Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 18

message: I don't know that I agree with the necessity of this recent change -- it seems to make the policy needlessly wordy, and discusses the policy itself (self-referencing) instead of just stating the policy.  Thoughts?  /Blaxthos 08:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is necessary (this is why I fixed it) because of a step forgotten between verifiability (the goal) and need of source (the mean). The rewording allows to be specific : "Assertions that are likely to be challenged should therefore be verifiable, or be removed", which is always true. In the previous version the conditions that led to remouval were hazy, and (in my experience) led to endless disputes. But of course, my wording may not be perfect. Michelet-Me laisser un message 09:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What was the issue you were having trouble with on the French Wikipedia that you thought this change might help? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremists that tend to defend POV statements by supressing everything they don't like, on the basis that it has no source. This gives endless discussions on formal arguments, and most of the time the resulting article finds itself in a terrible shape. My problem is to re-focus such discussion on the goal itself (verifiability). Michelet-Me laisser un message 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Michelet.  When en: was the size of fr:, we had many conversations like this, and many people believed what you believe.  Over time, however, and after some incidents (example) that en: has been through but haven't happened to fr: yet, most en: editors now believe that the danger of good unsourced material being removed is less of a problem than allowing uncited information to remain in articles while people argue about it.  fr: will have to find its own level of comfort with uncited material being in articles.  I suspect that over time, fr: editors will come to much the same conclusion that en: editors have, as it becomes harder and harder to know every editor even in small fields of interest (fr:'s search engine visibility is already comparable to en:'s).  I may be wrong, and fr: may decide to do something very different; and we can all learn from how different projects handle such decisions.  That said, fr: is blessed with a number of very thoughtful, very dedicated users, and a conversation about how fr: should deal with editors removing unsourced information really belongs at fr:.  Jkelly 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what area one looks at; I know one fairly technical, and highly POV, social science article, where the resident POV-pusher routinely harasses readily sourceable inclusions by newbies which don't suit him. They go away more often than they learn our citation methods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "a conversation about how fr: [...] belongs at fr:" Theoretically true, but practically, en: policy is directly translated into fr: without being discussed. So the only way a change in fr: policy may be obtained is by changing it for the whole WP foundation, on en: Michelet-Me laisser un message 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for sharing your respected en: experience, Jkelly ;) but as a matter of fact, I agree with all that you write. Maybe I made myself unclear, I think this is not the point. If you read the proposed version, you will find that there is little difference between what I propose and the practical conclusion that "everything should be sourced". Mainly, the difference is that it allows for internal link (see article XYZ), trivial observations (the sky is blue) and largely consensual material (London is a Capital city). This will not (IMHO) lead to new similar incidents.My concern is changing the focus between sourcing and verifiability (which is after all the principle's name). ♦ When focusing on sources, articles tend to evolve naturally toward citation collections (wikisource excerpts?), and arguments tend to focus on form: presence or absence of source. ♦ The issue here is to try and change the trend: focus on verifiability, write fluent articles that aim at transmitting knowledge (and not quotations), and argue about verification (credible or not). ♦ The idea is just to invert the focus induced by the present formulation: clearly state that "Assertions that are likely to be challenged should therefore be verifiable, or be removed", and (only) then introduce sources as the natural (and most of the time, only) mean to verifiability.What do you think? Would that be evil? :( Michelet-Me laisser un message 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Michelet, the current wording has served us well. I think "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (or 'attributabily' in WP:ATT) is a crucial tenet of our content policies and our encyclopedia. I don't think we should change it into more complicated and less clear verbiage. Crum375 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? The proposed intro says the same thing. Michelet-Me laisser un message 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was hard to know what you were saying, Michelet. For example, the "easiest" way to verify is with a reliable source. What other way is there? And "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check by himself, without undue effort, wether [sic] material added to Wikipedia should be given credit or not" seems meaningless to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ♦ Other ways are: explanations, internal links to specialized articles... that's about all. ♦ The point of "undue effort" is simply to weight the cost/efficiency for additional justification. If justification is easy, no citation is required. ♦ Sorry for the typo (I just claim an en-3, see?) - couldn't you try to contribute to a possible meaningfull redaction? Michelet-Me laisser un message 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really fine as it is. Reliable sources are the only way to verify, in the way we use the term. Not internal links or explanation. If your problem is on the French Wikipedia, why do you want to change the policy here? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While you are at it, I suggest that the first sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to be changed, since the actual bar for inclusion is higher than just verifiability. See Wikipedia:Notability (only sufficiently "notable" topics may be included), Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (some types of material just are plain not suitable for an encyclopedia, period), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest ("vanity" is not allowed in an encyclopedia) and other official policies and guidelines that all, collectively, set a bar for the type and character of material to be included in the encyclopedia. Not everything verifiable is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia! So it's part of the threshold but not the whole thing. mike4ty4 00:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A threshold may be necessary but need not be sufficient. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes -- necessary? 

