Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

My understanding, where a source is not generally known to be reliable or unreliable, is that the source must be shown to be reliable, rather than shown to be unreliable. Is that the case? It follows from the principles at WP:CHALLENGE I think, but I don't see such a stance reflected anywhere (besides the policy line that "there is no source which is always reliable or always unreliable"). (This is related to a statement made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Terra Online.) --Izno (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's slightly complicated. It's the BURDEN of an editor who introduces material to include sources which are, in fact, reliable if s/he feels that the material is likely to be challenged. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That doesn't say "providing a citation to a source" or "providing a citation to a source that may or may not be reliable": the only source which can be provided which satisfies that burden is a source which is, in fact, reliable. However, footnote 2 to that sentence adds this, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia..." That footnote only applies to removal of the material, but one could cogently argue that starting a deletion discussion is an attempt to remove all of the material in an article, thus triggering the footnote. But, then, merely asserting that the sources are not reliable is the articulation of a specific problem. The higher road would be to then go on to say why each source is not reliable, but I don't think that's really required by the policy. So the answer to your question is that the person who includes the source has a good-faith obligation to make sure it is a reliable source, but someone who wishes to remove the material that the source supports must at least articulate a challenge that the source is not reliable. Except for the articulation requirement, that pretty much boils down to saying that you're right. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it might be fair to summarize the situation like this: Whichever editor cares the most needs to figure out whether the source is reliable or unreliable. That's you, whenever you're trying to add a source, and it's you, whenever you're trying to remove sourced content.

There are very few rules on Wikipedia that amount to "The other editor has to prove things to my satisfaction, while I just sit here and do nothing to help (except tell him that he's wrong)". If you think a source is unreliable, then don't wait around for the other guy to prove you wrong. Put together a case for its unreliability for the specific statement, if you think that it's unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: WP:BURDEN says exactly the opposite—it is in fact a single party's job to show that content can be supported by a reliable source. I should be able to CHALLENGE a source (trivially) the same way as I challenge content, and I think that's the modus operendi of the rest of the 'pedia (especially the content quality processes). --Izno (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. BURDEN says that you have to provide one source that you believe is reliable. It says nothing whatsoever about you being required to prove to me (or anyone else) that the source actually is reliable for the statement in question. Once you've provided a source, then BURDEN's over, and we're back to normal editing.

Note that normal editing includes editors objecting to the provided source – but by doing their own research to determine its unreliability, rather than just demanding that you prove its reliability to them, while they do nothing except complain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You have apparently greatly misinterpreted something or are attempting to put up a strawman; I have not said that BURDEN regards anything but challenged content. I have said that I believe that the same principle as that behind BURDEN (namely, that the person who has added content is the one who must support that content by providing the 'pedia a reliable source to support that content) should also apply to sources when the source's reliability is not obvious or when the source's reliability is challenged, i.e. that a challenged source must be shown to be reliable by the person who adds the source, or by some other party interested in the content backed by that source. You still disagree with my suggestion for change, clearly, but I hope that my comment clarifies. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that I understand what you want, but the fact is, what you want is not part of the policy. BURDEN has some very narrow boundaries. It applies to more content than you stated here (challenged + WP:LIKELY – not just challenged content), and the requirement is smaller than you stated here (provide a source that you believe is reliable – not including related or subsequent steps, such as convincing me that the source is reliable, or that the content is DUE, or anything else).

You could, I suppose, propose an expansion of that policy to include what you want, but I don't think it would get adopted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I run into this situation regularly, in the WW2 topic area; sample comments:

• you don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS (meaning "any book", from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1)
• It is easier to prove if a source is unreliable, per WP:QUESTIONED you need to show evidence of a poor reputation for reliability, like a negative book review or something (from AfD:Hando Ruus)

By that logic, the most obscure sources would be the most reliable ones as no one has anything negative (or anything at all) to say about them. The burden of proof is shifted by editors simply asserting that a source is, in their opinion, reliable.

Would it be appropriate to to add a statement that sources are not by default assumed to be reliable? Once challenged, they's need to be shown to be reliable as described in WP:IRS. I would appreciate feedback on this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

comment: sources that are normally considered unreliable when used to support a statement phrased as fact can often be considered reliable for an attributed statement phrased as opinion. Just about any source is reliable when supporting a quote from the source (or close paraphrase of what the source actually says). So... when faced with a debate as to whether a source is reliable or not... one option is to slightly change the wording of the statement... phrasing it as an opinion and attributing it.

Of course that does not mean we must keep the material... there are other policies and guidelines that have to be met (such as UNDUE).... but it does resolve the verifiability question. Blueboar (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If we need to add a statement (doubtful, IMO), then the statement should say that sources are not by default to be assumed reliable or unreliable. And it would probably make more sense to repeat that "reliability" is neither a binary concept, nor something that could be determined without knowing exactly what claim the source is supposed to be supporting. All sources are reliable for something; no source is reliable for everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Izno and K.e.coffman. There is no presumption of notability. The reliability of a source must be determined from what we know about it. Where a publication is obscure, if it is reliable we will be able to determine that based on reason inferences (example: a new news website is founded by a group of longtime journalists at respected publications, or the author of a speciality blog is a notable scholar, etc.). Neutrality^talk 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

IMHO we don't need a "presumption" of either way, nor an official burden to prove either way. All of those sound like a wiki-lawyer's field day. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with North8000. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think jumping to the !voting, as in these comments, is premature. :) --Izno (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There's reliability, and there's reputation for reliability, which is specified (at WP:RS#Overview) as "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." An unknown entity has no reputation, neither good nor bad, therefore its reliability is indeterminate: it can't be "proved" or demonstrated either way. In such cases any imposition of BURDEN seems impossible to meet. While an unknown source might (as W claims) be reliable for something, if that cannot be shown it is effectively not reliable.

I cannot agree with W's view that having provided "one source that you believe is reliable" BURDEN is met. That is simply too low of a threshold, where a single dunderhead's adamantine assertion of belief is sufficient to derail a whole train of consensus. But perhaps what she meant is that in the ordinary practice of editing we include matter from what we believe or presume are reliable sources. Which is fine as far as that goes, but it should be considered a rebuttable presumption. That is, while one's belief of reliability might suffice for inclusion, it in no way guarantees retention. It's like a check: a belief that there is money in the account does not count as payment.

We trust editors to the extent that we don't require demonstration of reliability to include material. But such demonstration should be required upon demand (that is, when challenged), and failure to satisfy that should be adequate grounds for removal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

But note that I'm closely paraphrasing the policy itself: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient...". BURDEN's over "once an editor has provided any source" [note the use of the singular; it was not accidental], and then the rest of WP:V (and other policies) takes over.

To give a real example, I once encountered, to use JJ's phrase, "a single dunderhead" who asserted, in good (albeit thoroughly mistaken) faith, that his wholesale copy of a mirror of a copyrighted AIDS denialist website was from a reliable source. The next step isn't to invoke BURDEN. The next step is to tell him that it's not a reliable source, that his edit was a copyright violation, that it was massively UNDUE, that he needed to read WP:MEDRS, and that furthermore it was stupidly wrong content. I didn't keep saying "BURDEN requires you to bring me an endless string of sources, until I agree that one of those sources really is reliable, despite being anathema to my POV" or "Convince me that this really is a reliable source, because I can't be bothered to look into it myself". He met the BURDEN when he provided his source. After that, it was my job to find the consensus that he was a gullible dunderhead with no knowledge of either science or Wikipedia's sourcing standards. (Experienced editors will not be surprised to hear that it was quite easy to find that consensus, although I believe that we were somewhat more polite about how we phrased it.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source. This "good faith belief" criterion you invoke isn't actually in the policy itself, but in a note in that policy. And that note does not say that "Once an editor has provided" such a source "BURDEN's over", as you have juxtaposed, only that "any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems ....". (An obligation implicit in any removal of material.)

Where BURDEN refers to a reliable source: I take that to mean actually reliable, not "a source some editor in good faith believes is reliable." If the latter were the case, and that was sufficient to settle burden, then no material, from even the most blatantly unreliable sources, could be removed as long as a single editor believes (in good faith!) the source is reliable. Consensus would have nothing to do with it, unless to show a lack of good faith. Such an interpretation could seriously undermine the reliability of our content.

The policy says (in bold, no less) that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I say that such a demonstration is required upon demand, and includes whether the source is reliable. It does not mean having to bring "an endless string of sources" (unless all of them are defective for one reason or another), only the reliability of the source cited. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The explanatory footnote is part of the policy.

You may want to look through the archives to find the discussions around adding that footnote. Looking up the old story about "bring me a rock" might also be useful context.

And, yes: even an unreliable source settles the BURDEN. BURDEN is a one-shot thing: you can add your content – if you name a source – and after that, all of us are on equal footing again. You are not required to get into arguments; you are not required to provide multiple sources; you are not required to hang out for eternity afterwards in case someone might someday demand that you show up and demonstrate the reliability of the source. Your contribution can still be reverted or improved, including on the grounds that the source wasn't reliable. But your unique and particular BURDEN over, and the rest is all normal editing.

The alternative really is a gift to POV pushers. You supply a source; I claim that it's unreliable and demand that you demonstrate that it's truly reliable. You provide information about the source; I reject it as unconvincing. You supply another source; I repeat the process. I spend two minutes obstructing your efforts for every hour you spend trying to appease me, and if you complain, I'll just say "La, la, la, BURDEN says that you have to do all the work, and I don't have to do anything at all".

The point to circumscribing BURDEN is to get people out of the adversarial "bring me a better source, or you can't edit my article" mode and back into normal, collegial, consensus-driven editing. So: the first editor has to supply one plausible (in that editor's opinion) source. After that, we all edit mercilessly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What the note says is that someone removing material "has an obligation to articulate specific problems ....". What the main text of the policy says, and in bold, is: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material," and then states that this can be satisfied with a citation to a RELIABLE source. The plain meaning of that is not "a source some chowderhead believed to be reliable", but a source that is reliable. And that is something objectively ascertainable (at least in theory), unlike trying to determine the state of mind of someone possibly uncooperative, or even long gone.

Your view, that "BURDEN is a one-shot thing", is even a better gift to POV pushers (or just plain idiots). It effectively says that once something is added, no matter how asinine the source, it cannot be removed because "ha, ha, ha, WHATAMIDOING says you have to spend hours showing it was not added in a good faith belief the source is reliable."

The reality is that we usually do not require any demonstration of verifiability, or specifically of the reliability of a source, as we presume an addition is done in good faith and with a shared sense of what constitutes a reliable source. But it is also reality that unreliable sources often are cited, and they should be challenged. I'm not saying we should be spending hours proving the reliability of (say) the IPCC reports everytime some denier objects. But if someone cites the National Enquirer — well, that is pretty much shoot on sight, no license required, and properly so.

What I am saying is that material is always subject to a demonstration of verifiability, including the reliability of sources, and that when a reasonable challenge is made a reasonable response is required. What constitutes "reasonable" is a matter of common sense, as JBW mentions just below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnson, you cannot interpret the wording of the main text without the clarifications in the footnote; both are part of the policy. The footnote doesn't say that you can't remove the text based on a source you consider unreliable; it says that you have "an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". I.e., you can't simply dismiss it with a generic "the source provided is not reliable", you have at least to explain why you think it's unreliable; that's not too much to ask, as the goal is having both parties communicating their intentions and worries.

The CHALLENGE part of the policy needs to be balanced so that neither people wanting to include content nor those who wish to remove it get an automatic pass; the effort required by both to support their position should be in equal terms. We want to avoid any situation where someone may add lots of unattributed content causing other editors the need to carefully investigate each source to see if it may be verified; but also the symmetric case where someone quickly deleting large swaths of content creating a backlog for others to find new sources before reinstating the original status of the article. Diego (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that footnotes, like any other explanatory material, are important for interpreting a policy. But, I say that what the policy states, at the top and in BOLD, that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", cannot be reversed in a note relegated to the bottom of the policy. And I say that W's paraphrase (interpretation) of that note is incorrect.

I thoroughly agree that "challenge" needs to be balanced, with no automatic passes. Which is my point of objection to W's interpretation: she says that once a citation is provided "BURDEN's over", it's settled, it's "a one-shot thing". Which comes across to me, and certainly will be taken by many others, as an automatic pass, and effectively a guarantee of retention.

Noting symmetric cases is very important (thank you), as many editors here seem fixated on how they were last gored, and not how their desired fixes might be used against them some other time. Attempts to simply make it easier/harder to add/delete/retain/challenge/etc. are short-sighted, as they can be worked either direction. My position is that no material (or source) gets a permanent wavier from BURDEN, and that reasonable challenges should require reasonable responses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion the answer to the question which started this discussion is very simple. It is called "common sense". Instead of trying to analyse the exact wording of policies and guidelines to see which is the "default", the best approach is "if there is any doubt or disagreement then discuss the issue". Discussing each disputed or uncertain case as appropriate is, I think, much more constructive than trying to establish a general principal defining which is the "default" in cases which are not totally clear cut. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think sources should be considered reliable or unreliable by default; but I do think an AfD should be sufficient to invoke BURDEN to prove that they are, in fact, reliable. AfD challenges all the content and BURDEN requires a reliable source to be provided, not just stating it is with no explanation. I believe sources in an AfD should not be required to be proven unreliable to an equal measure to how they would be proven reliable. It should be sufficient to point out unclear or missing key reliability concepts (author's credentials, peer review, editorial team, fact-checking, citations, etc.) and (re-)request BURDEN to prove reliability. Otherwise (since we are talking AfD as the culprit), editors could just keep adding sources one at a time endlessly, if we have to hold a discussion on each one just in case it's reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• There is no single right answer to this. A LOT depends on the nature of the information that the source is (supposedly) supporting. As the policy states "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." So... the more controversial the information is, the more the BURDEN to establish reliability rests on those wishing to add the claim (it's up to those wanting to include the claim to establish that the source is indeed reliable)... The less controversial the information is, the less that Burden becomes (i.e. It's up to the challenger to state why the cited source isn't reliable). Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." Rather than delete it can be replaced with content that is verifiable. For example, if I deleted content from the first paragraph of chiropractic almost the entire first paragraph would be deleted if I followed policy. That means policy is wrong to only suggest to deleting it. Fixing the wording is another option not mentioned in policy.

I added "Material that fails verification may also be replaced with content that passes verification."

We can expand Verifiability policy to make it more difficult for editors who intentionally (or unintentionally if you assume blind faith) replace sourced content with content that fails verification. Any suggestions? QuackGuru (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And I reverted your wording (per WP:BRD). Note that I do not necessarily object to the language itself, but given your demonstrated failure to demonstrate actual problems I think you should not presume to adjust policy without prior discussion and consent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That gives a policy statement regarding a set of TWO actions.....removal of content and addition of content. IMO Wp:ver should not be getting into that. Also a significant change in a core part of a pillar policy should be discussed first. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

When the content fails verification Verifiability policy was only telling editors to tag or delete. It is much better to replace the content with content that is verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this issue:

Sometimes content cannot be verified at all.

I believe failed verifiability implies replacing content if possible with verified content because all editors know and are here in the business of writing articles and making sure they are complete. That said I don't see a problem with Quack Guru's suggestion.Because his suggestion is already implied in the policy, I don't see QG's suggestion as a change in policy but rather a matter of making the implied explicit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC))

Indeed, replacing unverifiable things with verifiable ones is often a de facto part of the policy. In the process of checking sources, we find that text does not quite agree with the sources, so we change it in order to make the text compliant. So I don't see this as a fundamental change to the policy (and, even less, to how the policy is used in practice). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course yet another option is to replace the flawed source with a reliable one that verifies the information (assuming one exists). There is not one single right way to fix a disconnect between source and statement... there are multiple ways. Any of them are acceptable, and which is best will depend on the specifics of the situation. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If the source is flawed or unreliable that is a separate issue. Rather than delete the content I removed a single word. Most of the time the content does not need to be deleted. A quick rewrite will fix the problematic wording. Now we can work on how to slow down the editors who replace sourced content with content that fails verification. Any suggestions? QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm never in favour of a one size fits all approach, of pigeonholing for example - and we have some of that on Wikipedia - which I don't find to be particularly successful or pleasant. I am in favour of reason and discussion and that does take time and patience. There are no quick paths, seems to me, in a collaborative environment. When I remember that myself, I find editing easier. Just my experience.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC))

IMO this change amounts to further duplication of WP:PRESERVE. It's not wrong, but I don't think it's necessary. But if we're going to include it, then it might be more balanced to mention finding a reliable source (i.e., yourself) that does verify the information.

In general, this section might benefit from reminding editors that "not present in the [one] cited source" differs importantly from "not present in any [millions or billions of] reliable sources", and that WP:V cares far more about the latter than the former. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not about finding a reliable source (i.e., yourself) that does verify the information. That's for unsourced content. And when you find a source the content often needs to be rewritten. This is about the content that fails verification when there is a source after the sentence. Policy is telling editors to delete or remove. That's wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

My point isn't whether or not the main theme is a good idea....actually, I think that it is. My point is a policy structural one..if we start having policies dictate on premutations and combinations of three things (failing verifiability, removal, addition) then, get ready for wp:ver to go to 1,000,000 words to start covering permutations and combinations of situations and actions. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Our policy is already structured in a way that encourages tagging a sentence, then later citing a source for that sentence. Of course, this is completely the opposite of what should be the case: ideally, we should start with the source, and then write the sentence. The process of finding a source for a tagged sentence often should include rewriting the sentence. Likewise, when a source is cited but is discovered to fail to verify the content, the current policy is to tag with {{verification failed}} or to remove it, but not possibly rewrite it—which happens at least as often as outright removal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary "(Undid revision 795010433 by QuackGuru (talk) Reverting per WP:BRD. Given your poor performance on Talk you should restrain your boldness here.)"[1] and comment stating "And I reverted your wording (per WP:BRD). Note that I do not necessarily object to the language itself, but given your demonstrated failure to demonstrate actual problems I think you should not presume to adjust policy without prior discussion and consent."[2] is not a valid reason because I demonstrate actual problems. J. Johnson did not specifically object to the language itself. I showed what was the problem in my initially post and edit summary. I did explain again that tagging or deleting content is a problem without giving an editors an option to replace the content that failed verification with content that passes verification.[3] See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagging or removing implies that there is a problem that you personally can't fix. A tag indicates that you think someone else will be able to fix the problem. Removing is an indication that you don't think the problem is unfixable.

If you can fix the problem, you don't need permission to do so... just fix it. We don't need to list all the myriad ways to fix a problem, because how to fix a problem depends on the specifics at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "If you can fix the problem, you don't need permission to do so... just fix it." This can be explained in policy. The sentence "Material that fails verification may also be replaced with content that passes verification." accomplishes this goal. We do need to remind editors there is another option available. Deleting the content should be the last result. We should encourage rewriting the content. We do need to remind editors they can just fix it rather than tag or delete. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the policy needs to give editors instructions on how to deal with problems they personally can fix. If they can fix it themselves, they simply do so. The specifics on how to fix it is up to them. Going into details and listing options is pointless instruction creep.

However... editors do need some instruction for what to do when they can't personally fix the problem. This is why the policy focuses on tagging or removing... as these are the two options for situations that can't be personally fixed (if you think someone else might be able to fix it, then tag it... if you think it unfixable, remove it). Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "(if you think someone else might be able to fix it, then tag it... if you think it unfixable, remove it)." That is inherently wrong because we are not giving another option to fix it themselves to match the source. The specifics on how to fix it is only tag or delete. We should also include the wording it can be fixed without tagging or deleting. That's what I did.

"Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." Stating only theses two options is bad advise. QuackGuru (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the sentence. It lists those two options as a means of establishing that they are valid options, not to exclude other possibilities. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not misinterpreting the sentence. It only lists those two options as valid options, while not including any other possibility. That's against common sense to only tag or delete. QuackGuru (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the policy only gives two options for when you can not fix it yourself (tag or remove... can you think of another option for when you can not fix it yourself?) ... the policy says nothing about your options for when you can fix it yourself. We don't list options for when you can fix it yourself because there is no need to do so. If you can fix it yourself, you already know what to do. Just do it. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "the policy says nothing about your options for when you can fix it yourself." That's the problem with policy saying nothing about it. There is a need to explain the other option because it is better option than the only two options for failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. You talk about the need to explain "other" options for fixing a problem ... but we have not explained any options for fixing problems. What we have explained is what to do when you can't fix problems. Two different things... Apples and oranges. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "but we have not explained any options for fixing problems." The part "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." is explaining options for fixing problems. The only two options given does not say these are the options when you cannot fix problems. Policy explains only two options for fixing problems for failed verification content. The proposed wording is by far better than tagging or deleting. Policy is giving editors a reason to tag or worse delete content when it may be possible to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No... Tagging/removing is not fixing a problem... Tagging/removing is for when you (personally) CAN NOT fix a problem. Being unable to fix a problem yourself is a completely different scenario than being able to do so yourself... If you CAN fix a problem, you should do so. We don't need to tell people how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagging the content is identifying the problem. That is part of fixing it. Removing the content is one way to fix a problem. If it can be rewritten, we can tell editors to do so because it is a much better option. Policy does not say tagging or removing is for when you cannot fix the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(shrugs) So you're not even open to the possibility that you might be misinterpreting it? I'm done here. You never provide any examples to back up your allegations, you show little interest in consensus-building, and frankly at this point I feel you're much more interested in simply expressing your own views than in listening to anyone else. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I respect and thank you for your interest improving Wikipedia's policies. However, I agree with Doniago's criticism of your current course. Please accept the input to tweak your current course a little. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Quack, are you interpreting "You MAY do X or Y" as meaning "You absolutely MUST NOT do anything except X or Y"? That's not how the word may gets used in Wikipedia's policies. We tend to use these words in conformance with the definitions at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ("This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional.") The word may does not preclude other courses of action. "You may tag the sentence" does not imply "You must not edit the sentence".

After all seeing these walls of text, I am yet again wondering whether Quack's involvement is worth the costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The section WP:PAYWALL states: Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). I propose inclusion of the following: "If there are other comparable online sources that are freely availabe without reducing the reliability/verifiability of the information, cite those sources in place of or in addition to paywall sites. Example: The New York Times is behind a paywall, but the same information is freely available in The Atlantic, cite the freely availble source or both." If such a statement is already included in our PAGs, and I've simply overlooked it, please advise. ^{Atsme📞📧}00:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC) ^{added without reducing the reliability/verifiability 00:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC) added "in addition to" 03:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)}

No. The most authoritative and scholarly sources are usually behind a pay wall. This would lead to a degradation in quality of sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

^{Sławomir Biały Good point, so I rephrased the proposed change.}

Now your two sentences are contradictory:"replace" . . . "both". At any rate, we need not encourage people to use what is freely available (they already have that incentive), what we do need to encourage, by far, is rely on and cite the best source, even if it is paywalled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, this addition probably applies more to news sources than it does to academic sources or medical journals, books, etc. Providing both is not contradictory rather it simply provides an option when a student (under age 18) or any other reader cannot afford/does not want to subscribe or pay for a source. If they already have a subscription to a paywalled source, we've simply helped by providing the link. The paywall issue is a real one, especially for students and researchers who simply can't afford to pay for every single source they need to access, particularly casual users. As the policy is written now, it suggests that the average person will take the time to consult the WikiProject Resource Exchange. I've come across quite a few citations sourced to paywall news when free sources are readily available and are just as reliable. I don't know if a COI may be involved but it is certainly possible so given that possibility and for the sake of convenience and free knowledge, I think it's a worthy suggestion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Replace", then "both", is still contradictory. And no, there is no problem for researchers to find free things on the internet - and this policy should not be used to address such a non-problem anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, fixed my oversight. I believe there is an issue with citing only the paywall news source when others are available for a number of different reasons. It's a major time sink in NPP and AfC when we have to verify cited sources, and it's also a time sink when reviewing GAs and FAs. Why cite only a paywall source and not a comparable free source that contains the same information if available? What if the editor citing the paywall source happens to have a COI? Just a thought. I don't see how not including it in the policy serves any benefit to the project. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that a much more detailed proposal along these lines was already discussed and failed to garner consensus during a recent discussion. I would just as soon not relitigate the entire affair. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment ... it is never "wrong" for an editor to add a source to an article (it may not be needed, but it isn't wrong). Nor is it "wrong" for an editor to replace a cited source with another source that the editor (acting in good faith) thinks is better. That is all part of the give and take of improving an article, and we don't need to give editors permission to improve articles.

Of course, different editors may disagree as to whether adding or swapping sources actually is an improvement... they may disagree over which source is "best" ... but when that happens, the merits of the various sources can (and should) be discussed on the relevant article talk page (and sure, accessibility might well be an issue that is raised in that discussion). The point is: the question of which source is "best" for a given bit of information should be discussed on the talk page of the specific article where the bit of information appears, and isn't something that we can (or should) legislate here in policy. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sławomir Biały. No one is forcing you relitigate anything. What the archive tells me and what the policy currently suggests is the concept that if you have to pay for something, the quality is automatically better; therefore, quality is based on cost. Insisting that quality costs money doesn't say much for either our volunteer work or WP in general, both of which, according to the paywall concept, are automatically assumed to be low quality because they're free. Now there's an interesting contradiction, Alanscottwalker. Sorry, but what I'm seeing is reluctance to change the status quo in a policy that speaks to a dinosaur process and defies the concept of our free encyclopedia, as does COI/paid editing and paywalls. I'm not saying to eliminate it - paywalls have their place in MEDRS and science - but the internet has dramatically changed the way information is accessed. The New York Times paywall is not the only available source for news because there are comparable, high quality RS available in The Atlantic, WaPo, the LATimes, AP and others. The same applies to other paywall sources so why not simply acknowledge it in our policy? It needs to be updated and reworded to reflect that times have changed without discounting quality sources behind paywalls that WP:TWL is also addressing. I'm not suggesting that my wording of the proposed addition is perfect - it can certainly be improved - but it needs to be mentioned or we may find ourselves fighting COI editors who insist on keeping paywall sources in our articles to generate revenue via WP. We should also give serious consideration to why editors/average readers/researchers/students would spend money to get behind a paywall when other options are made available to them, especially considering the fact that the information is going into a free encyclopedia edited by volunteers for entry in a project that doesn't even consider itself a RS? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"What the archive tells me and what the policy currently suggests is the concept that if you have to pay for something, the quality is automatically better..." Neither the policy nor discussion say anything of the sort. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały "...the policy nor discussion say anything of the sort."...really? Then perhaps you could explain what exactly you meant when you stated this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

I wrote "The most authoritative and scholarly sources are usually behind a pay wall." This is not the same thing as "What the archive tells me and what the policy currently suggests is the concept that if you have to pay for something, the quality is automatically better." If you cannot tell the difference between these two statements, then I'm afraid that there is no further point in continuing this discussion. I will therefore no longer continue to engage here. But for the record, I am opposed to any proposal to the policy suggesting that free sources are better than paid sources. I have given lengthy reasons the last time this was brought up, and I see no evidence that the consensus is likely to change. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Per CONTEXTMATTERS, it is impossible to assume in the abstract - that this particular content sentence, with this particular phrasing is best supported by one source over another source, each of which will have their own context phrasing and information delivery. One has to be able to compare the sources in full side by side, together with the phrasing of the content sentence in context. In other words, if you change the source, you have to seriously consider changing or modifying the sentence it supports - to do so, except blind faith, you need to view both sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question using the paywall source. How can that source be verified, and if the paywall is the only source available for verification, why was the statement allowed in the article when we know there are circumstances that require multiple sources? At least the free source can be verified for context, the paywall cannot without paying a fee, the latter of which flies in the face of the original intent of WP as a free resource. If you're saying in one breath that we must AGF regarding the context in the article that is sourced to a single paywall, then that brings us back to square one and why I'm proposing the free source over the paywall - everyone can verify the free source.^{Atsme📞📧} 18:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your question answers itself and is irrelevant. You have to if you are a good editor review the pay-walled source - and regularly, if one wants to claim to actually be writing competently on a topic you MUST read "unfree" sources. What you say was never the intent of Wikipedia - free, accurate encyclopedia information does not and has never meant free sources. To put it another way, you want to introduce something not logically related to source quality or encyclopedic information quality -- ease of access, lack of copyright, etc. is exogenous to quality. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, you just stated, "You have to if you are a good editor review the pay-walled source - and regularly," and to that I say, you really expect volunteer editors to subscribe and/or pay for paywall sources or they are not "good editors"? If so, my discussion with you just ended because you just provided 75% of the reasoning needed to include the proposed addition to the policy. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Pedia expects editors to school themselves, so what they do and the information they convey is competent and accurate. But no, that does not in the least support your proposal and it is totally absurd you would argue so. Just more evidence that your argument wishes to add irrelevancies, and is not actually interested in good sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Both paywall sources and printed ones that are only available in libraries etc. take some investment in time or travel or money to check out. So requiring some investment to check it out is nothing new. The only thing new is the expectation by some of being able to get anything in 10 seconds by Googling it. I think that allowing such sources is a good decision that has already taken into account the above-discussed considerations. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying to disallow them. Please read the proposal. The policy isn't strictly about inaccessible sources - but again...our requirements say verifiable by multiple sources...so now we're talking about multiple paywalls? The example used was news publications, so please consider the proposal from a broader perspective. Blanket statements represent the status quo which does not take into consideration the changes brought about by the internet. I'm not sure why access to the internet is perceived as a bad thing for volunteers who are not being paid to edit WP articles. It's time to move away from the old school thinking because it's not unlike what I've experienced from film/video producers who refused to let go of their bulky film and videotape studios and make the transitional upgrade to digital. The film/tape graveyards are full of such recordings. Foresight will prevent that from happening to WP as it applies to paywalls if applied in time, or we'll be overcome with paywalls the same way we're being overcome with COI editing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We should not disallow any type of source... on line or off line... easy to access or difficult to access. What is being suggested is that easy to access is in some way better than difficult to access. That I do object to. Ease of access has nothing to do with the quality of the source. We want the highest quality sources possible, regardless of whether they are on line or not... regardless of how easy or difficult they are to access. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you saying? You're reading things into a simple proposal that simply isn't there. Jiminy Cricket. Show me where it says anything even close to what you suggest it says. Your comment actually provides evidence as to why sources should include a second free access for verifiablity of the paywall source. Some editors could accidentally or intentionally take things out of context and a paywall source means others have to pay to verify what they said is actually what the source said. I find it hard to believe that other editors have never had situations of statements taken out of context, not unlike what just happened here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I have taken anything out of context... your proposal is to favor easy to access non-pay walled sources over difficult to access pay walled sources. I oppose your proposal because we want the highest quality sources possible, regardless of whether they are behind a pay wall or not. Quality is what is important, not ease of access. Being behind a pay wall (or not) has nothing to do with quality. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you read the proposal again because what you just stated is not anything close to what was actually proposed, but keep 'em coming. I will use these comments as evidence to support the proposal at VP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you cannot. You can not take oppose and make it into support. No one has supported your proposal.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC) --

So facing opposition here, Atsme, you intend to try again at VP? Forum shopping rarely works. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake, learn WP:PAGs and stop the crap about forum shopping and trying to spin what I said into out of context gibberish. I'm still wheeling over Alanscottwalker's comment, "You can not take oppose and make it into support." I can't believe what I'm reading. If you think input from 3 or 4 editors who failed to present a substantive argument is sufficient, think again. I did not call a formal RfC - I made an informal proposal and expected a productive discussion, not a root canal. I'm just relieved that no one has to leave the page, walk to the library, purchase a book or pay a fee to verify the diffs and/or comments that were made. It's time to give others an opportunity to provide productive input. There's no hurry - we're on a WP deadline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, you have been asserting that the the responses are are not consistent with your proposal. If you take it literally, then your proposal is about an unlikely hypothetical situation, which it ever actually occurred, would not need any policy to reflect on it. Namely two clearly absolutely identical quality sources, one behind and one not behind a paywall. But the general impression left by your proposal (and such has high impact in Wikipedia, even if it is not literally there) is is to tend to deprecate sources that are behind a paywall. And that is what folks here have been responding to.

