Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Jguk's version

message: I have reverted SlimVirgin's second amendments  as they reproduce much material in Wikipedia:Citing sources, and I think we should make reference to that page, but not get bogged down in how to cite sources. I'm open to re-wording my phrasing here, but I'm reluctant to do much other than direct the reader to Wikipedia:Citing sources. (Mind you, the citing sources page is too complicated for me to understand at the moment! Maybe I'll have to tackle that one next!) jguk 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the way you have it, Jguk, is it's incomplete and incorrect. "If the reference is a book, cite the title, author, ISBN and page number. If it is a journal, cite the title, author of the article, volume and issue number and date and page number." We don't do that in the text, and in the references section, we don't include page numbers and we do include the name of the journal/newspaper. Also, a policy page shouldn't refer people to a guideline without itself giving any guidance on the issue, if it's one that matters and this done. No point in telling people to cite sources without giving them at least one example of how to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin's last amendments

message: I am repeating part of a comment I made on the actul policy talk page. I do have one specific comment about the policy — this is in Jguk's proposed version, but he adopted it from this version.  I am referring to the statement that sources should be unimpeachable.  I agree that the policy should convey to editors the importance of highly reputable sources.  However, when it comes to contentious topics, some sources will not be "unimpeachable," indeed, the sources themselves may be objects of contention.  I do not think such sources should be eliminated.  Rather, in compliance with NPOV, we should make it clear what the source of contention is, and provide some context about the parties who contend over the un/impeachability of the source.  The source's verifiability of course must be unimpeachable by which I mean that the provenance must be clear and accurate (i.e. verifiability means, if we say "this is the source," i.e. provide information to help people find the source (so they can read it for themselves), this information must be incontrovertably accurate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was uncomfortable transferring the word "unimpeachable", but unsure what to do with it. I think the whole clause can safely be removed , jguk 17:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unimpeachable sources 

message: I have removed the following addition to the first part of the restated policy. It was added by SlimVirgin: " The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The reason is that I think the policy is clear that the entry is verifiability. Any statement as to what it is not is superfluous - it is not anything other than verifiability. I think it's important to try, as far as possible, to stress the positives (although I'm aware I'm just about to add a section on no original research:) ), jguk 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always like the "Verifiability, not Truth" meme very much. It is very effective for ending talk page discussions that go nowhere because an editor tries to convince the others what is really true. I would like it back. Arbor 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's essential we make clear that truth, by itself, is entirely inadequate.  Many editors fail to appreciate the distinction betwen "truth" and "verifiable", and take a suggestion that something is not verifiable, as an personal attack on their honesty.  When challenging unverified claims, it has to be possible to say "I'm sure what you say is true, but it must still be verified to be used".    --Rob 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability, not truth 

message: I think a line might be added which indicates that "reputability" is a factor of the claim being justified from it. That is, a major Creationist website is not a reputable source for claims about biological evolution, but it is a reputable source for information about the Creationist POV. Similarly a major crank website about the Apollo Moon hoax is not a reputable source for whether or not people landed on the moon, but is a reputable source for information about the hoax theory itself. --Fastfission 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you are getting at, though I think such a statement is more appropriate on Wikipedia:Reliable sources rather than Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have removed most of the digression on reputable sources, leaving the reader to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where the matter can be more fully explored, jguk 11:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputable sources

message: We do have one general rule though: personal websites, blogs, and other self-published material, are not acceptable as secondary sources (that is, sources about third parties or subjects other than the author), except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website.
*I edit in an area where these rare occasions are not very rare, and the reputed sources are not always reliable. So I would like to know whether personal websites, blogs, and other self-published material can also include usenet and message board posts - also assuming that the person posting it is sufficiently important and reliable, and that the editor is good enough to make a judgement about it. Tintin Talk 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Rare occasions' 

message: Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be summarily removed by any editor. Do we really want to summarily remove 95% of Wikipedia? This isn't sensible. Surely, surely, SURELY this should be reduced to something like "Suspect information without a reputable source may be summarily removed to the talk page by any editor."  I challenge you: Visit Random Page 10 times. I'll be generous, I'll say each paragraph is "one piece of information".  Now tell me how many paragraphs you have that contain at least one cite, and how many contain no cites. Then how many articles had no paragraphs without cites. This just isn't feasible. Stevage 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the discussion has been that this will be easier to aply to new edits, at least for the interim. I've starting doing it when I see new edits that put in unsourced material. I just revert or move the new material to the talk page with a note that sources are required. -- Dalbury(Talk) 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my experience, this is a shift to Wikipedia practice, and I'm not sure it's desireable. Unless the addition is controversial or very suspect, a better way is to leave the information on the page AND request a source on the Talk page. If no source is forthcoming after a period of time, and you can't easily verify the info yourself via Google, only then should it be removed. We should, of course, encourage all edits to be sourced, but to make sources mandatory significantly increases the overhead of editing Wikipedia, and we want to allow people to participate as easily as possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and as such, it's quite acceptable to add the info, and then source it later. — Matt Crypto 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously, though

message: :Regarding:  "If an article topic has no third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."
Ideally, of course, third party sources should always be used.  But in some cases, a government is the only source of *certain* information about some part of itself.  One has has to use common sense sometimes, if one wishes to beleive what's said.  Some government statistic/census beareaus are highly reliable, while others are not, and we can't make the blanket staements.  Also, in many case 3rd party sources are readily available, but seem rather redundant.  38th Canadian parliament could easily cite 3rd party (non-government) sources, but doesn't, as to do so would be utterly redundant.  The single link from parliament's web site, is sufficient to verify the information, and is probably a better source then a private newspaper article.   --Rob 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair point. The important thing is that the source is reputable - ie it can be relied on to be accurate about the bit of information it is referencing. The comments on "third-parties" is a slight over-exaggeration, jguk 22:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This also concerns me, as it has the potential to take this to an unhelpful extreme. There are plenty of sources, particularly online, where getting the information from the horses mouth is likely to be the best source - and may be the only source. As an example, if we write an article on a school, and we cite the a school history page on their website for a history section, is this really likely to be considered an unreliable source because it's not third-party? Such an attitude would be, IMHO, most unhelpful, and I'd like to either see some sort of safeguard against this or for this to go to a vote so it can be struck down. Ambi 12:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government sources are not 3rd party, but are sometimes appropriate 

message: Some details in the original meaning have vanished.
* Detailed citations are preferred.  Editors are encouraged to provide as little or as much detail as they can, with other editors encouraged to add details (just as with other Wikipedia material).
* It is desirable to identify which statement uses which source.  Extreme examples: Killian documents and Race and intelligence (References).
(SEWilco 03:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are good points, but they really belong in Wikipedia:Citing sources not on Wikipedia:Verifiability. I haven't checked WP:CITE, but if they are not there, I'd certainly support adding them, jguk 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing details 

message: What happens when this doctrine goes live?  Looks the same to me.  Lotsofissues 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meant to be just a re-write, not a change in policy, so I'm glad it looks the same to you - that's the intention. What happens when it goes live is that it will be easier for those unfamiliar with the policy to understand what it is and where to go for further guidance, jguk 22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it 

message: It is too damn hard to cite resources... add a way in Mediawiki to cite sources MUCH easier and then, and only then, will I support this.. Hell, a text box right below "edit summary" that asks you where you got the information... perhaps a dropdown box with a bit of AJAX/DHTML to let you easier cite things... Also, there needs to be an implimentation guideline written up before this goes live... because I don't know if I should be ripping up every article on the place or not... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it so hard to add sources? You shouldn't be adding information into Wikipedia unless you are looking at a good source. You are not supposed to be relying on your memory. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: True enough. But if there are no existing references listed for the article, then you really do need to provide sources for what you add. I would also note that if are adding references reguarlarly, you quickly learn how to enter references in pretty good form. And there is now a book reference citation generator available which produces plain Wiki text that you can paste into an aticle. See . -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a little different experience then.  I do cite references regularly, and what I've learned is there's a wild west, and lack of standards.  And each person "knows" their approach is best, and "the" approach.  That's why, I've adopted the approach of citing as best I can, and not yet worrying about form.  p.s.  Is there one of those generators for a magazine or newspaper article?  --Rob 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is a generator for Newspapers, etc: Easybib.com --Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The current WP:Verifiability shows that citations with more detail are preferred, so you should provide as much as you know.  The material is more likely to be challenged if there is not enough detail for finding the source (including if the URL no longer works and nobody can find what you were trying to link to).  As with everything in Wikipedia, it is expected that others will improve the citations (except for me because the ArbComm doesn't follow policies such as this).  (SEWilco 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea, but... 

message: *james book ISBN 19239102 Author: Cool Guy 102390
*Author: Goodguy Book: Biography of Cool Guy
*Interview with Cool Guy, New York Times, January 12, 2005
*interview with Cool Guy, NY Times, 2005/1/12
*The source of this entry is http://www.coolguywebsite.com/biographyexample.htm
Sorry... no... I shouldn't have to look up a style guide every time I want to make a change... I should be able to simply add the URL or Citation information below my entry and it should show up under the sources... Or on a seperate page that gives the sources... it isn't that difficult to impliment and makes it acceptable... Also, I still don't have anyone telling me how this is going to be implimented with current articles... If it means I can blank every article I find on Wikipedia well hot damn lets do it! In all seriousness, lets get our heads out of our asses and think over some of the difficulties of implimenting a major change that will overhaul the entire editing experience here at Wikipedia --Nick Catalano (Talk) 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current WP:Verifiability shows that citations with more detail are preferred, so you should provide as much as you know.  The material is more likely to be challenged if there is not enough detail for finding the source (including if the URL no longer works and nobody can find what you were trying to link to).  As with everything in Wikipedia, it is expected that others will improve the citations (except for me because the ArbComm doesn't follow policies such as this).  (SEWilco 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example Sources

message: Specifically point 3:
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.
I see this point of policy being used to delete any information that POV-pushers don't agree with, even if it's been in an article for years. If we must have this sentence (which seems mostly redundant with the previous one), it should clarify that this policy is not retroactive, i.e. it only applies to new material. Otherwise someone could stroll over to an article like Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and just blank the entire article and the blanked version would have to stand (since there are no references). Wikipedia is full of good articles with no references. This is due to the fact that Wikipedia did not originally emphasize the creation of references, nor provide an easy way to create them until quite recently. Do we really want all those articles blanked? If you consider individual article sections, virtually every article in Wikipedia is vulnerable. I certainly applaud encouraging editors to add references to articles, especially when adding new material, but can't we do it in a way that will be less disruptive? Kaldari 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I lied, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses has 2 inline citations. It was just a random example though. I'm sure there are plenty of controversial articles which have few or no references. How about Foreign relations of Israel (1 citation) or Vietnam War (only 4 citations in an 85K article)? None of those articles have a references section. Even many older featured articles would not survive this policy change. Kaldari 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the policy (old or proposed) means every sentence needs it's own inline citation.  It means collectively the cited sources must back up all that's in the article.  If none of the sources mentioned in the article, back up a claim, and I challenge it, I may remove it.  That's good.  If I link to imdb in an actor's bio under "External links", I needn't cite every acting job he's had with an inline citation.  The articles you mention are good examples of controversial topics, where removal of material quickly results in it's re-addition with better sources.  Frequently articles go unattended/unfixed until somebody "shakes things up" with a large textual removal.  Tempers may flare, but the problems are generally fixed.  I do think we must put the onus on the adder of the info, as it's often impossible for the "challenger" to ever "prove" something is false.  For instance, how do you "prove" somebody wasn't suspected in the Kennedy assasination?  You can't.  However, I do agree with you, that we should be softer on older established material.  Keeping a year-old paragraph one more day, will do little extra harm, but keeping a new unsourced claim just one day, could do great harm, as we spread new rumors/hoaxes that way.  --Rob 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way this proposal is worded makes me fear neo-nazis blazing through and systematically deleting every unsourced paragraph about the holocaust. Or a Christian fundamentalist deleting every unsourced paragraph about evolution and then the evolutionists fighting back by deleting every unsourced paragraph about Jesus (and there are certainly a few). Of course the end result for Wikipedia may be positive, but in the short run it will be armegeddon. There needs to be a certain allowance or grace period for older material IMO. Kaldari 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assert that's already been attempted continuously (almost) since our founding.  That's why every important word on the holocaust is well sourced (prove me wrong).  Same deal with other extremely controversial topics.  It's more likely the neo-Nazis, and other hate groups, are some of the ones who already spread maliscous rumors, by making allegations against people they hate, without proper sources.  If we make those wishing to remove the statements prove them false, the statements will be left in for long enough to acheive their ends.  In your Jesus example, I disagree.  We don't (shouldn't) have unsourced claims of Jesus.  We do state what *others* claim to be true about his life, and hopefully show alternate views as well.  If we're currently stating as fact (not as an attributed opinion) something about the life of Jesus, then I do hope its removed promptly, and I don't much care who does it.  Basically, I'm saying people "ready for a fight" have always done what you fear, which is mass removal of unsourced stuff they don't agree with.  But, many non-controversial articles are left unsourced/unreliable, because somebody sees unsourced material, doubts it, but isn't "ready for a fight".  We want to tell that person, acting in good faith, that they should go ahead, and remove the content.  The person acting in bad faith, has already acted, and won't be reading this policy document.  --Rob 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  It would be nice to have an item-by-item explanation of the changes rather than just "Do you like this document?".  (SEWilco 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Those aren't totally unsourced, because the widely known published works of fiction are primary sources, which may be used (but shouldn't be used alone, and explicit citations aught to occur).  However, if somebody removes material, and its added back with better sources, more explicit sources, that would be good.  I dislike reading such fiction articles, and not being able to whether something is nonsense vandalism, or nonsense fiction.  Cleanup would be good, even if it's induced by temporary content removal.  --Rob 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And sometimes the only way to get the attention of someone who can supply sources is to remove the material. Most requests to cite sources are simply ignored, or reverted without bothering to try to supply sources. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy change could lead to massive disruption of Wikipedia 

message: Dubious sources are sources that are reliable persuant to our policy, but which must be named when used as a sole-source of fact (compare -> "Something is true (source: New York Times)" vs. "The New York Gossip Magazine said something is true. (source: New York Gossip Magazine)." This section of the policy is removed from the current draft. I must request it be returned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reputability (is that a word?) of sources is discussed elsewhere - namely in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is why it isn't on this project page. I agree with your point that we should have guidance on that point - it should, however, be in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is link to very clearly from this page, jguk 22:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious sources 

message: It is misleading to assert that reputable sources are a sure sign of good editorial scholarship.  Bad citations can point to reputable sources and while remaining inappropriate in a number of ways.  These include:
:# Misrepresenting the facts of a source.
:# Misrepresenting the opinions of an author.
:# Citing a tangentially related fact and claiming it has direct relevance to the article.
:# Burdening a primary (factual) source with interpretive statements.
:# Naming one source in the text while citing a different source in the associated footnote.
Durova 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we are asserting that reputale sources are a sure sign of good editorial scholarship, are we? I think it's implicit that the statement a source is being used to reference must be entirely consistent with what the reference says, otherwise it's just not a reputable source for that information. As this discussion is more to do with the reliability of sources, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources would be a good place to have the discussion, jguk 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate citations

message: I fully support Enchanter's edit to this policy. If we leave it at that, I will withdraw my previous objections. Kaldari 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. It puts too much of the burden for supplying sources on the rest of us. If editors are too lazy to provide sources, their edits shouldn't be protected. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Dalbury, jguk 07:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enchanter's edit 

message: I oppose this policy rewrite. My thought process is something like this:
# Ultimately, unverifable material cannot remain in an article. We want sources to cover all the facts, more or less, in the article. I think we all agree on this. The question is what process do we go through to challenge and find sources for unsourced assertions.
# In the majority of cases, a Wikipedia article is better off containing as-yet unsourced information than without that information at all. Evidence: imagine Wikipedia today with all the unsourced material removed. We'd more than decimate the encyclopedia.
# Therefore, unsourced additions will, in a majority of cases, improve the article.
# Improvements to an article should not be undone without good reason.
# Accordingly, I oppose the proposed policy that it should always be a favoured procedure for new additions to be "summarily" removed by any editor.
# Instead, I would advocate a range of approaches, dependent on the exact situation. There are many different cases, and we need to be flexible. Yes, sometimes it is appropriate to summarily remove a suspect addition. Sometimes it's better to move it to the Talk page and request a source. Or to add a "" template next to it, or post on the editor's talk page requesting a source. Sometimes it's even appropriate to spend 30 seconds Googling.
# We're balancing two things here: the immediate pragmatic use of an article (that is, more information the better) with the need to cite our sources. One requirement should not dominate. We should take a balanced approach that encourages -- even demands, occasionally -- sources without it being too disruptive, or without making it burdensome for people to participate in Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 14:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be opposing the rewrite because you oppose current policy. If you wish to change policy, by all means propose a new one (though I would note that I for one am likely to disagree with it), but the question here is whether the rewritten page better conveys current policy than the current page, not "what do you think of current policy?". (For the avoidance of doubt, note that the current policy uses the following wording: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed.") Incidentally, I do agree with you that it is better to provide or obtain references for unsourced materials so that they can remain than to removed unsourced materials, but I believe current policy is completely correct in placing the obligation to provide references on those wishing for material to remain, jguk 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is just a rewrite, it should not say "summarily remove". This implies that editors are free to remove uncited information without any discussion whatsoever no matter what the circumstances. Clearly in certain circumstances, it is advisable to attempt some form of discussion before gutting an article. This is common sense and civil behavior. That's why the current policy says simply "remove". It then goes on to say that in certain circumstances you should move it to the talk page and in other circumstances you should request a source. It says nothing about "summarily removing" information. Your characterization of this proposal as only "a rewrite" seems a bit disingenuous to me. If you changed it to just say "remove" in the main policy summary, and then explained that  dubious or controversial additions can be "summarily removed" I think that would be more in line with the intent of the original policy. Kaldari 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And who decides whether an item is sufficiently 'dubious' or 'controversial' to summarily remove? I can see revert wars over whether something is 'dubious/controversial' and requires a source, or isn't 'dubious/controversial' and can be re-inserted without bothering to supply a source. If any item can be removed because it isn't sourced, it can be re-inserted as soon as a source is supplied. -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever is removing the information decides if it is dubious or controversial. If someone disagrees with the deletor's assessment, then yes, discussion should happen before the item is removed. Personally I don't think that all information in Wikipedia has to be sourced. I think that all information in Wikipedia has to either be sourced or easily verifiable, which is how I interpret the current policy. I think that is the essential difference between the supporters of this "rewrite" and the detractors. Kaldari 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say I decide that something in an article is dubious and remove it, and someone disagrees with me. How do we discuss it before it is removed if I've already removed it as 'dubious'?? If every item must be discussed before it can be removed, we will be bogged down in endless discussions. The best way to prevent something being removed is to cite good sources. and if something is easily verifiable, why not just cite the sources instead of fighting to keep it in without sources? -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I appreciate there are concerns about disruptive editors using this policy to remove large sections of currently unsourced information with no attempt to get references for the information, but the general thrust appears to be that this rewrite is better than the current wording of the policy (plus the objections are equally valid for the current wording as this is just a rewrite). I'm therefore being BOLD and, after tweaking the wording of this proposal to state explicitly that there is no carte blanche for mass deletions, making this version live. Once-live further tweaks will and should happen, but I think it is now time to allow this version to live, jguk 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang