Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12

message: I had inserted a well-sourced exceptional claim that keeps getting deleted. The claim is that a certain person can change from a man to a woman instantenously. The source is among others a peer reviewed university article. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Request_for_Comment:_Exceptional_Controversial_Claim Andries 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source that states that someone can change from a man to a woman is not a reliable source. Please provide links or citations of a source that states, scientifically, that someone can change from a man to a woman. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I? A relevant peer reviewed university press article remains a reliable source, according to this policy, even if the statements in the article contradict your beliefs. Andries 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide a link or a citation to this "peer reviewed university press article" which states, as a fact, that someone can change genders. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will though the article does not state it as a fact. Andries 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A peer reviewed article that states that someone else claimed that someone can change their gender is a reliable source for the fact that someone else claimed that someone can change their gender, not a reliable source for the actual gender change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This is the sort of thing where, if you have good sources, you can pass along the info that those sources made that claim.  It just should be presented as "X says he saw Y" and not "Y happened".  I've been dealing with something very similar at John Edward.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hipocrite, I replied on your talk page detailing the sources. Andries 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the current wording of the policy suggests that absurd claims even if they are well sourced should be removed. Andries 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if reasonably read; both the paragraph that says "absurd" and Jimbo's post in the footnote talk only about unsourced material. But I added another "unsourced" to clarify this.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Our articles on religion are filled with absurd claims. WAS 4.250 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that in the talk pages of articles on a number of topics -- religion and political views, for example -- people regularly suggest that the views of those who disagree with them should be removed as absurd or wierd, despite the fact that views representing both sides are held by a substantial fraction not only of the population but professional philosophers/theologians/commentators. Atheists regularly claim that Wikipedia shouldn't have any articles on religion; religious people claim Wikipedia shouldn't have atheist or critical perspectives, you name it. Any proposed policy language that says that well-sourced views can be removed on grounds of absurdity shoud be very carefully vetted to make sure opinionated editors won't be quoting it to remove material based on their own subjective view of what is "absurd". Regarding the specific application raised, I would think that any article on Satya Sai Baba would need to describe the beliefs Sai Baba and his followers have about his nature and activities. A belief in Sai Baba's personal capacity to perform miracles seems to be a central tenent of that faith. However, as with religion articles generally, consistent with WP:NPOV, Wikipedia would do well to report both what believers believe and skeptics' criticisms, using fairness of tone for each, and leaving readers to make up their own minds. Given that the Satya Sai Baba religious beliefs involved are notable, the fact that some Wikipedia editors might think the beliefs involved absurd simply should not influence editorial decisions. A fair presentation of views offered by skeptics will have to do to present such editors' POV. Otherwise, we'll be hearing from editors saying Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the Resurrection of Jesus or the article shouldn't include the views of theologically conservative Christians on that subject. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The keyword here is "multiple". We need multiple references of the claims. If The New York Times, BBC, CNN and Washington Post state cows can fly, I will be the first to edit cow to add that fact. -- ReyBrujo 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would find it sufficient if Nature had a peer reviewed paper showing cows can fly. I would be careful to attribute the claim to the Nature paper, and probably quote the relevant items verbatim. I agree with Shirahadasha that 'absurd' is subjective, what we need here are proper attributions, not opinions about 'truth' by Wikipedians. Crum375 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at :Kent Hovind. True, his claims are absurd, but as long as we're careful to attribute to him ("Hovind states", "Hovind theorizes that"), they're entirely appropriate for his article. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a single line that explained what was Wikipedia about: "Verifiability, not truth." Unfortunately it seems it was lost in the policy slaughter. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about well-sourced absurd claims?

message: Should these be moved to WP:ATT/FAQ? Otherwise that section becomes too verbose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, "primary source" is chiefly defined by those examples; if we strip them out, we are left with the first sentence. We probably should do this, but we'll need a paragraph to replace this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the simplicity of that paragraph without all the examples. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikilinked to the FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources examples 

message: This edit by Jossi does not preserve the point involved: that an article which uses questionable sources must be based, somewhere, on reliable sources, independent of the subject. The revised phrasing would permit an article to use dubious sources if the article is based on other bad sources.
This probably does need to be rephrased; it's been seriously misunderstood twice in the last week; but the point is (and has been reverted to as) consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section requires intricate reasoning. It only covers the case of questionable or self-published sources in articles about themselves. In general, sources do not always have to be independent of the subject of the article; in some cases, the concept does not even make sense. --Gerry Ashton 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: independent sources

message: I added "press releases" as a type of primary source.  It seems appropriate to me, given that Wikipedia links to quite a number of press and news releases for attribution, and we have  to go along with that sort of usage.  Hopefully this is allright.  This is a really well-written document, kudos to everyone who's been involved with it.  -/- Warren 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Warren. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press releases as a primary source 

message: Anything that creates fewer, more easily understood and less "secret" rules is just wonderful. Wikipedia needs a small number of policies that are as solid as a rock, well known and easily understood, not a proliferation of policies, guidelines and essays with varying degrees of adherence and enforcement. This consolidation is a huge step in the right direction. Thank you to all who worked on it for the past four months. Dino 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My compliments 

message: Existing text:
Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image.
This seems to be too strong.  Some image manipulation, such as brightening an image to make it easier to view (without in any way altering the information provided by the image), or cropping an image to remove things honestly irrelevant to the article, should be allowed and should not automatically need to be noted.  Things like that are a normal part of moving a photo from a camera to a computer (and in fact no raw image from a camera is suitable for Wikipedia without some manipulation such a scaling).  I also question "materially affects" (should be "materially degrades"?) and finally "encyclopedic value" is a weasel phrase. I think the purpose of this part of the policy is to prevent image manipulation that constitutes original research or bad faith, such as adding or removing objects from the image.  Here is a proposed replacement, based slightly on Reuters' policy.Proposed text:
Minor adjustment of photographs, such as scaling, cropping, and tweaks to brightness and hue are permitted provided the resulting image does not materially differ in content from the original.  That is, the new image must convey the same relevant information to the reader as the old image.  Greater manipulation, such as addition or deletion of objects, unrealistic alterations of color or lighting, or blurring to disguise something in the image, are not generally permitted. All such manipulations must be noted by the uploader, who has the onus of justifying them.
--06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with this change.  It's a nice and simple statement, and seems to achieve everything required of it. JulesH 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's put that detail in the FAQ. Let's keep the wording in the policy as simple and as succinct as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image manipulation 

message: I'm sure I have seen the answer around somewhere but can someone confirm whether or not The Register is a reliable source? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be cautious with them; they often publish unsubstantiated rumours, but they do meet the absolute bare minimum requirements of not being self published and not falling into the 'questionable' category. JulesH 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that JulesH. Would you agree that they would be a dubious single source for an subject? Talk:Irish passport the section on Shielding is what I'm wondering about. The other sources don't address the point specifically and most of the bit therefore looks like original research. Thanks. --Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replied on the article's talk page. JulesH 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Register 

message: The Village Pump archive says that material is deleted after 9 days, and that before that time material can be moved to the relevant talk pages.  I copied to here some discussion which relates to whether there is consensus on replacing WP:V and WP:NOR with WP:ATT.  Someone has deleted it.  Please put it back.  We need a record of what happened.  It contains significant comments related to the discussion.  It can be moved to the archive page of this talk page, not deleted. 
I do not see anywhere a consensus for the replacement of the old policies with the new policy.  I see disagreement.  --Coppertwig 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who removed it, see my edit summary, feel free to replace it though, but adding  this discussion seems kind of pointless. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a definite point in copying over that discussion:  it relates to the question of whether there is or was ever consensus for getting rid of "verifiability".  In that discussion, a user comments on that very issue.  --Coppertwig 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying of information from Village Pump 

message: In the "What is original research?" section, there is the following definition: "introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article". The "in relation to the topic of the article" is unclear to me, and could be a point of considerable acrimony in many pseudoscientific topics. Does the statement require that the source make the argument in direct and explicit relation to the topic of the article, or does it only require that the argument be in relation to the topic of the article implicitly or as a member of a general class?
A very good example of this distinction may be found in the topic of perpetual motion devices. There are some such devices which are notable, but no one in the scientific community bothers to write a source calling each one pseudoscientific and rejected by the scientific community: perpetual motion machines are considered to be such by default, as can be supported by many sources. If the definition covers implicit relation, then it would be acceptable to include sources that label all such devices as pseudoscience on pages about particular devices. If, on the other hand, it requires explicit relation to the specific topic, then most articles on perpetual motion devices would not be able to include any criticism, despite that criticism being obvious.
If I am correct in believing that only implicit or class-based relation is required, then the definition needs to be clarified, or else I will have to argue this point with every new nut who comes to Wikipedia. And of course, if explicit relation were required, then the policy would likely conflict with the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, particularly the Serious Encyclopedia finding, and there would be no point in me or many other editors continuing to edit, since making pseudoscience articles follow NPOV would be impossible. --Philosophus T 23:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my take. If Mr. X invents a device Y, and we have a reliable source classifying Y as 'perpetual motion machine', then we are allowed to wiki-link to perpetual motion, as that is a standard well-defined concept. Crum375 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But can we also cite reliable sources that argue that perpetual motion devices violate basic laws of physics? Those sources would not be related to the specific topic, but would be related by the perpetual motion source. --Philosophus T 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No source that alledges they have built a perpetual motion machine is reliable except with respect to article about that specific source, or about the author of that specific source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO all we would need to do is to link to perpetual motion (PM), where the reader can read more about it. I would stay away from further addressing and citing sources about PM in the article about X, as we would then be creating a mini-PM article inside X's entry, thereby implying that we as Wikipedia editors agree with the PM classification, which would be OR-ish. Crum375 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about having something like "According to X, the device is a perpetual motion machine, which if true would mean that it violates commonly accepted physical laws"? My current application of this is with Transcendental Meditation, which includes a bunch of mind-qft type pseudoscience. The material was discussed in What the bleep do we know, and there are many reliable sources calling everything in that movie nonsense scientifically, but no one has bothered to explicitly address the theories espoused by TM supporters, since the general material has already been addressed many times. If such sources cannot be used, then the paid TM supporters editing the page are essentially free to portray the scientific community as having no objections to the ideas. --Philosophus T 23:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own personal inclination, without having examined the TM article, is to stay way from making the connections. IOW, I think that saying "According to X, the device is a perpetual motion machine, which if true would mean that it violates commonly accepted physical laws" is OR-ish, whereas "According to X, the device is a perpetual motion machine" is not. Now odds are high (I'm guessing here) that X also said something else besides classifying the device as PM, and that would of course be citable and most useful. So for example, "According to X, the device is a perpetual motion machine and violates commonly accepted physical laws[1]" would be fine if X said it. I think that we need to take a step back, and as much as we personally believe something (and I'll admit here that I personally, along with the USPTO, don't believe in PM), we need to stick to our rules and stay as neutral and OR-free as possible. I think that if done properly we can send a message to our readers that we as WP are bending over backwards to be neutral in all matters, and that everything we say is based on reliable published sources. Crum375 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "in relation to the topic of that article" 

message: If an expert in the field of radioactive airborne hazards faced by people in the Navy posts an email message to a moderated mailing list on radiation protection claiming that someone else was given an award by the Navy for making a decision about protection from airborne radioactive hazards, isn't the poster a reliable source?  His signature is certainly verifiable. James S. 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I strongly oppose the use of such, the main reason that there are big gaping holes in our policy with respect to exeperts posting on unreliable sources is because the creator of Babylon 5 likes to write to usenet, and the fans of that series had the clout to water down the guideline for the entire encyclopedia. As such, I would argue that if you can be absolutly certain the poster is who he says he is without even the slightest doubt, then it would be a reliable source. I have not reviewed the link in question for questionability of identitiy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In principle, no. Email messages are not considered reliable sources, unless described in a third-party published source that meets the requirements as presented in this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As the policies current stand, it boils down to relying on IAR. If you think it makes wikipedia better, you can do it, but if challenged you must rely on evidence, logic and the ability of others to see your point rather than blindly follow non-IAR policies. This is actually sort of standard in much of our pop culture area. WAS 4.250 00:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to modify this issue a bit by stating that there are *some* "moderated email lists" which are archived in a permanent location.  For example I happen to belong to a genealogy list where experts in medieval genealogy post messages to each other about questions or new things they've found.  All the email messages are archived online, and available for anyone to peruse, in their own time.  So in effect the "list" becomes a bulletin board of a sort, although you can't reply directly through the archive.  In a case like this I believe we'd treat the archive as the source and link to it directly, rather than saying "Email list so-and-so" we'd have to say "as archived at link".  Email lists have a verification problem, but if they are archived, that problem disappears and we're left with the lower bar of reliable. Wjhonson 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely this comes down to being a document self-published by a professional researcher, i.e. it is an accepted exception? JulesH 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James & I have an ongoing disagreement about this.  IMHO, the researcher exception doesn't apply.  If you follow the link, the researcher (Riel) isn't being offered for information within his field, he's being offered to establish that a third party (Taschner) recieved an award.  This use is specifically forbidden by WP:ATT, in bold face, no less.  Specifically, the relevant section states: "Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must 'never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."  As a general matter, I don't think the professional researcher exception applies to personal facts about other third parties.  Let's say that Riel, a nuclear physicist, writes an e-mail saying that Taschner, another nuclear physicist, once won an otherwise unverifiable award.  Why is that statement any more reliable than the same statement on Taschner's wife's blog or his son's myspace page?  TheronJ 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RADSAFE mailing list is moderated, and there are specific exemptions for moderated mailing lists in the policies you cite. Why do you say that Taschner's award is not information in Riel's field?  Earlier you implied that you thought Riel's field was history of science -- why?  If you would please phone Riel as I have asked, then you could ask him directly. James S. 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the poster's identity were not verifiable, a mailing list posting would be an anonymous source. If the mailing list is archived and the poster's identity is verifiable, I would think that would fall under the cautions/restrictions on self-published, non-fact-checked sources. (Of course, if the email is later republished in a fact-checked, reliable publication, it's a reliable source.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is an expert posting to a moderated mailing list reliable? 

message: And can I still cite "No Original Research" in argument for an action? Blueaster 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Use WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did this happen? 

message: I'm inclined to use a web forum as a primary source for a language-usage article. While I would understand an objection if I was attempting to use a forum post to justify the addition of a "fact" such as "the world's biggest ball of twine is located in Joe Franklin's basement", since the issue is one of common language usage, a forum should serve as a primary source, as it records actual conversations. Any thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a primary source.  The problem is "for what?"  I think the only thing that a forum can be used for is a primary source about the speech habits of that forum - you couldn't generalise it, internet fora are too diverse.  ColourBurst 01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conducting surveys is original research. In most instances, it would be necessary to survey many posts to many web forums to extablish language usage, and such a survey would be original research. --Gerry Ashton 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you're right, as soon as you move out of quoting a singular instance to generalizing speech patterns of a forum, that would be original research.  I still stand my assertion that you couldn't generalise it for any forum even if you had the data available in the forum somehow.  ColourBurst 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In many cases it is necessary to see how things are referred to in many newspapers and books in order to establish use.  Looking a web sites and reading are similar. This is the reasoning that would have us describe novels from book reviews. Drawing obvious conclusions from data that is in front of our eyes is not OR.  DGG 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've certainly done this myself before, although I wasn't comfortable with it at the time.  Yes, a web forum or any other self-published document is a primary source that a particular word is in use (and, in many cases, that it was in use at some particular time).  There are almost always better ways of achieving this, however.  For instance there are a number of web sites that catalogue new language usage which are self-published by professional researchers in the field (e.g. languagelog, double-tongued word wrester) which may be more appropriate sources. JulesH 06:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web-based fora 

message: (Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive where apparently stuff is deleted after 9 days.  Please do not delete this information.  You may move it to the archive page of Wikipedia talk:Attribution.  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Copying of information from Village Pump --Coppertwig 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I absorbed a major shock when I viewed the page, but it's wearing off, and I kind of like the idea. Just make sure to note, on that page, that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and perhaps give the definition of a tertiary source. That's all; good job, people who worked on it. GracenotesT § 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And perhaps if WP:V redirects to it, mention the word "verifiability" at least once in the policy? GracenotesT § 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case in point: [[WP:ATT]] 

