Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 21

message: I gave myself an example of the behaviour that I think is sound Wiki, which some people here clearly think is entirely inappropriate. In tweaking an article, I realised that a referenced article was particularly ill-written - Disk mirroring - and I find that fairly offensive in an article that has existed for a couple of years - so it seems something of an orphan. It caught my fancy, I have a particular dislike of detail and technical without what I think a reasonable person would understand. My background is that I have worked in IT for over 25 years (yes, I am a wrinkly, not a bright-eyed and bushy tailed young academic). What I saw offended me so I used my knowledge and direct experience to write a summary . This knowledge was gained from IBM red books, other IT staff, informal discussions, expensive consultants but I would not have in mind any ready or reliable source, the sort of way you gain an MSc from Cambridge - living and breathing ;) . If you go there you can take a judgement, it the hole that has remained for some time worth plugging, is my unreferenced top of the head explanation of disk mirroring, did it make Wikipedia a slightly better place? I am not so interested in this propeller-head topic that I would be interested in editing further. I've done my bit, an attempt at a reasonably structured brain dump on the topic, not advancing a position, simply explaining, as well as I can quickly, what it is. Two years ago, this would have been agreed to be an entirely appropriate response. Now it seems there is a strong point of view that I have committed a WikiSin. Have I? Is it even OR? Spenny 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiSin? 

message: Shouldn’t this page give better guidance on when it is inappropriate to remove verifiable references?  I've ask a similar question at WP:REF. —MJCdetroit 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where it says that a claim must have a reference if it is challenged or likely to be challenged is all you need to enforce the presence of a reference. Until(1 == 2) 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at MJCdetroit's comment at WP:REF... I gather that the references in question were removed from an infobox, and apparently none of it is likely to be challenged (it is stuff like who the mayor of Rochester, NY currently is) ... so it sounds like we are dealing with a styalistic issue rather than a challenge issue... ie whether citations are needed for basic information contained in an infobox or not. Blueboar 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Such normally non-controversial information only needs to be referenced if challenged. But if challenged, then yes it needs a citation. Often the information in the infobox is mirrored in the article content, it can be referenced there if so, and not in the infobox. Until(1 == 2) 15:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate to remove verifiable references? 

message: Here is one example of why we need detailed inline citations; it is the page and the issue that got me to propose the inline citation change, as I wished to revisit the issue of citations, but to have any chance at all of having a different outcome from previous requests I needed a more powerful tool.
 
The page Operation Gladio discusses “false-flag” operations supposedly carried out by the CIA in Europe to discredit various communist and left-wing organizations and political parties. According to this story almost all/or many terrorist attacks that occurred in Europe during the 70’s and 80’s where the work of the CIA designed to give a black-eye to anyone on the left of the political spectrum. Supposedly this was done to manipulate public opinion through fear and propaganda, with the end result of keeping the CIA’s/America’s/whoever’s adversaries from coming into power. 
There are actually three Gladio pages on WP (Operation Gladio/Strategy of tension/and Stay-behind) which all cover roughly the same material. Plus multiple other pages spread throughout WP that tie into the Gladio concept. It even has its on category: {Category:Gladio}
Officially almost all of this material leads back to a single individual, a man named Daniele Ganser. As stated recently by one of his supporters:
:One can not proceed by guilt by association. Ganser's work on Gladio is about the only one available, and we are not judging the person here, but the work. Tazmaniacs 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganser is not "one marginal academic", he is nearly the only historian to have worked on this subject. Tazmaniacs 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Statewatch is a reliable source (if it's good for Guardian & the BBC, it's good enough for Wikipedia). Furthermore, the reference are not even Statewatch per se, but news articles (recensed by Statewatch). Finally, the fact that the data is copyrighted and that the link has therefore become dead doesn't make the info less "real": it's not because you can't access it freely that it doesn't exist. The info is still there, the news article still exist, the Statewatch recensus of them still exist, and the events still have happened - unless you can prove the reverse. Tazmaniacs 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We do not rate each article in a newspaper for RS. That it not how WP:RS works. The newspaper is the source, and if it passes RS then anything in it is permitted under WP:RS. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Gladio, LaRouche, and why detailed inline citations are important 