On a different note, you have indicated that "times have changed" supports your idea, but I would argue that "times have changed" argues against it. With times changing, the previous idea of journalists and writers getting paid via subscriptions to paper media is reducing. As we move into an electronic era, how are journalists and writers supposed to get paid? Particularly when we want them to be independent of advertisers. People paying for access to electronic media is a main way for them to earn a living, (as they did with print media) it isn't something negative or to be avoided. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Also "no". Concur with Slawomir (at the top). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You'll all be getting your wish sooner than later - paywall will become the norm. Congratulations! That means editors can either pay for access or try to find ways to by-pass (cheat) the paywalls. I consider pirating highly unethical but see no problem with simply bypassing the paywall if the sources accommodate it. I still think it would have been in our best interests for WP to have gained free access and not encouraged paywalls but what can I say? The local community has spoken and they prefer to keep PAYWALLS, so be my guest...and many happy returns!! I actually don't need any further input on this topic, so I'm going to hat it. Don't let my hatting it stop you from congratulating yourselves for supporting paywalls, and please do whatever you can to promote more paywalls for added assurance of quality RS. Cheers!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you think that WP encourages paywalls... we are in fact completely neutral on paywalls. We simply encourage the best sources. We don't care whether they are behind a paywall or not. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you are so unhappy here, by all means please be happier elsewhere. But don't mischaracterize the situation here. I think the general sense is not that we prefer paywalls, but that we do not prefer deprecating quality sources in a kind of soft boycott. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, there is a middle ground. Even for paywalled or embargoed sources there is the question of open vs. paywalled catalogue data. A source which is not openly catalogued is effectively nonexistent to those outside the wall: one often can't even tell if it has been released, retracted, or rebutted. In my view, we could, by now, at least be requiring the demonstration that the source is held somewhere. The vast majority of credible sources are catalogued in archives or libraries that are reflected by union catalogues such as WorldCat. It isn't too much to ask editors to wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT in a way that in principle others could follow up on. If one doubts an assertion so cited then there is at least a reasonable prospect of chasing down someone (other than the original editor) who can confirm what it says, for instance through wp:RX.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I'm pretty sure it's not written in policy. If I recall, the issue came up whether it was appropriate to cite some limited circulation industry standards that cost thousands of dollars and aren't indexed in libraries or held in permanent collections accessible to the public. I remember not being happy with the apparent consensus, that there is no requirement for sources to be things that can be accessed in principle by the general public without a grant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I was referring primarily to news sources - The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. - read my 2nd comment after my initial proposal. A bit of foresight is required. While we can access some paywall sources via WP:TWL, such as AAAS and BMJ, and we can still access news sources incognito, how long do you think it will last? MSM will figure out how to block incognito the same way they block browsers with adblock. I wasn't referring to MEDRS or science paywalls - again, read the proposal and my following comment wherein I excluded those sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

For news this is a non-issue. I would think that essentially any newspaper with a reputation for fact checking would be widely held in world libraries on microform, thus accessible to the public. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? Please post that link. I need the past 3 days of front page headlines for The New York Times and The Washington Post. I've already used up my limit of free access, and there are a couple of articles in each that I need to verify. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times is archived by ProQuest, Lexis Nexis, and many other library services, that provide both traditional microform (which remains the standard for stable and permanent document storage and retrieval) and digital access. Your local librarian can help you with access. For reference, here is the link for The New York Times microform at the New York Public Library, and here is the link for those that have not yet been archived as microform. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I think you're thinking only in terms of academic subjects. However, the most reliable source for "The current CEO of the company is Bob" is probably the company's own website, which we cannot reasonably expect to be cataloged. It is difficult to apply a general rule to all types of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No, WhatamIdoing, that's a poorly crafted statement for WP because it's accuracy is perishable. The website of a publicly traded company is a just-barely reliable source for "As of August 2017 the CEO of APTC was listed as Bob". (The voice of the encyclopedia should not be used for anything based solely on a self-published source.) Because the website is also perishable, such a statement should be supported by citing at least one archive service such as Archive-It. Otherwise linkrot can render the statement unverifiable. For privately held and shell companies we should be even more circumspect, as even the CEO of record may not have any real executive control. In many cases it is marginally better to cite corporate filings with market regulators such as found on EDGAR. Even respected business news sources such as Bloomberg or Dow Jones have sound reasons to maintain a reputation for fact-checking and so are more verifiable than the subject company's own website. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's really no wiggle-room or spin room for some statements of fact, and I think that "who is the CEO" is one of those. I think that a company-controlled website would be a good source on who its CEO is. Knowledge and objectivity regarding the text which cited it is a good measure which I think is employed in practice if not core policy. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I agree with you about the value of archives, but I tend to go the other direction on EDGAR filings: They're good for "As of the date of the last filing, Bob was the CEO". They're not as good for "Bob is the current CEO", and when they differ from the company's website, it's probably the EDGAR filing that's outdated.

Also, we have a lot of articles about businesses that aren't publicly traded. There are no regulatory filings for those companies.

We use self-published web pages as the sole source for all kinds of things, including BLPs. I would not be surprised if we could find dozens of WP:PROF pages that are entirely sourced to self-published web pages (mostly profile pages on the subject's employer's website). I've asked about it before, and the editors who write those articles are satisfied that an employer's website is sufficiently objective and reliable for the way they're using them, and they have no concern about writing things like "Alice Expert holds the I. M. Portant Chair of Expertness at Billion-Dollar University" based on such sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, apparently I was not clear. WP is neither news, nor Twitter. It is simply the wrong place to make statements that begin "Currently, ..." in any but the most-heavily watched articles. Most use of the present tense in article space is mistaken. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We normally place such information in {{Infobox company}}, where it needs to be verifiable. Also, if we write "Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, Inc.", people assume that means "currently", even if that adverb isn't present in the sentence.

I still believe that the company's website is more likely to be accurate – more likely to be something that we can "rely" on – than a possibly outdated regulatory filing (assuming that any such filing exists – only 4,000 companies are traded on NYE and NASDAQ, but there are almost five times as many large employers in the U.S.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD change at Special:Diff/798089071 to bring WP:V more in line with WP:RS. It was reverted by North8000 for admittedly being a little too bold and I probably should've run it past the talk page first, so I'm opening the topic to discussion. What are people's thoughts on changing the sentence at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources to read:

For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, posts on Internet forums, tweets and other social media postings, and personal pages on social networking sites, are largely not acceptable as sources.

This would bring this page more in line with WP:RS which, when giving examples of self-published sources, specifically mentions tweets as an example of posts on social media sites and calls out "personal pages on social networking sites" in addition to just "posts". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the policy and RS is the guideline interpreting and giving examples to implement this policy. This policy should be succinct and general, RS can be more specific and detailed. Examples given here should be limited to those needed to illustrate what the words of the policy mean, not provide a laundry list of applications of the policy. That's what RS (and RSN) are for. (And in the event of a conflict between this policy and the guideline, the guideline should be conformed to agree with the policy, not the other way around, though that's not what appears to be the purpose here.) It's not a stupid suggestion and is certainly made in good faith, it's just got the cart before the horse. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Seconded. The change introduces redundancy. The policy lists different generic media categories. A guideline may list multitudes of examples for each type. I may imagine that if a particular specific media type becomes an exceptional nuisance, it may be singled out in the policy, but there must be a solid evidence of abuse. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in current form as premature. I am not necessarily opposed to any changes themselves, but 1) a case needs to be presented, and 2) the specific change proposed needs to be presented in better form, showing both the current text and the specific changes. (Hint: use strike-out and underline.) The case presented should state why a change is needed (ideally including examples of problems), how the proposed change would be an improvement, and (very important) whether the alleged problem or proposed changed have been discussed before. Question: have you searched the archives for previous history? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Regarding the rationale, IMHO it is backwards.....the policy should be the driver, and the guideline the follower or interpreter. Second, IMHO it moves it a bit in the wrong direction on a big problem which is over-reliance on general categorization and trappings of sources rather than in context....I.E. the expertise and objectivity of the source with respect to the item which cited it. But thanks for the effort to improve Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't think that this was a big change. Either version is okay with me. (I object to the assertion that policies should always "be the driver". It's usually easier and better to try out wording in a guideline and adjust the policy later, after it's been refined and tested. And purely as a matter of getting it right, if the thing labeled "essay" is working better than the thing labeled "policy", then the solution isn't breaking the essay to match the policy; it's changing the policy to be better.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 65#RFC.2C .22List of symphony orchestras in the United States.22 list verifiability back in February? I thought it was the only dispute we'd see over whether it was better to have an inline citation vs. having no citations. But my prediction was wrong, and this time it is about a notable direct quotation, which is definitely a WP:MINREF item. Editors who are interested in this kind of question may wish to check the article's recent history and share an opinion at the associated RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have quickly been resolved... as sources have been added. Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a deletion discussion for {{Cite_Q}} which editors who watch this page may be interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

How can write about me in Wikipedia Mjmeena97 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In general that would be a conflict of interest and should be avoided. Bright☀ 09:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are notable, (see WP:Notability), others can write about you. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

See current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikidata descriptions still used on enwiki. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Both RfCs are now closed. Bright☀ 12:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

However, there are follow up discussions (not RFCs) that people may want to read and opine at... so follow the links if interested. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to utilise references that are located behind a pay-wall, e.g. British Newspaper Archive? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, DynamoDegsy. As this very policy says:

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@DynamoDegsy: However please keep in mind that when reasonably contested, you may be asked to provide full quotations of excerpts in question in article talk page for verification. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have begun an RFC about accurate dates in citation metadata: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't we somewhere rule these out, because the entries are paid for by the biographees (either directly per entry, or by agreement to purchase a full copy of the work)? I could have sworn we had a specific line-item about that, but I'm not finding it at WP:V, W:RS, WP:NOR, or WP:BLP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It depends on which "Who's Who", they're not all created equal. See Who's Who for starters, which notes that while some are vanity publications using that name, others are established reference works. I'm sure if you dig in the archives you can find RS discussions on this too. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm in one of the (assumed) vanity versions through no deed of my own. Have you all not heard of me? --Izno (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Buy me a copy and then maybe I will. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:RSN archives seem to contain a few entries on the topic. Don't suppose there is a general ban on all editions by all publication houses that ever produced any: so I'd make it a specific question (which edition / which content / in which article) at RSN if there's any discussion in this sense that occupies you. Don't think a general principle on all the publications under such name would be inscribed at policy level, nor e.g. at WP:RS's guideline level. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Who.27s_who_scams and Wikipedia:Notability_cannot_be_purchased#Paying_to_be_in_a_.22who.27s_who.22. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd group those under WP:SELFPUB so not a secondary source independent of the subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Today someone brought to my attention this result of a request for arbitration regarding pseudoscience, which is used to apply discriminary sanctions. The final decision literally say that "obviously bogus" theories purporting to be scientific "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification".

What is the minimum level of sourcing required to explicitly describe a theory as "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice? Is it enough that some reliable science magazine claims that the "medical establishment" sees it as such, or do we need evidence that it has been tested and disproved? Diego (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Have to remember one of the core rules of Wikipedia: when ArbCom does something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, ignore them. Arbcom is not a vehicle for creating new policy, although they are want to forget that occasionally. In order to call something a pseudoscience, you are still going to need reliable secondary sources to support the claim in order to comply with WP:V. Topics regarding pseudoscience which have to do with medicine are still going to need to meet WP:MEDRS, and topics regarding pseudoscience having to do with living people are still going to have to comply with WP:BLP. GMG^talk 17:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with this Arbcom statement, insofar as the statement remains free from context. In principle (and this was a statement of principle), if something is obviously pseudoscience, we should call it pseudoscience. That makes perfect sense to me, and makes the encyclopedia more factual.

But (and of course, there's a "but") Diego raises a good question. What constitutes "obvious"? I would venture to suggest that anything which has no experimental basis (i.e. is based entirely upon speculative "science" and not empirical science), which has been labelled "pseudoscience" or described using functionally synonymous terms by multiple scientific organizations, or which makes predictions or relies upon axioms which have been empirically shown to be false would be "obvious" pseudoscience. But my own views are not the only ones, nor even the only valid ones. Discussion would be required to arrive at a consensus as to what constitutes "obvious" pseudoscience.

But (and even the "but" gets a "but") I don't think the question needs an enshrined-in-policy answer, and I don't think the title of this thread is very neutral. Leaving the definition of "obviously pseudoscience" alone allows editors the freedom to find good standards on a case-by-case basis, and the title of this thread presumes that the label "pseudoscience" cannot be verified; I can tell you from experience that in the vast majority of cases, there are RSes describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience. I think the Arbcom decision wasn't so much meant to imply that sources aren't needed, but that WP:NPOV isn't a valid argument against calling obvious pseudoscience what it is. That much, at least, is enshrined in policy at WP:YESPOV, where it says "Avoid stating facts as opinions." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting reading; makes sense. I too don't think there's any case I can remember where we didn't have sourcing for PS being PS (through WP:PARITY often admittedly). So is there an actual issue here? Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Obvious pseudoscience may be labelled as such. But here we have the luxury of a source. [4] The issue is that ArbCom can't relieve anyone of the burden of finding sources, because if you don't have sources, it isn't obvious; it's original research. If their intentions were to nullify WP:V, then A) they don't have the power to do that, and B) if they wan't to argue the point then they need to be removed because they're unfit to serve. Sources aren't a luxury; they're a requirement, and a requirement more fundamental than ArbCom. GMG^talk 22:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources aren't a luxury; they're a requirement, and a requirement more fundamental than ArbCom. Amen to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above....there's no waiver from wp:ver. Even for sky-is-blue statements (when sincerely questioned) and these typically aren't uncontroversial. Second, judgemental statements are just that; they aren't information or are less-so information.....for those, when in doubt, leave them out. North8000 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that per WP:PARITY (which is a guideline), it is acceptable for obviously bogus claims for which best quality sources are difficult to find, to add criticism referencing lesser quality sources but which still support the mainstream view on the topic. This still agrees with the above that the criticism should be sourced, but gives some slack about the quality of those sources. —PaleoNeonate – 04:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, so the suggestion at Meg Patterson (which triggered this) that we need "three sources" before something can be called pseudoscience, is standing NPOV on its head. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Diego, I think that one of the usual problems in this area is that people (including, unfortunately, a very large proportion of ostensibly reliable sources) aren't very precise about how they use these terms. For something to be pseudoscientific, it has to first claim to be scientific. Let me give you a quick example of some options, and then perhaps it'll make a bit more sense:

"Zapping people with electric currents can treat drug addiction"

Medical claim. It's not possible to say whether it's pseudoscience, because no scientific mechanism is claimed. It can be bad medicine (it doesn't actually work) or good medicine (it does actually work, through any known or unknown mechanism, including indirect mechanisms).

"Zapping people with electric currents can treat drug addiction, because it looked like it worked on two patients"

Medical claim. Bad science (to make such a claim on such limited evidence), but not necessarily bad medicine (assuming that further research demonstrates that it actually works).

"Zapping people with electric currents can treat drug addiction because the cost and pain provides motivation to change behavior"

Medical claim. Not pseudoscience (because it's a scientifically plausible mechanism for behavior change). Might be bad science (if it turns out that it doesn't work).

"Zapping people with electric currents can treat drug addiction because phased electrons make a quantum leap through the vortex of consciousness to heal the neurological spark gap where the addictive behavior is seated"

Pseudoscience (of the quantum mysticism variety)

In the particular case, the suggested treatment is more likely to be bad science than pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

NeuroElectric Therapy™ is marketed with the claim that it "modulates neurotransmitter systems disrupted by chronic substance abuse".[5] So whatever way you look at it, we're firmly in pseudoscience territory. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to add a scientific and linguistic perspective here... From a fundamental scientific perspective, especially as far as disease treatments go, any scientific theory or hypothesis about a treatment or therapy being effective is assumed not to be true until proven otherwise. In this field science is deliberately conservative. One could argue that, especially where it concerns treatments for disease, any therapy that claims to be effective without the proof to back up that claim is pseudoscience. Especially when the claim of effectiveness is based on the authority of an academically educated person or the false suggestion of research to prove the effectiveness of the treatment. The absence of proof, where such proof is suggested, makes it a pseudoscience per definition, without even requiring any source. That automatically follows from the definition of the word pseudoscience. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

PizzaMan, then that would define nearly every bad action by a scientist (e.g. unsupported or false claim) as pseudoscience. I don't think that that is the common meaning of the term which I think is about general fields. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's why a scientist will be very careful about the conclusions he (/she) draws from his findings. From a single experiment, the conclusion will be something along the lines of "in our study, patients treated with X improved from Y 50% better than controls. This supports the hypothesis that X may be an effective treatment for Y". If the scientist would boldly state "we've now proven that X treats Y", they'd not get their research even published in a serious journal. But i've limited myself to pseudoscience applied to treatments. In that context, you'd probably need to cross the line of actually advising/prescribing/doing a treatment that isn't backed by proper science, but is suggested to do so, to become a real pseudoscientist. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course you are 100% right regarding proper science vs. improper "science". My point was more about the common meaning of the term pseudoscience. Basically that the common meaning is about an entire field rather than mis-behavior of an individual. North8000 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

W's series of statements reminds me of cases I've seen before where someone serially asserts nonsense (I am minded of You Are Old, Father William), and any assertions not specifically, exactly, and definitely refuted they regard as "not disproven", and therefore meriting consideration. I think the difficulty here arises from treating such assertions individually, as if each was new, novel, and completely independent of any similar notion. And therefore warrant a full and "fair" hearing in each and every case, no matter how repetitive.

We should incorporate into WP culture a saying common in the military, that "you can't shine shit." That is, assertions that are nonsense generally are not "shineable" when specific qualifiers are added. Well, often the sense of a statement does depend on specific aspects, but where a general assertion is nonsense, all of the variants are presumptively nonsense, unless (and until) proven otherwise. We should not have to "re-determine" (re-litigate) every time some says "but this is new! and different than before" when it is only repackaged nonsense. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• It can, however, get tricky... and there can be overlap. It is not appropriate to call traditional "Creationism" (for example) pseudoscience, since it does not even pretend a scientific origin of the universe... but... "Intelligent Design" is appropriately called pseudoscience, since it tries to explain Creationism in "scientific" terms. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's the claim or pretension of a scientific basis that makes a claim pseudoscience. If it's "obvious" (hah) that there is no actual science involved, or that the claim is fallacious or doubtful, then (generally) we don't need "another" authoritative source to establish that, the claim simply falls short at the outset. Where that is not clearly obvious a source might be needed to establish the lack of a scientific basis. And that should be sufficient to reject the source even without specific refutation of the claim made. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Moreschi's essay here sums up what I think about this (#44). The same thing used to be written in WP:NPOV as well, "let the facts speak for themselves", now that section has been demoted to an essay. Sad. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional Creationism", but most Creationists who write about Creationism try to use scientific arguments to explain geology, argue against evolution, etc. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about those who don't even try to explain geology or evolution, etc. Who simply say "nope... science is wrong... God created everything in seven days." That sort of biblical literalism does not rely on scientific arguments at all, and so can not accurately be called pseudoscience. I suppose this attitude could be called "Science denial... but not "pseudoscience." Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: Agree with that, creationism with no scientific preventions is probably not pseudoscience. However, creationism has been a contested term, co-opted for anti-evolution pseudoscience, and commonly nowadays has that inference. Sometimes finding sources analysing obscure pseudoscience can be a problem. If there's sufficient to establish notability, WP:PARITY may help, and making necessary assumptions can deal with obvious offshoots of pseudoscience. Verifiability remains important, note it also applies to any suggestion that the pseudoscience has scientific credence. . . dave souza, talk 15:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree: "finding sources analysing obscure pseudoscience can be a problem." That is precisely my concern. And especially with the off-shoots.

I was initially inclined to agree that WP:V should similarly apply to the claim of scientific credence that is implicit in pseudoscience. But that opens challenges to accepted science. So I wonder if challenges to pseudoscience should be more tightly focused on the evident ("obvious"?) lack of scientific elements (peer-reviewed publication, replicability, etc). And perhaps on notability. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If a topic is obscure, does it pass our notability guideline? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why, but your question put me in mind of Cold fusion and for those of us that remember the heady-exciting days of that time, I really wonder if Wikipedia would have handled it well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone once told me that before it was laid to rest there were around a hundred reports in various journals claiming to have confirmed cold fusion. I very much doubt that each of those was specifically and explicitly retracted. So there would have been (perhaps still is) a lot of ammunition (weight) if someone insisted we should "fairly represent" that cold fusion worked.

I have been wondering how notability might apply to PS. Like, if a claim is not sufficiently notable for scientists to assess whether it should be accepted or rejected, then it might fail WP:NOTABILITY. But science does not provide definite verdicts like that, and "junk science" is often just ignored. Even worse, something like Berkland's earthquake predictions might be bandied about enough in "the media" to meet the WP standard of notability, while being entirely unnotable scientifically. And the bottom line: WP:N applies only to articles, not to inclusion of questionable material in an article. So I am thinking WP:NOTABILITY is not useful here. ~ 07:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of lost in this discussion. It began with the question of when it is or is not acceptable to label something as pseudoscience and there seemed to be a consensus formed that, notwithstanding the ArbCom decision, there need to be reliable sources cited — presumably RS saying, per se, that something is pseudoscience — if that label is to be applied. (And I concur in that consensus.) Now, however, there seems to be an extended discussion over what is or what is not pseudoscience. If we're not going to apply that label without RS, then what difference does that make? Don't we just follow and, if needed, balance what's said in the RS? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My request also asked what level of sourcing is needed to apply the label. To study that point, I think it makes sense that we need to analyze how we define pseudoscience. Diego (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's still a bit all over the place. The discussion above about Arbcom is a distraction, as it hinges on how one interprets "obviously bogus", which can mean everything from: sources say it's "obviously bogus", to info that every reasonable person knows is obviously bogus ('world is flat'), to wiki-text that is written in a bogus fashion, to wiki-text that is just nonsense. As for sources, it will depend -- a source does not necessarily have to use the word "pseudoscience", as long as pseudoscience is a fair description of what the source is saying, and that's a consensus issue. As for how Wikipedians define pseudoscience, to the extent they don't follow the English dictionary's, you would likely do better to discuss it at Fringe or MEDRS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ASW on the discussion location issue. Any consensus here on quality of sources could run afoul of CONLIMITED since quality of sources beyond reliable/not reliable isn't really within the purview of this policy. Frankly, in the light of the controversial nature of this topic, I think that whatever the definition that we ought to be extraordinarily careful in taking something said in a source which doesn't specifically use the word pseudoscience and analyzing it to mean and support the application of the label pseudoscience. Like the word "cult" it's one of those terms which is so emotionally charged and judgmental that we ought to be very careful when using it in WP's voice. (And as a skeptic I'm absolutely no fan or supporter of pseudoscience.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Are you suggesting that we can't call something "pseudoscience" unless we have a reliable source that says "that is pseudoscience"?

If some editor states that (say) the late Jim Berkland had a method for predicting earthquakes, is the burden of proof on me to provide a reliable source specifically and explicitly showing that each of his several methods is pseudoscientific?

By the same standard, can we call some source "scientific" without having another source attesting to that? Or are we allowed some editorial competence in distinguishing "science" from "non-science"?

I agree that these terms are often emotionally charged, but in my experience this is mainly where some would claim the authority of "science" in very dubious cases. If a claim (like Berkland's, or Eben Browning's) insinuates a scientific basis, but clearly lacks that, then the inference of pseudoscience should be a matter of WP:BLUE. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for someone else, but yes, Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable. This is nothing new. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Are you suggesting that we can't call something "pseudoscience" unless we have a reliable source that says "that is pseudoscience"? That would be sensible, yes. It's the essence of WP:CHALLENGE and WP:STICKTOSOURCES.

