Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 14

message: This article is an absolute mess.  It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group.  It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:
A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”  
Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas.  And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black.  These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages.  But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black.  The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.
Dictionary.com[],  the free dictionary online[].,  the U.S. census[],  and the British census[] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census.  An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[].  This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[].  I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about the U.S. Census and it being illegal to "claim" a racial heritage.  As I recall it is an optional question and a person may check one or write - in a response, but I could be mistaken.  Your other points make sense and the article need attention. Terryeo 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperate help needed at the [[Black people]] article! Please get involved!!

message: Wait a minute... I don't see how it's "information" until it is verifiable. It is at best "raw material" or something of the sort.  Let's see:
:1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction. 2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge. 3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information. 4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers. 5. Computer Science Processed, stored, or transmitted data. 6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome. 7. Law A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
:Presumably we're talking about meanings 1, 2, or 3 here. "Gershwin is a poopy-head" is not information. "Rhapsody in Blue is sentimental and vapid" is not information. "Lawrence Gilman called the harmonic treatment in Rhapsody in Blue 'sentimental and vapid'" (New York Tribune, February 13, 1924) is information. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information = facts (i.e. is true). Arguments, opinions, and inaccurate material don't constitute information. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: my comment wasn't intended to contradict Dpbsmith's; "Lawrence Gilman called the harmonic treatment in Rhapsody in Blue 'sentimental and vapid'" is, of course, a fact (assuming it's accurate) because the opinion is attributed. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, right.Slonimsky, Nicolas (2000). Lexicon of Musical Invective.  W. W. Norton & Company. . p. 105: (Gilman's unfavorable review, "weep over the lifelessness") Candor compels me to say it's not a direct citation, though. And citing only this particular review violates neutrality, as other reviewers liked it... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise, of course bogus information may be removed. —Centrx→talk • 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow never noticed this comment before.  I obviously had no further plans to edit the policy at that point per my note below.  The main thing I thought wrong with your version was the same paragraph twice in a row once in the nutshell and immediately following outside the nutshell.  I thought this was quite obvious, but I can see how if you were only looking at the yellow and green diff it could be overlooked.  In regards to and/or issue.  There is bunch of discussion about it higher on this page which cumulated in this edit. 
which still stands in the version of the policy you are preferring.  I think it was simply oversight that this change was only made in the policy box and not also the introduction.  I personally think it is a more stable policy when such things are consistent.   I like Robert A. West's wording as well on this point, as that also keeps the policy consistent.  But apparently jossi has some problem with it, he doesn't specify.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it soup yet?

message: To Slimvirgin and Jossi
Please take a moment and read the policy, just read it.  I would really appreciate if you would correct what has obviously an oversight on your parts.  I cannot believe you actually intend the policy to read as it currently does.  I would also appreciate it if you would contact me on my talk page whenever I am welcome to again collaborate at this project.  I will let dryguy or someone else who has been paying more attention to this policy than the two of you correct your notions about the "and"/"or" issue (hint:read the policy box), as I will be at Wikimedia projects which are still operating by the process of collaboration.  I suppose Wikipedia may still be using such a process, but I am obviously not on the invite list.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The principles of collaborative editing apply to you too, Birgitte, and they tend not to involve arriving at a policy page  you've never edited before, declaring that its regular editors don't understand it, and continuing to revert up to your 3RR limit. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously still have not read your version of the policy.  And please look at my contributions and find the last time I have reverted something besides vandalism.  I can never remember having reverted something twice before today.  Your version of the page was so blatantly in need of improvement I could not believe you really meant to revert me the first time, as two other edits were reverted as well, including a needed formatting fix.  When I was sure you actually disputed me, I moved it to the to the talk page so it could be worked out.  I have been watching this page and participating in the talk page discussions for nearly two months before I felt comfortable editing this policy.  Exactly how is a person able to pass the bar of never having edited this policy before?  Your actions today have made it clear you either do not understand this policy or else you simply do not read it.  I really do imagine it is the latter.  I have never said the regular editors of this policy do not understand it, so please do not misrepresent me. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi and I are two of the regular editors and you're saying we haven't read or understood it. And please don't use headers with editors' names. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said you and Jossi haven't read the version you are reverting to (not that you haven't ever read the policy!)  I have never said the regular editors of this policy do not understand it.  I suggest you go read the version you keep saving.  If you don't want your name in the subheading this is fine with me but once again I must ask you to please not misrepresent me.  You made it look as if I was addressing all editors on this page with your change.  I really do not appreciate having my talk page comments altered in such a significant way.  If you want me to change something you only need to ask me. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ..."reverting up to your 3RR limit." Now Slim, it isn't an entitlement. Sorry, I couldn't resist ;). Marskell 00:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those reverts on the fifth of October 