message: :Note: this is a continuation of a discussion from Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 14.
Is  a reliable source for this:
:"The south end was opened up in 2003 and the new plan was put into effect on September 20, 2004."
It's self-published, but the author has been cited by newspapers, including:
:New York Times: "They were converted from horse power to an electric conduit system around 1898, said Joseph Brennan, a railroad and subway enthusiast who has created an..."
:New York Sun: "There are eight completely abandoned subway stations, a subway historian, Joseph Brennan, said."
:Columbia Daily Spectator: "According to Joseph Brennan, Columbia Senior User Services Consultant, who also studies subway history and life, the City Hall station was one of the first..."
I have not been able to find any newspaper articles or MTA press releases describing this change, but multiple sources which may be unreliable confirm the September 20, 2004 date. --NE2 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody dispute the assertion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I know. --NE2 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NE2, he wouldn't be an RS for anything contentious, but if this isn't disputed, you could perhaps use him but attribute the edit to him in the text. Something like "according to Joseph Brennan, a private xxx enthusiast ..." Strictly speaking, only professional self-published sources may be used, so if anyone objected to that edit, it would have to be removed, but the point is that no one is likely to object (reasonably) if the material is completely non-contentious. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know that some people object to such references on principle, right? Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with using the source in this case, but there's always someone who'll remove such a source because "it isn't a reliable source". --Conti|✉ 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should there be a lower standard of verifiability for non-contentious material? Aren't there people who come along and read the encyclopedia every once in awhile rather than just editing? Isn't saying a source is good enough until challenged pretty much the same as saying it is not a reliable source?—eric 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources have limitations and if we only had claims that were without doubt by anyone we would only have a blank page. The point is to be as useful and credible and accurate as we possibly can be so we have all these policies to help us do that. But the policies only work in the context of intelligent people using good sense. The policies can not substitute for actual informed understanding and reasonable judgement. Keep in mind our objective to produce an unbiased free (libre) credible encyclopedia and you won't go far wrong. WAS 4.250 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Completely non-contentious" could cover 80?, 90? percent of Wikipedia content. Would this source be appropriate for a good article? a featured article? or only the obscure articles which few editors are likely to visit? If, as you rightly suggest, an editor familiar with the subject matter uses good sense and decides this source is appropriate to use why should some random editor be able to come along and force it's removal? Or why should an editor working on non-contentious material be able to slack off and apply a lower standard of verifiability? I read SV's statement as: this source is good enough for our readers, but not good enough for any random editor that stops by the article.—eric 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that both Doughery and Brennan have been quoted and interviewed by various newspapers, perhaps they count as "amature experts" and thus have a greater level of reliability than the average self-publisher? Blueboar 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, though this policy or whatever it is (as well as Wikipedia:reliable sources) says "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise". I thought I had put this on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources rather than here (Wikipedia talk:Attribution); do you think I should move this there? --NE2 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest WT:V as the best place for this kind of query at the moment.  It involves a question at policy level: the policy as worded precludes the source.  I'd say, however, that the policy is wrong in this case, and the authors being acknowledged experts in the subject have adequate status to allow the use.  JulesH 10:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a reliable source?