Note that this is not required for non-controversial claims. But it is needed for controversial topics like, say, climate change research; we *do* need sources to call it scientific. What is pseudoscience is always going to be controversial, because there will always be people pushing for it - we cannot waive our best standards for neutrality when there's someone pursuing confrontation. Diego (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What is pseudoscience is always going to be controversial ← that's not true at all, there are many topics which are, uncontroversially, pseudoscientific e.g. hydrinos or water memory - and the only "controversy" would some from the most extreme parts of the crank-o-sphere (so, of no interest or relevance to WP's neutral view). Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but that would be "not controversial according to reliable sources"... and by the time you have enough sources for the topic to be uncontroversiably considered pseudoscience by RSs, you have enough RSs to satisfy verifiability. So still no reason to avoid complying with WP:V. Diego (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Diego Moya that is correct, and we have just such a case in NET, with sources calling it pseudoscience and quackery, and no sources offering a countervailing view. Of course what the POV-pusher then argue is that somehow "because it is studied in journals it can't be pseudoscience/quackery". But that is a false supposition because we have entire journals devoted to homeopathy/chiropractic etc. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What was the source calling it pseudoscience? I've truly missed that one in the page discussion. And the claim that the New Scientist calls it quackery has been WP:CHALLENGEd; even the wording I wrote from that source was still a bit too much of a stretch to my tastes. Diego (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO if there is some genuine question about the applicability of the term, then using it does not convey information and is not useful to put into an encyclopedia. One way to implement that is to keep the wp:ver bar high for controversial judgemental terms. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget that such challenges can run both ways, and the "height" of the "bar" (threshold) has less affect on what is included or excluded, and more on the nature of the arguments for inclusion or exclusions. But even where there is "some genuine question" about the term's applicability its use is still useful in conveying the nature of the question. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty much the answer to all content disputes on Wikipedia. Get high-quality, appropriate sources, and stick to them as closely as you can without plagiarism. Bright☀ 09:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The "not required for non-controversial claims" provisio suggests the precise strategy used by the creationists, the GW "skeptics", etc.: controvert. Like, someone says Berkland successfully predicted earthquakes, I say "no!", and now it's controversial! (Alternately: I say he was not successful, someone else says he was. Same result?) So who has to supply sources?

Having "enough sources" to establish a topic as pseudoscience doesn't necessarily help us. Berkland claimed some half-dozen bases or theories for predicting earthquakes (including MOSS: "monthly outright seismic speculations"). My off-hand recollection is that only two of his theories were explicitly refuted. So if someone asserts that one of his other theories "has not been disproven", there is no specific refutation. Yet all of his theories and predictions have the same pseudoscientific characteristics of lacking any scientific basis or process, and using a largely undocumented procedure. In such cases we should rely on a duck test. We also have cases like this that are so preposterous that no scientist (or scientific journal) will waste any time or print on refuting, so there are no RS rebuttals.

In short, I think "pseudoscientific" should be ascertainable prima facie on certain characteristics, such as a lack of scientific sources, that are evident even to non-experts.

Also: Alexbrn is correct that pseudoscience is not always controversial. But Diego has suggested (albeit implicitly) an important point: that "controversial" should be per reliable sources (and here, in the scientific community), not just where some WP editors start controverting the matter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'ld like to address Diego Moya's original question about the sourcing required to explicitly describe a theory as "pseudoscience". Quoting the whole of arbcom's original decision makes it clear:

Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

In short, if a purported theory flatly contradicts what WP:RS state, this is enough to label it as "pseudoscience". It's not necessary to have RS that specifically state that theory X is pseudoscience. e.g. To label as pseudoscience a theory that states that AIDS is caused by GMOs, it is enough to point to mainstream sources about the causes of HIV/AIDS. It is not necessary to have RS that specifically refute GMOs as a cause of AIDS. LK (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, Arbcom doesn't set policy; policy sets policy. If some editor makes a valid WP:CHALLENGE of the assertion that something is pseudoscience, you'll need a consensus that the reliable sources provided support the claim in order to include it. If the RSs don't say anything about the fringe theory, WP:FRINGE allows you to include a description of the real science behind the true known causes, but it won't allow you to include the loaded word and contravene WP:LABEL. The following is part of an approved guideline:

With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. (emphasis mine).

If you don't have reliable sources that directly describe the theory, you can not make a synthetic claim that it is pseudoscience. Diego (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGELEVEL also includes the following useful tidbit: ...ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. Diego (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Diego: the guideline says "supported by reliable sources." It does NOT say, as you then qualify it, "reliable sources that directly describe the theory" [my emphasis]. And that is a key point of this discussion: is the label "pseudoscience" applicable only with specific, explicit, and direct attribution? If so, then there is a lot of pseudoscience we can't keep out because no expert bothered to refute it.

You've also invoked WP:SYNTH, but I wonder if that should be split-off as a separate discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

no expert bothered to refute it - then probably it is not notable to be included in Wikipedia. BTW, an expert does not have to "refute" it; he may simply call it "nonsense", and if he is an expert in the field in question, it is a usable opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your wording is ambiguous. Perhaps you mean that a claim is not notable if it has not been taken seriously enough to be assessed? That is a good metric, but not quite applicable here. The problem is that (with rare exceptions) expert assessment is done only on what has been published in a refereed journal, and a characteristic of pseudoscience is the lack of such publication. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't need an expert source, just a reliable one. Newspapers and magazines count, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That bothers me. With very few exceptions (such as the science journalists at the N. Y. Times, several of which previously worked at Science), I don't take the popular media to be reliable in regard of science. Not even when they quote actual scientists, because that by-passes peer review and all the other requirements and checks of scientific publication. If we allow such cases, then we may have to allow the likes of Iben Browning. Or the pet theories of certain retired Nobel laureates. ~ [J. Johnson] 23:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

is the label "pseudoscience" applicable only with specific, explicit, and direct attribution? We have to WP:STICKTOSOURCES (wich says with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly), and WP:BURDEN does say a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Those are the rules, which we have to follow (except for the occasional consensual WP:IAR situation). Diego (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to shout. Diego, I agree that WP:BURDEN (under WP:V) says "directly", and that WP:STICKTOSOURCE (under WP:NOR) says "directly and explicitly". However, in your edit of 08:36, 6 Oct. you quoted the last paragraph of WP:LABEL (a.ka. MOS#Contentious labels). While the quote was accurate, you then qualified "reliable sources" with "that directly describe the theory." Which is NOT in WP:LABEL. Quite likely you were thinking of the other sources, but that was sloppy, and confusing.

My concern here is in cases (such as I described above regarding Jim Berkland's theories, or the successive "Zapping people ..." examples WhatamIdoing provided) where a strict interpretation of the rules allows the introduction of pseudoscience, or makes it very difficult to block it, or label it as such. I really hope we can handle such cases without having to resort to IAR. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe the rules we've got, distilled by good-faith editors writing about contentious topics through the years, are actually very good. What's wrong with an article saying that zapping brains to cure addictions is not a well-tested treatment but merely a theory advanced by its author, that it has no basis in known scientific mechanisms, and that it has not been demonstrated that it works? What do you gain by applying a contentious label without the support of good sources?

I know what we lose by introducing such kind of sloppy prejudices in our articles: the people most likely to benefit from learning about the unproved theory, those who may actually try it out to see if it works, may think that Wikipedia is in a moral crusade to discredit alternate medicine and has abandoned its stance of seeking objectivity. So why should that vulnerable person trust what the article says, if it was said because some editors felt strongly it should be said, and not by referencing the best information available out there?

The above scenario may be a bit of a caricature, but I do believe that our stance towards neutrality is a powerful reason why people from all levels in the educational and ideological spectrum choose to read us. If you treat neutrality -and in particular verifiability- in a loose way, you're undermining that trust. Diego (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Diego: I am in no way against "the rules we've got". Nor would I "treat neutrality ... in a loose way". And I most certainly oppose any action, or non-action, based on "sloppy prejudices". Which is why I oppose your position that "pseudoscience" can be applied only with "direct" and specific sourcing: it seems like a "sloppy prejudice".

Note that I do not accept that "pseudoscience" should be applied willy-nilly, or on any editor's sloppy prejudice, or for no reason at all. I am arguing that (1) patently pseudoscientific claims exist for which there are no reliable sources that explicitly and specifically refute those claims, and therefore (2) neutrality requires additional bases besides WP:V for identifying such claims. I think it undermines WP:V if we depend on it for something it can't handle. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As several editors have pointed out, ArbCom only has the authority to rule on conduct issues. They have no authority to override content policies. This is 11-years-old and last amended 7 years ago. What do you guys think of asking ArbCom to amend or repeal this ruling? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in late, I have an impression that the discussion is a bit off-track. So let me remind us of what pseudoscience is (just read the lede ....) In short, pseudoscience is not defined by what it claims, but by how its claims are supported. Also, there is a gray area between pseudoscience and bad science and falsified science and faithful scientific errors and other shades. Therefore in most cases only an expert have rights to declare something to be pseudoscientific (synonyms, such as "gibberish", "crackpot", etc. will do, see "Time Cube"). Such declaration does not have to have an immediate references: is Mr. Bobkin invented a new perpetuum mobile, we do not need a ref that says that Mr.Bobkin is a pseudoscientist, we already have an a priori ref that his invention is pseudoscience. Unfortunately clean cut cases like perpetuum mobile are infrequent. Take an example from this discussion To label as pseudoscience a theory that states that AIDS is caused by GMOs, it is enough to point to mainstream sources about the causes of HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately this is a logical error: a wikipedian ins not is a position to boldly declare that (a) xe knows all "mainstream sources about the causes of HIV/AIDS" and (b) there cannot be any other sources of AIDS not yet reported. As for Arbcom opinion about "obviously bogus": if it is obviously bogus and no sources say so, then may be either (c) it is not so obviously bogus as a wikipedian thinks; or (d) WP:UNDUE: it is so bogus that it has no place in wikipedia or even (e) it is not even pseudoscience, i.e., no need to be put into any science-related category. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"so bogus that it has no place in wikipedia" <- and here we've got to the problem WP has of the disjoint between notability and neutrality. It's perfectly possible for a crank topic to be (what the community will call ) "notable" by virtue of its coverage in many sources, but for it to be exceedingly difficult to write anything about it because there are no sources to offer a mainstream perspective on it, even through through the means of WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. We only care about coverage in reliable sources; if they are reliable, we can rely on what they say. Wikipedia-notable means "we have enough content to write about it in a neutral way" by definition; WP:N pretty much says so; if there aren't enough reliable sources so that we can't write about it neutrally, it is not notable. Diego (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Take the case of a bogus medical treatment: there may be sources saying it was invented by somebody, offered as a treatment at a certain clinic, appeared on a famous TV show, and was endorsed by famous celebrities - and all this is RS backed. Just no source calling it out as woo. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just no source calling it out as woo Then we don't, either. But if it makes (pseudo)scientific untested claims about treatments for a disease, we still can include in the article what science actually says about that disease, and let the facts speak for themselves. THAT is neutral; making unsupported, unverifiable claims is not.

Sticking to a truly neutral point of view is harsh and unwelcome at times, but it's what we as a community have decided is best. Diego (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you fail NPOV because if "it makes (pseudo)scientific untested claims" we need to make clear what the "mainstream view" is of those claims per WP:PSCI: pseudoscience must be "prominently" described as such. Hence the problem. In practice we end up writing nothing that implies health effects and the article is a stub. This is the tension between notability and neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh? You fail NPOV is you make pseudoscientific untested claims in Wikipedia's voice, not if we say that the theory proposer makes them.

we need to make clear what the "mainstream view" is of those claims And that's what I've suggested above, by bringing into the article what mainstream science says about the desease purportedly being treated. But we can't explain what the mainstream view says regarding the untested theory itself, if the mainstream view has not tested it (doh!). And that still doesn't allow you to apply a contentious unverifiable WP:LABEL. If you don't have reliable sources saying that this is pseudoscience, how do you know it is pseudoscience without commiting WP:SYNTH? Diego (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

To quote NPOV policy: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". That can't be dodged around just by attributing it to its proposer (although we hear this argument a lot from proponents). Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

At the danger of repeating myself: How do you know it is a pseudoscific view without commiting WP:SYNTH, if you don't have reliable sources saying that this is pseudoscience? Diego (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I was taking your example where we have a situation where we have a woo that "makes (pseudo)scientific untested claims about treatments for a disease" - which is obvious even in the absence of sources. That is the whole point of the discussion. If there's sources describing woo as woo, then we don't have a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are sources we don't have a problem, so far we agree. If there are no reputable sources, it is not obvious at all whether the theory is pseudoscience or protoscience, i.e. an interesting observed phenomenon that merits further rigorous study. Your WP:SKYISBLUE argument runs against verifiability, and it's unacceptable for controversial labels. Diego (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm going to give up on this because you seem to be wanting to "win" rather than engage with the actual matter as hand. You're quoting policy but policy also requires that "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". See the issue? Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn... Yes, the pseudoscientific view should be described as such... but... how do we know whether X actually is a pseudoscientific view or not? Per NPOV and NOR, we can not apply such labels to X based on our own personal opinions... we must support the label with sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Because we've got brains? I mean, quantum healing or perpetual motion machines ... "obvious pseudoscience". We're talking about reality not WP:WIKILAWYERING. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do have brains, unique brains, one might even say original ones. And the research our original brains do is generally known as original research. GMG^talk 23:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

All very interesting. I am mostly inclined to what I see (perhaps imperfectly) as Alexbrn's view, but the other points also have some validity. E.g., Blueboar's "we can not apply such labels [...] based on our own personal opinions". I generally agree with that, but absolute enforcement of that leads to a position that we can say nothing but what is exactly, literally stated in some reliable source. Writing articles would then be just stitching together text from sources. But even then editors would still need to evaluate sources and what they say, resolve differences, etc., etc. All of that involves editorial judgment, evaluation, and, in the end, an opinion. (Otherwise we could just write a bot to write the articles.) And none of that comes under the heading of WP:OR.

The question as initially put by Diego is: What is the minimum level of sourcing required to explicitly describe a theory as "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice?

My concern is that if application of the label "psuedoscience" (or "pseudoscientific") is too restricted we won't be able to apply it where it should be applied, and thus violate WP:NPOV. A hypothetical example could be (following WhatamIdoing's list) on the lines of: "Okay, theres is a source saying 'zapping people with electrical currents' is b.s., but there is no source saying 'zapping people with electrical currents at very low temperatures is b.s." (And there are real-world cases where that is a valid objection.) On this and similar bases I don't agree with the assumption implicit in the original question that this is resolvable with a proper "level of sourcing".

I suggest that (among several alternatives) pseudoscience could be identified in the same way we identify reliable sources (see WP:V#Reliable sources): by suggested criteria. E.g.: my opinion that the journal Science is a reliable source is not based on any source that explicitly says so, but that it is a journal, and has a high reputation. Given a reasonable list of criteria it should be possible for an editor to sort out such matters without needing an explicit source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a big problem. Here is the chain of falsifiable decisions.

• Either statement is mainstream or non-mainstream.
  • If we have mainstream sources which decide this, we are good.
    • Otherwise we classify it as non-mainstream per WP:BURDEN
  • If we decided it non-mainstream, its root category is category:Fringe science. This alone is already a good warning label.
    • If mainstream sources say it is pseudosci or rubbish or nonsense or gobbledygook we put it in category:Pseudoscience
    • If the theory relies on statements known to be pseuidosci, we label it pseudosci

Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Several of your points warrant further clarification and/or discussion. E.g.:

• 1: This description of your "chain" is unclear. Is that supposed to be an outline of the logical branches (possibilities)? Or a flow-chart of the process?

• 2: Scientific reports generally do not have "mainstream sources" that identify them as "mainstream" or "scientific".

• 3: Your "either/or" omits the prospect of "not determinable".

• 4: "Fringe science" is not the same as pseudoscience. It may even be good, solid science, and not yet mainstream simply because some questions remain, or the community is slow in coming around. E.g.: plate tectonic theory in the 1960s.

• 5: Being called, in any kind of source, "rubbish or nonsense or gobbledygook" does not make something pseudoscientific. The essence of pseudoscience is, first, the claim (possibly implicit) of being scientific or based on science, coupled with either a lack of scientific elements, or the presence of unscientific elements such as unfalsifiable claims, etc. (See Pseudoscience.)

• 6: Should the reliance of a "theory" (or claim) "on statements known to be pseuidosci" be determined solely from mainstream sources? Or based on stated criteria such as we use for reliable sources?

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

re 1: I wrote it is a chain of decisions and did not describe it in any other way; it is just a guideline against going in circles (That's tree structuresa are for.). If it is incomplete, that's not an insurmountable problem.

re 2: By default, if mainstream sources do not describe <statement A> as "non-scientific" etc. when discussing it, then <statement A> is scientific

re 3: In my flow there is no "not determinable" intentionally. If something is "not determinable, then it is fringe unless proven otherwise, per WP:BURDEN.

re 4: Yes. So what? In our categorization, pseudosci is subcategory of fringeSci. Therefore yes, pseudosci is not the same as fringeSci. What's the problem?

re 5: By default we are discussing here claims framed in a scientific way.

The goal of my "chain of decisions" is to minimize the dependence on the Wikipeidans' judgement beyond the existing policies and practices. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorting out what is pseudoscience (or not) will always involve editorial evaluation (judgment), and always result in an opinion. But it would certainly be much better to base that evaluation and opinion on a definite procedure and criteria, rather than on unexamined or flighty opinion. To that extent I concur with your purpose here.

However, your "chain of decisions" (or "flow", as you have alternately described it) is not well done. It's not so much for being incomplete (which it is), as tangled. E.g.: you partition <statement> into either A:<mainstream> or B:<non-mainstream>. But then under the latter you include <mainstream> again. Perhaps you meant that in regard of other statements (from other sources), but if so then you are mixing elements from different levels. It appears you are confused on the different character and uses of flow-charts (good for describing process) and outlines (good for describing categories), which confuses what you are trying to communicate. Your response does nothing to clarify this.

Your second reply is a little off the mark. You say "if mainstream sources...", which presumes such sources, whereas my comment is that for most (nearly all?) scientific reports there are no such sources. Now there is quite a difference between a report

(1) being used (cited) by various other sources without anyone actually saying, "that report is scientific" (it's pretty much assumed), and

(2) not being cited or discussed or assessed by any other source without anyone actually saying, "that report is NOT scientific".

If your default is extended to include the lack of mainstream sources, then ALL statements, claims, and reports are deemed "scientific" unless explicitly and specifically sourced otherwise. As was shown at the very top of this discussion, that is not workable.

But that conflicts with your third reply, that something "not determinable" is fringe. Either way, your decision tree does not address what to do if the top-level decision is undecidable.

The problem re the psuedo/fringe distinction (fourth point) is that you seem to be conflating them. If "our categorization" is confusing then that is another problem to work on.

You have totally missed my fifth point, that being called "rubbish or nonsense or gobbledygook" does not make something pseudoscientific.

You didn't comment on my sixth point, on what basis we should determine what a "theory relies on". This recapitulates the main issue here: are we limited to explicit sources? Or can we rely on a general guidance, such as we do regarding reliable sources?

Your intention here seems good, but more work is needed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO judgemental labels (e.g. those having a strong negative or positive connotation) should only be used in the voice of Wikipedia when they meet a very high bar for inclusion, a higher bar than for most material. Somewhere around "the opinion is near-unanimous amongst knowledgeable unbiased sources". This tilt is because such things, unless that bar is met, are opinions and not information. Since I just described a couple mechanisms that don't exist in Wikipedia policy, the best in-policy way to do this might be to consider judgemental claims to be controversial, thus requiring stronger sourcing. Or else under wp:npov saying to lean towards neutral wording. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) is constantly adding {{citation needed}}s to discography pages/sections, such as Walker Hayes. I find this unnecessary, as usually a.) the body of the article text verifies that the album exists, so verifying it again in the discography is redundant, and b.) there should be no need to have a standalone citation on a list unless there is signficant reason to doubt it (such as the "Pimpin' Joy" single, which quickly disappeared without a trace, or the single "C.O.U.N.T.R.Y." on LoCash, which was never actually released due to the label closing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Facts extrinsic to the albums themselves should have citations in support, but otherwise an album is (and this should be obvious) a source for its own content and you certainly don't need another source just to show that it exists (otherwise we'd have endlessly recursive citations). I have no idea what they were thinking with this edit. This could be a blind spot for this particular editor (see, e.g., this AFD). postdlf (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. North8000 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply - I agree with this to an extent. However, any Wikipedia article must have at least some reliable third party sources, with the possible exception of WP:BLUE. It would also take some time to look through the entire article to find the sources that apply. Furthermore, tagging guidelines that I should follow were discussed at length at User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_15#My_proposed_guidelines_for_tagging. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I still think your [citation needed]s on Walker Hayes were unnecessary, and it seems I'm not the only one. Read Postdlf's post above in particular. Also, if the discography page is a standalone, then 99% of the time, it can be assumed that the albums' existence is verified through either a.) it having an article, or b.) its existence being cited in the parent article (i.e., if Five Finger Death Punch has a citation verifying the existence of an album, then its existence does not need to be cited again on Five Finger Death Punch discography. Even if it's not an album that has its own article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd go even farther to say that if an album was a wide release than its existence doesn't need to be cited anywhere, because merely giving sufficient identifying facts about the album is itself a citation. You should no more ask for secondary verification of the existence of "Houses of the Holy, Led Zeppelin, Atlantic Records, R2-544300, Super Deluxe Edition Box, 2014" than you would "Welch, Chris (1994) Led Zeppelin, London: Orion Books. ISBN 1-85797-930-3." Both are themselves published works and we don't need sources for sources.

If someone wants to characterize the label, catalog #, and year of release as the "citation" for that album's existence just to make themselves feel better, fine, but some seem to think there's something magic about ref tags or online links, or get confused about when sources are themselves the subject of article content, thinking that there's somehow a need then for a secondary (and therefore less authoritative) source for that subject source's own content rather than that source itself. There may also be conflation between secondary source coverage (relevant to notability) and being verifiable to a reliable source of any kind whether primary or secondary. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The same fix that would fix literally millions of problematic Wikipedia situations (and currently only mentioned only weakly in policy) would fix this one. Say that the challenge must include an expression of concern about the verifiability of the statement, including the statement implicit in the listing. In this case the challenge would need to include stated concerns about the verifiability of the existence of the tracks / albums. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Is failing to cite a source always such a bad thing? Curious because I keep getting bashed for doing so, as if I'm vandalizing, not to mentioned getting introductions of reliable sources reverted. JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC) And really what should I do if I find something uncited? Should I really remove it? There seems to be a dispute, but just removing it (with the exception of the obvious and when there is a reasonable dispute about its accuracy) seems destructive. Doing so might cause it to be a loss if the claim ends up being true. JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're unsure whether you can remove something, tag it with Template:citation needed or tag the section with Template:Refimprove or Template:Unreferenced. If a claim is "true" and verifiable it's not "lost" because it can always be sourced. If a claim is false or unsourced it's better to remove it from Wikipedia.

The quality of Wikipedia articles is almost entirely dependent on the quality of its sources, so it's best to always use the best available sources. Ultimately all claims need to be verifiable, and when their verifiability is disputed (for example by removing them) they need to be cited to a reliable source. Additionally, there are reasons other than verifiability to remove material from articles. Bright☀ 09:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO it is worth mentioning in this section that when citing Wikipedia (I mean citing Wikipedia policies in an article about Wikipedia), one must use a permalink as a ref (see WP:Citing Wikipedia). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Added link to Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Bright☀ 12:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

When it comes time to debate an an article, we editors have so many prepackaged arguments that the discussion becomes tiring. It reminds one of the story of the prison inmates. They have heard the same jokes so many times that they resort to calling them by number. "Eighty-nine" is all it takes to get a laugh.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. Articles should be timeless, as the notability guideline describes. What belongs in an encyclopedia is a matter for debate, each article on its merits, not a rote recitation of rusty rules. I have been accused of a rote approach to items in the backlog, moldering for ten years without references or human attention.

The policy of verfiability WP:V is a good one. It is the only insurance a lay-reader has that articles are not fiction. I assert that only a few are, but a few bad apples threaten the entire barrel. Here's one: Twin-carbon arc welding. The article's faults are many, including being an unnecessary fork of Carbon arc welding. Worst, though, is its reliance on a single trivial unauthorative reference since 2006.

Inclusionists point to WP:NEXIST and WP:NODEADLINE to justify articles like Twin-carbon arc welding. In some realms, staunch editors refuse any requirement for secondary and tertiary sources: train stations, named places, and music recordings get a pass. Find one on a list or railway timetable, and no other discussion is required. In the realms of nautical and finance terms, editors wrote hundreds of good articles in the last decade, but precious few are backed up by references. The reader who wants more than the definition provided is left to do a Google search on his or her own. Once an article passes some arbitrary age, we seem to forget that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." When an article like that is challenged, the response is predictable: "It's notable and true. You are a lazy editor not to rewrite the article with references yourself." In no small number of cases, these are the same editors who chime in at AfD, suggesting all sorts of work on an article. Three weeks after the AfD closes, the article is still in the shape that led to its nomination.

How to stimulate editors to be bold and fix these moldering articles? Measure the bold activity, not just the insertion of commas and en-dashes. Recognize the editors who tackle ten-year-old backlog items. Mark these notable editors in an AfD discussion, so participants can see who speaks with authority. There are plenty of smart people here. I bet others have even better ideas. Rhadow (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. What we do not need are lazy editors than simply tag articles for improvement (and do nothing) nor editors that PROD articles for deletion on the basis of failing WP:V (and then do nothing to help improve the article, find missing references etc. etc. Editors like that need to be marked as lazy, unhelpful and generally disruptive. Editor that actually find references, and fix articles are the ones that should have the real authority. Morphenniel (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you have done anything to reference DB Class 610 if Rhadow hadn't poked you to? Of course not. Reyk _YO! 16:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's missing the point. What Rhadow has been doing is looking to PROD articles for deletion unless they are improved. That's disruptive and unnecessary, as the articles were mostly in good shape. If you view of Wikipedia is getting other editors to make improvement as they direct, then I would classify you as being in the same boat. The railways project team know full well that there are many articles that need improvement ... but we work together and collaboratively to improve them. Having some project manager to whip us into doing what they tell us needs improving is not the way the project works. Keep going ... you continue to pile up evidence for myself (and many others) to take to WP:AN. Morphenniel (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think dragging Rhadow to AN would be a mistake. You wouldn't have much prospect of success, because he is not actually doing anything wrong, and it might even backfire. Reyk _YO! 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All editors work on Wikipedia on a voluntary basis. We work on what interests us, and in areas where was can make improvements. Editors like Rhadow are not doing that. They are simply placing a sword of Damocles over our heads, and making other editors work on articles that they have issues worth, rather than spending time doing the work to improve the article themselves. If Wikipedia is to become a place where each time we login that we are presented with a list of articles to work on (OR ELSE). As for taking Rhadow to WP:AN you need to be aware that I am not alone in that thought. - Morphenniel (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All editors work on a voluntary basis, so unless there is some standard/rule/policy to the contrary, each volunteer is free to do as much or as little as they please. And WP is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If all an editor wants to do is to tag and PROD there is nothing at this point in time that can or should be done about it unless they're consistently doing so incorrectly, incompetently, or to further a disruptive POV. I'd oppose a rule change to limit tagging and PRODing or any of the 1% (see Noth8000's post, below, to see what I mean by that) or to set some ratio that says you can't tag or PROD unless you also have X or X% substantive edits. I can't think of anything which would reduce the volunteer pool and discourage newcomers more quickly than that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not talking about any particular article or any particular editor....I don't know anything or anybody involved well enough to do that. .....1% of the work is tagging / afd'ing. 99% of the work is improving the article / improving sourcing. We have an oversupply of people who just want to do just the 1% and an undersupply of people willing to do the 99%. People should treat the latter people well and also join them.North8000 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I rather think that goes both ways. Not everyone has the time or ability to do the 99%, and the 1% does help. If editors feel that people are focusing on the 1% to the exclusion of the 99%, I might recommend finding ways to encourage them to take on additional percentages. To my mind, disparaging editors who "only" do the 1% is a poor incentive (I'm not saying you are doing so). The one-percenters should appreciate those who have the time and ability to dig in deeper, and the ninety-nine percenters should appreciate that the one-percenters are generally also trying to improve the encyclopedia to the (self-perceived) best of their abilities. Or, put another way, assume good faith. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no over-abundance of tagging or taggers. Many articles are untagged for years, and editors argue on these articles' talk pages about things that could be instantly solved by providing citations. The first step for providing citations in these articles is tagging, and there's no harm in that.