message: I don't think there is any serious dispute that some unsourced material should be challenged, and some should be simply deleted.  I also don't think that there is a serious dispute that an editor who identifies unsourced material should do what he or she thinks appropriate, up to the limit of WP:POINT.  It seems to me that the and/or argument arises because the sentence is in the passive voice, so I rephrased to the active voice.  I hope I have expressed consensus.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Robert, that's a good compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "Any editor may challenge or remove unsourced material as seems appropriate" is better put, and has not changed meaning. Why has Jossi reverted it? Septentrionalis 05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And vs Or 

message: I've protected this page because of the edit war that was going on. I have no particular opinion on the wording, but I will say that I don't see the point in repeating the exact same text twice (once inside the nutshell, once directly below it). >Radiant< 08:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also do not see the point of the repeated wording. More troubling to me is Jossi's edit comment "rv to SlimVirgin. This is a long standing and agreed wording." Older, newer; neither is necessarily better. Previously agreed upon: maybe. If this specific wording was previously discussed to the point of forming consensus, then please point us to that discussion. Even then, who is to say the new version won't be agreed upon as better, until there has been some discussion to the contrary? If you are going to revert someone's good faith efforts, why not join the discussion and at least say what you found to be wrong with the new version? dryguy 18:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is particularly ironic when it includes a reversion of language SlimVirgin likes. Septentrionalis 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: ::I would say that the guideline on reliable sources represents an ideal, while this policy represents an absolute.  Every statement must be traceable to a source that is reliable.  What is reliable is determined by the facts and circumstances in each case.
::A company's site would be a biased source for an evaluation of an expansion pack, whether produced by the company, a partner or a competitor.  That is the case for which the wording in question is written.  On the other hand, when two competing companies' sites make similar remarks about expansion packs in general, it is a reasonable inference that their points of agreement are industry-wide usage.  You might get some flak about original research, but you would be safe on verifiability grounds.  If the inference is simple and non-controversial, it seems within the bounds of source-based research to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure WP:V as an "ideal" is your intended sub-heading?  From reading you comments I wonder if you meant to type WP:RS. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops!  Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RS is the "ideal", WP:V is an absolute