message: We have a problem in translated terms because of the inconsistency of practical and historical scientific terms.
Some people insist that the Japanese Wikipedia should include the description of The Tranditional Standard Dictionary terms only, which was derived from the German terms and new invension a century ago, but not the English-based terms that are practically used.  I think it would be helpful to have the additional note for the practiccal use, especially for the newbies and people in the different scientific fields.  Actual current situation is that many people pronouce the English-based terms in the lab, while they write after The Standard Dictionary.  Although I hope them to be unified into English-based terms, at least, both the practical and traditional description should be included in the Wikipedia, instead of just one.  I believe this is the major policy of the Wikipedia.  The oppenent insist, while they are aware of the practical use, that those terms should not be included just because they are non-canonical without reference.  Because of the nature of spoken language, the citation is very difficult.  However, those terms are actually used and the opponents agree with it.  This is strange.  What can I do to contribute to the Wikipedia? --Tosendo 06:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide links. WAS 4.250 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate translated terms - practical or traditional? 

message: I am involved in a dispute with User:PikDig regarding the Asian Spirit destinations article.  I am currently at step 4.1 of the dispute resolution process, and this section is an attempt to Discuss with third parties and perhaps (step 4.2) obtain some attempts at Informal mediation from cool heads.
PikDig created the article on 12 June, having forked it from the Destinations section at Asian Spirit.  I had tagged the Destination section there as  on April 8 (here), the tag was still in place when PikDig forked the section on June 12 — loosing the  tag in the process.  On July 30, I noticed that the Asian Spirit destinations article had no references and tagged it with an  tag here.  PikDig reverted that on this same date here, with the edit summary: "see their website!"
I reacted to that on July 31. On the article's talk page here, I referred PikDig to WP:V, explaining that assertions need supporting cites and that the editor supplying the assertions needs to say in the citation where he got the info so that the validity of the assertions can be checked.  Commenting that it was not my burden to ferret out and supply the supporting cites, I did so anyhow, here — adding See also and References sections to the article, along with appropriate content.  I cited the Flight Schedule from the Asian Spirit website in support of the assertions made in the article, and individually flagged assertions which I could not verify against that supporting source with . I explained the changes I had made on the article's talk page.
On August 2 (here) PikDig reverted my changes without an edit summary, but he did add a "Reply for Boracay Bill" section on the article's talk page.  That same day, I replied inline to his talk page comments, and invited him to contact me on my talk page for a less pubilc discussion.
I let things lie for a couple of days, then put a message on PikDig's talk page (see here) saying that I intended to revert his reversion (actually, further edits by Pikdig to the article in the meantime would necessitate re-verification the current article content against some supporting source -- probably the same source I used earlier), but that I did not want to get into an edit war.  I asked whether he would react by re-reverting my unreversion.  On 4 August, PikDig responded on my talk page here, saying: "I would definitely react.."
Rather than engage in an edit war, I'm continuing down the dispute resolution process, as mentioned above.  Comments and mediation attempts by "cool heads" are solicited. -- Boracay Bill 06:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability dispute 

message: The policy discourages references to sources in languages other than English, and that is fine. But should there not be even stronger wording against references to printed works in languages other than the standard Western academic languages of German and French? For instance, works in Dutch would be rather difficult to get hold of in good libraries outside The Netherlands or Belgium. /Pieter Kuiper 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, some English sources are just as difficult to get hold of... as long as someone could do so, the requirement is met.  Secondly, I don't think we can say that because German and French are "the standard Western academic languages" we can give them any preference...  Start down that road and we can get into all sorts of silly debates about how one language is "more academic" than another...  What about sources in Latin? (the academic language of Europe until almost 1800)... what about Italian (very important for any study of the Renaisaunce)... what about non-western languages such as Russian, Japanese or Chinese? ... all are valid academic languages in some field or another.   We can not say one language is 'more academic' than another.  Thirdly, our discouragement of sources in languages other than English is based upon the fact that this version of Wikipedia is written for those who speak English. In other words it is based on who is reading the encyclopedia, not on the academic standing of the language the source might be in. Blueboar 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add two further clarifications. First, the policy does not discourage use of non-English sources generally, but rather encourages use of English-language sources whenever available, assuming the English-language sources are of equal or greater quality than the non-English sources. For instance, if it comes down to it, a reliable non-English source should replace a unreliable English source. Second, the English Wikipedia is not the Western Wikipedia. For one thing, English is spoken/understood all across the world. For another, the scope of our coverage is universal and not limited solely to North America and Western Europe. — Black Falcon (Talk) 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, encourages English-language references. My issue was not 'academic standing' of the language, but verifiability and accessability of printed works. A reference to a work in a language that would be difficult to get hold of for 98 % of the readers is does not serve the purpose of verifiability very well. Editors that really need to use such a reference should be meticulous. They should try to give exact page numbers, so that one can order a copy or read a page without needing to read a whole book. They should list bibliographical information so that it is possible to estimate what standing the source has. /Pieter Kuiper 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go a little further and state that editors should be meticulous regardless of the language, since complete citations are always preferable to vague ones and sometimes (in cases where there no URL is given or a link goes dead), necessary to verify the sourced statement. However, this seems to be more of an issue about completeness of citations rather than language. It is no more or less difficult to specify a page number for a non-English work than an English-language work. — Black Falcon (Talk) 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at all in contradiction, but as extension, we want to be accessible as well as accurate. It's probably good in all cases to give the best english language source available, as well as any superior non-English sources. For sources in translation, both the original and the translation should be cited--one will be more accurate, the other more likely to be read and understood. And any key parts not in english should be translated--in general the title of a work should be. the language of the article is english, and so should the comments be, and the talk pages. Quotations given only in a non-English language are out of place here. Similarly, if a print reference has an online equivalent, it should be given--for convenience, even if it is a paid-access version.   DGG (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the sources I work with are in Sanskrit, and while secondary English sources are best, sometimes there is no good alternative to providing a citation to a primary source or adademic work in Hindi (or some other Indic language).  The focus on Western European languages is understandable, but the world is a big place.  Many sources need to be cited in the original so that verification of romanizations can be done, etc. Buddhipriya 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Non English sources are welcome if no English alternative exists. This is good. Until(1 == 2) 13:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V#Sources in languages other than English]] 