Lax application of WP:V and anti-tagging behavior spreads false, misleading, or unverified information. This is particularly bad when reporters then use Wikipedia as a source and create circular sourcing for this false or misleading information. Tag, tag, tag. If something smells fishy, tag it. If something is unsourced, tag it. All material in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Bright☀ 06:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If it smells in the least bit fishy, delete, don't tag. Unsourced text is a complete waste of time. When working with it, I need to look up the facts in question. Not knowing where the original came from, I will then rewrite it in my own words to guard against the possibility that it was a copyvio. Instead of tagging the article, it would be much better to tag the contributor with a warning template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If it smells in the least bit fishy and it's an entire article of original research, just try PRODding it or taking it to AfD. Someone will pop out of the woodwork to defend it, you'll see.
And as to references immediately, what about the articles that molder for ten years? They are defended. too. "It's been fine for years, what changed?" Rhadow (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been fine for years -- there are two standard answers: (a) most probably nobody read it for years and (b) our policies and attitudes have changed during these years. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That would surely improve Wikipedia, but you'll find extreme opposition to the idea that everything has to be sourced from the moment it's added. If Wikipedia had such high standards, many of its problems would disappear. Bright☀ 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

extreme opposition to the idea that everything has to be sourced from the moment - It depends on how drastically you would phrase "the idea". The way you wrote just above is simply against WP:V. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid this "1% vs. 99% " is an attempt to blame the messenger. This dichotomy forgets those who created the problem in the first place. And these "problem editors" were not bad people either. If you recall history, there was a watershed moment when Jimbo announced that Wikipedia has enough quantity and must switch its focus to quality. Until that moment, proper referencing was ... [I cannot find a proper English witticism here...] neglectfully neglected. And if today someone complains that numerous tags make Wikipedia articles look ugly, this is not the fault of "the 1%". It is akin to blaming traffic cones by potholes for the ugly looks of a road. Just the same, PRODding/AfDing atrocious articles is akin to demolishing rotten buildings. A missing article is a much better "red flag" than a poor stub even with numerous tags; also it is a much more attractive endeavor to create something new than to clean up someone's else mess. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, with all frowning and winking at WP:OWN, articles are usually "owned" cared by some wikipedians, and it is much better and easier and safer for a person of expertise and/or interest to add a missing reference than a "drive-by editor". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What's implicit in the "likely to be challenged" is that there is something about the content that sets it apart. And the spirit of "challenged" means taking that action for a reason. While we don't want to place a burden on a challenger to debate the challenge before tagging/removal, there is a reasonable expectation that the challenger has some question or concern about the verifiability of the material. One part of the policy even suggests expression of that concern when tagging. Without those distinctions we don't need any humans to do the tagging. If we are going to categorically tag and then delete every unsourced statement, we could just to turn a bot loose to tag and delete the ~2/3 of Wikipedia that is not specifically clearly sourced. It could start with the first section of today's featured article. It contains about 100 statemernts and has only one reference. (of course, the FA is actually fine) North8000 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

about 100 statemernts and has only one reference - a single ref for "Plot" sections that have no second-guessing is fine. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

turn a bot loose to tag and delete - a very good idea, unfortunately unfeasible, since a bot smart enough to verify whether a footnote refers to the last sentence or the whole paragraph (see my previous remark), will probably be darn hell close to world dominance :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course, as I said before, the FA is fine. But if one wanted to be unreasonable, one could tag bomb the whole section and be within policy but not within the spirit/intent of policy. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course, that is why there are various more-general tag options such as {{more footnotes|section}} and {{unreferenced section}}, not just {{vn}}. Tagging every statement by an experienced editor could only be construed as wp:DISRUPTive given the availability of these options. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is disruptive for a well-maintained page. But if a page is of low on eyeballs, I say the more warnings for an unsuspected reader the better, for fear of "citogenesis" and other bad consequences. Just today I revisited a page which I hat-tagged with {{BLP sources}} a while ago, only to see that the (sole) contributor added a couple of insignificant footnotes and removed the hatnote. So today I peppered the article liberally with {cn}s, and most assuredly, in a week or two I come back and delete all tagged. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

there is a reasonable expectation that the challenger has some question or concern about the verifiability of the material — yes, there's a reasonable expectation of good faith. Now let's have a look at that featured article. Bright☀ 18:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Papyrus, my point was that the FA example is fine and should not get any tagging. And BrightR I don't understand what your last sentence was intended to mean. I think that we are saying / meaning the same thing. North8000 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a point of contention on Talk:Garry Kasparov, where User:Beyond My Ken believes that this policy "only requires disputed or controversial information to be cited", and I charge that all facts need to be cited. Your input is requested. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 04:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The policy says:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

Please note:

• "must be verifiable", not "must be verified".
• the policy only requires material that "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" (i.e. is controversial) to be cited, other material is not required to be cited, although, obviously, it's better if it is
• unsourced material "may be removed", not "must be removed

The context of this is that on Garry Kasparov, Howcheng tagged every single unreferenced statement with a CN tag, a clear example of disruptive WP:tag bombing. I asked him to tag his "specific concerns", and he basically tagged the whole damn article. That is not only unreasonable (and makes the article virtually unreadable), but it's not required by policy, as shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My adding of {{cn}} tags is me challenging the fact in question. Furthermore, tag bombing only refers to leaving maintenance tags on an article without explanation, which is not applicable in this case. Lastly, it wasn't every single unreferenced fact, nor did I remove any content. —howcheng {chat} 04:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd probably just tag the article entire for needing additional references. From a citation standpoint it does appear to me to be in pretty sad shape. DonIago (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I did originally. —howcheng {chat} 06:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

BMK, it appears you misunderstand the meaning of "verifiable". From your statements, you seem to think that it means "theoretically" verifiable: if the reader were to do the same or similar research as the author of that bit, they would find that the Wikipedia sentence accurate reflects the source. Essentially, you're saying "trust me", except we all know how well that works. But that's what it means here. Here, it means the fact is verifiable in practical manner: if the reader wants to confirm the veracity of the statement, they can check this source, which I'm putting in the inline citation. The very act of including a citation makes a statement verifiable. —howcheng {chat} 06:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You're playing with words. (Your "verifiable in practical manner" = the policy's "an inline citation that directly supports the material". Your "theoretically verifiable" = the policy's "any material whose verifiability has [not] been challenged or is [un]likely to be challenged" (as not requiring a citation). BMK is right; you are wrong. --IHTS (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Examples of "unlikely to be challenged": Paris is the capital of France. Barack Obama was the 44th President of the United States. The Moon orbits the Earth. "Verifiable" = someone can actually verify the statement by checking the source. If there is no inline citation, how is a person supposed to do that? —howcheng {chat} 07:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized I wasn't clear earlier. I didn't actually mean every single fact in an article needs a citation. I meant facts which are not common knowledge. —howcheng {chat} 08:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the tagged statements and I believe that most of them really do need citations (not just would be better with citations). However, it isn't good to have so many tags in an article and I suggest they are replaced by a general tag plus a local tag on two or three of the most egregious examples. Zero^talk 08:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is what Howcheng did originally. BMK didn't like that, demanded that Howcheng point out specific unsourced claims, and is now wailing and screeching about too many citeneeded tags. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looking over the statements tagged by Howcheng, I agree that they all need citations. These are statements about the life and career of a living person and they definitely need to be cited extra scrupulously. Howcheng is 100% correct here, and I don't even think adding so many tags was overkill. Frankly, I cannot understand the strenuous resistance to just citing the material. Although WP:V says material must be "verifiable", not "verified", the only iron-clad reason anyone has for believing material is verifiable is if some actually finds the sources. And there's almost never a good reason for anyone to have sources available but then omit them fro the article. I'm seeing more and more often that people are pushing the wrong notion that articles don't need sources. Of course they do. Reyk _YO! 09:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing that would sort out nearly all such situations nicely is if any tagging be accompanied by an expression of a concern that the material may not be verifiABLE, and to only tag when such a concern exists. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• A better solution would be to cite sources in the first place or, failing that, when someone asks for them. I really don't understand the resistance to proper sourcing here. Reyk _YO! 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

BMK plays fast and loose with Wikipedia policy. I've had the misfortune to inform him in the past of his disregard to verifiability and consensus. I have dealt with him in the exact same situation—placing a section or article tag on lack of citations, reverted and asked to put {{cn}} on specific claims, and then had the individual tags removed because I was "tag bombing" after being asked to tag individual statements instead of placing a general tag.

This is a very effective method to keep citation requests off of articles. "You can't put a general tag; be specific." "Hold on, you can't put all those specific tags!"

Certainly the article Garry Kasparov is lacking references and this should be pointed out with section headers for entire sections that are unreferenced or poorly referenced, and individual tags for individual statements in otherwise-well-referenced sections. Bright☀ 13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

To wit, I decided to check the first four statements that had been tagged against Kasparov's autobiograpgy. Two of them were misleading or false: "He first qualified for the Soviet Chess Championship at age 15 in 1978, the youngest ever player at that level" - misleading; "The next year, 1980, [...] he made his debut as second reserve for the Soviet Union at the Chess Olympiad at Valletta, Malta, and became a Grandmaster." - misleading or false. Preventing editors from asking for citations simply perpetuates mistakes in the article. It's very WP:OWN to stand in the way of someone who in good faith tags disputed claims. Bright☀ 14:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring it up, but as other editors have done so, I've had the same issue with BMK...in fact, I believe it was a similar dispute with BMK that I was involved in that led to the current version of WP:IPCV. In any case, I don't think it's reasonable or acting in good faith to first ask an editor to tag specific statements for which they have concerns, and then turn around and accuse them of tag-bombing. I'd be curious to hear from BMK as to what kind of outcome would satisfy his concerns. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My middle ground suggestion, is to tag (only) those statements where there is concern that the material may not be verifiABLE, and to say that in the edit summary. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with section tags. This whole mess keeps repeating because BMK immediately removes section tags. Let them be, they have an important role in improving articles. Bright☀ 13:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I know the issues involved are complex, and there is no apparent quick solution in such cases. But I think that there should be a compromise when tagging excessively. Since excessive tagging essentially defaces an article, when such method is used, I think it would be good practice for the tagging editor to supply the references for a portion of the tagged material. I know there is no policy-based requirement for this demand, but this modest proposal eliminates the tension between the tagging editors as a class of editors who just tag and then demand from other editors to do the hard work of finding the references for the tags. There is something obnoxious about purely tagging and then demanding from others to come up with the refs. However, If the tagging editor engages in some reference-finding, it shows a little more collaborative spirit, not to mention editorial flexibility. Dr. K. 22:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Moreover excessive tagging of marginal or minor issues is clogging the maintenance queues and potentially delays the addressing of severe problems in other articles. The obnoxious aspect of excessive or formalistic tagging shouldn't be underestimated, because it often frustrates or drives away the editors that actually could fix any real issues, whereas many excessive taggers rarely fix the issue themselves as a next result excessive deteriorates quality rather than improving it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, evidence-based arguments. Thank you Kmhkmh. I would add that, as an architecture-based metaphor, excessive tagging converts an article into a ruin. Dr. K. 23:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I do that when possible. If it's an article that only needs a few refs and they look doable to me, then I do it. But when I come across something like this article where about 50% of the article is uncited, there's no way I'm going to be able to tackle that. I was perfectly happy with using the general {{refimprove}} tag, but BMK specifically asked me to tag the individual statements, so that's how we ended up with this mess. —howcheng {chat} 23:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Howcheng. I understand the difficulties involved. For sure, you cannot be held responsible for finding sources in cases like this, where many facts are missing references. I think the best option would have been if you had removed a few of the facts that could not be verified, as commented above, then supplied a couple of refs for a few more, then tagged the rest, or tagged a section. I think that would show a good mix of tagging and sourcing. Dr. K. 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: If I'm unfamiliar with the topic, how I am supposed to know what facts may not be "verifiABLE"? —howcheng {chat} 23:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

potentially delays the addressing of severe problems in other articles This is nonsense, many Wikipedia articles languish completely or significantly unreferenced and tagging them will not hinder any other effort to improve Wikipedia. The argument that it "drives away" editors who would otherwise improve the article is completely counter to my experience, specifically with BMK. Articles languish unreferenced or poorly referenced until someone finally stands up and says "citation needed". Bright☀ 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Material with really serious concerns with regard to being verifiable at all, should in doubt be deleted rather than tagged. You tag what you assume to be verifiable and what assume to be correct (as content).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. K. 23:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You skipped the whole middle ground there which is some level of concern/question about the verifiability, but not a "serious concern". And the latter would be a standard for tagging every uncited statement in the whole Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• My advice... take a long term approach. Pick TWO statements to challenge... then WAIT until those challenges are resolved (either a source is provided, or it is determined that a source can not be provided, and the statement is removed/amended). Then pick two more... rinse, repeat. It may take over a year to work through the article... but eventually every problematic statement will get addressed. Taking it slowly is less confrontational... and avoids accusations of tag bombing. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That might work if the "article owner" in good faith tries to fix the {{cn}} statements. However, more likely than not, you'll be accused of tendentious editing, the same way you'll be accused of tag-bombing if you tag all specific statements, or "defacing the article" if you add section message boxes. Instead of practically begging people to add {{cn}} tags, you can simply follow Wikipedia policy, WP:V, and tag any statement that you want to challenge. Bright☀ 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

While discussion has shifted to {{cn}} tags in general, it seems there's no doubt that the unsourced statements in Gary Kasparov do need citations, and that some of them are false or misleading. Let's • close this discussion and continue the general musings about proper use of {{cn}} tags somewhere else. Bright☀ 18:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the interaction dynamics aside, sourcing improvements at the article are needed. Tagging is the first 1% of the job, persons tagging are encouraged to help with the other 99%. Good editors who care about fixing such things and fix them are the gold of Wikipedia. Please join them or treat them well. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Beyond My Ken -- The problem with the policy is that with as many weasel words, may and verifiable, and the like, it's not a policy at all. I am accused of being tendentious when I look at an article ten years without a single reference, do a BEFORE, find nothing I like, and PROD the article. I get threats. I am called incompetent. I am called disruptive. I am criticized for not finding citations available only in German. The overall message I get is that there are clubs who have decided that in their bailiwick, no references at all are required. I should not play there. It's a NIMBY thing. There are over 200,000 articles with no citations. If WP is to be a reliable source, a ten year-old piece of original research is suspect. It seems that that WP exists for the fun of the editors, not the use of the readers. What say you? Rhadow (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I say this getting more and more off topic in particular with regard to the particular case. There are always people ignoring project rules (and goals) and sooner or later most editors will encounter them unfortunately. That however isn't really a problem of this policy. If you prodd an unsourced article, the content of which seems correct and notable after a minimal sanity check, then people complaining about that may have a point. A more constructive approach here would to to simply tag it for missing sources, leave a request with involved editors for sources or to very least start a regular afd, so that a larger of people can assess it. On the other hand if content and notability are rather unclear or even questionable prodding it might be completely fine and people complaining about that might fall into the category of those you are unfortunately bound to come across eventually.

Also note that without citation is not the same as without source, for short stable articles based on very few sources, it might be even sufficient to list those sources at the articles end. That changes of course of the article is subject to content changes or gets expanded significantly, then a switch to individual citations is certainly needed.

Essentially WP has problems here coming from 2 different ends. People who (often) don't work source based and consider it appropriate to create content in WP that way (the more severe problem). But also people who do purely formal and "brainless" tagging of supposedly unsourced content (the less severe problem), for instance tagging any sentence without a footnote next to it regardless of the actual content and sources given elsewhere in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia policies by necessity are a bit fuzzy, and often don't prohibit practices that are counter to the intent. A good plan is to also keep the intent in mind rather than going to the limits of what is not prohibited or other extremes. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• If you even do attempt BEFORE (which I doubt), it clearly is incompetent, in how you're doing it.

"I am criticized for not finding citations available only in German."

On German topics? With linked articles on de:WP? And when our sourcing policy is explicit that "foreign language" is not an excuse for "no sources". Yes, you thoroughly deserve that criticism.

No one has said that articles should be unsourced. No one has said that sourcing rules are relaxed for the project you're clearly implying (and it's true, they are - GEO allows a vague handwave of "it exists" and then we're stuck with it. Indian villages surely the worst aspect of this, but they're irremovable). But what you're doing is seen as high-handed and arrogant, amongst its other disruptive aspects. You lecture other editors on their failings, you patronise them, but you do nothing yourself to improve what you complain of. You might be right here, but you're also extremely unpopular with other editors, for how you've gone about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well then perhaps it is valuable to return to first principles: (1) the value of an encyclopedia, and (2) the joy of creation. An encyclopedia needs to be reliable. That's why we insist on verifiability and NPOV. It needs to be fun to create, or the crowdsourcing model wouldn't work. For many, the work of collecting and inserting references is too great. They just want the fun of original research. When challenged, they get their hackles up and we see evidence of man's inhumanity toward man. I believe that the encyclopedia is in danger if we don't balance the two. If we don't the result will be a book with unreferenced articles with gems of assertions like this:

  "In most other countries, fire chiefs are rarely assigned their own marked vehicles, but instead use unmarked vehicles.

  The fuzzy nature of the policies, without the good judgement that goes along with them, leads to arguments like this, "Here are four citations from mainstream magazines, ergo the topic is notable." Balderdash. With the privilege of editing comes the responsibility to do it well.Rhadow (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• In such a case, we might have to remove a contended section. At the least, tag it as unsourced. But you're not doing either, you're scheduling entire articles for automatic deletion. You're making a topic-level decision on the basis of current article state. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andy Dingley -- I respectfully disagree. If I wanted to make unilateral decisions about articles, I would review new ones and do speedy deletes. I am making PROD suggestions that require a week of review and an administrator's action to complete. The articles in question have been tagged for a decade with no improvement. What good does another tag do? When I can make a positive improvement, I do. I like infoboxes.
As to decisions made on the basis of article condition, yes, that's a factor. If after ten years, there is no improvement from a stub or original research, deletion is a better option for the reader than a haphazard bit of original research. Else, WP is nothing more than an opinion blog. Blogs are fun, but WP should not be one. Rhadow (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

PROD is automatic deletion. If no-one else happens to notice it, then it's deleted. There's not even a central listing mechanism like there is for AfD. This is the inertia selling of deletion. Sure, someone can object (in which case you immediately AfD it), but that's reliant on other editors happening across them by chance. At least AfD puts them in front of a publicised work queue.

I have several issues with your practice here:

• It's directly against WP:PROD, "suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion" (emphasis original). Even if you didn't know this to begin with, you must surely (surely?) realise by now that your deletions are controversial.
• It's judging topics on the basis of current article state. We don't do this - past practice at AfD is clear on this. Even though we don't like incomplete articles, we don't do this.
• You are doing no competent attempt at BEFORE. Your AfD nominations say as much, "Long term unsourced article". You are going no further than this. If this was a good action, then we'd have a 'bot for it. The fact we don't might be some indication that we don't want to work that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Andy Dingley -- it seems that conversations now need to be verified:

1. PRODs are not automatic. "The page is first checked and then deleted by an administrator"
2. "We" don't do this." Who is we?
3. "no competent attempt" -- That's a judgement call. It would seem that the standard described here is "improve or stay silent if you find nothing."

You bring up a good point. Perhaps there should be a bot to clear out the deadwood. The team is doing a great job vetting new articles. Why should the same standard not apply to ten year old articles? Is your suggestion that AfD is a better approach than PROD? Rhadow (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Admins don't check PRODs. If the PROD has run for long enough, it gets deleted. Do you have examples of admins rejecting such PRODs (barring obvious vandalism or POINT)

"We". This is a collegiate project. We act as a group, because there's too much for any one editor to do otherwise. You seem to see yourself outside this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the preceding discussion, but just on its own that's good comment. WP isn't simply a park or such where anyone can come out and do what ever, it is a group effort. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

41.79.197.5 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DonIago (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) had placed a [citation needed] on This Christmas: Winter Is Coming. However, I have not usually seen a citation for a track listing unless the album is yet to be released, or in cases where a dispute exists. For instance, Room to Breathe (Reba McEntire album) has a separate citation for one song because the Allmusic listing has an erroneous credit.

Long story short: do track listings generally need citations? Does Real Good Time need the citations it has in its track listing? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting to edit because it is missing some key features. ChadVDL12 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We need opinions from editors at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Should we include an Audience response section? since there are different interpretations of WP:USERG and WP:Due weight being argued there. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've made a proposal, essentially that the software would prompt you to add your source before it lets you save an article in mainspace. Please consider offering feedback at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 24#Changes to article creation. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How can I change my name on the site ? I am Suchitra Pillai.. Wiki has me as Suchitra Pillai -Malik .pls help . Suchi pillai (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Maproom. Winged Blades^Godric 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This verifiability article opens with:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

and the section Citing non-English sources begins:

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia

These seem contradictory as whilst English speaking readers may be able to check that the information comes from a reliable source they will be unable to say whether the source backs the statement that is being made in English. It seems to allow articles to rely on non-English sources to claim whatever they want and to make it nigh on impossible to counter statements that are effectively unsubstantiated/unverifiable. Does Wikipedia have guidelines that address this? My current concern is with articles that have a nationalist bias. The native speaking audiences cannot be relied upon to address bias as the percentage of its editors that read the articles on English wikipedia and care about it is too small. LookingGlass (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No contradiction.... lots of English speakers speak multiple languages. We DON’T require that any SPECIFIC reader/editor (ie you or me) be able to verify the information (nor do we require that he/she can do so right now, with no effort), we simply require that SOMEONE be able to do so. So... while editor X (who only understands English) may not be able to verify the information directly, he/she can call upon reader Y (who does understand the other language) to verify it. Hell... as an extreme alternative... editor X can spend a few years learning the other language, and eventually verify the information himself/herself. The key is that the information is indeed verifiable. It just takes more effort to verify it when not in English. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The real problem can be determining reliability. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

True... but again, while difficult it is not impossible. Our fellow editors at the various language desks can help. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

True, literally - but seriously? IMO this is either unrealistic or disengenuous. In the end it comes down to how "we" delineate between an elite and a community. IMO wiki has been moving towards the "elitist" model at the expense of the "communal", but that was to be expected. Harmi! But thanks for the clarification. Peace, out. LookingGlass (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the “elitist model”... but nothing is more “communal” than asking other members of the community (in this case, those who read other languages) to help verify a source for you. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That said......many editors believe that if multiple reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found at only one source (English or not), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include..--Moxy (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Readers can usually use Google translate. For articles about subjects in non-English speaking countries, there may be few English sources available. However, reasonable editors should use quality English sources where possible, since readers are more likely to find them helpful. TFD (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

With the advent of the Internet, editors seem to forget that there are plenty of English sources that are offline -- books, publications, magazines, recordings, videos, newspapers, stills, etc. Libraries are filled with references-in-waiting (most likely to be digitized). Wikipedia is extremely biased towards online sources, because they are easy to find and cite. But you might argue that finding a cited book may be much harder than translating a non-English source. Should we say we cannot rely on those? No. The difficulty of verification is a problem, but that is an editor problem and we should never sacrifice the quality of sourcing because it happens to be non-English/offline/paywalled/etc. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar I think you are looking at the problem from the point of view of a Wkipedia editor checking an article, "lots of English speakers speak multiple languages. ... So... while editor X (who only understands English) may not be able to verify the information directly, he/she can call upon iY (who does understand the other language) to verify it." Lots (most?} English readers of wikipedia articles are monglots (and even if not it is likely that they only learnt one other language in school (French for Brits and Spanish for Americans), and so for the convenience of most readers it is better that sources are in English if they are available, so that readers can check the validity of content. Wikipedia editors need to be able to use foreign language sources for those instances when no English language source covers the topic or when a particular POV is not available in English language sources (Dutch sources state not all the Dutch soldiers ran away at the Battle of Waterloo). However citation are ultimately provided for the readers not editors. -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As a rough estimate, about half of Wikipedia traffic is to the English Wikipedia, and about half of the English Wikipedia's traffic geolocates to English-dominant countries.[6] In practice, this means that about half of enwiki's readers aren't English-only monoglots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

However native foreign language speakers are likely to be bilingual and very likely not in the language of a foreign language citation in an article. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's some fact about a person mentioned in their autobiography that maybe isn't available in other sources, is it acceptable to include that fact in an article and cite it to the autobiography? Perhaps this is covered else where, but I couldn't find it. WP:AUTOBIO is about an unrelated subject. Thank you  — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Without knowing what you are referring to (is the claim controversial, extraordinary, do you plan to in-text-attribute, etc.) it's difficult to say, but it can be used, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru, you might also want to consider WP:INTEXT attribution (e.g., "Joe Film said that his most famous film was nearly cancelled"). If there is a dispute about whether a specific source supports a specific statement, then try WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: @WhatamIdoing: OK thakns for the feedback. I don't have a specific fact in mind, just whether in general it's even worth looking in an autobiography at the library for facts on a person. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that it would be worthwhile if you are having trouble finding some basic biographical information (e.g., about parents) or if you want something fun to polish up a dull, dry article. An autobiography is the most authoritative source for some material (e.g., a person's emotional reaction to a key event), but it's best to use them sparingly, to maintain WP:DUE weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, given the human condition of memory and self-regard, depending on time, place and material, we can be skeptical about 'most authoritative', but generally useful, sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to rectify some verifiability issues at Ros Serey Sothea, a Cambodian singer who died under unconfirmed circumstances during that country's wartime horrors. There are a variety of supposedly valid news-related sources in which interviewees gave a cause of her death, but they provide multiple different stories on what happened. Since a person can only die once, these sources contradict each other, and due to the horrors of history there will probably never be true confirmation. Unreliable Sources may or may not be the correct tag here, or maybe something else. Or we could simply explain this in the article's text without the need for an edit tag. Advice is welcome. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You should explain it in the article's text. Many editors use a general formulation along these lines: "<Event> happened in <year>. There are contradictory reports about the cause. Some say that it was <x>^[1], and others say that it was <y>^[2]."

This is a question of WP:NPOV, so if you need help figuring out which sources to use or how to phrase it, then you could ask for help at WP:NPOVN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have always been aware of neutrality and point of view issues, but did not know that there are discussions at WP:NPOVN. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If the newspapers are reporting what the interviewee said, as such, then they are accurately covering what the interviewees said, they are not making statements on what caused her death. The Wikipedia article can do the same. North8000 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing text in an article and asking that under BURDEN that the text is supported by inline citations placed close to the text that needs a citation. The talk page discussion is here.

• "and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
• "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

AFAICT The problem arises because these two phrases can be interpreted differently. I have always taken the first sentence to mean that the inline citation should be situated in the text so that it clearly indicates that the text is supported by the source contained in the citation.

user:Almanacer takes the view that if "the cited source clearly support the material as presented in the article" then the section in the policy does not require the the inline citation to the source to be anywhere near the text that it clearly supports. Taken to an extreme (which Almanacer is not doing) this view would mean that an inline citation to a source that "clearly support the material" placed anywhere in an article would suffice to meet burden. For example quotes would not need to be followed by an inline citation providing that somewhere in the text there was an inline citation to a "cited source clearly support[ing] the material as presented in the article". This is clearly not what this section is supposed to explain.

I think that this different interpretation come about because of the change from "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article." to "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." which was a change made by user:WhatamIdoing (Revision as of 23:58, 22 July 2015).

Although "citation" was used there, the sentence in the next paragraph make it clear this meant "inline citation". I think that the change has introduced an ambiguity on whether the sentence (now a clause) is the on the placement of the cation or the content of the citation and this is causing the different interpretation. I fully understand why someone who does not know the history of the sentence would interpret it differently from someone who does. Prior to the change that WhatamIdoing made, the first sentence covered placement while the second sentence "restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." covered the content of that citation.

I suggest that we return to wording where there is a sentence to cover placement of the inline cation and a sentence to cover the content of the citation.

-- PBS (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That's unneeded, since MOS says, "ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we will all agree that two different things need to be said, and that they are:

1. The article content has to match the source's content. It's no good to take a source that says "Well, maybe Big Foot exists" and claim that this source supports a sentence that says "Big Foot definitely exists". Sticking to the sources, without making stuff up or misrepresenting what the source said, is IMO the main point of the statement that "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."
2. People need to be able to figure out which citation can be used to verify that the material wasn't just made up. It's true that material can be verifiable even if the article contains no citations at all (or, in a less extreme circumstance, in a different section), but we want to make it easy to find a reliable source, so the best practice is to put them in the same paragraph, or at least the same part of the article.

IMO a reasonable solution here is to change the next sentence, from "Cite the source clearly and precisely" to "Cite the source clearly and precisely, near the material that it supports (or better words to that effect). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan, the MOS is not policy, an while we may be able to incorporate that idea, not all inline citations are footnotes (they can, for example, be Harvard citations).

WhatamIdoing, your solution is adding more text and as such potentially adds more possibilities for misunderstanding. I suggest we try to remove some of the repetition. As the second paragraph concentrates on the type of citation and as it states "reliable, published source using an inline citation ... must clearly support the material as presented in the article", we can alter the first sentence to make it clear where the citation ought to be:

"and is satisfied by providing a[n inline] citation to a reliable source, that directly supports the contribution[is next to the material which it supports]."

I have used "it" instead of repeating "a[n inline] citation to a reliable source". I have used "next to" instead of "immediately after" because sometimes (eg in the case of lists, the citation may be placed after a colon and before the members of a list. To bring it in line with he MOS we can add a footnote that "next to" usually means immediately following the text to which the inline citation applies.

If that is to complicated then we can return to version close the previous wording of and is satisfied by providing a[n inline] citation to a reliable source, that directly supports the contribution."

--PBS (talk)

I don't think that's what was meant. Maybe the phrase is in the wrong paragraph, but the intention for that "clearly supports" phrase is all about NOR. That phrase isn't about placement. It's about the line from NOR's lead that says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Also: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research", "Use sources that directly support the material presented", "Confirm that these sources support the content", "To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}", "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy", etc.)

When we talk about "support", we are referring to the concordance (or lack thereof) between the source and the article's content. We aren't referring to the location of the citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agree with WAID. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You're right, MOS isn't policy, but it is guideline, which is exactly the place that technical details like citation placement ought to be. WAIM is correct about the purpose of the current language here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC) PS: This is also covered by WP:INTEGRITY, also a guideline. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This section of the policy has for many years dictated both the content of citations and the placement of inline-citations. It was the change that WhatamIdoing made on 22 July 2015 that changed its meaning, and I presume was an unintended consequence of the edit. WhatamIdoing the second sentence covers the NOR issue "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." it is the first sentence that you edit of 2015 altered the meaning from the placement to a reiteration of a point covered by the second sentence we do not need to include that twice. As I said at the start with the current wording we have a situation were there in no need to place the inline-citation anywhere near the text it supports, this is clearly a retrograde step from what was there prior to 22 July 2015. -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The way I count the sentences in that paragraph is like this:

1. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
2. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
3. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).
4. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Which of these four sentences are you actually dissatisfied with? (Your main problem, AFAICT, is that nothing explicitly says "if the citation is not in the [relevant] line, then it's not an inline citation", which does not seem to be something that we see many disputes over.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the WP:ONUS paragraph, it seems to me that sentence 2 says that default is inclusion ("Consensus may determine ... should be omitted") while sentence 3 says that the default is exclusion ("The onus ... for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."). If there is a lack of consensus, then under sentence 2, the content is not omitted. But if there is a lack of consensus, then under sentence 3, the content is omitted.

It's fine to say that the only solution is consensus :), but sometimes that doesn't happen, or doesn't happen quickly, so better say straight out that we have no all-cases-applicable rule when consensus cannot be obtained, rather than say (X and (not X)). Maybe someone knows where there have been discussions on this and can give a more consistent summary? Boud (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The best way to think of the issue is as a gateway followed by a decision. You don't get to the decision until you've passed through the gateway. The gateway is verifiability and the decision is whether or not to include material. Material must be verifiable to be able to be included, but verifiability does not mean that something should be included. The decision of whether or not to include (or retain) material is determined by WP:CONSENSUS, which can be silent consensus (stuff is added and no one objects) or consensus by discussion if someone objects to the material. If no consensus is reached, the usual result is exclusion, but that rule isn't here in V but here in the Consensus Policy. The ONUS paragraph has to be understood in that context and is mainly included in V to counter the argument that material must be included (or retained) if it's verifiable. This was last discussed, at length here with various improvements proposed (and failed) a couple of sections below that, here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very important point. The mere fact that a fact is verifiable is a very weak reason for including it in an article. An encyclopedia is not just an indiscriminate collection of facts, but an organized collection of salient facts about notable topics. The vast majority of facts about any topic are not salient, and do not belong in the Wikipedia article about that topic. Charles Matthews wrote thoughtfully about this a number of times on the WikiEN-l discussion list. Unfortunately, the archive for that list appears to be down at the moment, but you can google. See also WP:PROPORTION for a good, brief explanation of how the proportions of an article devoted to different aspects of a topic should reflect the overall coverage of that topic in the reliable sources. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think what's written there is pretty clear. If it's unverifiable, it can't be included period. If it can be verified, then we reach the choice of whether it should be included based upon consensus discussion of other content policies (NPOV, due weight, etc.). Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, it just makes it possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current WP:ONUS paragraph is clear as far as it goes. However, it's framed in a way that makes decision-making procedure ("consensus") seem paramount. We might do a lot to guide good editing and fruitful talk-page discussion by adding a sentence that explains why verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: because facts need to be salient to the topic as well as verifiable. Beyond verifiability, the consensus sought should be about whether the fact in question is salient, not simply whether it "improves the article". —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, except to say that it is not clear enough because it's commonplace for someone to in essence say that meeting verifiability is a force for inclusion. Some months back some of us made an effort to in essence add "Verifiabiliity is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion." It got mired down and we took a break and never came back from the break. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• To understand ONUS, remember that WP:V is not the only policy or guideline that determines inclusion/exclusion. To make it simple...

1. If the material is NOT verifiable - it does not pass THIS policy - we Exclude.
2. If the material IS verifiable - it passes THIS policy - we POTENTIALLY include. (it's "POTENTIAL" because the material also has to pass all those other policies and guidelines)
3. And even then... even if material passes every single policy and guideline: if there is consensus to omit, we omit. CONVERSELY (although much much rarer)... even if material fails some policy or guideline: if there is a strong consensus to include, we include. (so, yeah, consensus is paramount). Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording "not a force for inclusion" seems quite vague; I can see why it ran into resistance. With a little more work, I'll bet we can find wording that's clear and guides people to edit in the spirit of the encyclopedia.

To answer Boud's original question, the term "onus" suggests to me that the default is to leave verifiable information out unless it meets additional criteria. But I can see how this interpretation is not clear from the current paragraph. Mentioning some basic additional criterion—the onus to be met—would go a long way toward remedying this.

The current wording, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," almost doesn't mean anything. The concept of an onus to demonstrate something is a guide to decision-makers: the people who make the consensus. If you are one of the people deciding whether to agree or disagree with a proposal to include some content—that is, if you are one of the consensus-makers—how do you apply the WP:ONUS principle? Check if the proposal has consensus? To see how the current wording doesn't make sense, think of how a jury would decide a criminal case if instead of "The onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant, not on the defense to prove innocence" the principle were "The onus is on the prosecution to convince the jury." The onus-of-proof principle is a guide to the jury, according to which they make their decision. The principle provides no guidance if it's merely "The jury's decision is final, except that verifiability is not enough."

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" is this: When there is a dispute over whether to include something (or not), those who want it included need to express why it should be included, and convince the rest of the community that it should be included. If they can't do this, then the default is to not include it. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I was name-checked above. A necessary condition should not be assumed sufficient. That's a clear point of logic. To argue the other way, one needs some concept of salience. I definitely think more should be made of salience. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This flow chart should be placed in this discussion every time it pops up:

I want to include material in a Wikipedia article!

Does this material verifiably come from a reliable source?	→ no →	It cannot be included in an article.
↓ yes  ↓
Does the material, as added, follow other relevant Wikipedia content policies? For example:  • Is it in proper context?  • Is it given due weight?  • Is it free of legal issues?	→ no →	It may be included in an article, but it needs to be put in context, placed in a different section or article, cleared of legal issues, and edited to follow any other relevant policies and guidelines.
↓ yes  ↓
Is it free of disputes that are made in good faith?	→ no →	The disputes must be resolved before the material is included.
↓ yes  ↓
Congratulations! Barring any other issues, this material may be included in an article.

Bright☀ 09:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• • The flow chart is excellent. And yet... it only focuses on the addition of material, and part of EDITING involves the rewriting of current text... which can (sometimes) result in the removal (or omission) of material... so, even though some specific bit of material can indeed be added if you jump through all these hoops, that still does not guarantee that your addition will remain in the article forever. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased "addition" to "inclusion". Bright☀ 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should avoid “inclusion”... I think that word implies a permanence that ISN’T in policy. My point was that I think it good to say that information is allowed to be added to an article if it passes ONUS... but even then, that permission does not guarantee “inclusion”... because another editor may well subtract it at some later date... and not necessarily for any policy reasons (a rewriting editor may simply decide that the article would be better without it). The ONUS section grants permission for an addition, but it does not guarantee retention. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What word would you use? Material may be [verb] [preposition] a Wikipedia article...? I don't think "inclusion" implies permanence but I'm curious to hear what word you suggest would not imply permanence. Bright☀ 18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would stick with “addition” (“add”, “added”, “adding”, etc)... I suppose what I am getting at is this: we currently only focus on “adding” stuff to articles, and your flow chart is great at explaining that aspect of editing. However, editing ALSO (sometimes) involves “subtracting” stuff. We need something in the policy that warns editors that “subtraction” can still occur even when the material completely passes ONUS... (Indeed, even when the material passes every single policy we have... none of it “guarantees” retention.) Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

All of the above is good. If I had an quibble, it is that it sort of blurs "OK to include" with "deciding to include". The latter takes a neural net (human brain) or several and is a multi-variable decision making process. For example, a blend of degree-of-relevance, degree of avoiding being borderline on other policies and guidelines, degree of importance, degree of objectivity, degree of usefulness of the information etc. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is about thresholds; degrees are decided after the threshold is met. For example, WP:DUE can't decide whether a paragraph needs to be ten sentences long or eleven sentences long, but WP:FRIND can answer definitively whether a fringe viewpoint should be included at all. After something meets the threshold for inclusion, people can fuzzy-logic themselves into oblivion about exactly how many degrees of usefulness it has... Bright☀ 20:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agree and I like your chart. But your "free of disputes" area does cross over into the editorial discretion area. Also the frist line should say complies with wp:verifiability rather than trying to paraphrase the policy in one sentence, an impossible task. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

North8000, as you know, we just had a big RfC about this section last year: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 66#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion. In what ways in this new discussion different? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your question seems to have an incorrect implied premise that I said that it was different. But if you are asking in general, I'm not sure why I'd be the one to do the compare-and-contrast. But, briefly, the core of the previous discussion was about addition of a sentence which more explicitly says something that already exists in what the current core guidelines do and don't say and the inherent logical interaction between them, but where many don't derive / understand that. And the result was that it got mired down and we took a break. This discussion is sort of on two things. One is some sidebar "inclusion" wording ....a discussions which is inevitably headed for miring in a tar pit because it is an attempt to summarize all of the other Wikipedia policies and practices, and to do it in a few sentences. I stayed out of that. It's also about a chart which someone made which attempts to summarize / communicate the logical action of and interaction of core policies and guidelines in this respect. I think that it is an excellent idea and attempt even though unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a place to put it. And I was giving some feedback on that good idea. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a general question, and I addressed you because you were heavily involved in that previous discussion. I stayed out of it and watched it from the sidelines. But the question was for anyone to address. I asked it because a lot of people were involved in that RfC and I don't want this latest discussion that only involves a few people to neglect arguments made then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

trying to paraphrase the policy in one sentence and yet that is the first sentence of the policy: "people can check that the information comes from a reliable source" vs "Does this material verifiably come from a reliable source?" Asking a clueless editor "Does this comply with WP:V?" defeats the purpose of an easy-to-answer flowchart. This is supposed to help people edit Wikipedia correctly, not replace the entire policy. Bright☀ 12:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the comments I wrote above, I have had a thought... before I share it, let me explain that I was the editor who first introduced the phrase “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”, which means that I know better than most what the original intent of that line was. That stated... the above discussion (and those before it) has me thinking that the current language does not properly reflect the original intent. My original intent was not really focused on Inclusion (whether you are “allowed” to add the information or not), The line was more a warning about Retention (whether the information must stay in the article, after it is added). So... Here's my thought: Would changing the line to: Verifiability does not guarantee retention clarify the original intent and reduce confusion? please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's important again to state what the verfiability "burden" is. I put burden in quotes because its not in actuality defined in this policy as much of a burden: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion . . ." (Note 2) That note is otherwise problematic because it suggests that, just that one source is always enough, but it should not. At any rate, moving on from that somewhat problematic note to this section of policy, we should not be suggesting in any way, "I gotta source" is the end of the discussion or of any analysis -- it's meant to be the very, very, beginning of the discussion. Before any information is included, a whole host of issues around the strength of the information and it's context and presentation should run through the thought process of the editor (most of those issues addressed in other policy, so it's not just retention, it is inclusion, too.)

At any rate, since I did bring up the note, can we add "strength of sourcing" to the things to consider, Before someone says, 'I truly believe I gotta source.' In other words, something like: "Editors should usually look for and analyse WP:BESTSOURCES", at the beginning of the note Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

All excellent ideas, and the concept of strength of sourcing in editing work and discussions needs much more prominence in Wikipedia. I'm also afraid that you may be headed into the logical "tar pit" I described above. Instead of clarity that wp:ver merely imposes ONE of the requirements for inclusion, by venturing into other areas of the inclusion process, you are attempting to summarize all of the other policies and guidelines and editing norms of Wikipedia. Good luck on that !  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I would like to shift the language away from “inclusion” (and its opposite: “exclusion”) to the narrower concept of “retention”. The original intent of the line was not to state a rule, but to give a simple warning that Editing WP involves both adding AND subtracting stuff... and to point to some (but not all) of the reasons stuff might be subtracted. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that in that one sentence your idea of "retention" is good / should be done. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read enough of the debate now seen at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 66#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion, I think "inclusion" should remain. I don't see how "retention," which leaves me thinking of "editor retention," conveys the matter better than "inclusion." And I think that if "retention" is added without a big discussion on the matter, per that previous RfC, there will be another big debate about the section sooner than later (once editors notice the change). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, that RfC shows that Blueboar suggested removing "inclusion" before: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 66#What if we remove the word "inclusion?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned either way, I was just giving feedback. But the portion that you linked to was in the context of trying to help solve a broader debate. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Retention is the wrong word. Quoth OED:

retention The continued possession, use, or control of something; The action of absorbing and continuing to hold a substance; Failure to eliminate a substance from the body.

inclusion The action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure. [include Comprise or contain as part of a whole.]

There is no "retention" in Wikipedia articles. There is no possession, use, or control of information, or the "continued holding" of this information. There is inclusion, being part of an article, and absolutely no retention, keeping or failing to eliminate something in an article. Inclusion does not carry the meaning you subscribe to it. Something that is included now does not have to be included later. Something that is retained does have to be kept later, which is not what the policy is about. I resort to using a dictionary because, like last time, people are twisting the meaning of words in ways that are wrong and detrimental to Wikipedia. Retention is WP:OWN. Inclusion is neutral. Bright☀ 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

But that goes back to my original intent when adding the line in the first place ... saying that “there is no retention” was the entire POINT of the line. It was added simply to warn editors that even verifiable material might NOT be retained. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

At a workshop at the University of Queensland, an undergraduate brought an article about a rugby player to my attention. While he was (at least for those knowledgeable about rugby) a very famous person with a long and distinguished career, the Wikipedia article consisted of a couple of sentences, followed by a screen full of text about a scandal. I instantly found an essay about this phenomena, but I can't find it now. Can anyone point me to it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. This is a fine example of how verifiability must be tempered with due weight and context. Bright☀ 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#RfC: Adoption of the re-written NCORP guideline.

Among the source-related open questions about the proposed expansion (of the wording; it actually reduces the number of subjects covered by the guideline) are what is meant by feature story, which is not given a definition but really shouldn't be an actual Feature story, and intellectual independence, whose supporters seem to think that it means something significantly different from what that term means at the few notability guidelines that mention it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not call the proposal a "Massive" change... most of it simply reorganizes paragraphs already in the guideline. However, there are a few significant changes that will need broad consensus (and even small changes can have unanticipated consequences)... so more eyes would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

On first line please change "is an all girls private Department of Education" to "is an all girls public Department of Education" 203.174.190.26 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Say what? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you are referring to the text at Melbourne Girls' College. The article is not protected from editing, so you are free to make this change yourself. However, you should add a citation to support any claims you make. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

see /Archive 67#Clearly support the material

From the previous discussion:

@WhatamIdoing it is not instruction creep it is what was written and agreed before you changed "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article." to "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." For example it has long been required that all quotes should be followed by an inline citation either immediately after the citation or after the next punctuation mark. With the change you made it can be argued that any inline citation anywhere in an article that supports the quotation meets the requirement of a "cited source must clearly support the material". Here is an example where requests for citations after quotations have been removed. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The point I am making here is very common in academic writing to place the incline-citation after the information it supports (and for style guides to include such advise). See for example the advise given by the University of York "In-text citation is included in the body of your text and is there to directly show the reader where an idea, piece of information, and/ or a quotation are from."[7] this is what "The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article." was intended to explain, which since you change no longer does (instead it alters it to emphasise the content of the inline citation rather than its placement on the page.

King's College (Pennsylvania)) history department makes it even more explicit "To cite properly, at the end of the sentence where you have used the information, you should place for the note an Arabic number, slightly superscripted, a bit smaller, immediately after the punctuation mark.1" (Citations, Footnotes, Endnotes, Notes, and Bibliographies)

I propose to reinstate the original meaning of the phrase but clarified to "and is satisfied by providing an inline-citation to a reliable source, placed next to the material which it supports." The content of the reliable source is covered by the sentences in the section that state "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)."

-- PBS (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are looking for feedback, but the above is not very clear on its own.North8000 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for a consensus. What is it that is not clear to you. -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking in general, not just "to me". I spent 5 minutes hopping around the various places that are referred to and read the post twice and it's still not clear what your exact proposed change is and you main argument for it is. Probably another 10 minutes I'd be able to derive derive whatever is and isn't there out of it. That equals (and has equaled) very limited participation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the root of the argument here is With the change you made it can be argued that any inline citation anywhere in an article that supports the quotation meets the requirement. This would matter, except the policy states in three other occasions that the footnote has to be adjacent to the material it supports: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source", key word "with"; when you restore the material, restore it with a citation to a reliable source (presumably not scattered randomly in the article, but adjacent to the material). Anyone reading the entire policy, or even just the entire WP:BURDEN section, should be able to understand that the footnote has to be adjacent to the material it supports. If not, you can point them to WP:CITEFOOT. If it bothers you that much, I bet the following part of WP:CITEFOOT can be made part of WP:V: The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. Bright☀ 09:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections?. A permalink for it is here.--Moxy (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's been a while since I've read the text at WP:BURDEN as it's slightly different from how I remember it. Maybe I am thinking about discussions about its interpretation, but I thought I'd check here.

WP:BURDEN says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

I don't see clear guidance that prevents this from being used to blank every page with no citations and remove every paragraph without a citation. My understanding has been that WP:BURDEN implies a challenge to the verifiability of the material, and not a challenge simply to the absence of an inline citation. This sentence doesn't actually say that, though. If my understanding is correct, that a challenge is assumed, how does one respond to a blanket challenge to a whole page pointing to the quoted sentence above?

I'm sure this has been addressed before, but my search terms in the archive returned many hits, the first several of which weren't clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Simple... One responds by returning the material with a few citations to reliable sources that support it. Don’t worry about whether the “other guy” had a specific challenge (or not). Supplying reliable sources always resolves the issue, and is usually far quicker and much less stressful than arguing about the “validity” of the challenge. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"WP:BURDEN says..." And the problem is you quoted one line without any of what preceded it, and that's often the problem people have with this section (or reading any policy or guideline, for that matter). We can't carve out sentences in isolation and then interpret them as if they were the Ten Commandments. The whole section matters (which includes "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.") and of course must also be read in conjunction with other policies, such as WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

These are two quite different areas. @Blueboar: putting aside a specific instance -- hypothetical or not -- are you saying that you understand the literal interpretation of the line I quoted to have standing? (I.e. that removal is justified without citations?). @Postdif: by this logic it can be interpreted either way, but I could've sworn I had seen it rejected rather explicitly that WP:BURDEN actually means that all unsourced material can be removed without the material being challenged... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my view: I think asking the question "How do we know if a removal is a legitimate challenge or not?" is pointless... since it is always easier (and less stressful) to act AS IF there is a legitimate challenge behind any removal, and act accordingly. Arguing about the legitimacy of a removal (or the need to provide a source) almost always takes a lot more time and effort (and causes more angst) than simply providing a source does. So I see no harm in taking a "strict interpretation" stance. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal is in and of itself a legitimate form of challenge; it just may not be the "best practice" form of challenge. But then, if I insert "Doniago is a god and all bow before him", editors should have the liberty to remove it on sight rather than tagging it and waiting who-knows-how-long for me to (fail to) provide a reference. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal is removal. And BURDEN is not a license to remove content for no other reason than there are not currently formatted citations in an article. Let's assume that BLP, POV, obvious vandalism, etc., are not concerns for the sake of simplicity... If content is removed because the editor has sound reason to believe it's not verifiable, then it's a good faith challenge. If it's done without regard to whether the material is actually verifiable, or while fully knowing that the material is verifiable, that removal is contrary to explicit policy and is not a good faith challenge, it's just disruptive blanking. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Remember that (assuming a source can be provided) any removal for "lack of citation" is only TEMPORARY. As for disruptive behavior... I find arguing about a removal to be far more disruptive than simply accepting the removal, and returning the material with a source. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There is perhaps a relatively easily formatted RfC that could be (but might not be) productive: "Which of these best explains WP:BURDEN: (a) Content which lacks citations can be removed with no additional justification beyond that it lacks citations. (b) Content which lacks citations can be removed if an editor challenges the verifiability of the content."

These presume that other policies that relate to removing content (like BLP) still apply, of course, and that the content is not being removed based on other policies (i.e. it's not being removed for a violation of NPOV/NOT/OR, but specifically because of lack of citations). Is there a (c)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You can see a typical case of insistence on a "specific challenge" here. User:Howcheng made good-faith challenges to uncited material, User:Beyond My Ken insisted that the challenges are not specific enough, and removed the {{cn}} tags. I went through the first four tags, and showed that in at least two instances, the {{cn}} tags were adjacent to inaccurate information, and adding citations to uncited information would have fixed this. Instead of being improved, the article's uncited information remains untagged, uncited, and uncorrected.

If a source exists, it should be provided. If a source can't be provided, the information shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Tagging and removing uncited information is good for Wikipedia, except in cases of disruptive editing, but there are plenty of policies that deal with that. Bright☀ 19:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your first paragraph. This thread is specifically about those cases when the material itself is not challenged -- that the only objection is not to the verifiability/accuracy of the statement, but to the fact that there is no citation. If there's an actual good faith challenge to verifiability, accuracy, or any other aspect other than the mere existence of a citation, it's not really what I'm talking about (i.e. that's the way I've understood WP:BURDEN to work, and would like clarification about it being used without an actual challenge). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, BrightR just likes to use any opportunity available to denigrate me, whether it's apropos or not I'm used to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your first paragraph. This thread is specifically about those cases when the material itself is not challenged -- that the only objection is not to the verifiability/accuracy of the statement, but to the fact that there is no citation. That was exactly the case here and the pig-headed insistence on "specific challenge" made the article worse, or, alternatively, made it stay in its uncorrected state. Bright☀ 13:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue of whether material may be removed merely because it is unsourced has been debated again and again on this talk page, along with various attempts to modify the language of the policy to say that it cannot be so removed and the answer has always been "yes it can be removed" and the proposals have failed. That's not the best practice, but it is an acceptable practice. There is some justified concern about whether it is acceptable to either (a) make a habit, hobby, or routine practice of going from article to article removing unsourced material without any apparent attempt to provide sources or (b) (as this discussion began) remove large sections of material from an article merely because it is unsourced, but there is nothing in this policy (or in PRESERVE, which merely refers back to this policy without setting any standard of its own regarding unsourced material) which expressly prohibits it. And I would note these two facts which would at least suggest that they are not prohibited. First, when folks have been taken to ANI for going from article to article removing material simply because it is unsourced, they have often been widely criticized but I am unaware of a single instance where one has actually been blocked or banned only for that practice. Second, it is not an unusual practice for an largely-unsourced article to go to AFD and barely survive, but to then have all but the unsourced material cut out. Finally, I'd be opposed to an RFC to settle a question which has been settled here time after time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO the middle of the road solution is that the person needs to express a concern that it is unverifiable, but does not need to defend/ argue that concern.North8000 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are all overthinking it... Don’t worry about the remover’s motivation. Just ASSUME that the material was removed because the remover has a legitimate concern that the material is unverifiable, and act accordingly (ie provide a source to demonstrate that it is, in fact verifiable). You will never do wrong in making that assumption, and providing a source is never a bad thing. Don’t focus on the actions of “the other guy”... focus on “your” reaction to them. Blueboar (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, AGF. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The problems that my suggestion would solve are seldom a "no sources" situation. They involve using this in conjunction with other rules (e.g. details on the sourcing) to knock out material that IS sourced. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To contextualize, this thread wasn't intended to settle any particular dispute, but the thing that made me think of it had to do with a list of bands in a particular music genre. This seems like an interesting case for this discussion. If we should assume good faith that removal of content is an implicit challenge to verifiability, then what do we make of removing a list of wikilinks that each point to an article with relevant citations? I.e. if all someone has to do is click the link to verify the claim, it's clearly only about having an inline citation at that location and not about verifiability in general. Different? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If I were an editor who wanted to retain the list of links, I'd resolve the matter by reinserting them with the appropriate references from the underlying articles rather than initiating a debate which will take up time that could be spent on more productive pursuits. That said, if the removing editor is doing such a thing as a pattern, then reaching out to them about it may be warranted. DonIago (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no excuse for adding unsourced material. It's a blockable offence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7... No, adding unsourced material is NOT a blockable offense. Editors have been blocked for edit warring about unsourced material. Editors have been blocked for disruptively arguing about whether the material needs a source (or not). Editors have been blocked for a host of reasons related to the addition of unsourced material... But no editor has ever been blocked merely for adding material without also adding a source. We only require a source when the material is a) likely to be challenged, or b) actually is challenged. This discussion is about requirement "b"... the question being asked is "Does an unexplained removal constitute a legitimate "challenge" or not"? The simplest answer to that question is "It does not matter... treat it as such and you won't go wrong". Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no excuse for adding unsourced material. It's a blockable offence. Pretty much every time I edit Wikipedia I see someone adding unsourced material, whether they're new editors or editors with years of experience. The admins hardly ever enforce WP:V in its strictest sense, and the fact that Wikipedia is filled with unsourced and poorly-sourced statements is a testament to that. Bright☀ 13:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Folks, that's not what the policy says. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the policy says editors should be blocked for adding unsourced material, I meant that administrators are lenient when people add unsourced material, and more than that: they are incredibly forgiving of editors who edit-war to remove {{cn}} tags and similar tags because "they're not specific enough"... Bright☀ 15:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a general tension between several issues. Each of these is clear from general practice on Wikipedia:

1. Material should be verifiable in reliable sources, and this is a key foundational principle
2. But we do not require that sources have to always be actually included. Thousands of people every day add uncited material to articles, and this is part of the ordinary editing culture
3. But if someone raises an issue with particular material, then material that cannot be sourced can be removed. Indeed, an editor can pre-emptively remove material that is uncited.
4. The standards are higher for certain types of articles, such as biographies

So the issue is just balancing this tension. Removing an uncited sentence from a single article is no problem. But removing all uncited material from 100 articles for no clear reason (apart from it being uncited) would be a problem, and probably viewed as a violation of WP:POINT. Similarly, adding a {{fact}} tag to one article is no problem, but adding 100 tags to one article or adding 1000 tags in a bot-like way might also violate WP:POINT Editors have to work with balance: we allow an amount of uncited material to be added, but editors should try to pre-emptively cite material that is likely to be challenged. Uncited material can be removed, but editors should use discretion in deciding when to remove it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• To quote myself "Editors are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the integrity of Wikipedia while adhering to intellectual property rights, such as avoiding plagiarism, respecting copyright laws, and presenting appropriate citations for article content." If people can't do this then this project is not for them. We developed these rules because as Wikipedia got older more and non academic editors started to contribute junk.. thus we ask all to source material added.--Moxy (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is something of a side observation, so I am starting a sub-thread for it. For as long as I can remember, the BURDEN section has stated...

