Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 15

message: Clearly Nazi propaganda should belong in Wikipedia as it was published by 
at the time anyway reputable organizations.  But this is a very important point
as some real crap is being put on these pages, with some at best spurious sources,
but how does one rebut a fringe idea based on spurious sources as reliable sources wont go there?01001 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi Propaganda

message: Let's consider what happens with a controversial, but not very high profile, political figure. By our own rules, his or her own writings about him- or herself are citable; similarly, those of organizations with which he or she is affiliated. There is a much higher threshold for critical material and, connected to that, there is an interesting intersection between WP:BLP and verifiability. I'm a little concerned that WP:BLP seems to mean that an article in a minor newspaper might be citable for a positive remark and the newspaper—even the same article—might not be citable for the other side of the same story. 
I'm not sure there is anything we can do about this, but I thought I'd put the matter on the table. At the very least, I'm a bit uncomfortable that we seem to be saying that certain sources can be used only in a way that is not representative of what the source, taken as a whole, actually says. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the similarities in the issues you and I raised, namely how verifiability decreases NPOV, and how critical sources may not be considered reliable, I must remind you that an online game is a mass-media topic, while a controversial political figure is a mainstream-media topic. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy only accepts mainstream-media sources, and it will be difficult to find mainstream-media sources on a mass-media topic; in contrast, it should be easier to find mainstream-media sources on the political figure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar issue, higher stakes

message: There continues to be debate at WP:RS about whether it should remain a guideline on not (a small but active minority feel it should be scrapped).  As that guideline is referred to on (and in my opinion is an intrigal part of) this policy page, I think the regular editors of WP:V should be made aware of this debate.  Please pop over, read the talk page and chime in.  Blueboar 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate at [[WP:RS]] - Should it be rejected as a guideline? 

message: This is the English language Wikipedia but from time to time articles are sourced in a variety of other languages. Recently Márton Szász was sourced just in Hungarian which none of my translators handles.  My view is that we should stipulate that essential facts should be verifiable in English sources. Whilst Hungarian is not particularly obscure, if foreign language verification is allowed, in theory sources could be provided in far more obscure languages that perhaps no-one on here except the editor understands leading to some very dubious entries. TerriersFan 19:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to handle Hungarian, but I think that our policy should clearly be that Linear A is not an allowable language for sources. - O^O 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL; nice one! TerriersFan 19:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If we disallow foreign language sites then we run the risk of losing valuable content which is unavaliable in English; could we use existing features of Wikipedia to allow a user to request confirmation of a citation from an independent user - perhaps using templates along the lines of , I'm think  where xx is the two letter language code. --Neo 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I would prefer, as I say above, sources to be in English I would not strongly object to a defined list of the most common languages. French, Spanish and German, say, would be fine since online translators handle these. However, let me give you an example. The Taxicab series of articles is one to which I have put a lot of work in. Let's say someone puts in something controversial about taxicabs in India and cites references in Sanskrit. I would have to accept an edit that I disagree with because I would have no way of checking whether the references had any relevance. If we take Márton Szász above, the references are here and here. I haven't a clue whether they support the guy as being a maths child prodigy. TerriersFan 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no requirement that every claim in every article be verifiable by every reader. Most of us can't verify most of the articles on mathematics, but that does not mean we should eliminate them. If you can't read Hungarian, leave it to someone who does. If you doubt what the article says, and you can't read Hungarian, find a good source in a language that you can read that says something more plausible, and add the new source to the article. --Gerry Ashton 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point when possible. The problem arises when there are no sources in English for something that is critical to the article. TerriersFan 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is something critical to an article that can only be sourced in a foreign-language publication, we should be thankful that there are editors who can read the other language and provide this information to us; otherwise we would just have to do without the information. We can hope that other people who read the same foreign language will spot any problems with the information. --Gerry Ashton 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many subjects where the sources have to be in foreign languages, since net to nothing is written about it in English. IF you doubt the accuracy of a translation, or the reputability of a source, put a message on the talk page of the wikiproject for that country (equating country with language for a moment). For most languages, you will find a few unincolved editors who are able to check the source or the quote given. When a source is truly unverifiable by anyone on Wikipedia except the contributor (because of the language), I would assume good faith unless the source seems dubious (contradicts all other sources) or violating WP:BLP. Fram 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that sources in other languages are verifiable.  I believe, "other language", constitutes an egregious barrier to verifiability.  Editors should not be under the requirement of enlisting translation services merely to do their job. Wjhonson 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course we should use non-English sources.  I'm surprised that this comes up as a real question.  If a particular editor cannot read a particular source themselves, that is what the Babel templates are for.  Jkelly 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to one of these Babel templates for Farsi? Vir4030 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are sources in languages other than English verifiable? 

message: Let's say an article cites a V RS that is offline, and a copy of that source is discovered online, and is found (by one or more editors who have examined the offline source) to be an accurate reproduction.  Leaving aside copyright issues for the moment, under what circumstances is it appropriate to link to the online copy?  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In those circumstances it is always appropriate to provide a link to the online copy at the bottom of the article, jguk 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my impression as well.  (I remember the phrase "great for easy access" from a subsection somewhere.)  Is that the case even if the site hosting the determined-to-be-accurate copy is a free site like Geocities or YouTube? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 08:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as its the same text, it doesn't matter where it's hosted. If you can trust that the person who made the website is not going to deviously fiddle around with it, then it's fine. Whereas in general a source is reliable because of the author's research methods, experience and knowledge in the field, etc., the free website is only a mirror or conduit where we need only be sure that it is a faithful reproduction. Though, it is best to find a copy hosted on Project Gutenberg or Wikisource, etc. because it will be more permanent. —Centrx→talk • 09:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to play Devil's advocate - there may be cases where YouTube is hosting copyrighted material with permission of the copyright owners. In those cases, wouldn't it be OK to link? dryguy 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to an online copy of an offline V RS

message: Recently someone has increased the reference on this page from there being two other content policies, to say that there are three. There are, however, many more. Our copyright and libel policies are certainly about content. The separate, though related policy, on biographies of living people is also a content policy. Plus more are listed as content policies on Wikipedia:List of policies.
I don't think increasing the comments at the top of this project page to refer to all of these would be useful. Instead maybe reference them at the end if not already referenced as part of the discussion.
The only other content policy that I think is really worth mentioning up front is WP:NPOV, jguk 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is about content come to that, but V, NOR, and NPOV are what we call the three content policies, and not only recently. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but why?  WP:NOT, at the very least, is just as important as the three that are currently listed. JulesH 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of content policies 

message: I am not currently engaged in any discussions described below, but I have had these questions for a while and want to ask them.
#It is often possible to verify opinions: "Michael Moore thinks George Bush is an idiot".  But it seems to me that putting such opinions into articles is problematic.  I can see, for example how such an opinion, if from a verified source, might be included in the article on Michael Moore.  However, I do not see how it would be appropriately included in an article about George Bush.  Is there some policy or guideline that one can review in such cases?  (Incidentally, I take the instructions under NPOV about not declaring Hitler to be evil but rather, just describe his acts and let the reader judge as a critical yet under-used and under emphasized instruction).
#Sometimes there are current or recent events on which various popular commentators provide their "insights".  They are often respected sufficiently that their opinions are sought.  To imagine an example, perhaps someone gave an opinion on the police investigation of Natalie Holloway in Aruba.  Maybe, say, Mark Fuhrman (I am making all of this up as an example).  Although his comments and opinion are verifiable, it seems to me that such editorial commentary is inherently POV and probably unencyclopedic.  What policies or guidelines cover this area?  If none, should there be something? (In other words, is my view that such editorial commentary should be greatly restricted, correct?).  I note that it is often possible for people to argue by proxy this way -- and I think the encyclopedia would be improved as would tempers if this sort of thing were not generally accepted.
#Fairly frequently, an article is based almost entirely upon one source.  This is not necessarily a bad thing -- and for certain subjects it is even necessary because the subject area is very narrow.  But I have noticed one area that is a bit of concern to me.  A person will get a book... say something by Bill O'Reilly ... and finding a number of "facts" in that "verifiable source" will go and add sections to articles based upon that one source -- which though verifiable, is highly POV and is in fact, editorial content possibly masquerading as something else.  Another example would be a person who publishes some work on some recent policy by the President (choose any President, not just this current one).  A wikipedian reads this highly critical and POV book and then creates a section based upon its contents.  Particularly when the book is new, this content may go entirely unrefuted by other "reliable sources".  At the core, all of these examples involve what I called "justified editorial content" which is highly POV.  Is there guidance on this matter?  I have always been under the impression that NPOV is a more "core" principle and that Verifiability is intended to serve that intent.  Thus, I would think that verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  And so, when there were contributions that are POV, the mere fact that they are verifiable should not give them a pass.  I have also tended to think that "Just the facts, Ma'am" is a better approach for contentious material rather than "Both the Facts and Editorials".  But I would like some other thoughts on this.
Thanks to everyone for helping me get my head around these issues.  As I said, I do not have an immediate concern at this time... I am not involved in discussions of this sort.  But I have seen them and now I wonder.  Please comment. --Blue Tie 17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the last example you give is an example of how someone acting in bad faith can really abuse the rules. But I'd hate to see us lose the ability to cite opinionated statements. Would you really want no indication of whether written or or artistic or musical works were favorably reviewed (so that, for example, the only way that we could show that critical assessment of Van Gogh has changed over time would be in terms of the prices paid for his paintings)? No ability to quote the Abbé Sieyès on the Third Estate in writing about the Estates of the Realm, only in writing about Sieyès himself? No ability to quote Tudor Octavian writing of Calea Victoriei (one of Bucharest's main streets) in the 1930s that "this is how the whole of Bucharest would look if we had been allowed"? The result would be that articles would be dry as dust. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer.  I am sort of seeking for ideas here.  But one thing that I note is that your examples may not involve controversy. Perhaps a key is, when something is not disputed there is a lower standard, but when it is disputed there is a higher standard required that may eliminate the biased source.  Not sure. --Blue Tie 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As your example refers mainly to living people, note that WP:BLP#Reliable_sources  and WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content cover some of these aspects. As for non-BLP related, I concur with Jmabel: there will always be these that will find a way to abide by policy while pushing a POV. For these, we have the community of editors and editors' consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: About the last point, what if the view in the "opinionated" source is right and thus nobody has been able to "refute" it? It would be like writing an article on General Relativity and not having any refutations listed 'cuz there are none. 170.215.83.4 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Verifiability of Opinions

message: See Wikipedia talk:List of policies. (Radiant) 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of content policies