message: The title pretty much says it all - does Wikipedia consider opinion-editorial pieces from magazines or newspapers to be valid sources? On the one hand, it's published in (for the most part) a reliable source. On the other, these op-ed pieces tend to have terrible POV slants, as they are solely the opinion of the writer, who may or may not be an expert on the given subject. I can't seem to find any information either way on the topic, so I figured I'd come to the source. 
Thanks! Sidatio 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An opinion piece is only really a reliable source to show that the person said such a thing, it is by definition not a statement of fact but one of opinion. I would not use it to support anything other than that the person in the piece said that. Until(1 == 2) 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that Op-Ed pieces fall into something of a grey zone... the reliability of an Op-Ed piece depends in a large part on the reputation of it's author and (to a lesser degree) on the Newspaper publishing it.  Some columnists have a higher reputation (when talking about a given topic) than others.  Some columnists even cross the line into recognized "expertize".  Yes, an Op-Ed piece should still be treated as an opinion (after all, Op-Ed is short for Opinion-Editorial)... but they can, sometimes, be quite reliable.  I would consider an op-ed piece on the Arab-Israeli conflict that was written by Henry Kissenger and published by the New York Times, for example, to be high on the reliablility scale.  Blueboar 15:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the if the reputation relates to the field of discussion. I would not trust a quote by Albert Einstein giving his opinion on meteorology. Nobody is an expert in everything, but they can still be an expert in one thing and talk about other things they are not experts in. Until(1 == 2) 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with any newspaper article is that some amount of editorialising may creep in and be indistinguishable from the news element. Spenny 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why it is always nice to get multiple sources. Until(1 == 2) 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and OpEds should be clearly quoted as such.DGG (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Op-Ed pieces - verifiable sources? 

message: The text is a little too black and white in my experience. Whether it is a peer-reviewed academic journal or a monograph published by a university press, the actual financial arrangements can be quite similar to the "vanity presses".  The author or authors or writing committee contributes money to the publisher to ensure publication. The money usually comes from publication grants from various granting agencies - not out of the author’s pocket - but the publisher will not publish the article or book without the injection of cash. That is, commercial academic publishers are - quite often -subsidized by their contributors. Perhaps the text could be written with a bit more gray or nuance in the Wiki policy statement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I agree. But the battle is between representing policy as something clear and specific enough that it is useful in edit wars by admins who want something that will settle disputes and representing policy as guidance for well meaning individuals who want suggestions for how best to weigh the various editorial concerns that must be balanced for an optimum article. WAS 4.250 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources 

message: Would somebody remove the  mention in the second paragraph of "Burden of evidence?" That template has been redirected to . 24.6.65.83 04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swapped it for the correct link. Blueboar 12:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Not verified}} 