message: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19#Template:Cite email discusses a template to use unpublished emails as reference. So far most !votes are Keep. PrimeHunter 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Unbelievable. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing unpublished emails 

message: And when someone complained about the bias on the talk page, the response was that it was because of this policy. --59.189.61.231 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Talk:RuneScape, I don't see what you're talking about.  Neither the words "bias", "WP:V" or "verifiability" appear on the page.  Could you be more specific about the issue? JulesH 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RuneScape article is biased 

message: When was the part about this policy being non-negotiable removed from the wording?--Crossmr 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-negotiable 

message: Many of the statements in Ronald Reagan provide undescribed works by one Matlock as the source. I assume this is Jack F. Matlock, Jr.. Since he was an appointee of Mr. Reagan's, can he be considered authoritative, especially as some of the assertions for which he is provided as the source are dubious? John FitzGerald 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan-Matlock 

message: I have posted a discussion on the Deletion Policy talk page about a conflict I read between these 2 policies. Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Conflict between Deletion policy and Verifiability policy for specifics on it. I would really like to hear the comments on this. Slavlin 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between Deletion policy and Verifiability policy 

message: I propose adding the line "Sources must be cited in a way that permits a non-expert to check specific claims", 
If this nutshell is accepted, I want to propose corresponding changes to this policy and WP:CITE to implement this requirement.
We've had a significant problem with people adding huge bibliographies to the end of articles, resulting in the reader being so snowed by an avalanche of material that there is no effective way of checking whether a particular claim is actually in any of these sources or whether they represent smoke and mirrors added for puffery purposes. Requiring that claims be individually sourced essentially forces footnote-style sourcing in articles containing a large amount of content and/or very controversial claims. This is extra work, but unless sourcing is done in such a way that specific claims can actually be checked against specific sources, our verification policy can be easily defeated by a very modest amount of academic fraud. As an extreme example, suppose someone added the entire Library of Congress catalog to an article. The article may well be sourced, but providing so formidable a haystack means that there is simply no practical way for a reviewer wishing to check sources to determine whether a particular needle is really there or not. This proposed change clarifies that checkers can add maintenance tags asking to identify the specific source(s) behind specific disputed claims, and that disputed claims which are not individually associated with a specific source should be regarded as unsourced and can be removed. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with this... it seems to fit with the intent of an editor who places a  tag in an article.  He or she is requesting that a specific claim or statement be cited (using the citation info format.) Blueboar 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed change to the nutshell:Specific claims must be checkable by non-experts 

message: First, I presume that the many pages that apparently do no more than mirror wikipedia are not acceptable sources.  Assuming so, is there any commentary addressed to a situation where there is a reasonable belief or a fair suggestion that a third party who otherwise has the markers of reliabilityIt strikes me that a third party's reliability cannot be indicted merely because in the one instance it turned to Wikipedia, for then no third party itself could ever be reliable and every citation would require an evaluation of the particular documents or evidence considered by the third party in making that particular judgment. has in this instance relied upon Wikipedia or one of its mirrors?
Consider, e.g., the statement made by Dr. Susan Davis Allen in a speech that the University of California system was amongst the 8 originally named Public Ivies.  Regardless of whether that statement is true, the speech is not academic research and carries an air of limited investigation ("As far as I have been able to ascertain...").  If, indeed, she prepared this speech by using Google, it is highly likely that she found the many, many references to a prior wikipedia article making just that same claim.
Note, if you will, that this particular statement is dicta in her speech, and even if this speech was subject to peer review, or anything like it, it is very, very unlikely that any critic would address this fact.  Obviously, this case could be resolved without resolving this particular dilemma -- by consulting the R. Moll's book itself.  However, the example still highlights what could be a real and difficult to otherwise resolve concern.  (And it strikes me that the more successful Wikipedia is, the more often this issue could arise.)
There are three initially apparent possibilities:
1.  If the third party is anything more than a mere mirror, the data it considered do not render an otherwise reliable third party unreliable, without regard to the specific data considered.
2.  Rule #1, except where there is reasonable reason to believe that the third party is just echoing wikipedia's statements.
3.  Rule #1, except where the third party states or admits wikipedia was the source.
Cka3n 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as an indirect source? 