message: (Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive.  Please do not delete this information.  You may move it to the archive page of Wikipedia talk:Attribution.  See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Copying of information from Village Pump --Coppertwig 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these pages has ever had "broad" consensus.  They've been written and decided upon by a small number of users who care a lot about the issues, and those who aren't interested in constant fighting and wikilawyering are outvoiced.  WP:RS isn't that bad anymore, but I have yet to see it used for anything but abuse. — Omegatron 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can't say I agree with that. Without WP:V or WP:NOR, Wikipedia would fall apart in a matter of weeks. It really all boils down to WP:ENC, but a lot of people do need this spelled out in greater detail.  dab (����) 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: well, it is misleading to say that WP:V and WP:NOR are "no longer policy". They still are. They were just merged into a single page. It is an extremely bad idea to keep these pages around as "inactive", since they are not. If people feel they must be merged into a single page, make them redirects along the lines of WP:UNDUE. dab (����) 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged both of the pages back to policy status. Consensus indicates that they should be merged, but this doesn't mean they should be "rejected" as policies and no longer be in use. I concur with Dbachmann, please make them redirects instead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I did not mean to say that the concepts behind V and NOR were being rejected... Dbachmann is correct to say that is misleading.  The point of this was really to draw attention to the merge, and to let editors know that the merge was a done deal.  For instance, if an editor is in the midst of a content dispute or an AfD that centered on V or NOR, they need to know that they should point to ATT now instead of V or NOR.  This post was really a "shout from the roof tops" to advertize the merge rather than a complaint about it. Blueboar 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] ARE NO LONGER POLICY 

message: Please state whether you support or oppose changing the wording of the policy from "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."  --Coppertwig 13:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll re "verifiability, not truth" versus "attributable ... not whether it is true". 

message: Suppose a Wikipedia article makes an assertion which is attributable to a published source normally considered reliable, but which the editors of the page are convinced is false, and suppose they can't find an acceptable published source to support the other position.  Do you support the following: 
:It is better to either delete the statement (if it is a relatively minor point) or change it to indirect speech than to leave a Wikipedia article making an assertion the editors believe is false.  
An example of changing to indirect speech is to insert "The Daily Times reports that..." --Coppertwig 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coppertwig, this page is getting hit by six threads a day. This is silly. Marskell 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is the Point of it?  Oh... never mind, I think I answered my own question. Blueboar 14:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to discuss it.  Please.  In "Role of truth", above.  Poll continues, however. --Coppertwig 15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussions are the way to go. Polls in these cases are not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some common sense is called for.  If the statement is really Fringe, I see no problem removing it if that is the clear consensus of those editing the article.  However, if there is the slightest doubt, it is much better to keep the statement - but make it a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact ("According to the author Ima Loony...."). Blueboar 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. It is sometimes appropriate to move something which is sourced but silly to the discussion page rather than leave it on the project page. No one objected when in the article Talpiot Tomb which refers to the "lost tomb of Jesus" I removed from the article to the talk page the sentence from the Discovery Channel's Discovery News ""Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, ”The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). " This is silly and somehow garbled or a typo in the source, because there were two "King Herods" and our article on them gives neither such a short and amazingly coincidental time span, The professor likely said first century to second century. If a Nobel Prize chemists says that water generally boils at sea level at 10 degrees celsius and the sun rises in the west, it does us no good to leave such a misstatement of fact in an article. Move it to the discussion page and get more input. Leaving a silly misstatement on the article page and then "balancing" it with a statement from a science book that water boils at 100 celsius and the sun rises in the east still leaves a silly article to no point. Typos and verbal flufs do not add to the knowledge base expected of an encyclopedia unless the article is intended to be a humorous collection of missprints and misstatements. Edison 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - With the caveat that such a restriction is *only* applicable to articles *other* than the article about the source itself.  It is *always* acceptable for example to quote the National Enquirer on it's own article, no matter what the quote says. For example: "The National Enquirer is known for claims such as: 'Three-headed baby born to Jessica Simpson!'"  We should not put any restrictions on claims made by a source, in the article *about* the source.  "Adolf Hitler claimed that Jews eat babies for breakfast" would be entirely acceptable in his article.  It would not be in an article about breakfast foods. Wjhonson 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with allowing editors to use best judgment is that the rules don't make it clear that best judgment is allowed.  A number of editors *right here on this page* have suggested that one may *never* remove material that is sourced but which one believes to be false, with no judgment allowed. Ken Arromdee 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think a paragraph in the key principles section that tells editors to use their judgement when evaluating sources would be helpful.  Basically stating that a source that's appropriate for one claim on one article may not be appropriate for another claim on a different article, and to consider the type of claim made and the type of article (i.e. whether it's a biography, scientific article or whatever) when evaluating sources. JulesH 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll re handling of apparently false, but attributable, statements