message: I need unbiased opinions (others, stay away). If someone puts in this as a reference to something:
:"John Bishop, the greatest man alive", Detroit Times, April 16, 1945.
How do I know whether this is really what the paper said? Its not something I can easily get a copy of and verify what it is saying. What do I do then? Trust anyone who makes this kind of reference, or remove it? And they might refuse to respond to my inquiries of requesting more information about the reference I put or they might say "The information I put in is correct". We're talking about WP:V which says, any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Well its 1945 and the Newspaper has gone out of business, so who knows what it said. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same argument can be made about anything not online. However, newspapers are archived by libraries, so it is possible to check. Depending on quite how outlandish the claim is, it's best to assume good faith. SamBC(talk) 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you need to verify it, I am sure it is available on microfiche.  Certainly Detroit's public library would have it, but other some libraries should as well.  If the article in non-controversial it is probably best to just trust the editor who added the reference however, unless they have a history of poor referencing in other articles.  If it needs to be checked out, try and contact Wikipedians from Detriot and see if they can verify it for you. Once for Wikisource, an editor was able to track down a 19th century Bulgarian newspaper article and get it scanned.  Of course a 1945 article couldn't be scanned and displayed because of copyright, but it is amazing what can be accomplished through collaboration on sites like this.--BirgitteSB 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirming references 

message: As per the request to see how the discussion panned out, the sentiment here and the weight of the argument is in favor of prohibiting use of Wikipedia articles for sources, in part due to verifiability concerns.  So I've re-added that statement, which was apparently taken out in June then re-added in Mid-August, leading to the present discussion.  As far as I can tell only a couple people are arguing in favor of using Wikipedia to source material.  This is also consistent with policy, guidelines, essays, etc., elsewhere.  We've talked about it, the discussion has died down and I think it's safe to say there is a consensus.  Plus, it goes to a core foundational issue of Wikipedia, that material used in articles needs to be externally sourced.  Unless anyone objects, the discussion ought to be closed.  Wikidemo 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to nitpick, but the "strict prohibition" you refer to applies to using Wikipedia as a third-party source. Therefore, the use of Wikipedia as a reference in the article Criticism of Wikipedia (for example) would not be barred under the prohibition. As long as everyone is on the same page on this particular issue, then I'd generally agree with your summary, and concur with your conclusion. dr.ef.tymac 14:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating language

message: this rules out a lot of the citations in wikipedia. I can't check them cause they're in some book my library doesn't have or some journal you have to pay for etc.
68.40.255.51 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Send us a list of the books that you own and the newspapers that you buy regularly and we will make sure that everyone uses only those publications. Adrian M. H. 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes up all the time. Basically there is no requirement that anyone must be able to verify the references from their keyboard, bookshelf, or local library. Commonly available free sources are preferred, all other factors being equal, but not required. If WP was no better than your local library, it wouldn't be as useful. 11:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reader can check if they travel to another city, go to the library there, etc.;  or anyway, large numbers of readers who live in diverse parts of the world can check (if they travel to the one city that has the book on public display, etc.)  If large numbers of readers can check, then one hopes that someone might fix errors.  --Coppertwig 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  any reader should be able to check 

message: Should this sentence:
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.
instead read:
Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.
Or:
Any edit lacking a reliable, published source may be removed by any editor; however, editors wishing to retain the material may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.
?
That would bring the wording closer to the nutshell. Brimba 13:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brevity is best.  The nutshell is supposed to reflect the page, not vice-versa.  I don't see too many edit wars over this to begin with.  All material should be sourced.  Is there a difference between sources and reliable, published sources?  If no difference, no point adding extra verbiage.  If there is a difference I wouldn't support relaxing the standards in a way that encourages contentious editing.  Any edit can be removed for most any purpose as a matter of improving an article, so saying that it can also be removed for lack of sourcing goes without saying.Wikidemo 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on removing material 

