challenged facts in any type of article needs to be cited in the article. This is good. Until(1 == 2) 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and you did get a response to your third opinion request here. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is another example of what happens when you audit a page that is "referenced" with wikilinks: Talk:List_of_Romanian_actors#Work_log. Over 2 thirds are not cited at all in their linked articles. Wikilinks used in place of references gives the false impression of citation that is more often than not absent from the article. The reason for this is Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Until(1 == 2) 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Reliable sources can be provided by an in-line link to another Wikipedia article that already contain adequate third-party sources."
And BTW this wording takes care of the recursion/daisy chain problem because only one level of in-line links would be allowed. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly against such a statement. That would mean every time you have to check the other article, check the sources there and then see if it corresponds with the entry list. Much easier and better to source it in the list itself. Garion96 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Strongly oppose such a statement.  See Wikipedia Policy enunciated in WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. -- Boracay Bill 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How does it need updating?  Per Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_content The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."  The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:  Signed Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability in lists 

message: I point out :Wikipedia:List guideline, pointed at by :Category:Lists.  It looks like it will need updating.  (SEWilco 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it need updating?  Per Wikipedia:List_guideline#Lists_content The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."  The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:  Signed Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List guideline 

message: I see scholarly and non-scholarly sources is back, after I thought we had a consensus to not use it. This construction makes me very uneasy, and I oppose including it. I am sure it will be used to support the inclusion of nonsensical conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, and fringe opinion. I wish I understood what those who want to include it hope the positive result will be. Tom Harrison Talk 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in the discussion above, nobody supported this wording. Tim Vickers 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording says that scholarly sources are likely to be the sources of choice in areas such as history and science, and that non-scholarly reliable sources are welcome too, particularly if mainstream with a reputation for accuracy. There is nothing in there that implies the proliferation of conspiracy theories or nonsense. The bottom line is that nothing in this policy may contradict the NPOV policy, which stresses that all majority and significant-minority published opinion must be included. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know an opinion is significant because we find it in a reliable source. We do not on our own determine an opinion is significant and then find the best source we can. Tom Harrison Talk 01:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Tom, I don't follow your point. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording implies that the point of view comes first, and the best sources available are then found to support it. Instead of this, we should be only be including a point of view that exists in reliable sources. Being in a reliable source is how we know a point of view exists. Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The wording "Academic and peer-reviewed sources are highly valued and should usually be given most weight in areas such as history, medicine, and science." is entirely consistent with the NPOV policy as this wording does not state that non-academic points of view cannot be included. Tim Vickers 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing in NPOV requires us to encourage people to use non-scholarly sources. It would be better to say nothing than to say 'scholarly or non-scholarly'. Tom Harrison Talk 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does. All maj and sig-min published opinon must be included. ALL. Not only scholarly. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, all sig-min opinion can be included. This wording does not preclude that. This is not a statement about content, it is a statement about relative weighting that should be given, in most cases, to different types of sources. Tim Vickers 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not at all necessary to say 'non-scholarly.' If I didn't have so much respect for your work I would think you were deliberately misconstruing what I say. I know the down side as well as you. We both deal with cranks every day. What good edit are we loosing by not saying 'scholarly or non-scholarly'? I'm happy to listen to your argument however you choose to make it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The "non-scholarly" clause, whatever its goal, amounts to a green light for cranks; if it stays, we will never hear the end of it.Proabivouac 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, I'm trying to balance two things: (a) to establish wording that will help to keep out crank theories, fringe theories, and conspiracy theories; and (b) to make sure that the wording isn't misused to keep out non-scholarly ideas that are not crank, fringe, or conspiracy theories. I've seen both happen, and both are violations of NPOV. Therefore, I want to make clear that non-scholarly and scholarly sources are welcome, though the latter are likely to be the sources of choice in subjects such as history and science. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we can work out on the talk page a way to express that without tipping the balance too far. I thought we had. I'll do no more tonight. Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we can. The current wording looks fine to me. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This non-consensual edit is flaccid and unclear - "likely to be the sources of choice". What does this phrase mean? This policy does not aim to describe likely attributes of people's writing, it gives specific guidance on how to select and assess sources for reliability. Tim Vickers 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version seems to have consensus. Non-scholarly has been removed, which is not my preference, but I can live with the current wording so long as it's not watered down any further. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you explain exactly what you mean by "likely to be the sources of choice" is this just a statement about probability? If so, why is it needed in the policy? Tim Vickers 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The point of NPOV is not to exclude sources simply because editors have personal views about the issues. So we say we welcome other sources, to emphasize that per NPOV we don't exclude any significant view that is well sourced. Crum375 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your second sentence does not logically follow from your first. Suppressing the personal views of editors does not require us to use non-scholarly sources on scientific topics. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, if those sources are majority or significant minority views. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, on a topic such as genetically modified organisms we're to "welcome" the word of a reporter from the Daily Telegraph or The Sun exactly as we would a plant pathologist? Two uninformed reporters beat one scientist, becoming the "majority view"? Raymond Arritt 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Majority in reliable sources I assume. Take a hypothetical example of where there is disagreement on the molecular weight of hydrogen. Ten Op-ed writers state in their columns that this is 1.008(7) g·mol−1, while two peer-reviewed papers in Nature state that it is 1.00794(7) g·mol−1. Should the majority view in non-academic sources be given more weight here than the majority view in academic sources? Tim Vickers 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, let's not use nonsensical examples. We know that the mainstream respected sources will have multiple fact checkers, and access to technical experts. Let's see where there is a real example where such a mainstream source insists on contradicting well established scientific facts, and then we can deal with it. Crum375 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, we already say that sources must be appropriate to the topic - so for example a respected scientific database would trump a popular journal in accuracy, if that's the issue. Crum375 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed true that if you assume that all mainstream sources never make mistakes, then they are all obviously of equal weight. However, that isn't true, so we can't make this statement. Tim Vickers 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's already removed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the writing is ambiguous. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not roll it back to the version before the contentious edits began? That would be here. The present wording clearly is disputed. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of it do you dispute, Raymond? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion had settled down to an apparent consensus before the page was unprotected. The point was to work this out on the talk page yesterday, not to see who could shoe-horn a version onto the page and then demand consensus to change it. With an approach like that we would risk losing the generous benefit of the doubt we should be able to accord each other. Tom Harrison Talk 02:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for comments like that, Tom. SlimVirgin was very busy with editing other pages and may not have been following the discussion here. She might therefore have been unaware of the level of support that the text had when she made the bold edits we are discussing. Tim Vickers 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Tom's response below. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant which part of the current text do you dispute, Raymond. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict-o-rama) Several things, but the unfounded reference to WP:NPOV is especially galling. Raymond Arritt 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been discussed endlessly. At some point it has to be added to the article, the writing has to be good, there shouldn't  be repetition, and it must be consistent with the other core policies. We now have that, and Tom's removal of "non-scholarly" while retaining the rest of the edit seems to have met with approval. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for 'particularly', which should be 'only', or should be taken out. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Particularly" is important. The meaning of the sentence changes without it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it does change the meaning. The problem with 'particularly' is it implies 'but even if not'. Why would we want sources that are not mainstream, or do not have a good reputation? Tom Harrison Talk 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources don't have to be mainstream. They need only be reliable, and must represent majority or significant-minority POVs. Trying to introduce that they must also be "mainstream" would be a major policy change. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can live with this if we remove the terrible phrase "likely to be the sources of choice", the single word "preferred" is much better. Tim Vickers 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a terrible phrase. It's more accurate than "preferred," because we can't say that WP prefers them without knowing the context, but we can say that editors are likely to choose them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have experience with a vastly different pool of editors than I do! My experience is that people are going to use whatever sources they can get away with to push their POV. We're constantly having to deal with sources like this. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a 'mainstream source with a good reputation'? Crum375 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be. It would just be particularly welcome if it were. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not a reliable source, Raymond. You don't need to add special words to keep that kind of thing out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? You don't think so?  I've had to go through long arguments with people who do. Granted it's not a "mainstream source" but the present wording doesn't say it has to be -- only that it's "particularly" welcome if it is. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version (and every version before it for a long time) says sources must be reliable and appropriate, and that source is neither. I'm getting the impression you're trying to change the policy because you've not been emphasizing the current wording enough in arguments with sources. The thing to do is to rely more on what we already have, rather than trying to strengthen it, because the danger is you'll go too far in the opposite direction, which will lead to a weakening of the policy over time, because of backlash. I've seen it happen many times. The key is to strike a balance, then leave it stable. If you have problems with people trying to use poor sources and claiming to rely on this policy, let me know and I'll help you out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is absolutely stupifying. Has it always been like this here and I am just now noticing? Tom Harrison Talk 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that paragraph that is disputed. Revert warring on policies is unacceptable. Tim Vickers 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then don't do it yourself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Treason doth never prosper..." Tom Harrison Talk 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is sensible. Indeed, some of us were under the impression that there was consensus on previous version discussed above. — Zerida 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we all agree that edit warring is not a good idea, so I hope removing the disputed paragraph will stop any need for re-protection of the page. Tim Vickers 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late it seems. Tim Vickers 03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad how this is degenerating into yet another petty edit war after thorough discussion over days, particularly by users who did not take part in it at all. — Zerida 03:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I took part in the discussion and expressed my view many times, but we can't have discussion-terrorism, where people are expected to say the same thing a thousand times or else be told they're not taking part. Just because something is decided on this page by a very small number of editors doesn't mean it has consensus, particularly if the regular page editors object. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing the paragraph was a rather absurd response; clearly the paragraph is needed, though you appear to have some sort of unclear issue with the exact wording. To entirely remove it would obviously leave the policy in far worse shape. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the paragraph was a rather absurd response Exactly. — Zerida 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this section consisted only of a single sentence last time the page was protected Link, moving up to two uncontroversial paragraphs with this latest protection could be seen by an optimist as reasonable progress. Tim Vickers 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure if we all contribute to the discussion it will eventually produce something that everybody can be happy with. Your major concern seems to be a NPOV concern, SV, unfortunately that wasn't discussed at all in the section above where we produced what appeared at the time to be a consensus wording. Is this the only issue you have with the paragraph we produced? Tim Vickers 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still not clear what your objection to the current paragraph is. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the box above if "but" is removed from the first sentence and we have two declaratives. (And Tom is exactly right about "particularly".) Marskell 10:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-scholarly sources, again 

message: A recent edit added "per NPOV" after the words "material from non-scholarly reliable sources is also welcome in these areas."  WP:NPOV says nothing about a blanket requirement to "welcome" non-scholarly sources. Indeed, it advises us to use "best and most reputable sources you can", which in scientific topics will often be scholarly sources. Raymond Arritt 02:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of NPOV is not to exclude sources simply because editors have personal views about the issues. So we say we welcome other sources, to emphasize that per NPOV we don't exclude any significant view that is well sourced. Crum375 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your second sentence does not logically follow from your first. Suppressing the personal views of editors does not require us to use non-scholarly sources on scientific topics. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, if those sources are majority or significant minority views. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, on a topic such as genetically modified organisms we're to "welcome" the word of a reporter from the Daily Telegraph or The Sun exactly as we would a plant pathologist? Two uninformed reporters beat one scientist, becoming the "majority view"? Raymond Arritt 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Majority in reliable sources I assume. Take a hypothetical example of where there is disagreement on the molecular weight of hydrogen. Ten Op-ed writers state in their columns that this is 1.008(7) g·mol−1, while two peer-reviewed papers in Nature state that it is 1.00794(7) g·mol−1. Should the majority view in non-academic sources be given more weight here than the majority view in academic sources? Tim Vickers 02:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, let's not use nonsensical examples. We know that the mainstream respected sources will have multiple fact checkers, and access to technical experts. Let's see where there is a real example where such a mainstream source insists on contradicting well established scientific facts, and then we can deal with it. Crum375 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, we already say that sources must be appropriate to the topic - so for example a respected scientific database would trump a popular journal in accuracy, if that's the issue. Crum375 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed true that if you assume that all mainstream sources never make mistakes, then they are all obviously of equal weight. However, that isn't true, so we can't make this statement. Tim Vickers 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: Proposal, removing "most weight" and making a simple statement about what is usually the case in terms of accuracy. Tim Vickers 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already removed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the writing is ambiguous. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not roll it back to the version before the contentious edits began? That would be here. The present wording clearly is disputed. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of it do you dispute, Raymond? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion had settled down to an apparent consensus before the page was unprotected. The point was to work this out on the talk page yesterday, not to see who could shoe-horn a version onto the page and then demand consensus to change it. With an approach like that we would risk losing the generous benefit of the doubt we should be able to accord each other. Tom Harrison Talk 02:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for comments like that, Tom. SlimVirgin was very busy with editing other pages and may not have been following the discussion here. She might therefore have been unaware of the level of support that the text had when she made the bold edits we are discussing. Tim Vickers 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Tom's response below. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant which part of the current text do you dispute, Raymond. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict-o-rama) Several things, but the unfounded reference to WP:NPOV is especially galling. Raymond Arritt 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been discussed endlessly. At some point it has to be added to the article, the writing has to be good, there shouldn't  be repetition, and it must be consistent with the other core policies. We now have that, and Tom's removal of "non-scholarly" while retaining the rest of the edit seems to have met with approval. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for 'particularly', which should be 'only', or should be taken out. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Particularly" is important. The meaning of the sentence changes without it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it does change the meaning. The problem with 'particularly' is it implies 'but even if not'. Why would we want sources that are not mainstream, or do not have a good reputation? Tom Harrison Talk 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources don't have to be mainstream. They need only be reliable, and must represent majority or significant-minority POVs. Trying to introduce that they must also be "mainstream" would be a major policy change. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can live with this if we remove the terrible phrase "likely to be the sources of choice", the single word "preferred" is much better. Tim Vickers 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a terrible phrase. It's more accurate than "preferred," because we can't say that WP prefers them without knowing the context, but we can say that editors are likely to choose them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have experience with a vastly different pool of editors than I do! My experience is that people are going to use whatever sources they can get away with to push their POV. We're constantly having to deal with sources like this. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a 'mainstream source with a good reputation'? Crum375 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be. It would just be particularly welcome if it were. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not a reliable source, Raymond. You don't need to add special words to keep that kind of thing out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? You don't think so?  I've had to go through long arguments with people who do. Granted it's not a "mainstream source" but the present wording doesn't say it has to be -- only that it's "particularly" welcome if it is. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version (and every version before it for a long time) says sources must be reliable and appropriate, and that source is neither. I'm getting the impression you're trying to change the policy because you've not been emphasizing the current wording enough in arguments with sources. The thing to do is to rely more on what we already have, rather than trying to strengthen it, because the danger is you'll go too far in the opposite direction, which will lead to a weakening of the policy over time, because of backlash. I've seen it happen many times. The key is to strike a balance, then leave it stable. If you have problems with people trying to use poor sources and claiming to rely on this policy, let me know and I'll help you out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is absolutely stupifying. Has it always been like this here and I am just now noticing? Tom Harrison Talk 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that paragraph that is disputed. Revert warring on policies is unacceptable. Tim Vickers 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then don't do it yourself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Treason doth never prosper..." Tom Harrison Talk 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is sensible. Indeed, some of us were under the impression that there was consensus on previous version discussed above. — Zerida 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we all agree that edit warring is not a good idea, so I hope removing the disputed paragraph will stop any need for re-protection of the page. Tim Vickers 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late it seems. Tim Vickers 03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad how this is degenerating into yet another petty edit war after thorough discussion over days, particularly by users who did not take part in it at all. — Zerida 03:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I took part in the discussion and expressed my view many times, but we can't have discussion-terrorism, where people are expected to say the same thing a thousand times or else be told they're not taking part. Just because something is decided on this page by a very small number of editors doesn't mean it has consensus, particularly if the regular page editors object. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing the paragraph was a rather absurd response; clearly the paragraph is needed, though you appear to have some sort of unclear issue with the exact wording. To entirely remove it would obviously leave the policy in far worse shape. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the paragraph was a rather absurd response Exactly. — Zerida 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this section consisted only of a single sentence last time the page was protected Link, moving up to two uncontroversial paragraphs with this latest protection could be seen by an optimist as reasonable progress. Tim Vickers 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure if we all contribute to the discussion it will eventually produce something that everybody can be happy with. Your major concern seems to be a NPOV concern, SV, unfortunately that wasn't discussed at all in the section above where we produced what appeared at the time to be a consensus wording. Is this the only issue you have with the paragraph we produced? Tim Vickers 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still not clear what your objection to the current paragraph is. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the box above if "but" is removed from the first sentence and we have two declaratives. (And Tom is exactly right about "particularly".) Marskell 10:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed paragraph

message: ::An e-mail by Jimbo cited as part of the NOR policy that discusses a question in Physics might be helpful in this discussion:
::Note that Jimbo states that the assessment of this new theory rests entirely on the opinions of the scientific community - the "mainstream scientific community" and "significant scientific minority", not a just "significant minority", but the majority of scientists - the people who are qualified to judge the theory. If the argument that stating that scientific sources are generally most reliable violates NPOV is true, then it follows that giving more weight to scientific opinion must certainly violate NPOV. This cannot be the case, as this is the very action that Jimbo recommends here. Therefore, stating that scientific sources are "generally most reliable" does not violate NPOV. Tim Vickers 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think that anyone is arguing that "giving more weight to scientific opinion must violates NPOV". Scientific opinion is scientific opinion, there are significant opinions that may not be scientific, and may be scientific and non-scientific opinions that are not significant. We report on the formers but avoid the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not seem to be the impression that I have been getting from the couple of editors who oppose that academic/scholarly sources rightly be given more weight in topics of scientific/scholarly nature. It has been pointed out unconvincingly, and repeatedly edit-warred over, sometimes by editors who did not at all participate in any one of the discussions, despite what is so far undeniable, overwhelming consensus on this talk page. It appears now that this is also backed up even by Jimbo. Of course, the fact that this has been making one of the most fundamentally important policies of Wikipedia so unstable is not helping, not to mention the process with which Wikipedia is meant to operate is rendered essentially useless. — Zerida 02:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV concern

message: For a time this noticeboard was moved to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard, without any explanation and despite the facts that 1) it is and was linked from RS, not V and 2) it was intended to discuss reliability of particular sources, not verifiability. I don't see the need to discuss whether particular sources can or cannot be verified, as in my experience this matter has almost never arised, unlike the issues of reliability of individual sources, which come up often enough. If a coherent argument is presented, we may perhaps consider renaming the board to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and verifiability/Noticeboard as a consensus, but first the need for Verifiability-dedicated noticeboard needs to be argued for.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am speculating, but the confusion may have arisen from the fact that WP:RS is only a guideline, while WP:V is the controling Policy... The page may have been moved so as to highlight this. Blueboar 12:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the noticeboard discusses reliability, not verifiability, so I found the renaming confusing. It is my understanding that verifiability means that any fact added needs to be easily confirmed as indeed originating from source X, which should also be reliable - but it is WP:RS which goes into details of what is reliable and what is not. The noticeboard is not designed to question WP:V (which, being a policy, is mostly unquestionable anyway, and rightly so) but is intended for discussion of whether a specific source (book, article, webpage, etc.) is reliable or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing ... although, if you look at the discussions above, the question of what is reliable or not seems to be a major issue here as well.  That's the problem with having so many different policies and guidelines dealing with overlaping subject matter. Blueboar 13:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]