message: On New York Bus Service, I used a cached version of the old website. The site is now blocked via robots.txt. What do I do? --NE2 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happens if the Internet Archive removes a site?

message: There are a lot of sources that could be used for verification that are either partially or wholly inacurate.
Does that not compromise the authenticity of any information submitted even if it is verified?
Also, if an article is 'wrong', yet there are no sources to verify the removal of the incorrect articles, what can be done?
Davidtakesthesquare 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the policy doesn't require a source in order to remove information, only to add it.  That said, I'm not sure how we'd know something is wrong without a source that contradicts it, other than in the most obvious cases. JulesH 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Genre identification is, in many cases, rather subjective.  Bands may also belong in more than one genre, although this is somewhat unusual.  Ideally, this information would be sourced, although for non-controversial cases I don't see including the information pending a source being located being an issue.  If somebody disagrees with a categorisation, I'd suggest removing the classification until a source is located.  In the case of a sourced statement of genre that doesn't appear to be correct I'm not sure there's anything to do without finding a source that suggests another one -- it is a highly relevant piece of information that we should always have in such articles. JulesH 12:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources incorrect? 

message: If a User has used a verifiable source which in itself appears ok, but goes against all other known verifiable sources that quote a different fact, how can this be reversed? I initially considered this be be an issue over concensus, but according to wikipedia policy/guidelines, I would need to have a verifiable source specifying that there is a claim of concensus. This is in most cases not possible or even plausable. What policy/guideline can I quote that allows multiple individual sources take precidence over one source? Maggott2000 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that particular case, it sounds from what you've said like the best thing would be to note that there's a difference of opinion on the fact. -Amarkov moo! 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable vs Concensus

message: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
For the reasons below, I suggest changing this phrase to:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is objective verifiability, not subjective truth."
REASONS:
The original phrase is confusing, as it directly opposes two desirable qualities. I have seen it explained as "Wikipedia makes a point of asserting that it does not intend to promote truth.",
for example.
However, what I read in the WP:V context is that WP supports verifiability (as objectively verified truth) versus truth (as subjective or intersubjective truth), meaning a stronger (because neutral and equally verifiable by anyone) form of truth than what people usually say as "that is the truth" -- meaning their truth. In particular, it is well-known that two different people living the same moment will have different, albeit still truthful, recollections. 
Considering the importance of this policy, I suggest the wording should be changed as above to avoid the confusion. I hope this is useful. Edgerck 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is germane, I will repeat here what I said on the above user's talk page.  "Verifiable" in Wikipedia terms does not mean, as it means in science, that you can go out and perform an experiment to test a point's validity, or as it means in mathematics, that you can draw up an airtight proof.  It means that you can visit the referenced source and check that what is being asserted to be said was actually said.  If it meant either of the former, then one could justify edits by saying, "Check for yourself: go perform the experiment" or "Just do the proof, it's simple algebra".  But, in the opinion of this user, Wikipedia doesn't work that way, for the simple reason that it cannot work that way.  I'll say no more of this here.  I have no source to cite, showing I am correct. :-) Robert K S 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I point out on your talk page, your examples show that your version of "objective verifiability" is not identical to Wikipedia's "verifiability".  I can only hope to assure you that once you understand the distinction and why it is important, you will appreciate supremely Wikipedia's present policy, and the utter, utter unimplementability of the change you propose. Robert K S 01:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the suggested change would be a good clarification of a statement that has a long history of confusing people.  Any other comments? JulesH 06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: verifiability, not truth

