Wikipedia talk:Attribution

message: In the past, I've used "attribution" to refer to the very simple idea that folks adding content should attribute claims, particularly opinions, not just for sourcing purposes them but to identify whose opinion is involved and provide some context to help evaluate it. Thus, in a dispute on some religious topic where secular scholars disagree with relgious claims. It's important to say something to avoid saying things like "some say C but others say Y", and instead say something like like  "Bob Smith, a professor of archeology and Sumerian specialist at the University of A, says 'X', or "John Jones, a theologian and professor of bible at the B Theological Seminary, says 'Y'". It would be nice if there were a quick, simple policy link that would explain why attribution is important in covering controversial subjects and diverse opinions neutrally. This page used to be the one I used. The title is valuable and represents a simple but important idea. As a result, the page's conversion to an essay represents something of a loss. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... but unfortunately several others did not. 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's a way: most of the language here was consensus. If you like something, propose it, or something which approaches it, at WP:V or WP:OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that Shirahadasha's desired use of attribution is more related to WP:NPOV and balance than to WP:V or to WP:OR.  --Rumping (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Shirahadasha. I just discovered that WP:ATTRIBUTE redirects to essentially a less well-written copy of WP:V. What the heck happened, and where did that old paragraph go? II | (t - c) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term 

message: The paragraph Shirahadasha is looking is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/WP:SUBSTANTIATE. From looking at the history of these shortcuts it's not clear how or even if the WP:ATTRIBUTE shortcut ever went to that paragraph. But the title to that section of WP:NPOV, "Attributing..." has existed since at least July 2006, and the original NPOV page uses the word attribute frequently, always meaning in-text attribution of controversial statements. 
Thus, when people talk about attributing something on Wikipedia, they generally are thought to mean attributing an opinion in-text rather than presenting it as fact. I think that this page (WP:ATTRIBUTION) uses the word attribute in a confusing way, particularly given the existing jargon in Wikipedia where attribute means in-text attribution. Better to retitle this page to something which indicates that it is a summary of core policies or something, as that's what it really is, then to use a word which has a particular meaning as a synonym for verifiable or reliably sourced. Unfortunately, I have no good title ideas.II | (t - c) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributing in-text ([[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]]) compared to this page; retitle? 

message: Can we in addition to attributing authors discuss the quality of a source, ex. whether it discusses an issue in detail or just in passing? I raised the issue here. Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a way to "discredit" sources... which is a subtle form of POV pushing.  Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we discuss the quality of a source? 

message: Should Rejecta Mathematica be regarded as a reliable source? VictorPorton (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Doron Zeilberger has given his thumbs up for this journal, so it must be more reliable than Journal of Combinatorial Theory-Series A. Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Rejecta Mathematica]] a reliable source? 

message: no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Attribution generally refers to the copyright concept around here, not to citations. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a formal requested move: "Wikipedia:Attributing statements" can house this historical page. –xenotalk 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it. I still can't see any example why ATT is not a good summary of NOR and V. Can you mention just one such example? Crum375 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said "See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate." -- PBS (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a special case. It was not a new policy — it was a merge of two existing policies into one, for simplification. It did get a majority, but not the super-majority required for the change to the new version. It was then agreed, with Jimbo's blessing, to retain this page as a "canonical summary" of the policies, to help newcomers understand them better. Crum375 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed by whom?  Gigs (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The community. Crum375 (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Gigs (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly this talk page. Read the archives. Crum375 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was agreed to have a working group to look at it. But the working group never reported back so after a lot of back and forth, for a year and a half it was marked as an essay as a compromise. towards the end of last year SV altered its status, and more recently after another debate the current banner was added. --PBS (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted when you raised this issue before, the ATT page header says: "Please defer to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research in case of inconsistency between those pages and this one." This  ensures that even if some inconsistency creeps in, the official policies will override. And if you can't find a single inconsistency at the moment as example, I guess that's a good sign. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above "As I said 'See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate.'" -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacate this page 

message: :The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
Here's something interesting to think about: how do we determine if a published source is reliable? Do such sources tend to be considered reliable if they publish true things? If so, isn't truth still an influence on inclusion threshhold? Ranze (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A versus B

message: Feedback of knowledgeable editors is sought regarding the transclusion of one talk page discussion to another, wherein 
(1) all talk page comments have been previously signed and dated by those editors participating in the discussion; and
(2) the following notation is included in the transcluded discussion:
::"This ongoing discussion is transcluded from Talk:__________.  The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to this discussion.
::"The foregoing discussion regarding this template was started on another talk page (see link here), and transcluded to this talk page on __________, 2015, in order to give all concerned editors the opportunity to participate."
Question: given (1) the existing signatures of all participating editors and (2) the specific notation of the transclusion and hyperlink to the original talk page discussion, does the transclusion constitute a violation of either WP:COPYVIO or WP:ATTRIB?  Thank you, in advance, for any feedback provided.  
Please note: I a simultaneously posting this request for feedback here and the talk page of WP:COPYVIO.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely not the place to post this. This is the talk page for a failed proposal to merge  Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research which did not gain a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem? 

message: I just realized that I have been citing this page as the reason to keep edit histories of merged from/redirected pages, but I cannot find where in this page that information is located. Is this information here anywhere, or us on another page? Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Possible WP:CWW? Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can find this... 

message: This page is not maintained see the diff between Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2010  and Revision as of 09:27, 20 June 2019.
So I have removed the sentence from the nutshell that was added some time between those edits that stated ""
# Because this talk page clearly show that there was no consensus for such a statement
# The diff shows that in practice this page is not maintained so it is not going to be an accurate summary of the to content policies it was supposed to replace.
In fact one of the reasons it failed to replace V and NPOV was because it was not a "cohesive summary" and never has been. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. This is a historical page and let it be as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an accurate summary 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wikipedia:A and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Wikipedia:A until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  interstatefive   17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:A" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]