message: Question posed by: Signpostmarv 13:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, however, a rebuttable assumption. If you can show that the source is publishing nonsensee, it's not reliable...Septentrionalis 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really have a problem witht the idea that we can judge a source reliable or not based on what we think of the information it provides (i.e. whether we think it is "nonsence" or "true" etc.)  If we allow such a thing we have allowed a circular argument.  Foo thinks X statement is "nonsense" and removes it.  Foobar restores X this time provides a source since it was disputed.  Foo removes X stating the source is unreliable because it published "nonsense".  Do you see how this is a problem?  We have to judge the reliabily of a source outside of the information it provides.  IMHO what makes a source reliable is that there are editors and fact-checkers which may be sued if they fail to do their job.  When James Frey's story was published as non-fiction it was a failure of the editors at Random House and they have offered a settlement to all defrauded readers.  This does no mean all Random House non-fiction books are unreliable, but rather that they are because such mistakes are too costly to make very often.  An unreliable vanity publisher, which is technically a "printer" not a "publisher", does not promote an authors work or take this kind of liabilty on themselves.  A periodical that issues retractions when it makes mistakes before they are court ordered etc.  Basically what I am trying to say and reliabilty does not mean "correct" but rather "responisble", with idea that responsiblity leads to often being correct.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Septentrionalis is simply arguing that we don't have to repeat obvious and provable errors.  To take my favorite example, I found an otherwise-reliable biography of Alexander Hamilton that lists a birthdate in the wrong century.  I regarded this as an obvious typo and ignored it.  Would including this date improve Wikipedia? To take a more common example, major news organizations frequently broadcast/print things about breaking stories that are later shown to be false.  Would Wikipedia be improved by taking those reports at face value?  Identifying blunders is no more subjective than identifying small minority views. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that if a source routinely asserts things that are solidly refuted, then the source's reliability should be in question.  The National Enquirer can be sued, maintains an editorial staff, etc.  We don't consider it reliable because it routinely publishes nonsense. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things here first I think we are reading "show that the source is publishing nonsense" differently.  I am sure there our sources to back up the fact that the The National Enquirer is unreliable, and I would add the fact that they do not retract anything till they get a letter form a lawyer is a another good sign.  Any periodical that is reliable should be regularly making corrections and retractions of their own volition.  About the the biography of Alexander Hamilton of course we should use the more authoritative date.  However the fact that the date was wrong does not make the entire biography unreliable, which is what Septentrionalis's comment is implying with If you can show that the source is publishing nonsensee, it's not reliable...--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course it doesn't; although  if the same biography says, say, 1784 when other sources say 1785, we should take the quality of the proofreading into account when deciding whether to discuss the issue in article text (especially when all of them state the date without discussing the difference). But what I meant was  rather more limited: both that we need not include the claim that Hamilton was born in 1957; and we need not prove that any particular article published by the National Enquirer is tosh before treating it as a less reliable source. Septentrionalis 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with such a result in these examples. I think you are misunderstanding me though. I do not believe we should be judging a source reliable on an article by article (as in newspaper article not WP article).  We are talking about reliable sources not necessarily reliable information.  It is the entire National Enquirer that is unreliable and the non-fiction Hamilton biography as a whole is what is reliable.  This means we use no information from the unreliable source and that the information from the reliable source can be used until proved incorrect by other reliable sources.  However I do not believe we should judge a source reliable or unreliable soley based on a single article or piece of information.  If we do this why bother with "reliable sources" at all as the dispute will effectively the same as whether people believe the information or not.  I guess I am not explaining myself very well, but do you not see how you are advocating a circular argument?  It is a problem if we deciding if a source is reliable based on the information in dispute.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are arguing against a stance that it not being taken.  If I find one manifest typo in an article, it is valid and non-circular to double-check other assertions in that article.  If I find one provably-wrong article in a newspaper, it is valid and non-circular for me to look harder at the next article I use from the same newspaper.  If I find that article after article with provable factual errors, it is valid and non-circular for me to stop using it and to advise other editors to do so as well.  They in turn are free to look at my evidence and make their own determinations.  Also, publications may be reliable in one area, and not in another.  Science articles in general-circulation newspapers routinely oversimplify to the point of misleading the reader.  While newspapers of record are generally considered reliable sources, they are deprecated as sources on scientific topics, precisely because they often publish nonsense.  This doesn't mean that we never use newspaper articles in writing technical articles, but we have to use them with care.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you should check the information of even reliable sources I am not saying otherwise, but you should not judge a source unreliable based on whether the information in dispute in nonsense (if it is in dispute, another editor obviously disagrees that it is nonsense).   I am doing a very poor job of explaining myself.  Also the other problem with the conversation is you are often talking about what information we can use in an article and I am often talking of with whether the source is reliable.  Which is only the first step in evaluating whether we use the information.  I no longer believe I have the skill to help you understand me in this, so I am going to put this conversation aside and hopely a new insight into explaining this or a more illuminating example will come to sometime in the future. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't disagree with anything you said.  I suspect that we are probably trying to explain minute differences in phrasing or emphasis to one another, which can be frustrating for both sides.  Best wishes and happy editing! Robert A.West (Talk) 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHOIS results and Personal Sources 

message: # Is the source a personal source, thus violating Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 ?
# Are 3rd party sources that reference said source usefull sources in of themselves (e.g. if a respected source- newspaper, well known news site etc. links to the source in question as a source for their article, is their article usable as a source) ?
1: Yes, anything published on a domain that is owned by the subject of an article should be considered self-published for the purposes of writing that article.
2: The sources relied upon by the 3rd-party source is not really relevant to determining whether or not that source can be used.  If they are a reliable source they will be assumed to have performed fact checking to ensure that the source they relied upon was reliable in & of itself.  So, yes.  But: a 3rd-party article that also quotes additional, non self-published sources may be preferable if one is avaiable.
Hope this helps. JulesH 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, however, a rebuttable assumption. If you can show that the source is publishing nonsensee, it's not reliable...Septentrionalis 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really have a problem witht the idea that we can judge a source reliable or not based on what we think of the information it provides (i.e. whether we think it is "nonsence" or "true" etc.)  If we allow such a thing we have allowed a circular argument.  Foo thinks X statement is "nonsense" and removes it.  Foobar restores X this time provides a source since it was disputed.  Foo removes X stating the source is unreliable because it published "nonsense".  Do you see how this is a problem?  We have to judge the reliabily of a source outside of the information it provides.  IMHO what makes a source reliable is that there are editors and fact-checkers which may be sued if they fail to do their job.  When James Frey's story was published as non-fiction it was a failure of the editors at Random House and they have offered a settlement to all defrauded readers.  This does no mean all Random House non-fiction books are unreliable, but rather that they are because such mistakes are too costly to make very often.  An unreliable vanity publisher, which is technically a "printer" not a "publisher", does not promote an authors work or take this kind of liabilty on themselves.  A periodical that issues retractions when it makes mistakes before they are court ordered etc.  Basically what I am trying to say and reliabilty does not mean "correct" but rather "responisble", with idea that responsiblity leads to often being correct.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Septentrionalis is simply arguing that we don't have to repeat obvious and provable errors.  To take my favorite example, I found an otherwise-reliable biography of Alexander Hamilton that lists a birthdate in the wrong century.  I regarded this as an obvious typo and ignored it.  Would including this date improve Wikipedia? To take a more common example, major news organizations frequently broadcast/print things about breaking stories that are later shown to be false.  Would Wikipedia be improved by taking those reports at face value?  Identifying blunders is no more subjective than identifying small minority views. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that if a source routinely asserts things that are solidly refuted, then the source's reliability should be in question.  The National Enquirer can be sued, maintains an editorial staff, etc.  We don't consider it reliable because it routinely publishes nonsense. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things here first I think we are reading "show that the source is publishing nonsense" differently.  I am sure there our sources to back up the fact that the The National Enquirer is unreliable, and I would add the fact that they do not retract anything till they get a letter form a lawyer is a another good sign.  Any periodical that is reliable should be regularly making corrections and retractions of their own volition.  About the the biography of Alexander Hamilton of course we should use the more authoritative date.  However the fact that the date was wrong does not make the entire biography unreliable, which is what Septentrionalis's comment is implying with If you can show that the source is publishing nonsensee, it's not reliable...--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course it doesn't; although  if the same biography says, say, 1784 when other sources say 1785, we should take the quality of the proofreading into account when deciding whether to discuss the issue in article text (especially when all of them state the date without discussing the difference). But what I meant was  rather more limited: both that we need not include the claim that Hamilton was born in 1957; and we need not prove that any particular article published by the National Enquirer is tosh before treating it as a less reliable source. Septentrionalis 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with such a result in these examples. I think you are misunderstanding me though. I do not believe we should be judging a source reliable on an article by article (as in newspaper article not WP article).  We are talking about reliable sources not necessarily reliable information.  It is the entire National Enquirer that is unreliable and the non-fiction Hamilton biography as a whole is what is reliable.  This means we use no information from the unreliable source and that the information from the reliable source can be used until proved incorrect by other reliable sources.  However I do not believe we should judge a source reliable or unreliable soley based on a single article or piece of information.  If we do this why bother with "reliable sources" at all as the dispute will effectively the same as whether people believe the information or not.  I guess I am not explaining myself very well, but do you not see how you are advocating a circular argument?  It is a problem if we deciding if a source is reliable based on the information in dispute.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are arguing against a stance that it not being taken.  If I find one manifest typo in an article, it is valid and non-circular to double-check other assertions in that article.  If I find one provably-wrong article in a newspaper, it is valid and non-circular for me to look harder at the next article I use from the same newspaper.  If I find that article after article with provable factual errors, it is valid and non-circular for me to stop using it and to advise other editors to do so as well.  They in turn are free to look at my evidence and make their own determinations.  Also, publications may be reliable in one area, and not in another.  Science articles in general-circulation newspapers routinely oversimplify to the point of misleading the reader.  While newspapers of record are generally considered reliable sources, they are deprecated as sources on scientific topics, precisely because they often publish nonsense.  This doesn't mean that we never use newspaper articles in writing technical articles, but we have to use them with care.  Robert A.West (Talk) 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you should check the information of even reliable sources I am not saying otherwise, but you should not judge a source unreliable based on whether the information in dispute in nonsense (if it is in dispute, another editor obviously disagrees that it is nonsense).   I am doing a very poor job of explaining myself.  Also the other problem with the conversation is you are often talking about what information we can use in an article and I am often talking of with whether the source is reliable.  Which is only the first step in evaluating whether we use the information.  I no longer believe I have the skill to help you understand me in this, so I am going to put this conversation aside and hopely a new insight into explaining this or a more illuminating example will come to sometime in the future. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't disagree with anything you said.  I suspect that we are probably trying to explain minute differences in phrasing or emphasis to one another, which can be frustrating for both sides.  Best wishes and happy editing! Robert A.West (Talk) 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The questions 

message: We have a 57 word long policy, and an "in a nutshell" summary of the policy in 42 words. Not much saving, and yet the policy itself is much, much easier to follow than the "in a nutshell" bit. I reckon we should remove the "in a nutshell" bit, and move the 57-word policy box bit to where the "in a nutshell" box is located. It would make the page easier to read and, as far as I can tell, nothing would be lost, jguk 18:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've swapped them as you suggested, and I removed the first section while I was there because it was largely repetitive. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I very much like "THE POLICY" placed right at the beginning.  And I like the way in which the 3 points are worded.  It is clear, it is easy TO understand and it would be difficult to not understand.  It gives editors a quick read of the essentials.  It develops more later.  It is just right. Terryeo 20:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also tightened the writing a bit more. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In a nutshell

message: Truth may at times not be able to be determined, but sometimes falsehood is. For example, if source A says that source B makes claim C, and we have source B, and it doesn't make claim C, then source A should not be cited. This is part of basic intellectual honesty. This isn't about some mystical TRUTH. This is about LIES (or at least errors). This is true even if source A has published in a magazine that we would usually consider citable. - Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth and lies

message: With reference to this edit  one user has suggested that hardcopy" publications which are unverifiable I would like to place my reservations over this statement. Is it a policy on Wikipedia that only Online Sources are Verifiable. I am afraid that we are perpetuating Systemic Bias with such opinions. I would like to know the opinion of the community over this and we need some concrete policies in this regard.   Doctor Bruno  08:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that edit summary was saying offline publications are unverifiable in general, but that the specific ones cited were. (It's an interesting example of how using "that" instead of "which" would have made the meaning clearer. :-)) Anyway, to clarify, offline sources are regarded as just as reliable, and often more so, than online ones, but they do have to be available to the general public. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we need to use books more and websites less, but I think the comment you referred to — "The only sources to support it is one website and few offline non-English books whose existence cannot be verified ..." — meant that the particular books cited could not be found. It's difficult when articles are based only on a few non-English references, because this is the English Wikipedia; editors have to be able to check that what the editor is saying is correct, and shouldn't have to go to unreasonable lengths to do so. What counts as "unreasonable" is decided on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the point to bear in mind is that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and therefore ideally sources have to be accessible to native English speakers, and reasonably available to people living in English-speaking countries. It's fine to make particular points using non-English sources and books that are hard to obtain, but to base an entire article on them means someone is likely to AfD it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, although this does create a certain systemic bias towards a English-language view of the world, we can take the stance that, if the material in the non-English sources has value, then some English-language source should serve as a secondary source which refers to the primary non-English source.  If no one in the English-language world has seen fit to make reference to the non-English material in a reliable English source, then the material is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia at this time EVEN IF THE MATERIAL IS TRUE.  Consider this a variant on notability, a kind of "notability of factual material". --Richard 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better corrective may be not treating the en: WP as an island. If the fooian WP cites sources, copy them and give credit. Septentrionalis 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Hard copies NON VERIFIABLE

message: Should there not be a central page for Wikipedians to raise issues about whether a disputed claim in an article is properly supported by reputable sources? Currently some people post such queries on the talk pages of WP:V, others on the talk page of WP:RS, and no doubt there are other queries elsewhere. Such a central page would give a proper avenue to raise such points (in much the same way as WP:AN is a proper avenue to discuss points needing admin attention). Comments from others would then have persuasive value in helping resolve such disputes. Thoughts? jguk 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, your user talk page. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There will always be some tradeoff between a formal, organized process to settle every question and a catch as catch can sort of organization.  I think Jguk is suggesting a sort of "routing page" for any editing difficulty.  Terryeo 07:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposed development 

message: Okay, this is a point we very much need to address. I'd already inserted it into the text of the policy, but it was removed on the grounds that such a change should be discussed first. So, okay. Here it is.
We absolutely positively have to explicitly say that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources" does NOT mean "articles should contain material that is copied-and-pasted from somewhere else". 
We shouldn't have to, but we do. If something can be misunderstood, then it will be, and "material" can be interpreted not just as "information", but as "text".
This should be an addition to rule #1. And it can't be too lengthy or verbose, or people won't grasp it instantly.
Comments? DS 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you state it I don't understand if the issue is:
* Editors copy and paste whole pages, this clogs articles or
* Editors copy and paste individual sentences from a myriad of sources to produce a helter-skelter article that doesn't flow. Terryeo 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You have identified a weakness of expression that occurs here and there throughout the policies. However, adding explanations is probably more laborious than it is worth. No-one has any excuses for reading this formula the wrong way, because below the edit-summary box on everyone's computer screen appears the injunction: Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted. qp10qp 17:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Copying a sentence verbatim from a reliable website and citing it appropriately and in the references section, showing the link where the sentence (and its fuller information there) may be found is fair use of published information, is it not.  Quite the same as quoting a sentence from a book and referencing the book as the source of the sentence. Terryeo 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot the most important step here: marking it as a quotation. So do many editors. Septentrionalis 04:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I stated "citing it appropriate".  Usually I use one of two methods, depending on how it flows in an article. "quote marks" or markup markings, per statements in WP:CITE and its associated pages. But my question was, "ANY text from ANY website ?" Terryeo 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbatim 

message: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.: I find this basically saying "the topic must be notable or else it does not deserve an article". Now, notability is a guideline and not a policy. I feel that this section forces the WP:NN guideline into a policy. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a topic has reliable third-party sources does not mean it is notable. For example, the United States Naval Observatory is a reliable third-party source; that does not mean I should copy their star catalogs to Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, since WP:NOT a directory. More reasons for notability becoming official policy!!! 170.215.83.212 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of evidence; aka notable 

message: Sorry, I took that part out.  Reliable goes to the material, fact checked/peer reviewed...not the author.  pK, its Good to be the King 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is possible that a well known, published, recognized person runs a personal site and publishes up-to-the-minute information.  In those rare situations then his work is soon picked up by eager publishers who wish to publish it (selling books, etc.)  But a huge quantity of very very cheap publication exists on the interent.  Any hairbrained idiot can run a website and publish his <eyeroll> high repute theory and opinion.  It is that vast quantity of personal, self-published opinion that WP:V must address itself to because literally millions of webpages exist giving personal opinion on everything from drinking blood as a religious practice to seeming reliable opinions of high repute.  Do you want some examples ? Terryeo 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases you are right. But there are cases, especially in the scientific field, where non-peer reviewed sources are necessary. I think the standard for wikipedia should just reflect the standard used in the relevant field in the real world. E.g., if many peer reviewed articles published in the Physical Review cite some unpublished preprint on the preprint archive or some self published lecture notes, then that source should be good enough for wikipedia. Count Iblis 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well yes, of course I see your point.  The problem is how to write the policy so it can guide people to such good references while filtering out the large body of poor references. Terryeo 11:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The topic of self-published experts has recently been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Professional --Gerry Ashton 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One reason may be that the Feynman lectures or the books by Landau and Lifschitz are not online. Of course, you do need to cite the original peer reviewed works. But suppose that in somewhere in an article you give a detailed derivation from first principles to illustrate some method. If later on the article must be trimmed down and the derivation must be scrapped, then you may want to give a ref to some online source where that derivation can be found. In practice you should limit such refs to non-controversial simple to verify (for insiders) things. Count Iblis 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point Count. pK its  Good to be the King 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-publishing experts/journalists are not reliable

message: Hi, A fact check has been requested on a statement made in an article I watch. I provided a citation for the statement using the OED online, as this is an authoritative source for entomology in a way that no other page could really be. However this does not appear to satisfy this editor as the OED online is a pay service, costing a fairly large amount to use. 
The editor has requested I find a non-pay source, but I consider this to be unreasonable as i) there is unlikely to be a reputable non-pay source, and ii) citations to pay sources are not prefered, but are not at all unprecendented. Is it reasonable for me to remove the ciation request as there is a citation that can be checked and verified by a large number of people (many libraries and universities offer access to the OED), although not by this editor? --Neo 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course pay sites may be acceptable sources. As you note, you could just as easily quote the OED book rather than the site as a source. Given that the reader you have a dispute with does not appear to have ready access to your source, is it possible that you can quote what it says on the relevant talk page? To answer your actual question, yes, if you have provided a citation you can remove the citation request - although it might be better to take the approach I suggest on the talk page first, so that this other guy does not just revert you, jguk 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a citation then the citation request should come off.  If there is a dispute about a particular citation, first attempt resolution on the article's dicussion page, if it can't be resolved there, WP:RS or WP:CITE or even this page are reasonable places to get additional opinions. Terryeo 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that the print OED is exactly cheap; but you could try directing him to a library, which may well have one or both. Septentrionalis 04:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly any public library should have the OED.  It should also have an authoritative dictionary of etymology in the reference section.  If an assertion is sourced to a work of general reference, such as a dictionary or encyclopedia, it can probably be looked up in other reference works in the obvious manner, and that is IMO a reasonable thing to do if the particular source cited is not available.  Robert A.West (Talk) 05:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query - subscription sources