• "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

I have highlighted the word "may" in that sentence, because it is somewhat ambiguous. It can be read in two ways:

1. as giving editors permission to remove unsourced material,
2. as a warning to editors that unsourced material might be removed.

Looking back at the discussions that took place when we first created the BURDEN section, it is clear that the focus of those discussions was on explaining what to do AFTER material had been challenged/removed (and the burden that was on those who wanted to return the information). We really didn't discuss how to challenge or when it was appropriate to remove. The idea that unsourced material could (and should) be removed was essentially taken for granted back then. So... that got me thinking that the original intent of the word "may" was probably more along the lines of a warning, and that what we meant all those years ago was "might". I am not proposing any change at this time... I merely wanted to raise this observation as "food for thought", and discussion. I think it a good idea to periodically go back and look at original intent of any policy statement, and examine whether our interpretations have changed over time. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Very true. I already read the "may" to be a combination of "might" and "is allowed to be". Of course, intent can change, as with WP:NOR. It was originally intended to make it easier to deal with people writng about pseudoscience or about their latest pet theory in physics (see this old version [8]). It later turned into a general guideline against synthesis, but originally it was only about synthesis that disagrees with the mainstream consensus in a field. Now even descriptions of mainstream consensus are considered "original research" if they stray too far from what literally appears in print. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not "may" as in "possibly" or "might", it's "may" as in "have permission" or "be allowed". The context should make that clear: "may be removed and should not be restored". "May" as opposed to "should not", "have permission" as opposed to "don't have permission". This intent exists in the original discussion about removing uncited material and the subsequent discussion that phrased it as it exists today. The original discussion talks about how unsourced statements can be "freely removed", but "may be removed" is a little less carefree... Bright☀ 17:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that the policy works pretty well regarding unsourced material. There may be short term issues but I think that they get sorted out. IMO common problems come in when someone couples the big hammer of wp:burden with creative use of of some of the imperfections and unrealistic areas of the rules regarding the type of sources to knock out material.North8000 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To editors Hawkeye7 and Izno: What gives? Maybe you should ask first before changing the text of a policy? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Policies and guidelines may still be boldly changed.

I reverted Hawkeye's edit not because there's no talk page discussion (obviously?) but because I don't see that change as an improvement.

I then removed an ancient quote from Jimmy. We are long past the point in time where a quote from our non-leader is worth making people read, especially as it's tangential to this policy (which includes a pointed reference to the discussion on which the quote is made). (Hence why it is footnoted.) I additionally removed the weak "you should" language. Do you have a substantive issue with my specific edits beyond "there's no talk discussion!"? --Izno (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I do. I'm fine with your reversion of Hawkeye7, who was also needlessly bold. My issue is that the quote from Jimmy is already part of the consensus version. I think it speaks to the importance of verifiability, especially for the editors that are inclusionist and tend to keep unsourced content in the hope that the content could be verified, even though it hasn't been. Since it's footnoted, it's not taking up text space in the paragraph. Removing it seems petty. PGBOLD emphasizes that discussion happens first because of situations like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As PGBOLD indicates, "being the consensus version" is insufficient to stop someone from changing a policy or guideline. (It does stress a 0RR or 1RR attitude about it.) As for the importance of verifiability, in this context, we have a very bright bolded statement at WP:BLPSOURCE requiring sourcing on BLPs. A quotation that is tangential to the purpose of this page couldn't ever do the same thing. Petty? No. We should avoid in policies and guidelines content which does not have substantive value--and as this quotation is not a !rule, nor even clarifying a complex !rule (it's hard to be clearer than WP:BLPSOURCES is, much less the statement currently there already), I'd say it has no substantive value. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it also negatively reinforces the "the not-leader said it [X person said it!], so it must be true!" idea, which is not how we operate. (It is not entirely coincidence that the board of trustees, on which Jimmy sat at the time, delivered us a requirement to implement a policy regarding living people, but that's neither here nor there. ;) --Izno (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I also support the status quo before Izno and Hawkeye7's additions. I concur with Izno that Hawkeye's addition was, while well-intentioned and objectively correct, a bit too much instruction manual-ly and off-topic for this policy. On the other hand Jimbo's quote is a useful illustration of the strength with which the BLP aspect of this is held. Do I think that it's absolutely necessary? No, but on the balance it's useful and, as Chris Troutman points out, this policy has been carefully tuned through consensus to balance conflicting interests. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

182.232.144.26 (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 04:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have raised concerns about Osmosis videos appearing in medical articles at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation.

For example: File:Epilepsy video.webm embedded in the lead of Epilepsy. This is more than a short clip of a seizure. It is an entire documentary video, aimed at medical students, that covers the whole topic of epilepsy in nearly 9 minutes. There are no sources cited at all. And even if there were, there is no possibility for editors to correct anything in the video. The only option, is for editors to remove it, which (if you see the two examples listed in the above link), results in User:Doc James slow edit warring with you to restore it, while promising to get this third party foundation to revise the video at some point in the future.

Even if these videos were created by volunteer Wikipedians rather than employees of a billionaire's private foundation, there are concerns about how they fit into Wikipedia editing policies. For a start they are not able to be collaboratively edited at all. But is the content even acceptable per WP:V? We have essentially an article in video format, hosted and displayed in the lead of our medical articles, and for which none of our content policies seem to be met other than the need for a free licence.

I think WP:V needs to be updated to explicitly include audio-visual content. -- Colin°^Talk 11:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That's far too specific for this policy., even if it is a good idea. That it is a good idea is not at all clear from your prior discussions (the one you've linked above and the one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Osmosis concerns), which have not concluded with a sentiment that "by God, you're right this is awful, but we can't do anything about it because policy doesn't cover it". This policy and other policies already equip the community with sufficient tools to decide whether or not your concern is a real problem or not. If you strongly feel that something more specific about it is needed — and I'm not at all sure that the need exists — then the proper place for it would be the Identifying reliable sources guideline. It seems to me that what may be really needed, however, is dispute resolution, not policy or guideline change. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC) PS: If you intend to limit your policy/guideline change to the medical realm, then Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is the proper place rather than Identifying reliable sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC) PPS: Having read the discussions once again, I'm striking my comments expressing doubt about whether policy/guideline change is needed. That doesn't mean that I think that change is needed, but only that it may be more of a genuine concern than I thought it to be on first blush. I stand by the rest of my comments, however. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I created WP:MEDRS, so I know a thing or two about medical article sourcing. But this isn't really a medical issue. I know we tend not to extend WP:V much to images. We trust that if a photographer says this is a photo of such-and-such a castle, that it probably is. And if it isn't then someone can easily remove that one fact-image or replace it with the correct one. Similarly if someone uploaded a video of a tonic-clonic seizure, we don't require them to cite sources describing the seizure or alternative videos where people confirm they are the same event. We have a level of trust but which can be fixed by removal if someone doubts it. Here we have a video that covers the entire article topic. But no sources are given for any of these 300 videos. I think there are enough problems with this Osmosis project (paid editing, COI proxy editing, the non-editable nature of the content, the fremium model these videos are developed under) that we should think again. But on the issue of WP:V I would not like to see us face this sort of exclusion-zone for policy. If someone creates an article-in-video-format and embeds that in Wikipedia, then our policies should apply. -- Colin°^Talk 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ver establishes a sourcing / sourc-ability requirement for content. If it were a question of whether the sources fifulled this requirement for the text which cited it, text met the requirement, then IMO it would be a wp:ver issue. IMO, if not, not. That doesn't mean it's not a bad idea to have it in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A few corrections:

1) References are provided. You can see them here

2) Videos can be edited and are under a fully open CC BY SA 4.0 license. The opening logo of Omsosis was removed in this video for example.

3) Yes there are lots of possibilities to make corrections. One can simple ask. In fact here is a list of all their videos in production were they are requesting feedback before the video is made.

4) Should people be able to come along and simple remove videos without justification that anything is wrong with them? The claim that a video was missing 2 out of 4 features of DLB is simple false.[9] Sure it might not use the exact technical terms that someone else wants.

5) Volunteers are free to make these videos. Osmosis also has volunteers helping out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc, I don't think this is a good time for you to claiming falsehoods, when the sources are clear, and their text is still wrong. Surely, as a physician, you understand the importance of knowing and using the right terms in medicine? My response to your claim is on my talk page. So, which of those sources supports which of the inaccuracies in the video? (Hint, the way we write Wikipedia articles is we add a citation to each piece of text, for Verification-- I'd like to see how you explain, with Verifiability, just where they got these incorrect "exact technical terms".

Yes, WP:V needs to extend to videos, ELNO already does, and inaccurate videos should be deleted from articles just as we would any external link, source, or image ... based on consensus. It is not our job to help them fix their errors. It is our job to evaluate text and sources in articles, and remove that which is inaccurate. And "without justification"? Where are you getting that? You have been the only person slow edit warring these videos into articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Your "use" versus "them" terminology is not very useful. We are an open source community. Your claim that core symptoms were missing from the video was false. Many of your claims of grave issues with the DLM were also incorrect. But whatever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

References are not, in general, provided. See File:Epilepsy video.webm. No references. Also, Wikipedia has not supported end-of-text general references for oh, about a decade or more. You can't just stick a few random URLs (some of which aren't actually working when I click on them) on the end of an 8 minute video and wave your hands about. -- Colin°^Talk 08:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

First, I think that the link to the video, placing it as a reference should come out of the lead, for several reasons. But there is a structural issue with some of the above conversations, some of which seem to be saying that sources must be sourced.North8000 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There is unverifiable content in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinaCullen (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Except for the part that's been tagged for months, everything seems to be cited. What, specifically, do you have in mind? (And the best place to post that request would be at the article talk page, rather than at this page intended for improving, not applying, this policy.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The following phrase is in the "Self-published sources" section and it is not defined: "reliable third-party publications". It should be a hyperlink to its own definition. Or if it is not defined anywhere else then it should be clearly defined in the section. Note that I am saying "reliable third-party publications" -not- "third-party publications". If "reliable" cannot be qualified it needs to be removed from the sentence. This is a critical aspect of so-called "reliability" that impacts works that fall under "self-published sources". 68.129.183.213 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done WP:RS is where we describe reliability. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:@TransporterMan:In a RFC about a certain topic to gather support and oppose votes from users, does it require all supporters and opponents to provide proofs and citations for their arguments ? Gustmeister (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

RFCs are conducted on talk pages or project pages, not in the main (that is, article) namespace. The verifiability policy only applies to the main namespace (or stuff that gets transcluded into the main namespace, such as many templates). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h:Are you sure? Is this policy applied only to a main article ?

So, Do you know where could I ask about issues related to RFC ? Gustmeister (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of the verifiability policy states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."

There is a project page about RFCs, it's called Wikipedia: Requests for Comment. It has a talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h:Thanks. Gustmeister (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gustmeister: Everything said above is true, but there's a practical point that needs to be made. RFC's are not voting, they're just another means of coming to consensus. And just like in any other consensus discussion, opinions should (primarily) be weighed, not counted. That being the case, if assertions are called into question (or are likely to be called into question) the way to show that they're eligible to be included in mainspace is to cite them. Citing, while not required, helps to make your position the "weightier" one. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a blocked sock, User:TransporterMan, they won't reply. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bookworm8899. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm travelling and never thought to look. Thanks, Doug. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I've got a script that shows blocked usernames as struck through. Handy. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, this (strike-thru) is in "Preferences" setup now. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Enabled! And thanks to both of you for the tip, that'll be useful. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see WT:Manual of Style#Citing a bowdlerised source. This is kind of a side-issue of the "say where you got it" principle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should make it more clear that sources should a company content. Recently have noticed that many new editors add there source to the edit summaries or add a wiki link in reference tags to an article that has the source. We should be more clear that sourced should appear with the content added. This behavior is happening even when point here. I think a small addition could make this more clear. Under burden add a simple qualifier where it appears this to be added to the line and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution where it appears. We sort of say this in the second paragraph of burden....but I could be construed to mean only quotes. What do others think here?--Moxy (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually the "nutshell" uses the correct term, "inline citation", so your suggestion is better implemented by:

and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source

Of course, you can always find a luser who will provide an "inline citation" in the next section rather than "where it appears", but again even to your suggestion some smartass will reply: "Where it appeared? In this article, of course. And where did I add the citation? In this article, you asshole!" Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that WP:Nobody reads the directions, so adding that is pointless instruction creep. If these new editors are adding sources in an edit summary, then that's better than we usually did when I was a new editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The new improvement to <ref>...</ref> proposed at meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing/Call for feedback (May 2018) would obviate the need for the {{Rp}} template, as well as provide various other enhancements. The discussion is presently swamped by people who just don't like fully-inline citations and only want to use {{sfn}} and page-bottom referencing, but this is a false dichotomy. The discussion isn't about which citation style is better (the answer to that is "it depends on the article"); the question is whether this feature would be good to have for referencing that is fully inline, and the answer is clearly "yes". I would be delighted if my old {{Rp}} template was finally superseded by an actual (and more tidy) feature of MediaWiki itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The two sentences that currently include the phrase "directly supports" seems to have confused multiple people recently, so I spent a while in the archives and page history, and I have the following things to report:

1. This confusion wouldn't exist if we'd stuck with the language that User:SlimVirgin settled on in 2010: "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Note that there are two clearly separate requirements in that sentence: (1) "using an inline citation" and (2) "the source directly supports the material".
2. "Directly supports" has nothing to do with the location of the citation. If you want to say something that means "you have to have a little blue clicky number at the end of the exact sentence that I'm complaining about", then you need to use the phrase "inline citation" in both of these sentences (that detail is currently specified only in the first of the two sentences).
3. "Directly supports" is all about whether the content of the source actually says what the editor is claiming it says.

On that last point, I found this comment by User:Crum375 in June 2010 to be the most useful for understanding the point:

And that's the key: the person adding the challenged material must convince the others not just that a source exists, but that that source directly supports the material in question. For example, the source could support it only implicitly, if you read between the lines, but there is no way for us to decide that without seeing the actual quote and discussing it on the talk page. Similarly, if it's a translation, we need to see the translation so that editors can judge whether the source directly supports the material.

Note that Crum added this language to that particular sentence in April 2010; the sentence was revised by SV shortly afterwards, but not in ways that change the meaning. Since Crum added that language, I think we can safely assume that Crum's comment accurately indicates the actual intent.

In addition to other comments in the archives, this interpretation of the phrase is further supported by the even older sentence in a section currently titled ===What counts as a reliable source?===: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made". That sentence would not make any sense at all if you interpreted "Use sources that 'directly support' the material" it as "Use sources that 'are cited right where the material is'". It only makes sense if you understand "direct support" as "the source needs to actually contain the material that you're putting in the article: no fake refs, no making stuff up, no reading between the lines: either the claims are plainly and directly present in the source, or that source can't support that claim."

Having read all of this, I really think that there cannot be any further doubt that the "directly supports" language is entirely about NOR, and has nothing to do with the location of the citation. I think we should consider re-splitting the two requirements into two separate phrases (to clarify the meaning for future editors), and redundantly re-specifying an "inline citation" (to solve the problem that people are having with overly distal citations). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest detailing the specific proposed change? North8000 (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Claims that need to be verifiable fall into two categories:

1. Claims that are not direct quotations and are unlikely to be challenged just needs to be verifiable, but not necessarily supported by a citation.
2. Claimes that are direct quotations, have been challenged, or are likely to be challenged, must be supported by an inline citation that directly supports the material.

The passage in the policy in the "Responsibility for providing citations" section reads:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

This passage is confusing. More precisely, the burden that lies on the editor adding material is to know that the material is verifiable. If the material is unchallenged, unlikely to be challenged, and not a direct quote, the burden is satisfied if the editor knows, in her own mind, that the material is well-known and easy to look up. Only if the material is challenged, likely to be challenged, or a direct quote does the additional burden of supplying a citation exist, and in such cases, the citation must be inline. By failing to mention that citations, when required in this context, must be inline, the passage adds to the confusion.

Another point the policy fails to address is, if a claim that requires an inline citation appears more than once in an article (say, in the lead and also later in the article), is it necessary to provide the inline citation at all appearances? Many editors prefer to leave the lead as uncluttered as possible, and try to avoid citations in the lead. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When and where to put a citation is what this "directly supports" phrasing doesn't address. "Directly supports" means "the source actually said this, directly/clearly/plainly, and any educated (in the relevant subject area) person could read that source and determine that the source actually says whatever you're claiming that it says". "Directly supports" does not say anything about whether you need a citation at all, much less whether any citation needs to be inline, in the lead, after each instance, etc. "Directly supports" means that if the source says "Albert Einstein was a noted physicist", then you cannot use it to write "Albert Einstein was the most famous physicist in the world". The source doesn't "directly support" that claim, no matter where you stick the citation.

So perhaps, if necessary, we could add a footnote that says something like "A source 'directly supports' a claim if the claim in question is plainly present in the source, without violating WP:NOR. The location of a citation – including whether one is present in the article at all – is unrelated to whether the source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see WP:CITE, WP:CITELEAD, etc.". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of YouTubers#RFC: Should the article contain references to verify that the entries are YouTubers? for an RfC in the purview of this policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

With regards to:

Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

Does "any material" apply to entire articles? wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but for deletion of articles we have a special procedure. Formally an article, i.e., a webpage in Wikipedia, is not "material", but a container for the material on the subject. If you delete all its content, then an empty page will look kinda weird. BTW "may be removed" does not necessarily mean "must be removed". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Why are you asking, i.e., what issue are you trying to resolve? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is covered in WP:BLANK. If any material means all material on a particular article, the entire article should be deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking because of the closure of this AfD (there is some discussion on the talk page). wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That article was deleted because notability was not established. Lack or references and lack of notability are separate issues. References are required to establish notability, but the mere presence of references does not in or of itself establish notability. Articles with many references have been deleted because notability had not been established. - Donald Albury 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup... having lots of sources that do little more than say “this thing exists” does not establish what makes the thing notable. We need more than that. We need (independent) sources that tell us WHY the thing is notable. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: but the deletion summary precisely says that the article was deleted because of the lack of references, not the lack of notability. Notability is not mentioned in the deletion summary. wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I see what you are saying. I had looked at the discussion, not the closing comment. If I had closed that discussion, I would have said "delete because notability had not been established". In any case, I see no reason to overturn the result. Unless and until someone finds reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject, the article is not coming back. - Donald Albury 19:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure or displeasure: Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy.

Originated as a WP:Village pump (policy) post, now developed into an essay. Reception has been uniformly positive so far, though it's a bit of a mix of a list of issues and recommendations of what to do about them. I might split off the latter material to a userspace page at some point, especially if a key boldfaced item gets resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

These explanatory supplements are too verbose. That page is written like a discussion and I hope it doesn't make it into policy. In practical terms, if the existing policies lead to so much misunderstanding, shorten them and accentuate the correct behavior, don't add more hard-to-find lengthy "supplement" pages. Bright☀ 09:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Challenges should be from published reputable sources not just from 11 year old trolls seeking attention. Allowing anyone to to post unsourced challenges is the cause of many major failings of Wikipedia and causes the loss of many editors. For instance in a movie's historical accuracy section. Fighter escorts of allied Bombers of wwII didn't have the range go deep into Germany until later in the war and had to depart the bombers leaving them vulnerable to enemy fighters. A movie that emphasizes some other reason for fighters to depart would be historically inaccurate. As it is it seems anyone can challenge that entry and task the editor with a demand for a source. Source for what? The departure of the escort fighters because of range limits is widely published so should not be challenged. Is it a published source disputing the historical accuracy of the movie required? If so why does the challenger not need a published source for his challenge? I can make a long list of problems with unsourced challenges. Such challenges are a trick used to win wiki fights. There should be no unsourced challenges of widely published material or of basic math that supports some aspect of an article. Editors should not be tasked with finding sources for widely known facts to answer unsourced challenges. 98.164.72.24 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Challenges should be from published reputable sources No, sorry. A challenge should be made in good faith and that's it, putting hurdles on this process allows errors and uncertain information to persist needlessly. is widely published so should not be challenged If it's widely published then cite one, two, or even three sources that provide the information. There is no reason to resist citing the information if it's so easily citable. Editors should not be tasked with finding sources for widely known facts That is precisely what keeps Wikipedia accurate. Attempts to avoid citing information make Wikipedia less accurate and more prone to errors. Bright☀ 09:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Remember that your knowledge may not match someone else’s knowledge... what you assume is “widely known” may not actually be be as widely known as you assume. And if something is indeed “widely known”, then it should be easy to find a source that supports it. More importantly, finding and citing that source is MUCH easier than trying to argue with a nay-sayer in an attempt to convince him that the citation isn’t needed. My advice: don’t engage in wiki fights in the first place. If another editor wants to “fight” over something you write... don’t fight back. Let the Wookiee win. The quickest and least stressful way to resolve a challenge is to quietly search for, and add a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• And one more thing: The standard for inclusion in an article is verifiability, the concept being that anyone — even someone who is unaware that information is "widely published" — can check a citation to verify that what Wikipedia is saying is correct. We don't have a bunch of paid editors to do that fact checking, so it's everyone's responsibility to make sure that everything is verifiable by those who use the encyclopedia. Challenges must be easy in order to fulfill that goal. We've always been committed to the idea that things must be verifiable and that if they're not then, regardless of how important or urgent they may be, then they shouldn't be here. Challenges are how that goal is enforced so that any reader, regardless of sophistication, can be sure that our material is accurate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• "Widely published" is NOT a suitable criterion. With all so many aggregator sites there is plenty of junk that gets "widely published", but it's still junk. Inversely, content does NOT have to be "widely published" to be perfectly fine for inclusion.

As to "Editors should not be tasked with finding sources for widely known facts to answer unsourced challenges": if an editor does not have a source where he got something (aside from WP:BLUESKY, which is also challengeable), then just where did he get it from?

This anonymous editor's assertion that "challenges are a trick used to win wiki fights" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. The logged-out editor may understand quite a lot about Wikipedia, including the ways that "rules" get abused. The challenge system really is the worst possible system, except for all of the others that have been tried from time to time. Replacing it poses serious problems from both theoretical (e.g., the impossibility of finding a reliable source for each bit of obvious nonsense that someone adds) and value-driven (i.e., we want more citations, so we want a system that incentivizes people to add citations) perspectives, but it is not a cost-free system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be far too high of a bar. On the other hand, there is a common problem with POV warriors misusing the process to selectively knock out material in order to pursue their POV. They seldom do this about UNSOURCED material. It's usually done by a "domino" effect on SOURCED material, by nitpicking the fine points of the provided source. There would be a big improvement by a relatively simple answer. Persons utilizing the challenge wording, if asked, should be ready to say that they have a concern that the material may be un-verifiable in order for the challenge (on that basis) to remain in force. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we Discuss how to put an end to Syria war? DoniRex VGBG (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Nope... this page is for discussing Verifiability. SorryBlueboar (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinions are needed at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes. The discussion concerns whether or not it is fine to quote this source as much as desired without the use of quotation marks, and whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter.

On a side note: The Trypophobia article contains an image that some find distressing. So a heads up on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Permit access-date in absence of a URL

Gist: The |access-date= parameter in citation templates indicates the last date at which someone checked whether the cited source actually verifies the claim(s) to which it is attached as a reference. Presently, if the citation does not have a |url= parameter, not only is the display of the date suppressed, it is categorized as an error that people should remove. The RfC asks whether this is the appropriate course of action.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand that a rare book shouldn't be rejected as a source but offline sources create a verifiability burden that should be addressed. Anyone can verify online sources but paywalls and offline sources can be verified by few editors. I many times find that text doesn't match sources but likely I couldn't check offline and paywall sources. Thoughts? Thinker78 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How would you propose addressing this? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe creating a yellow superscript that indicates the special status of the text? Because really some sources may even be inaccessible to all except to the editor who posted it. Thinker78 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Almost nobody except editors ever looks at the sources, so a yellow superscript would introduce a difference (and the confusion that entails) without any real benefit for anyone except us, and we already know how to figure out which sources are paywalled or offline. Also, the status of a source varies by editor (it's available via Google Books in your country, but not mine) and by time (not searchable now, but it is searchable next time), so this would introduce a big maintenance hassle.

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Requests? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

On WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE, I don't see discussion of consequences of extreme negative outliers. (Think negative 'black swans'). Did I miss that?

What if 'mainstream' narrative is wrong and consequence of that error is enormous and negative? How does WP responsibly deal with that possibility? Humanengr (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We report such possibilities to the extent they have been discussed in reliable sources. We do not make our own assessments. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A black swan would — by definition — not be covered by RS; a grey swan would at best be given short shrift. Which brings us into a conundrum, given that the possibility of black swans and gray swans is RS.

WP policy as it stands stacks the deck irretrievably in denial, precluding mention of enormous negative consequences should the mainstream so-called 'reliable' narrative be mistaken. How can we best address that? Where should that discussion take place? Humanengr (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

For proposing major changes in core Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably the place to start. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you are beginning to "overstretch" yourself. In the beginning it was not allowed to cite information from encyclopedia. The reverse was that all articles felt back to "by one's own account". Now you want to verify that and be an encyclopedia. Useless. The fact that the encyclopedias are gone indicate that today it is impossible (perhaps useless) to create such thing.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just reactivated WikiProject Reliability, and amended its scope to include three main goals:

1. Improving the reliability of sources cited in articles
2. Contributing to discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard
3. Maintaining the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page

If you're interested, please feel free to add yourself as a participant of WikiProject Reliability. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments at User talk:Andrewa/Verifiable facts about non notable topics as to whether this new user essay is barking up the right tree. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Note there is a RSN discussion seeking input and policy clarification about a V and LEAD question.

Basically, a line was copied from one articles lead into another article. The lead it came from did not have cites, and the two articles do not have the same body so ... inputs are requested here.

p.s. Just to add to the fun, the first article arrived at the Lead line by RFC, so there's not text and cites there to draw from either. Current thoughts seem to be either to backfill with some cites in the lead, and/or to have the body wikilink to a third article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This page sometimes refers to "third-party" sources, but we actually mean "independent" sources. The difference can be illustrated in these examples:

• Bob sues Alice. If Alice loses, Alice's insurance company will pay the resulting damages.
  • Bob = first party, Alice = second party, Alice's insurance company = third party.
• Chris, Joe and Paul are campaigning to win a political office. Paul Politician insults Joe. Chris is a "third party" – he did not attack anyone, and he was not attacked – but he stands to benefit from the situation.

We would not accept Alice's insurance company or Chris as a desirable source (for most general statements), because they're not the sort of disinterested, uninvolved ("independent") sources that we prefer, even though they're formally a "third party". I therefore think that this page will be clearer if we swap the wording to "independent sources" (at least for me and my fellow dictionary-reading pedants. ;-)

If there are no objections, then I'll make the change another day, or anyone who gets to it before I can is welcome to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As promised six months ago, I'm making this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the change. In addition to third parties who are not independent, there are first parties who are independent. For example, a group of government astronomers published some observations 150 years ago. A pair of astronomers, who work for the same government, last year wrote a paper evaluating the observations. Technically both publications are by the same party, the government. But the modern astronomers are independent because they are under no pressure to come to any particular conclusions. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a disagreement over how to deal with a business whose establishment history is not directly verifiable. Talk:Hawks_PDX#Business_registration/business_establishment_month_and_year

Not so reliable source commented it's been "over 365 days" since the business opened announced the business was having an anniversary on April 29th, 2013. https://www.bathhouseblog.com/index.php/2013/04/20/hawks-pdx-celebrates-1-yr-anniversary/ (warning: possible inappropriate/18+ contents)

Well, the business' page itself and none of the sources I can find directly reports when the business opened. One of the editors went ahead and extrapolated a statement that the business opened in April 2012. Looking at the website that was referenced within that site, I've found the business had been entered in February 2012 in a consumer review site and there was a review dating back to March 2012. I investigated state records for business filing and found it was filed in July 2011, which is actually the only directly verifiable information regarding the start of this business. I inserted what I found into prose which is that a business registration was filed in July 2011. The article's creator vehemently opposed it. This matter became a problem, because a Wikipedian extrapolated information became the subject of a factual dispute. Our guideline calls for "directly verifiable" but I understand that community consensus can preempt it. The article's creator was insistent on adding the business into category for businesses established in 2012 while I favor omitting until direct verification is possible. To avoid becoming a source of errant information, my preference would be to limit discussion to the mention of the filing date, and/or reporting the anniversary event date reported by the source, but not try to even try to infer that the business opened in 2012. Given that the business filing was made with the state in July 2011, it's reasonably plausible that they were open for business prior to Jan 1 2012. I would like to get consensus on how we should generally deal with an uncertainty of this nature. Does this kind of extrapolation fall within the scope of disallowed original research? Graywalls (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting series of changes: [10][11][12] between User:Peacedance and User:TransporterMan, and I am a little sorry that there wasn't a thorough discussion on this page at the time. The change results in an instruction ("Base articles upon...") into a requirement ("Articles must be based upon...").