message: I noticed that sometimes a source is linked to a blog. Now I think it's unreliable source because it could be something that is totally made up. Yet many users' attitude are that all online sources are better than print material (even though some come from reliable sources like government reports). I think this negatively affects the quality of articles. OhanaUnited 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an attitude is contradicted by our policies and guideline. You are absolutely right, blogs are not reliable sources. It is true that reliable online sources are preferred to reliable offline sources such as books, but any reliable source is better than an unreliable source.—greenrd 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I disagree.  Blogs can be reliable sources.  Our policy states that self-published material by an expert can be used when the expert is writing in their own field, see Matt Cutts.  Also, a personal blog could be used as a primary source in some situations.  There are e-magazines publishes as blogs, see A List Apart.  These may have editors and fact checking, in which case they are reliable sources.   There is common misunderstanding that anything called a "blog" must be no good.  That's absolutely wrong and biased.  Each situation has to be judged on the merits. Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With a few exceptions like MSN Messenger development team blog, majority of the blogs are written by those whose specialty are not in the field that they refer the reference to. Most are honest mistake, believing the information they found from Google are correct. But a few are wrong like determining a game's population by number of accounts when there are people who created multiple accounts. When all other means are exhausted, is it better to not cite a source or citing a bad source? OhanaUnited 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless the information you're trying to include is important to the subject, it would usually be best not to include it rather than cite a bad source.  If the information is important (particularly if it is impossible to give balanced coverage of the topic without it) citing a bad source is preferable, IMO.  A blog isn't always unreliable, and without knowing the subject at hand it's difficult to tell what is and isn't a reliable source in this respect.  If we are talking about people's opinions, for instance, then the blogs of people who hold that opinion are good sources, but some evidence that the opinion is notable would normally be required. JulesH 07:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cause sometimes people just copy and paste what they found on google and put it on their blogs. They would take every word and think what they find is right. Should we put something to safeguard this situation from happening? OhanaUnited 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how this could happen in any of the circumstances we accept blogs, i.e. for information about the blog's author, for information that the blog's author is an expert on, or for information about the blog's author's opinions (if they're deemed relevant to the topic of the article, which must be done by some other process than ensuring verifiability).  I find it highly unlikely that any blog author is going to cut and paste such information into their blog, as it's information they likely know better than a random source they found on google.  But in the situation where an expert *does* cut and paste from another source, I think we can usually infer from this that they do trust that source, and the information in the cut & paste section can be considered as reliable as anything the expert wrote themselves (unless they continue to state that they disagree, of course).  So, no, I don't think any such safeguard would be useful.  Unless you have a specific case in mind?  JulesH 09:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I suggest that a subsection should be added in Sources headed something like Wikipedia articles as sources, clearly stating that Wikipedia articles should not be cited as sources.  That point can be taken from the info in this section of WP:NOR, but the point should be explicitly stated here. -- Boracay Bill 05:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested subsection: Wikipedia articles as sources 

message: I've seen instances where a person has a blog or writes an article on an SPS and that article cannot be used as a source, even about the author.  For example, if someone wrote a controversial opinion on a blog, why couldn't their Wikipedia page reflect that they made that comment?  It seems that the concerns of reliability are less relevant (assuming the person actually wrote the quote in question) if the person is simply speaking about themselves.  In short, can something written by a given author in an SPS be used as a source about that author or their opinions? Oren0 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V makes clear that this sort of SPS is ok IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE AUTHOR, and provided all six of the conditions spelled out in WP:V are met.  But it is not ok as a source in any other article (like a larger artcle that covers the author along with other topics, or as part of a larger topic). UnitedStatesian 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the reasoning behind the first of these criteria, "it is relevant to their notability"?  Why can't we use a SPS for basic facts, biographical infromation here.  Suppose someone writes on their own web site or blog that they "grew up in Hope, Arkansas," or "my latest album was influenced heavily by "Weird Al" Yankovic's Dare to be Stupid," neither fact makes them notable but it may be relevant to an article about them or their work. -MrFizyx 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the sentence differently. I read it to mean close to "it is relevant information taken into account how they are notable." Rhanyeia 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, perhaps we should edit the policy to make it more explicit.   What do others think? -MrFizyx 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPS about oneself 

message: On the article for the show Man vs. Wild, there has been some fighting recently over the "Controversy" section, which was recently removed altogether.  Concerning the show, the Discovery Channel forum is packed full of viewers complaining that the show is a fraud, as are numerous other forums unrelated to the Discovery Channel. Example: google search for "Man vs Wild" and "fake"; you'll get ~17,000 hits. 
The question is: how can this be reported on the article with citations -- or can it be reported at all?  It's not like Discovery is going to call one of their own shows fake, and there are hardly any reviews of the show at all from "reputable" sources.  As the article stands, the widespread criticism isn't even mentioned.
I added many references to the Criticisms section before it was deleted, but the whole section was deleted because the deleter didn't like the quality of the references.  I didn't create the criticism section, but since it was full of "fact" requests, I filled them in and expanded the section.  The types of references included:
* Links to video clips of the episodes and time offsets into the episodes to see the obvious cases of cheating that people have been complaining about on the forums (a raft supposedly lashed with hibiscus actually bound with manilla cord, a "free climb" of a waterfall actually involving a climbing harness, wearing a life jacket when swimming in a river in the Rockies, and so on.)  
* Links to many, many different threads of people complaining about the episodes.  This includes people who lived in the areas where he visits.  Example: in one episode, he pretended to be lost in the sierras -- first climbing down from a mountain, rafting through a river, walking through a meadow, and swimming across a lake to freedom.  Yet, a rafting photographer who used to work on the river that Bear went down and knows the whole area well pointed out that at no point was he far away from civilization, there was a road on the side of the river he went down, rafting companies went by it every 15 minutes, and to get to the lake, he had to walk right past several rafting companies.
Is it impossible to point out these criticisms here?  Was my choice of references appropriate?  I could also have linked to pictures from the host's own photo gallery clearly showing, for example, that the ends of the bamboo poles are saw cut, not burned off as presented in the episode, and the raft is tethered to the crew's boat near the island, not adrift in the ocean as presented in the episode.  Would that be any better, or would that count as "original research"?
Let me know what you think the proper solution to a problem like this is. -- Rei 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only really include this kind of thing if you find a reliable source talking about it.  If these criticisms about the show are relevant, I'm sure somebody (a magazine or newspaper reviewer perhaps) must have commented on them. JulesH 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  New Discovery Channel shows rarely get treatments like that (only the big ones like, say, MythBusters, tend to).  I've searched and can't find any non-forum/non-blog reviews that are more in depth than your basic two-paragraph Discovery Channel blurb, and there's only a handful of even those.  So... no way to comment on the tens of thousands of annoyed viewers posting all over the place, then, or even to note that they exist?  Even though they're pointing out things that you can clearly see with your eyes in the videos (primary sources), plain as day, and commenting based on expertise (such as local residents to the areas he visits)?  Also, isn't "many viewers complaining" a primary source to the claim that "many viewers are complaining"? -- Rei 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. In principle, they could all be sockpuppets of a few people. Of course I don't think that is plausible, but the possibility exists.—greenrd 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  The other question that invalidates this is what does "many" mean?  It would usually be interpreted to mean a significant number, but how do we determine what a significant number of viewers is?  I think any way of doing this would inevitably be original research. JulesH 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  So, to sum up, in the videos (available at YouTube for a reference) and stills (available at Bear's website), you can see with your eyes rope on the raft, him wearing a life jacket in a river, him wearing a climbing harness when 'free climbing' a waterfall, etc... but we can't mention this, right?  Not until a newspaper decides to do a non-blurb review of the show (which may never happen) and comment on this fact, correct? -- Rei 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can, as editors, make descriptive comments about an image.  "This is a cat", "he is standing by a car", "this is a sunset" and so on.  What we cannot do is make interpretive or evaluative comments "This is the largest cat in the universe", "This is the worst car ever made", "He will attempt to climb the waterfall but because he's a sorry-ass loser he's going to fall into the pool." Wjhonson 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Question: If the show is isn't discussed in any independent sources, should we include it? It's one one thing to relax our normal verifiability standards for popular entertainment that's basically fiction. But It's another to do so for anything that claims, or is believed, to be factual. Under our regular standards, we couldn't include anything that can't be independently verified. The whole purpose of verifiability is to protect against this sort of thing. If there's no really commentary on such a show at all, perhaps it simply doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I'm not just talking about the criticism part here, I'm talking about the whole article. This article has no independent sources at all. If it can't be verified, shouldn't we delete? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability of criticism? 

message: I had a question concerning a comicbook and I sent the writer of it an e-mail. He responded to me. I was wondering if there are any ways to cite this e-mail as the information would be relevant to the article I am working on.--CyberGhostface 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the e-mail is a reliable source, and on top of that it looks like you are conducting original research.  I STRONGLY encourage you to leave that information out of Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mail 

message: There is an interesting proposal at WP:RS to creating an inline tag for situations where a source is reliable, but hardly the best of sources available.  The proposed wording would be something polite and non-confrontational, like [more reliable source requested].  To give you an idea of where such a tag might be used... take an article on an historical topic, containing a statment that cites to a Histroy Channel documentary as a fact source.  While the History Channel is not completely unreliable, I hope you would agree that there are probably sources that are more reliable for the same information.  However, more community input is needed.  (Please join the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Reliable sources#Inline tag?) Blueboar 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for a tag re: reliability 

message: SlimVirgin brings into this the question of Rudolf Vrba. While a fascinating dispute, apparently well covered, I don't see it as having much to do with this text; I would not describe as a difference between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, but as one between primary and secondary sources. I can only judge from the present state of the article, but the points seem to be as follows. 
*Vrba asserts now that certain things happened in 1943 and 1944; he asserts that he was an eyewitness to some of them.
*He published this claim in 1963; whether he claimed it privately in 1944 is one of the points at issue. 
*Most secondary sources don't believe him (and their reasons could usefully be expanded upon); one (Ruth Linn)  does, and has recently published at length.
*The Israeli Supreme Court found his contentions libelous (apparently; the article's treatment of this is oddly phrased).
This is already covered. We prefer secondary to primary sources. We should not give undue weight to lone dissenters, like this Ruth Linn. An article which contravenes existing policy, as this appears to, really should not be cited as an example against new phrasing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rudolf Vrba

message: It looks like there are four options:
:# Modify WP:Verifiability (official policy) page -because either WP:RS isn't really relevant, or  because it belongs on this page, either way.
:# Modify WP:Reliable Source (guideline) page with no changes to WP:V as none are needed.
:# No modification or edits needed with respect to the type of change quoted above, as it conflicts with NPOV.
:#We have to decide exactly what the text is, before we know where to put it.
This isn't a straw poll at this time. So please don't vote yet.  I want to make sure that the above choices are (1) worded well (2) fairly reflect the positions/concerns most everybody has.  Whatever we decide, I would like to keep the number of choices to a minimum so as to keep the confusion down (4 may already be too many).  Thanks R. Baley 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll proposal

message: :With due respect, that we don't need it for the timebeing. Let's get the section being discussed in. This page has primacy and discussion should proceed from it. Marskell 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think it's confusing to be discussing not only what to put in, but where.  Some people may want the change, but not if it's on WP:V.  Some are saying we can't modify WP:RS without discussing here.  I think we can modify the RS page, but others have said that to do so violates NPOV, a core policy.  That said, if people would rather get the wording right, that's ok by me too, I just thought this might be a better way to go. R. Baley 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea, as SlimVirgin's comments above show, some people appear confused as to if WP:Reliable sources is still being used by the community. I think core policies should be kept as clear and concise as possible, so this proposed addition should go in Reliable sources. Tim Vickers 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it should go here by the same logic. That we even need RS is an open question. Marskell 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've amended the first choice to reflect this. R. Baley 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't decide policy with straw polls. This is the kind of thing that used to happen at RS, and it's one of the reasons people don't trust it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we can poll to decide what people would like to change and where they would like to change it?  I'm not even suggesting yet what the actual words are, but what ever they turn out to be ecxactly, we need to be able focus on exactly what it is we want to do. R. Baley 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the above straw poll suggestion

message: I have to agree with SlimVirgin on this one Diff 22:54, 26 June 2007 unreferenced may be removed or it may be referenced.  The project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is here to begin referencing everything that is unreferenced (there are others also).  Though not to long ago (days) it was strongly (and wrongly) attacked for Deleting articles.    Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will vs May