message: Are there limits to what can and cannot be challenged?  For example, if an article contribution makes a reference to the sky being blue and somebody else says, "hold on, can you find a verifiable source that the sky is in fact blue?" does this mean that the contributor is now obliged to go out and finde a verifiable source that the sky is in fact blue, or risk removal of his contribution?  I would consider that an unreasonable challenge -- although I admit that raising this question does open up the whole issue of the subjectivity of "reasonable." Minaker 11:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have to take this on a case by case basis. If someone is asking for citations for this kind of thing and really insisting on them it almost borders on incivility or disruptive editing.--Crossmr 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me start by offering this reference to why the sky is blue which is listed as an external link on Sky.  Then say if there was a limit to what could be challenged who would set it? If you are saying the sky is blue because you looked up and it was blue then that is original research and falls under Wikipedia:No original research.  The opening sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Addionally WP:PROVEIT places the burden of proof on the editor who adds or restores material.  This leads us to the conclusion that there are no limits to what can be challenged Jeepday (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No but if an editor is challenging things like that WP:POINT would lead me to believe they're trying to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, especially if they do it on multiple articles or multiple times. Original research is the drawing of conclusions or analyzing information to put forth an opinion. Original research isn't looking up a fact and adding it to a wikipedia article. From WP:OR Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the fact that the sky is blue is well documented and published in multiple places so reporting it isn't remotely original research.--Crossmr 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone contentiously reverted edits saying the sky was blue, or applied citation tags to the same end, I would have them blocked and leave it to others to figure out the distinction.  There are certainly many things, most things, that are too trivial, obvious, or universally accepted to need citations and where citations would actually hurt things by clogging the real information here with useless references.  99% of the facts on Wikipedia are uncited, and probably 75% of the facts that ought to be cited are uncited.  Fixing them all would be a task equally as great as creating the encyclopedia in the first place, and removing them all would do irreparable damage.  But if someone asks for one in good faith because they think it's necessary or it's not obvious to them, we oblige.  An occasional problem is when POV-pushers aggressively tag and delete claims as part of their overall effort of subverting the rules to get rid of articles and claims they don't like.  For example, apologists for a crooked politician or a country that has committed genocide will make life miserable for anyone who wants to tell the truth.  There, verifiability runs into another core principle, neutrality.  Sometimes it's on a political issue like that, and sometimes it's in favor of a particular person or company or a favorite conspiracy theory or piece of pseudoscience.  I don't see that this is a big problem, certainly not as big a problem as that of bad unsourced information, but if you're caught in the middle of one of these campaigns it can be awfully disruptive.  Wikidemo 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the answer I am hearing to Minaker's question is that in general there are no limits on what content may be challenged and references requested for.  In the case where an editor or group is using this to disrupt Wikipedia or push a specific POV then it may be appropriate to look to WP:POINT or Wikipedia:Village pump for assistance. Jeepday (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  limits to the rule? 

message: Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to verifiability and reliability of sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well), including questions pertaining to sources being linked via "external links" in Wikipedia space (WP:EL), whether it be in source citations, or in References and/or External links sections. Thank you. --NYScholar 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] 

message: This policy is worthless.  People who waste time making sure their sources are verifiable and reliable will always be trumped by people who just make up crap or are spamming Wikipedia.  
This page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
This, on Wikipedia, appears to have the unique meaning that you can attribute it to a "reliable, published source," but that source doesn't have to say what you said it says in the text you wrote on Wikipedia.  This pretty much just makes the policy worthless.  But I thank all the administrators and editors who have clarified this issue for me so I won't waste any future time researching to make sure that what is said in the article is what the literature actually says.  KP Botany 20:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you verify that? In my experience an accurate reading carries weight in discussions, and bad faith misrepresentation can be resolved by dispute resolution as needed. .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] 

message: This tag states "This article does not cite any references or sources." This is a very odd all-or-nothing statement. Is it only to be used when there is not a single source in a document? Because that's how it reads. Or is there a less black/white version of the tag that says something like "This article does not cite a significant number of references or sources." NjtoTX 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But see :Template:Refimprove and :Template:Citations missing (which should probably be linked from Template:Unreferenced usage section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. Boy, it's hard getting to know this thing without sitting down with someone. NjtoTX 03:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that again :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unreferenced Tag 

message: I came here after a discussion on the talk page of WP:BLP concerning additions creeping into policy pages without true consensus.  I went back and checked the history of this and the talk page.  Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 1 contains all talk from the beginning to October 2005.  The changes made up to October 2005 are far from trivial and the discussion on the changes was made by maybe a dozen or so editors.  I really think that we need to re-review the consensus on the various sections because of this.  We should probably do it for the other major policy pages too, although my main focus is verifiability and reliable source pages for now.  -Nathan J. Yoder 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on alterations to policy 