Now, when we say that an article is "based upon" a particular thing, we don't mean that it's the exclusive source. But if an article is "based upon" third-party/independent sources, we'd expect, usually, half or more of the content (but at least a significant fraction) to be verifiable in those WP:INDY sources, and perhaps the article would take its structure, focus, and/or tone from those sources.

We would say the same thing about other things, right? An article "based upon" secondary sources gets most, or at least a substantial amount of its content from secondary sources, and an article "based upon" academic sources gets most (or at least a lot) of its content from academic sources, and an article about a novel that is "based upon" the novel would (a) get a lot of its content from the book and (b) get a complaint about violating WP:NOTPLOT.

So far, so good, right? WP:NCORP has said exactly this for years, and when someone tosses up an article about a company that's sourced to its own website (and we can't easily find independent sources), then we take the article right back down (and ask them very nicely to stop spamming us).

But here's the (perhaps unforeseen) problem: WP:PROF does not agree with this position. I found 10 BLPs for academics, and I checked them against this requirement. At a glance, Allan Armitage, Michael G. Barbour, Randall James Bayer, Jane Haskett Bock, Lois Brako, William Carl Burger, Sherwin Carlquist, and Lynn G. Clark probably fail this requirement, and the other two (Daniel E. Atha and Terry B. Ball) aren't necessarily compliant, either. These articles are largely "based upon" the non-independent, non-third-party publicity-friendly bios on their employer's websites.

It seems to me that this change increases the distance between what the WP:V policy says and what the WP:PROF guideline advises. A conflict between these pages is not desirable. Is this a change that the community wants to make at this time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) — Newslinger talk 07:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• PROF not recognizing the need for independent sources has been a discordant tone for a long long time. Every other SNG requires it in varying degrees. The rationales for keeping those bios around have never been strong to me, and could easily be applied to many other topics which require stronger evidence to keep on Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Reverse these un-discussed changes. This will have unforseen consequences all over the place, strengthening WP's unfortunate tendency to rate a third-hand journalistic write-up of a press release etc over the press release itself. Sometimes this is correct, but usually not - today's black hole announcement is a good example. This is something one encounters all the time in art and archaeology, where the best sources on eg a work in a major museum are normally published by the museum itself. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think we could use a user-friendly guide regarding different sources, and examples of reasonable or tasteful applications as long as we make it clear that it's only educational and not a firm guideline. We also need to consider the possible motivation for including the source, such as increasing interest in the source, creator, or to bring traffic to the source. Source selection will always need editorial discretion and their appropriateness is often dependent on the purpose and what it is trying to support. As long as the credibility is not questionable, there are places and context where primary source is the best. Press release is a good source for augmenting details for something that has already been discussed in a secondary source. It's never a good source to make an excuse to add things that article subject would likely to get it out there for the world to see. If a news article discusses a planned acquisition of parts of a company B by company A, a press release from either company that says they divested consumer products division selling to company A, the press release is useful for filling in the details. If it wasn't announced by the press, using the press release to show off the business, it's not a good source. Graywalls (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Johnbod's reasoning, but I am not convinced that PROF (generally, notability is about all RS used and unused) is really the issue, for Allan Armitage in 1 second I found, "he's one of the giants of horticulture"[13], which is rather an add ref thing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• I was all right with the language being as it was before that series of changes were made, so am neutral as to it being changed back. I recognize the practicality of what Johnbod has said, but am more than a little uncomfortable with the argument that SOURCE is always permissive and non-mandatory, with that potentially becoming an issue every time a source is challenged as being unreliable. Frankly, the problem comes from the ambiguity of "should" in SOURCE. I think that it means (and did so at the time of my discussion with Peacedance), "must meet the following criteria except in those cases specifically listed below and maybe as specified in some other policies or guidelines". I don't think that it means "okay, the following is the best practice, but you don't have to do this and can argue whether a source is 'reliable' in whatever sense of that word you want to adopt every time a question of reliability arises". That, I would suggest, is a formula for madness, as appears to already be the case at PROF. The purpose of policies and guidelines is to set standards so that frequently-raised-issues such as "what is a reliable source" don't have to be reargued with potentially conflicting results every time a situation arises. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think the point is "primarily based." WP:PSTS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." But, clearly, it notes that primary sources may be used. It goes into how to use primary sources lower in the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Revert to original wording' I don't understand how two editors can just change the wording of a Wikipedia policy with no prior discussion. At the top of each policy page, it clearly states "Changes made to it should reflect consensus." The first change seems to have been made because one editor thought that something in "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" could be misread as a noun. How? There would be no verb if 'base' was a noun (and what would 'base articles' be anyway?) The reason for the initial change seems to me absurd - and the consequence of that change was an argument between 'must' and 'should'. Why not just go back to the original instruction?

I don't see that WP:ACADEMIC is particularly relevant - the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes are quite clear about what counts for verifying notability. For biographical info, university websites may not be completely independent of their staff, but they are "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as any false claims on staff profiles affect the reputation of the whole institution. (I agree with Johnbod's comments about the questionable reliability of media write-ups, but that is what Wikipedia has decided, and I think discussion of that is a different, and much bigger, question than this one of reverting changes made with no discussion, let alone consensus.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Two editors can do that because it's specifically allowed under the Policy policy. Moreover, when a policy is closely watched by a large number of editors — as this one is — then the presumption that BOLD or other undiscussed edits are supported by the silent consensus of the watchers, and thus the community, is even stronger than it is on some article about some obscure topic. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A bit off-topic about your reasoning here: when there's assumed consensus through silence, it can no longer be assumed the moment the silence is broken. Bright☀ 08:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not consider lack of input to be a silent consensus. I just spent more time reading this that a typical contributor might and still don't know what the issue is. Adding to that is that the talk page section appears to be mislabeled in relation to the issue in the original diffs, and from the discussions it appears that there is more to this somewhere else which potential participants are not being told about. Hence,no participation. Just looking at the diffs, "Base articles on" to "Articles should be based on" looks like a change from best grammar to non-best grammar, with no significant change in meaning. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As this is a core policy page, we should strive to state things in absolutes, for clarity. "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." states a clear, core value on Wikipedia and draws a fairly clear line in the sand as far as what content we do and don't want on the encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A rule requiring articles to be "based" on "independent" sources would be a very poor rule, because the words "based" and "independent" are very vague and undefined. People will be arguing about those words forever. Leviv ich 18:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Then we'll progressively find better words until few people disagree. That's the case with "should" vs "must" above. "Should" leaves far more open to interpretation. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." Errr. While translating quotes is good practice, this sentence is IMHO worded too strongly. I suggest rewording it as a suggestion for best practice rather then a 'you must!' (or else, what? Are we going to block someone for not providing a translation? :> Or remove the untranslated quote?). To be clear, I strongly agree that translating a quote is best practice, but TBH, in the age of better and better machine translation this is less and less necessary anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

By allowing foreign sources, the editor adding such should provide the translation, especially as it signals to the rest of us what how they interpret the source material. Not requiring the translation makes sneaky vandalism too easy and we as a community have a right to determine the competency of our fellow editors. Changing the language as you suggest evinces laziness. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between a word-for=word "translation" (like a dictionary, e.g., Google translate) and an informed "interpretation" (like a certified interpreter) of the quotes meaning. Doing the latter does not indicate "laziness" or "vandalism." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Articles are written in English. The quote is part of the article. Therefore foreign language quote should be translated into English by a person familiar with both English and the foreign language; this translator could be the editor who added the quote. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Piotr, it doesn't say "you must!" It says "you should". And since I was involved in the last re-write of that, I can tell you with great authority that the meaning of the word should in that sentence is identical to the meaning in RFC 2119: "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." "Valid reasons" for not providing a translation include, but are not limited to, the quotation already being fully explained in the article's text, a non-English phrase being common in that subject area, or the editors decide that a translation feels rather pointless. In that last category, imagine that you're including a brief quotation only because the source is offline, and that's the WP:CITEVAR style editors chose for that article, but the quotation itself is very simple and easily handled by machine translation (like "Bolaño murió en 2003", to support a claim that he died in 2003). We aren't asking you to do stuff that feels stupid. We're asking you to make articles accessible to people who aren't as linguistically skilled as you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the history of the first sentence of WP:V#Reliable sources:

Feb 2006: Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources who have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Oct 2006: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

2009: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

2011: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Jan 2019: Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Apr 2019: Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

There has been talk page discussion about this sentence in 2011, 2012, 2013 (here, here, and multiple threads here), 2015, and 2016. Although it was discussed repeatedly, it seems the 2011 version had remained unchanged for about eight years, until January 2019.

I have restored the 2011 version because the 2019 changes lack consensus. I don't think we should insert a "must", or change "third party" to "independent", in a core policy, without following WP:TALKFIRST's guidance that Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general. Leviv ich 18:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Levivich: You placed this section under the wrong heading - the specific change you just reverted was discussed under #Small technical change to wording, so I suggest moving this there. I also oppose your revert. The "third-party" word was replaced with "independent" as a result of the WP:Third-party sources page moving to WP:Identifying and using independent sources for good reason, because "third-party" is somewhat inaccurate. I also object to this revert of yours because its clearly as a result of your vote in an RfC, so you're moving the goalposts by messing with a core policy page. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrt the heading issue, I've promoted this to a level 2 header, and I'll note the specific edits I reverted were the two 2019 edits diff'd above, and they are the subject of the threads on this page titled #Small technical change to wording and #Must and should. Wrt moving the goal posts, I am moving them back to where they were 2011–2019. Wrt to the RfC, your entire RfC is predicated on the "independent" language that was added less than a month ago. These are bold changes that I'm reverting per WP:BRD, and I think if these changes are to be made (adding "must", or changing "third party" to "independent"), these are substantive changes that require an WP:RfC at WP:VPP per the WP:TALKFIRST language I quoted above. Netoholic has reverted me, so I'm not going to edit war over it, I'll leave it to other editors to decide. Leviv ich 18:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Changing the text from "third-party" to "independent" is largely housekeeping. WP:Third-party sources was merged/redirected into WP:IS back in 2016. -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

      I don't think it's a housekeeping matter, I think it's a substantive change. I read XOR'easter and Masem express similar opinions at WT:Notability (academics)#Break 1, the discussion about this that was had prior to your opening that RfC. Leviv ich 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think that it housekeeping. While I think that some future evolution in this area may be good (e.g. to include "objective") I think that "independent" is a huge and bad change. It could start a wikilawyering extravaganza of knocking out good-for-the-purpose sources.North8000 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I wish Netholic would refrain from editing any policy. All changes should result from discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, so we can properly understand your objection to basing articles on "independent" sources (rather than "third-party" sources), would you please explain what you think the difference is? Feel free to give a hypothetical example of an article that would be ideally based upon non-independent, third-party sources. That would probably be particularly helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(partial cross-post) My understanding is:

1. First-party source: [14]
2. Third-party non-independent source: [15]
3. Third-party independent source: [16]

Example of the difference in action: an academic's university profile is third-party but not independent. Can we cite to it for facts? Can we use it to establish notability under NPROF? If the language is "third party", the answer is yes. If the language is "independent", the answer is no. I understand that some editors have taken the view that "third party" is a synonym for "independent", and thus in my example, the university would not be considered "third party". I disagree with this view (and I don't think English dictionary definitions or usage supports it, either). I also want to point out while I'm here that when most editors say "independent" what they actually mean is "interested". For example, in the classic car crash hypothetical: the driver is first-party. The driver's spouse, who is in the car, is a third-party interested witness. The pedestrian on the sidewalk who witnesses the crash is a third-party disinterested witness. Using terms like "independent" instead of "interested" muddle the meaning IMO. Leviv ich 20:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The consequence of this interpretation extends far beyond PROF. We would have to start accepting corporate profiles, book profiles from publisher sites, posts about music artists on their label's website - these are all places that could reference awards or honors, but obviously have a financial, legal, or intellectual interdependence on the subject. I find "interested" far more vague than independent. A newspaper article about any topic could be described as "interested" in it. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We already accept such sources, see, e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF. A newspaper article–or, rather, a newspaper–is not "interested" in the subject of its reporting, and cannot be, as that would be a violation of journalistic ethics. For example, a journalist can't write a story about a company the journalist owns stock in, without disclosing that. Leviv ich 20:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you've got that quite right. An academic's university profile is not a third-party source.

In your example, the driver's spouse could be a third party, and the insurance company is a third party. The witness on the sidewalk is not any party at all. (The person the car hit, or the owner of whatever the car hit, is the second party.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, semantics aside, the point is that an academic's university profile can be used as a source for information about the academic, and it can also be used as a source to establish notability under NPROF. If the university profile says "Levivich is President of the University", there is no reason on earth to doubt that this is true, and no reason we can't use it as a source. The WP:V policy shouldn't say otherwise (and, currently, it does say otherwise). Leviv ich 20:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We cannot push semantics aside; the whole point of this discussion is semantics. Are we going to say that PROF is wrong because it encourages people to build BLP articles from first-party sources, or are we going to say that PROF is wrong because it encourages editors to build BLP articles from non-independent sources? There are no options in WP:V's history that end up with PROF being correct about building articles from faculty bios on university webpages, so the only question left is whether we use the journalistic concept of 'independence' (which Jc3s5h convinced me years ago is ultimately clearer) or the legalistic concept of multi-party lawsuits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oxford: a person who is involved in a situation in addition to the two main people involved

Cambridge: a third person or organization less directly involved in a matter than the main people or organizations that are involved and a person who is not one of the two main people involved in an argument or legal case

Meriam-Webster: a person other than the principals

Dictionary.com: any party to an incident, case, quarrel, etc., who is incidentally involved

Collins: someone who is not one of the main people involved in a business agreement or legal case, but who is involved in it in a minor role, (British) a person who is involved by chance or only incidentally in a legal proceeding, agreement, or other transaction, esp one against whom a defendant claims indemnity, (American) a person in a case or matter other than the principals

Re my example below: the Pulitzer Committee's press release is first-party for Pulitzer, second-party for Levivich; Levivich's blog entry is first-party for Levivich, second-party for Pulitzer; the University's press release is third-party for both Pulitzer and Levivich, under every definition of "third party" of which I am aware. It's not the University that is receiving the prize, the University is not the first or second party of that transaction. The University is third party, though it's not independent or disinterested. I can't prove this, but I'm inclined to think that, for the 13-year history of the language "third party" being used in this sentence, up until last month, the thousands of editors who read it and implemented it probably thought that it meant "third party" in the dictionary sense, and not in some other non-dictionary sense, like as a synonym for "independent". Leviv ich 21:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

...and exactly zero of those definitions indicate that a university is a third-party with respect to its own staff, and therefore exactly zero of those definitions indicate that the profile written by the university, on its own website, about its own faculty members, could possibly be a third-party source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

All those definitions indicate that if the University issues a press release that says, "Levivich won a Pulitzer", that press release would be a third-party source (since it's not saying "we won a Pulitzer" nor "we gave a Pulitzer", it's not first-party or second party). Same if the University profile page says "Levivich won a Pulitzer". Leviv ich 21:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say a university is neither third-party nor independent with respect to an academic at the university. If the academic wins acclaim, the university bathes in the reflected glory. If the academic obtains a grant, some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, to the university.

The distinction between "first party" and "third party interested", if it makes any sense at all, could only be deciphered in the context of a financial transaction, where there are actual legal parties. Using "third party" outside of a financial transaction is a loose metaphor which cannot survive close analysis. Which is another reason to use "independent" rather than "third party"; we shouldn't base one of our most important policies on loose metaphors.

Finally, I object to the concern about notability. This is the verifiability policy, not the notability policy. Leviv asked "Example of the difference in action: an academic's university profile is third-party but not independent. Can we cite to it for facts? Can we use it to establish notability under NPROF?" If the word in this policy is "independent" then the academic's university profile is a primary source, which can be used to support facts, but with care. As for using the profile to establish notability, this policy doesn't care; it isn't the notability policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

When a professor receives a grant, the university is an "interested third party". "Interested third party" and "disinterested third party" are terms I commonly hear in all sorts of contexts. Maybe it's different in different parts of the world, but this is the usage of the words I'm familiar with. As to notability, right now, WP:V#Notability says "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and people like Netoholic are arguing that at AfD, it's "core policy" that all articles must have non-independent sources to survive deletion. This is why I investigated how this language got to be this way in the first place, and why I reverted it back to the 2011–2019 language, and why I think it should stay at the status quo until there's a VPP RfC to change it. Leviv ich 20:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether the university is a first-party or third-party to a grant depends upon the wording of the contract. I've seen both. However, there is no world in which the university is a third party to its faculty, in its own relationship with its faculty. And that relationship is the only one that matters when we're talking about what the employer wrote on its website about its employee. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppose a Pulitzer press release and a University press release are the only two sources that exist that say Professor Levivich won the Pulitzer Prize in 2019. Can we use either or both to !vote keep at Levivich's AfD? Can we use either or both for the sentence "Levivich won the Pulitzer Prize in 2019" in any article? Leviv ich 21:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Strictly for notability and whether the article should be part of Wikipedia - those sources should not factor in. They can, though, support that statement reasonably reliably - in the capacity of expanding the article. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, I really don't think you get what the SNGs are saying across the project. Where a criterion, such as receiving a notable prize, is met (as documented by a source which is not independent of the prize - and why would it be) - then that contributes to the presumption of notability per the SNG concerned. Then, per the GNG, it is also necessary to have independent RS to source the article - all BLPs, in particular, must have independent sources. (A BLP where the only piece of RS information was that the subject received a Pulitzer, for example, would not be a viable article.) This is literally the whole difference between the presumption of Notability per a SNG, and the GNG requirements. So of course these awards count towards the SNG presumption of Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really. With the exception of PROF, the SNGs are saying that if you meet these criteria, there will almost certainly be enough independent sources to justify an article. Look for words like "presumed" and "rebuttable presumption" in those SNGs. PROF is the only one that has steadfastly resisted that approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, are you giving up on the idea that a profile page on the university's website isn't ever going to be a third-party source for the prof? I'd consider that progress, but I'm not sure whether you've switched to unlikely examples (the number of Pulitzer Prizes awarded, but never mentioned in newspapers can safely be assumed to be zero) because you're abandoning the idea of basing articles on university profile page, or because you're desperately searching for any example that would make the university be a third-party to its own faculty. So, just in case it's the second, then let me point out that if you do find a press release that could be credibly claimed to be a third-party, then WP:BLP would forbid you from using it (because we do not accept self-published, third-party sources for anything at all about a living person). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm comfortable with my understanding of the meaning of the phrase "third party", and I've quoted five dictionary definitions above that support my understanding of that meaning. When an academic receives an award, a statement published by the academic's university reporting on that award (whether it's a bio page or a press release or whatever) is a statement from a "third party", in the regular English dictionary meaning of that term (unless the university is giving the award). So a university's website can be a "third party" source for information about, for example, the university's employees. Whether it's an acceptable source for an article doesn't really depend on my understanding of the meaning of words like "third party", but rather on community consensus. So I think that, yes, we should accept a university website profile page as a source for basic biographical information. For example, if the university profile page says the person is the president of the university, I think it should be OK to cite to the profile page for the statement "so-and-so is president of such-and-such university". I also think that the university profile page should be considered a suitable source to establish that so-and-so meets NPROF by virtue of being president of a university (assuming it's a "major" university). The university is a reliable source of information about its president, deans, faculty, etc. Leviv ich 22:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Being a third-party to an event (the awarding of a prize) does not make the university a third-party with respect to the people involved. (Also, as noted below, you couldn't use that source in practice, because BLP forbids it.)

The question about independence and PROF has never been about reliability. We expect all organizations, from the grandest university right down to your local coffee shop, to be reliable sources for some kinds of information about their staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In the example I gave, they're not a "third party to an event", they're a "third party" to a transaction between two parties (the award giver and the award receiver). See the definitions of third party above. This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it. "Third party" means "involved but not first or second party". Leviv ich 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A transaction is a type of event. (An event is "something that happens", and transactions are one of the many kinds of "things that happen". Not "event" like "fancy party".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Right. And the university did not participate in the hypothetical event of an academic receiving an award. That's why the university would be a third party source for information about that event: because it's not a participant in the event. That's what the dictionaries say. I'm beating a dead horse here so I'm going to disengage now. Leviv ich 23:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't quit yet; you're almost there.

So Award Association gave an award to Alice Expert, who was employed by Big University at the time. Big U self-publishes something about the event. And then Alice died, because we need to get around the BLP ban on third-party self-published sources about living people. Now what?

The Big U publication is third-party to the event (at most; they could be considered entirely independent, depending upon all the facts and circumstances), but Big U is not third-party to Alice. Their publication about the event could be evidence of notability for an article specifically about the event ("Awarding of Whatever to Alice Expert"), but it still cannot be used as evidence of notability for an article on "Alice Expert", because Big U is not third-party to Alice.

In short: I think you'll find that it's more complicated than you expected. This is about real-world relationships, with all of their infinite variety and complexity and shades of gray. The same source can mention people and organizations with which the author has first-party relationships, third-party relationships, and non-relationships. You have to evaluate those sources in the context of what you want to use. So, yes: Let's say that's a third-party relationship to the event. That's still not a third-party relationship to Alice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to use Big U's press release as a source for the statement "Alice received Award". Moreover, I think we can use Award Association's press release as a source for the same statement, too, even though that would be neither third party nor independent. A real-world example would be that we can use statements by the National Academy of Sciences about who is an NAS fellow, either to verify such claims in an article, or to establish the fellow's notability. In other words, we could write an entire article about a NAS fellow sourced only to an NAS-published profile. There are no reliability concerns, because an NAS fellow is definitely notable, and NAS is the best possible source for who is and isn't a fellow of NAS. This exact point about using NAS as a source for notability is being raised over at the NPROF RfC by multiple editors, and the same point applies for verifiability (i.e., verifying the statement that so-and-so is an NAS fellow) as it does for notability (i.e., establishing that someone meets NPROF by virtue of being an NAS fellow). (Similarly, the NAS statement would be a primary source, but that's still OK, as many articles are based entirely on primary sources.) Leviv ich 00:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems very WIKILAWYER to me. It seems to me that the point about BLP limitations on SPS is to prevent biased, defamatory, COI or inaccurate information from appearing in some of our most sensitive articles. To say that an institution (or a grant-awarding agency) can't be cited in a BLP as saying that a grant was awarded, in direct contravention of WP:V, USESPS and COMMONSENSE, strikes me as a direct contravention of BURO and ENC. What would motivate us to interpret BLP that way?

WP:N, as I have noted elsewhere, is a beast of a slightly different hue. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Our usual method of dealing with this (this problem comes up all the time for for-profit corporations and political parties) is to just admit that Big U. is not really a third-party for anything connected to Alice, but Levivich is insisting that they need to be. So he can choose that it's third-party and therefore completely un-usable under BLP (because it's self-published), or he can choose that it's not third-party and therefore no good for notability. What he can't have is a declaration that it's third-party wrt Alice for notability rules but not third-party wrt Alice for BLP rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a WP:BLPSPS issue because Big U's press release is not a self-published source. That Big U is "third-party" to Alice also means Big U's press release about Alice isn't a self-published source (it's not published by Alice). Hence, the longstanding 2011–2019 version of the language was not in conflict with BLPSPS or NPROF. Leviv ich 00:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, self-published means that the author is also the publisher.[17][18][19][20][21] The contents, and all other considerations (number of lawyers involved, date it happened on, whether it's on paper or not...), are irrelevant. Self-published status is a simple, two-question thing: One, Did X write it? Two, Did X publish it? If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", then it's self-published. Otherwise, it's not. Therefore: If Big U. both wrote and published something (press release, blog post, plaque on a building...), then it is self-published. (Perhaps you were thinking of something else?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We really should trash the whole thing and just say "objective and knowledgeable with respect to the article text which cited it". North8000 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Independent sources need not be objective. If a famous reviewer said she liked a movie, that is not an objective conclusion, but the information can nevertheless be included in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

She is objective and expert on stating what she likes. So, under my idea, a good source to support "she said the movie was good" but not a suitable source to support "the movie was good". Yes, it would be a big change, IMO for the better. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, that's all encapsulated in the word "reliable". Articles must be based on reliable sources. is all that needs saying. The encyclopedia's content is so varied (encompassing, as it does, every possible topic) that it is counterproductive to attempt to dictate a one-size-fits-all definition of "reliable" in a policy. Sometimes it means secondary, sometimes it means independent, sometimes it doesn't. I trust editors will determine what "reliable" means for particular articles, particular facts, and particular sources. We can have subject-specific guidelines to help, if needed. Leviv ich 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing wp:reliable sources with actually reliable sources. Wp:rs just requires certain trappings, not actual reliability. Nowhere in policy or guidelines is actual reliability a requirement to be a wp:rs.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic and Levivich: the confusion is not between "third party" and "independent". The confusion has developed between "independent" and "secondary". What we need are secondary sources: uninvolved sources, sources one step removed. A driver has a car accident; statements from the driver and any witnesses are primary sources. A newspaper writes about the accident; that newspaper article is a secondary source.

Primary versus secondary is the distinction that matters.

At some point, editors started calling secondary (or "third party") sources "independent", and that's okay; it's perhaps easier to understand. Unfortunately, people began reinterpreting and over-complicating it. That has led to a confusing plethora of essays. Now, at PROF, it seems that people are interpreting "independent" to refer to primary sources not written by the subject. That's a misunderstanding of the sourcing policies. It's therefore important not to cause any further confusion on this page. The notability guidelines are supposed to use the definitions in the policies and not invent their own or base definitions on essays.

Here is a basic definition from the anthropologist Ruth Finnegan, emeritus professor at the Open University (bold added):

When considering how researchers use documentary sources to collect and analyze evidence, one of the most commonly invoked distinctions is between "primary'" and "secondary" sources. Historians and others conventionally regard as primary sources those that were written (or otherwise came into being) by the people directly involved and at a time contemporary or near contemporary with the period being investigated. Primary sources, in other words, form the basic and original material for providing the researcher's raw evidence. Secondary sources, by contrast, are those that discuss the period studied but are brought into being at some time after it, or otherwise somewhat removed from the actual events. Secondary sources copy, interpret or judge material to be found in primary sources. Thus, the Magna Carta would be a primary source for the history of thirteenth-century England, while an account of thirteenth-century politics by a twentieth-century historian would be a secondary source. Both can be useful – but they are different. There are many possible controversies over detailed definition here, but by and large the distinction between primary and secondary material is widely accepted as a fundamental one, defined in terms of the "contemporaneity" of the source and closeness to the origin of the data. — Ruth Finnegan (2006). "Using Documents" in Roger Sapsford, Victor Jupp (eds.). Data Collection and Analysis. Sage Publications/Open University, p. 142.

A university announcing a staff appointment is a primary source. It is talking about itself and one of its employees. Not one part of that text has been written (copied, interpreted or judged) by someone uninvolved; indeed some of the text may well have been written by the employee who is the subject of the announcement. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppose Oak Ridge National Laboratory writes a press release about its employee receiving an award from the local chapter of the YWCA. [22] Is that a secondary source? What if Oak Ridge writes a press-release-profile about one of its employees as part of a series of profiles about select employees: [23], is that a secondary source? What about Oak Ridge's straight bio page [24], is that secondary? Can any of these sources be used for facts in an article? It's unclear under Finnegan's definition; Oak Ridge is not "directly involved" in the YWCA award, so it seems that press release is secondary. The bio seems primary. The profile seems primary for some things (things at Oak Ridge) and secondary for others (not at Oak Ridge, such as navy service and education). (Under Finnegan's definition.) Leviv ich 22:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence in the Finnegan quote is the key to answering your question: all of those would be primary sources on the timescale of history, because all of them, "in terms of the "contemporaneity" of the source and closeness to the origin", are contemporaneous sources. This is why people like User:Blueboar come around and remind me that while encyclopedias might be tertiary sources in general, the ancient ones are primary sources, because we use them to learn what people thought at that time, rather than what really is true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What is going on, though? Per WP:SPS and WP:USESPS, the relevant policy and explanatory supplement, it is fine to document facts from either primary or secondary SPS under appropriate circumstances as defined therein. The only issues seem to arise in the case of Notability per WP:N and NBLP but this point seems to have been obscured Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Levivich, you may be mixing up notability and verifiability. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Note however that, per policy, Notability is simply Verifiability using (at least some) independent sources. It isn't supposed to have any additional "mystical" qualities. It seems to me that the struggle against paid editing by NCORPs has tended to obscure this point, when what was needed in this case was basically just bright lines around COI. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If a "primary" source is defined as one that is contemporaneous, and we don't allow articles to be "based" on such primary sources, then we couldn't have the article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because everything that's been written about her has been written contemporaneously. That would be an absurd result. The language of WP:V affects notability insofar as WP:V purports to set rules about what articles "must" be "based on", which is what the language currently says. WP:V#Notability, right now, says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. If you change the word "independent" to "secondary", you will eliminate the article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If we keep the word "independent" in there, it is inconsistent with WP:NPROF (see Netoholic's campaign for an example of the disruption this inconsistency can cause). I suggest there's a reason "third party" has been stable for so long, and that reason is that "third party" is a better term than either "independent" or "secondary" (or, better yet, we should use no term at all). Look at Netoholic's most-recent NPROF RfC right now, and you'll see a dozen editors unanimously agreeing that "must be based on independent sources" is not a requirement for an article. Leviv ich 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What's going on, really, is that an enthusiastic editor, whose account is only about six months old, is trying very hard to find a way to say that there's no WP:PGCONFLICT, even though everyone around him says that there is a conflict, that we all know about the conflict, that we have all known about that conflict for years, and that we're not really in any sort of a rush to fix it.

The reason this page specifically comes in for this multi-page dispute is because it says that notability requires independent sources (as does WP:NOT; I haven't dared to see whether this dispute has spread there yet. It is not always a friendly forum for a nice chat). He thought that changing it to "third-party" sources would get him out of PGCONFLICT jail, but that doesn't work, because there's almost no practical difference among non-self-published sources, and, anyway, BLP outlaws the use of the self-published third-party sources that he hopes will solve his problem. One thing that basically all editors agree upon is that you cannot use a source to prove notability when BLP won't allow you to cite that source in the resulting article. Switching to a primary/secondary distinction would actually mean declaring a lot more profs ineligible for BLPs. (Whether that would be a good or bad outcome, of course, is a matter of personal opinion, but I suspect that this would not be his intended outcome.) For myself, I have been through these conversations several times before, and it's my belief there's a conflict, and that the community is not yet ready to resolve it.

Notability is not merely a matter of verifiability in independent sources. A subject is eligible for an article ("notable" in wikijargon) if all of three conditions are met. Verifiability is only the first. It must also not conflict with WP:NOT, and editors must agree not to merge the contents to a different article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pardon my naivete, but how would any article that meets the appropriate SNG, NBIO and the GNG, and that does not contain either attack content or puffery, run afoul of NOT? Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Pokémon test characters are the canonical answer to your question. Less colorfully, a telephone-directory-style listing of hotels in a given area can be strictly non-puffy and still fall afoul of NOT (specifically, the WP:NOTDIRECTORY section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any Pokemon characters or lists of hotels that meet NBIO, I would be very interested in hearing about it. :p Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I never mentioned PGCONFLICT and I don't know what you mean by "out of PGCONFLICT jail". All I'm really saying is that this sentence was stable from 2011–2019 and if you want to change it, start an RfC at VPP. I actually don't think there is any conflict or confusion about the 2011–2019 version of the sentence, and hence I don't think it should be changed. Leviv ich 23:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Switching to a primary/secondary distinction": but we wouldn't be switching. That is the distinction the policy makes. See WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 23:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I only mean that it'd be a change for this particular policy page, not for the whole of Wikipedia's ruleset. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, WhatamIdoing, over at WT:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability, a slew of editors are rejecting adding either "secondary" or "independent" to NPROF as a requirement. That's notability not verifiability, but it's indication that editors do not believe that all articles "must be based on" either secondary or independent sources. I know Sarah thinks it should be "secondary" and WAID thinks it should be "independent", but have you both considered the possibility that the community at large thinks it should be neither? This is why I think if "third party" is to be changed to either "independent" or "secondary", it should be done with an RfC at VPP. Leviv ich 23:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that's what you'd expect from the regulars there. That page is largely followed by editors who really, really, really don't want to be constrained by those rules (and it would be a serious constraint), and the very specific RFC proposal isn't as well-written as some other ideas that have been considered. Other than giving an editor a chance to back down from a rather smear-y statement, I don't intend to participate.

Also, it's normal to hold RFCs about this policy's contents here, rather than at the Village Pump. The Village Pump would be a good place for an RFC about a general question affecting multiple pages (e.g., "Should all policies and guidelines say this about all article subjects?") but it's not usual for a question about a single page to be held there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The RfC can be held here, but it should be promoted to the wider community, e.g., a pointer from VPP to a thread on this talk page, following WP:TALKFIRST's guidance that Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general. "Publicized to the community in general" obviously means something more than just, as you did above at #Small technical change to wording, posting a message here and seeing if anyone objects before making the change. Leviv ich 00:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving us permission to use Wikipedia's normal processes for this page.

All RfCs are promoted to the wider community. That's how they work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! So we're finally in agreement, then: you'll revert your changes, and run an RfC? Leviv ich 00:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My change (note the singular) was already fully in compliance with Wikipedia's normal processes. I gave people an opportunity to comment for six months (and two days) before making that change. There were more than 1,000 page views here just during the first month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But you didn't post an RfC or list it at WP:CENT, and you titled your thread "Small technical change". I don't think you followed the spirit or letter of WP:TALKFIRST. I understand you acted in good faith thinking it was a small uncontroversial change, because you think third party and independent have the same meaning, and before me nobody apparently complained about it. But since I've complained, I can count four editors (myself included) who have expressed agreement that it's a major change not a small technical one. So, I think we should go back to the 2011–2019 stable version, and an RfC, with a pointer at VPP and probably listed at CENT, should be run before changing any part of the sentence. Leviv ich 00:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No. This line exists verbatim at WP:No original research#Using sources using the word "independent" since July 2018 by Dayirmiter. Apart from your intent to change it here today as a result of the academics RfC, no one had challenged the change to "independent". A formal RfC wasn't needed by WhatamIdoing, as he was correctly, reasonably sure that this was a more-or-less simple housekeeping change. -- Netoholic @ 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The line in WP:V#Reliable sources right now is Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This line does not exist verbatim at WP:OR or anywhere else. This line was changed in 2019, as I diff'd at the beginning of this thread, and people have been complaining, including in the previous thread #Must and should. Let's ping those participants and see if they support my reversion to the 2011–2019 version: Johnbod, Izno, Alanscottwalker, TransporterMan, Flyer22 Reborn, RebeccaGreen, Graywalls, BrightR, and Newslinger. Leviv ich 01:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:No original research#Using sources, second paragraph: "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Exactly where I linked to. -- Netoholic @ 01:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring back to SlimVirgin's initial post in this "Break" section, I wouldn't want to put too much emphasis on "secondary" over "independent" because the meaning of "secondary" varies by discipline. If we followed the meaning in history, we couldn't write any articles about anything after the year 2000 or so. I understand that in some science circles, any article published in a decent peer-reviewed journal is considered secondary. I think our understanding of "independent" is better than our understanding of "secondary". Jc3s5h (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's perhaps have that discussion on another day. It's really complicated, and this page is already a mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW I do appreciate you helping me thoroughly flesh out my ideas on this subject. Leviv ich 00:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Although not specifically related, WP:NORG does a good job of explaining dependent vs independent; and WP:IINFO briefly discusses verifiable doesn't guarantee inclusion. Primary or dependent sources aren't prohibited but some take that as a go ahead to write an article that is a written collage that assemble sources together to embellish positive and favorable contents. In general, there are two meanings to reliable sources on Wikipedia. First is for admissibility in reliably establishing notability; and second for reliability in fact-checking. The definition of "based on" is a controversy of its own. The wording could use expansion on definition of "based on" but "must be based on secondary sources" without further qualification doesn't reflect the general standing consensus in my opinion and I can't support that wording. Graywalls (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to answer the ping, I prefer WAID's use of independent. That aside, I'm positively flabbergasted at the tone of the discussion from multiple, experienced, users who seem to have created a walled garden for academics to not pass our core content policies, as well as the walled-garden that exists which leaves that particular guideline as one of the errant notability guidelines not requiring independent sourcing. Many of them wear anti-PAID and -COI hats on a regular basis too! --Izno (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: it's the use of "independent" that has caused this problem, because it's too malleable. "Secondary" is much less fluid, and it's defined by scholarly sources. That's why we should stick to the primary/secondary distinction. I'm not arguing that looking at independence has no place, but editors have to learn to walk before they can run, and the problems here are caused by editors who are (a) using these terms in radically different and confusing ways, and/or (b) focusing only on what they want to achieve in one situation, forgetting that Wikipedia is a complex ecosystem, and that change that seems good to you in one place can lead to change that's bad in another. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jc3s5h that most editors have a better grasp of independent than of secondary. If you ask them whether a statement by Monsanto about their herbicide is independent, then almost all of them are pretty good at figuring out that it's not. But if you ask them whether that statement is secondary – that's much harder for most editors.

I also want to echo Sarah's point about this ecosystem being complex. Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard in general, but this particular area has some non-obvious pitfalls. It is very easy to change a sourcing policy to say (for example) that BLPs should be based upon what the subjects what to say about themselves, and then end up with a policy that says multinational companies can have articles for every single product they've ever produced. (Or you push the policy in the other direction, and accidentally ban articles about experimental drugs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

And WP:NOR says (at WP:PSTS): "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

This is the policy of the English Wikipedia. If there are no secondary or tertiary sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is why the statement in this policy is entirely wrong of confusing, it says nothing about primary, secondary or tertiary, and "must be based on independent reliable sources" is either wrong or it is hopelessly confused. Because "must be based on reliable sources" is generally correct and much less confused. "Based" is part of the problem, it has no meaning, here, unless the meaning is all sources, and it is correct that all sources must be reliable but not that they be independent. The other part of the problem is the inclusion of "independent", itself, partly because there is little way to judge it in the abstract, because the question is independent of what, which depends on context in which it is used, and partly because it is entirely false that we don't base content of articles on reliable sources that someone will argue are not independent. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Alan, what needs to happen is two things: (1) we should copy the two sentences above from NOR, and add them to this policy to replace the sentence you highlight; and (2) we should remove links to essays about "independent" from the two sourcing policies. The word "independent" is too fluid, and the ambiguity is being used to push out the need for secondary sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah's suggestion. Leviv ich 13:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to put up the huge WARNING sign here as this is going to create a lot of problems - these are not my issues, but ones I know a large swathe of editors will have based on the "inclusionist v deletionist" war. Verifyability is pillar policy, but notability (where secondary sources matter most) will always remain a guideline. We should not make it appear that secondary sources are required (They are for any statements that might trip on NOR and NPOV). Any attempts in the past that have given even the slightest bit of allowance to make notability policy based have been flatted rejected. --Masem (t) 13:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, Masem. WP:NOR is one of the three core content policies. It's the policy that deals with source typology. Please read it carefully again: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

You seem to be saying you've been editing for years without realizing this. Secondary sources are indeed needed to establish notability, no matter what any guideline says. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They are not, however, required to establish the presunption of Notability; see WP:N and cf. WP:NODEADLINE. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: you're referring to a guideline and an essay. I don't know what they say that you believe supports a different position, but WP:NOR is a core content policy. The notability guidelines and any essays should be consistent with it. The difficulty here is that PROF isn't. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please don't WIKILAWYER. I not citing WP:N and NODEADLINE as authorities against NOR. I am pointing to the degree of harmony that all three have shown throughout the project. NOR does not mean that IR soures have to be provided before article is written, or even for an article to be saved from deletion (with the exception of BLPs). That is not the way WP's processes have ever worked. Sources must exist, and must eventually produced, but requiring that they be produced prior to article publication wouldn't be a matter of "consistency", it would be a sea change to how the project works and a challenge to Wikipedia's pillars. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying: I am very well aware of the need for secondary sources for notability. But key is, WP editors routinely reject any attempt to make anything that would make WP:N a policy level page, rather than a guideline. That's why I caution bringing in secondary sources into WP:V as policy because that is not a requirement for WP:V. If you do this without being careful about wording, and given any impression that WP:N has policy-strength behind it, there will be major problems based on reactions in the past. --Masem (t) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

When's the last time someone suggested just merging WP:V into WP:NOR so we have one policy document about what sources we can and can't use? Leviv ich 14:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Combine? I don't think that works. Notability is a utilitarian, form, organization process, where V is a substance principle. For example, we can write about a person in multiple places in the pedia under V, notability looks to the process of when is there one dedicated organizational place, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker, Levivich was asking about WP:V and NOR, not WP:V and WP:N. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This. Plus, "original research" is also different from "verifyability". I would be 100% all-in for a separate policy-level page on "identifying sources" along the lines of reliability, independence, primary/secondary, first/third party which V/NOR/NPOV and all other PAG can point to, pulling the language out of NOR into a separate page. This also gets to the point about documenting the discrepancy of primary/secondary between historians and other academic areas, and set what principle definitions we are using on WP. --Masem (t) 15:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree that V and NOR should be combined. We tried years ago and succeeded for a while, but then had to hold a wide RfC and it failed to gain consensus. But you're right to spot that they essentially address the same issue. Having said that, please don't propose it. In the current climate, it would cause chaos. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't have the rank or the cachet to formally propose a policy change. :-) Although if it ever were proposed, it would have my support, per KISS. Leviv ich 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just tell the world that a draft will be prepared, have 2-3 carefully selected people prepare a combined version (put wp:nor inside of wp:ver), with the rule being to have it make no changes. Get a dozen people to say that it looks good enough and has no changes, and agree to promote the idea, then do an RFC to put the merged version in under wp:ver. A possible way around the wikipedia gridlock which prevents evolution. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Levivich, this was attempted in 2007. A clear majority of editors approved it, but not quite enough to overrule the skeptics. You can read about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. Since then, I believe that the only serious conversation about reviving this would have merged all of WP:V with half of NOR, and spun WP:PSTS out into its own policy. It is, of course, just a rearrangement with no actual changes, but we are a reactionary, change-averse community, and nowhere is that more true than when it comes to our core policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clue, I had no idea about all that. North8000, I'd say the draft that I would prepare is already prepared at WP:A (now that I've read it). Over 1,000 editors in that poll–wow!–and more or less evenly split about it. My favorite oppose was the last one: "Oppose, though in all honesty, I can't describe the reasons why." Ain't democracy grand. Leviv ich 18:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If approached right I believe it could be done. I still have battle scars from being at the tip of the spear when we got rid of "not accuracy" (not truth). But if we keep all of the sacred cows (= combine with no change) and handled other items as described I think it could be done. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in question is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," which remains true and means that truth status is not a sufficient condition. Don't present that as simply "not accuracy". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that it implied that accuracy didn't matter. And "truth" was sort of a strawman substitute for the word accuracy, because truth has multiple common meanings, one of them (accuracy) relevant and defensible as an objective for an enclyclopedia, the other (baseless belief) not. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It didn't ever imply that. It meant exactly what it said, namely that you need a source before you can add something to Wikipedia, no matter how convinced you are that what you're adding is true: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's old news now. And, as you described, "you need a source before you can add something to Wikipedia, no matter how convinced you are that what you're adding is true" is the main point. IMO the wording that was dropped had other harmful unintended consequences for the reasons I described, and current wording establishes and focuses on that point without the other harmful unintended consequences. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't ever meant to imply "accuracy is optional, as long as you've got an allegedly reliable source that says something stupid". It was very much meant to encompass "We don't care what your beliefs are. You might indeed have the Sole Truth about this subject, but if you don't have a source, it doesn't go in, without exception." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This might not apply to anything discussed here but gives the context of primary, secondary, reliable and unreliable. The interpretation of "likely" in likely to be challenged can get subjective. If a statement is added that can't be attributed to a reliable source and it's challenged, its not the removal that requires evidence but the re-insertion (the initial insertion should have been cited anyways). This is an example where I removed a claim that I believed to be wrong, and was unreferenced. Someone claimed Coca-Cola Life was discontinued without any reliable evidence to support it. I saw the product in store. That's good enough reason to challenge a claim without a citation. Suppose someone contests the removal. Now it's on them to find a reliable source that says it's been discontinued. What we require is verifiability, not truth (see WP:VNT ). If the editor says he was told from a friend who works with product managers, that's considered "original research". If he gets his friend to publish the statement on their blogspot or weebly, that makes it "published" but it would be considered an unreliable source and this wouldn't get someone out of the requirement to find a reliable source supporting the claim. However, if the restoring editor finds this hypothetical discontinued statement from a post by the Coca-Cola's official verified Instagram, this would be a primary source, but a reliable source for the statement that a product has been discontinued. This doesn't provide an excuse for rattling off product announcements for non-notable companies. Graywalls (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case, Coca-Cola is absolutely authoritative, in that it determines whether its product has been discontinued or not. It is not independent of the product. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Two things. One: reverting to "status quo" is wrong, a sign of ownership behavior if done repeatedly, and generally a sign of edit warring - never "revert to status quo" only leave the status quo up. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline for reverting to a status quo over consensus. If there was a recent consensus for one version or another, that's the version to keep until there's a new consensus, not some previous arbitrary "status quo".

Two: articles must be based on reliable sources, otherwise it's WP:OR. Bright☀ 13:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't whether reliable sources are required. The question is whether a particular subset of reliable sources need to form the basis for an article.

The problem with just saying "reliable" is that every source is reliable for something. Some celebrity's tweets about their birthday party would be reliable for statements about their birthday party. But nobody really wants to base an article on their tweets, right? So – when we're talking about subjects for which there is a practical difference between independent and secondary sources (e.g., not arithmetic) – the question is whether we should be using

• "reliable sources that are also secondary" (no tweets as the primary basis for an article), or
• "reliable sources that are also independent" (no statements from celebrities about themselves as the primary basis for an article), or
• "all reliable sources that are secondary plus all the reliable sources that are independent", or
• "only those reliable sources that happen to be both independent and also secondary, but not reliable sources that are only one or the other of those things"

as the basis for the article.

And, since someone asked about it above, when you "base an article on" some sources, that means that a substantial amount of content in the article, the overall weight given to content in the article, and perhaps its overall structure, come from those sources. So if, for example, you read a source that talks about A, B, C, and D, in that order, and you decide that your article should also talk about A, B, C, and D, in that order, then you are basing the structure of your article on that source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Because this is the V policy, of course the question is what is needed for V. And unless the Wikipedian is inventing a hoax, whatever the sources are, the article will be based on them. (and FYI, borrowing someone else's structure, sometimes amounts to plagiarism.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Which of the many statements above are you disagreeing with? I can rule out some of them (e.g., "No, you're not basing an article on a source if you plagiarize the source's structure" would be illogical, so it's not that), but I can't figure out what you're disagreeing with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@BrightR: If there was a recent consensus for one version or another ... I agree. Here is the March 2011 version that followed this discussion and that remained for almost 8 years until January 2019. Here is the January 2019 change to that language, and here is the discussion about that change. Here is the April 2019 change to that language, and here is the discussion of that change. Which version, in your opinion, is the one that has consensus? Leviv ich 18:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I put some new places in Nainital but it will directly delete by some people. Why not put that subject in Discussion. Vikram Singh Bisht (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First, not all of your contributions were removed. Second, those of your contributions that were removed were either advertisements for your company or barely made any sense. Third, this is the page for discussing improvements or general interpretations of the verifiability policy - not to complain about editorial disputes - see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Fourth, I really think you should consider whether your English language skills are sufficient to be contributing articles to the English Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the currently last edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Change-advisory_board&oldid=899028650 but english isn't my native language and I'm no expert in the subject matter. But as far as I can see, I haven't seen/found an Edit-Challenge function in Wikipedia so far, and I'm not going to revert the page myself, knowing how touchy many Wikipedia Admins are these days.

While on that matter, I would also challenge the whole page title/lemma, but as said: at the current stage of Wikipedia I feel contribution rather discouraged than encouraged; maybe something to think about. --Alien4 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alien4: The best way for you to contribute in this situation is to go to Talk:Change-advisory board and leave a comment there about what you think should change. It would also be okay if you also reverted the edit, as long as you also left a comment on the talk page (see WP:BRD). --Izno (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That edit was obvious vandalism, BRD is not applicable. I have already undone the edit. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of people misinterpret WP:ONUS. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until / unless someone articulates an objection to them; this means that reverting an otherwise-unobjectionable edit (ie. one that nobody has objected to previously, via reversion or on talk) with an edit of "get consensus" or the like and no other explanation is improper. To make this more clear, I suggest appending something like this to the end of WP:ONUS: Note that consensus is presumed unless an edit has been disputed or reverted with an edit-summary explaining an objection. Outside of patient vandalism, editors are required to articulate their objections when reverting; simply citing WP:ONUS or "get consensus" isn't sufficient explanation, and that ought to be made clear here, not just on WP:EDITCONSENSUS. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No... remember that the reversion itself constitutes an objection. The reverting editor objects to the edit and desires discussion. The correct response to that challenge is to go to the talk page and start one. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is untrue. From WP:EDITCONSENSUS: All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. It's extremely important that WP:ONUS not convey to people that they can revert an edit without explanation (or by just saying "get consensus" or by citing WP:ONUS, when there are no existing objections), since doing so is against policy. At a bare minimum, WP:ONUS needs to make it clear that edits are presumed to enjoy consensus and, therefore, that you shouldn't just revert an edit on the grounds that all edits axiomatically need to establish consensus first, since that isn't true. (And the idea that "all edits must proactively establish consensus" is a common misunderstanding of WP:ONUS.) The specific thing I've seen on multiple occasions goes something like... someone makes an uncontroversial edit; another editor reverts and says "get consensus"; the first editor opens a discussion on talk asking what the issue is and the reverting editor does nothing but cite WP:ONUS and assert that the edit lacks consensus rather than articulating an objection. See eg. here for an example - people are taking WP:ONUS to mean "I don't have to explain why I removed something; you have to explain why you want it included." That isn't what ONUS means. A revert with no explanation should go to the talk page, sure (it's a clear screw-up by the person making the revert, but that's not an excuse to edit-war.) They need to provide an explanation after that, though; simply citing WP:ONUS as the reason for a revert is insufficient because consensus is presumed. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the sentence "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" because one could just as well say "The onus to achieve consensus for omission is on those seeking to omit disputed content." Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of WP:ONUS is to say otherwise - ie. the default is to not include. That said, you raise an important point, which is that generally speaking ONUS doesn't reflect current policy or behavior - it is not true that the onus is always on whoever wants something included; the actual policy when there's a dispute is WP:QUO. That's separate from the point I'm concerned with here, though (my problem is people who cite WP:ONUS to remove something and never articulate any other reason why beyond 'it lacks consensus', which is a violation of WP:EDITCONSENSUS and the general requirement to explain your reverts.) I'll start a separate section for the WP:QUO issue, which is perhaps more serious because it seems like a direct contradiction between policies. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Can you present your proposal separately on this page? It can't receive the necessary attention when mixed with the other issues in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

About reverting:

I want to revert a change that was made to a Wikipedia article!

Is the change leading toward improvement of the article? → yes → Please do not revert it. Even if the change is not perfect, it may still prove beneficial with further edits.  ↓ no  ↓ Can you explain how the change is detrimental to the article according to Wikipedia policies or guidelines? → yes → Edit the article to correct or revert the change. Explain your reasons in the edit summary and, if your edit is disputed, elaborate in the talk page.  ↓ no  ↓ You might be engaging in ownership behavior and reverting the change based on personal reasons rather than reasons pertinent to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not revert the edit and instead, try to parse your reasons through the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing further. {{User:BrightR/Flowchart/WP:OWN}}

About status quo: status quo specifically says not to revert. There is no "revert to status quo", only revert to consensus. If there is no consnsus, don't revert. Bright☀ 07:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bus stop, it's assumed that all material that already exists on Wikipedia has consensus, so you only need consensus to add material. If you remove material and get reverted, it's assumed the reverted version has consensus. Either way reverting because of "no consensus" or "status quo" is against policy (see flowchart). Bright☀ 08:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The point of WP:QUO in this context is that all longstanding text is assumed to enjoy consensus. Editors can disagree over how longstanding it needs to be for that to apply, but that presumption means that you always need affirmative consensus to remove longstanding text (and any sort of failure to achieve consensus, whether in an RFC or whatever, means it stays in the article.) This is longstanding practice and policy, which WP:ONUS needs to acknowledge. And that acknowledgement completely changes WP:ONUS' meaning, since it means the presumption, under current policy and practice, is not "remove anything that lacks clear consensus" but "when there is no consensus, the last stable version / status quo applies, because longstanding versions are presumed to have enjoyed consensus and the onus is therefore on anyone who wants to remove it to show a new consensus over turning that one." --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No that's the opposite of the point of quo. Quote: If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. [...] until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed [...]) There is nothing in Wikipedia policy about reverting to status quo or a "long standing version"; doing that is indicative of ownership behavior. You are thinking of a different status quo essay which goes against Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Some edits add off-topic material to an article, or expand sections to the point of being WP:UNDUE. If you think that WP:QUO stands in the way of removal of such material, then WP:QUO needs to be be changed. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That's out policy. WP:QUO is just an advice essay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to revert a change that was made to a Wikipedia article! box should be slapped on every talk page.Sourcerery (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously publishing changed a lot over past centuries. A great many books published in the 18th-19th centuries would be considered self-published under modern standards. Do we treat those books differently? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, very old books are unlikely to be reliable sources to begin with - at most they are primary sources. I would e.g. not quote Notes on the State of Virginia for facts, much as I like Jefferson. That said, even if a book was originally self-published in the 18th century, it almost certainly has been picked up by some publisher today. At least if it is a notable and useful book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I partly agree with Hyperbolick. Their age plays a factor, but I would suggest attribution. Such as "According to old book, blah blah ..." That way the wight gets put on the source and not wikipedia's voice. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The idea of preferring against self-published books is they are considered less reliable as sources. But what of a self-published book lauded by reviewers and/or experts in its field? Suppose a new writer self-publishes some theory or examination, and established experts think it brilliant, or the book wins a prestigious award in its field? Seems counterintuitive to bar the book then, especially when 'reputable' publishers actually do publish a lot of things of lower quality than that. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-published books are not barred as sources. They are simply presumed unreliable. They are only explicitly barred from use in BLPs not about the book's author. But 'presumed unreliable' implies that a self-published book could be reliable, it just has to be proved. Though I'd say that a book publishing a new theory is necessarily presenting something very original, and should not be used as a source except in an article about the book/theory/author. More for our taste, you might find, say, a self-published reference work about some subject, and find proof that well-known experts refer to it and swear by it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. But suppose the lauded book is sought to be quoted not to present its new theory, but because it happens to present an especially well-worded yet succinct explanation of an old idea? Those can be hard to come by. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like an issue of significance rather than verifiability. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. So if a topic is unquestionably significant, shouldn’t be a problem. Suppose a man self-publishes a monograph on how to build a barn. It is well-reviewed by those who know of such things. If it includes a succinct very well stated description of how nails hold boards together, we might quote that in the article on nails. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-published books usually bypass peer review so they are usually presumed unreliable for claims they make. They have to be shown that it has good reviews by experts in the field and at that point you can attribute. I do keep in mind that most works pre-20th century did not get peer reviewed. So works by Aristotle, Hume, Darwin, Einstein, etc did not go through peer review but they were used widely.

However, there is less of an issue if the book is mentioned on biography page of the author. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not really about peer review, which is specific to certain kinds of academic writing. It's really about whether the author is a recognized expert. The rules for determining whether the author of that self-published book are right there in the WP:SPS section. It does not matter whether the author is self-publishing online or on paper. It matters whether the author is a recognized expert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)