message: This subject came up in a discussion elsewhere.
Given paper and online supporting sources of equal reliability quality, wouldn't the online source be preferable to cite because it is more widely verifiable? 
Given a highly reliable paper-only source (a peer-reviewed journal article which is not available online, say; or a cite from a book by an author who is well respected in the field being discussed), such a source is a is a good supporting source to cite.  However, is it desirable if citing such a paper-only source to also cite an online source — even, perhaps, an online source of less reliability than the paper source (an online article from a reputable news organization, say)?
Should this project article address the question of paper vs. online sources? Should online sources be preferred if the sources are of comparable verifiability? If a highly reliable paper source which has limited accessibility (and consequent limited verifiability) is cited, is the citing of a online source (perhaps less authoritative or less reliable, but more widely verifiable) as well? -- Boracay Bill 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense tells us that verification will require a minimum amount of effort. We should not use less reliable sources to appeal to the laziness of those unwilling to invest the time and/or money necessary to verify reliable sources. In cases of equal reliability, no reason not to cite both unless the article is already overcited. Vassyana 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not presently a big issue for me, but I would point out that I happen to live on Boracay Island in the Philippines.  I have good online access, but have no reasonable means to verify cites of paper sources.  My guess is that my situation in this regard reflects the situation of a significant portion of Wikipedia users. -- Boracay Bill 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not use both? WilyD 01:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with that, for now. :-) --Kim Bruning 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also online resources available, such as Questia. :) We should use the best available sources, regardless of whether they are found online or on paper. Vassyana 03:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One day, and probably soon, we shall have access to all world libraries on-line, if Google and others get their way. Until that time, the fact that a sources is not online, means only that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dude, those "and others" is going to have to be us, more or less. Other than that, I agree. :-) --Kim Bruning 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, access to conventional sources is usually more stable. Agreed, it won't always be that way, but that's still the case now. The print source also is usually able to be linked to various online sources--the reverse is not always the case.  There is also the concept of a "voucher version," the single "version of record", & it varies.  For the NYT, it's the published paper, not the online. For some journals, it's now the online. Use what you can find, but cite the print also if you can. Remember that "sources" like JSTOR and Proquest and findArticles and Google Books and the like are just reprinters--they themselves have no authority. DGG (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: right, so remember to always give the actual citation. A librarian should be able to work from whatever you have, but the easier you make it the sooner you will have it. As for court citation, mostl court decisions essentially are available free on the web--see WP:Case citation, from which that example comes. Don't assume that a commercial service is the only way for anything.  DGG (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online sources for wider verifiability 

message: Knowing that a change to one core policy can have unexpected impact on others, and thus major changes should be coordinated and discussed cross policy:  It has been proposed that the section WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources be replaced with something similar to  this (the wording is not yet final, but the conceptual change has gained consensus at NOR).  Not only are we now seeking broader community consensus for the change, but I think those who are working at WP:V need to take a look at the proposal, and think about how it might impact WP:V.  Please comment at NOR. Blueboar 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this for a brief synopsis of what is being discussed and why. To see everything in it's proper context, then much reading will be required, including going through the Archives for the page. In short, we are not attempting to weaken the policy, but to make clearer by moving WP:PSTS somewhere more appropriate, and linking to it's new location (wherever that is). The types of sources and their definitions are not really part of a policy that discusses "No Original Research", much like your house insurance policy's definition of "Acts of God" don't really pertain to your insurance policy. It's just included for further clarity, but the actual definition has nothing to do with your policy, just its final interpretation of what is covered (or not). This is not something that some are trying to impose overnight, much discussion still needs to be done, but the sooner others participate and help, the quicker the additional work can progress. wbfergus  Talk 13:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes at NOR that may (or may not) impact here 

message: For some reason this page is under constant bombardment of late by vandals with anonymous IP addresses.  The edit history becomes hard to use because you can't tell if anyone has made a real edit when nearly all the edits are either vandalism or reversions of vandalism.  I don't see any constructive edits recently from anonymous IPs.  Do you think that's enough to go for long-term (a month or so) edit protection? Wikidemo 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that semi-protection is needed.  The underlying problem is that this policy and NPOV are often cited as the basis for reverting vandals, quacks, and psychos who try to insert biased garbage into the encyclopedia.  So then when they realize they can't get anywhere on Wikipedia, they get mad and come here and vandalize this policy and NPOV as well.  --Coolcaesar 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the page for 2 days due to persistent vandalism. I do not want to even semi-protect a policy page for longer than that. Hope this helps some. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, maybe?  As soon as it came out of semi-protection it was vandalized again by an anonymous editor.  Wikidemo 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect this page? 

message: If a source says, "Although it is doubtful that future findings will alter the view that X, further work may help with the details," then is it okay to say it says X?  ←BenB4 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No... don't interpret what the source says... state what the source says... that it is doubtful that future findings will alter the view but further work will help with the details. Blueboar 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumarization question