Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 18

Loss of convenience links

I notice that the section of the old WP:RS about convenience links (accessible here) is not a part of the new policy. Is this intentional, or an oversight? It occurs to me that we should say something, either here or at WP:CITE, about the distinction between a source and a convenient link to it (or a reprint), and whether the latter should be included. Jakew 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It was copied over, but since it really didn't quite fit, it was moved to the FAQ page that is attached to this policy. See: WP:ATT/FAQ#What_is_a_convenience_link Blueboar 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
It occurs to me that it may work better - and be easier to find - if reorganised a little. I suggest that we add something to WP:CITE#How to cite sources that a) defines convenience links and distinguishes them from actual sources, and b) directs people to more detailed discussion at the ATT FAQ page. Any thoughts? Jakew 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted numbers--Original Research or Reasonable Calculation?

I recently listed in an article dollar amounts spanning several decades. I then also listed the inflation adjusted (or constant dollar) amounts with them and cited the inflation calculator used. That edit was removed (without discussion beyond saying "WP:OR". I understood the implied objection.

But after thinking about it and then reading the new Attribution policy section it sounds like this addition of constant dollar figures falls under, "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data".

It seems that in the case of 'inflation adjusted figures', this calculation is more encyclopedic than not. The only problem I see is the possible inability to corroborate the adjustments, hence the inclusion of the calculator as a source as well.

Feedback, thoughts, assistance... -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways to calculate historic prices, and which method to pick is a matter for experts. I don't see that this falls into the obvious deduction category. Even calculating meaningful present-day exchange rates is problematic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if FX isn't an issue, and for many articles it wouldn't be, what inflation measure to use is an issue itself. In the US, we have at least the following measures: Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U), The national CPI-U is published for 99 data segments: ranging from "All Items" down to "Personal computers and peripheral equipment" or "Tobacco and smoking products". All of these are available in both seasonally adjusted and non-adjusted series. The main public release has about 44 different geographic subdivisions of the CPI-U (some are published every other month). The BLS' generate your own data tool limits output to only 200 data series at a time, as they offer the cross product of 44 geographical segments * ~373 what bought segments * 2 seasonal adjusted/not segments = ~ 32,800 inflation data segments for the CPI-U. Add the other series they publish, and you are up to around 100,000 different inflation measures for the U.S. (The monthly press release covers a lot fewer of these, only about 99 of the what bought segments (full country only) and 30 of the geographic regions (all items only). The popular press usually mentions only CPI-U, all items, national and CPI-U, all items except food and energy, national.)
Similarly, Australia publishes data series for all eight of its capital cities, with segmentation into at least 13 purchasing groups - and that is just the press release, so they probably are publishing on the general order of 1,000 - 10,000 inflation measures for Australia. I don't know how many series the UK goverment publishes, but the one I use for work is named RPI02 - so I know there is more than one. I've seen for work multiple series for France, but don't have them bookmarked.
Picking the inflation series to use is the original research. Even for an article specific to a single country, there are too many possible series to have a definite right answer. GRBerry 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure... I don't think it is OR to use an accepted model for calculating constant dollars. To me this fits the "calculation" exception. As long as you specify which model was used, ("according to the Consummer Price Index" or some such statement) It is simple calculation after all... you just plug one number into the formula and get another number out the other end. To be completely NPOV, I suppose you could give the constant dollar prices per several of the more common methods... but I still don't see it as being OR. Blueboar 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The various indices are valid for various kind of purchases. I know that in the USA there are indices for producers, consumers, and wages, at the very least. Determining the appropriate index is original research. Now, if a reliable source determined which index was appropriate, but only did the calculation for selected years, I'd accept the argument that an editor could calculate constant dollars for years that fall within the years given in the reliable source. I wouldn't accept years outside the range given in the reliable source, because there could have been a change in how the index is compiled, or what alternative indices existed. --Gerry Ashton 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that it would be acceptable to state something such as "The building cost $2 million to build in 1979", as this would be verifiable fact? Unless a secondary source made a conclusion as to what the cost is in inflation-adjusted dollars, though, that would seem to be more than a trivial calculation. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, for example in the Widget Prices article I want to put the average price of a widget in 1970 was $100 ($433.81 in 2000 constant dollars) and the average cost in 2000 was $450. Obviously trying to keep the example short and simple...the link (if you hate clicking links like I do) is the CPI calculator from the US Dept of Labor. Should that be an exception to Original Research? -- Tony of Race to the Right 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think since anyone can put any numbers in and it comes from the DoL page that it would be reasonable to use that with the ref-footnote indicating what parameters were put in and the date accessed. I'm not sure. JoshuaZ 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, can you include a diff or link identifying the specific article where this dispute came up? I think it might be helpful to see it in context, but I can't find it. TheronJ 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would love to show you the context but it was the victim of some nasty edit warring and I do not have the time to sort through edit histories for it. The context was on the Global Warming Controversy article in a pair of sections that are sometimes there and sometimes not, Funding of Skeptics and Funding of Supporters. One section had figures mostly from about 1995 to 2000. The other section had no figures. I began adding some which were from 1975 to the present and with those added the figures in constant dollars with the link to the calculator (wasn't DoL, I think it was statistical abstract or similar). I then added the constant dollar figures to those that were already there. They were all reverted within about 15 minutes and after pressing for an explanation they provided only a link to WP:NOR. Like I said, there is some pretty nasty edit warring there and has been for a few years. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My view on this is that it ought to be ok to state inflation adjusted numbers so long as the original cost is stated, and if anybody a disputes the quanity a "reference" is made which states the method used to calculate the estimated cost. Mathmo Talk 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this really policy?

It looks very much as if this policy is a particular synthesis of a lot of individual Wikipedia working practices, though excludes many others. Looking through the archives, it looks to me as if there is a lack of consensus on a lot of the points (I personally am particularly concerned about the relevance of "truth" or accuracy, and the difference between "attributable" or "verifiable" and "attributed" or "sourced"), and that the statement that this is Wikipedia policy would fall foul of Wikipedia:Attribution itself. Indeed "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C" applies precisely to what seems to have happened here. To me that makes it a Wikipedia:Essay not a Wikipedia:Policy. --Henrygb 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is policy. It simplified existing policy documentation by merging two pages into one. Those pages are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Most of the discussion was about a few types of issues: 1) do we make changes at the same time, and if so what - answer: no substantive changes, 2) how to merge the existing policies without changing the meaning, and 3) can we also merge in the guideline WP:RS - answer: nothing unique to that page here, put relevant bits in the FAQ. There was a lot of the discussion because changing policy documents isn't done lightly or quickly and a lot of time was spent making sure the actual policy was properly worded. In any role of life, some things become "magic words" and are very hard to change, even for the better. An example is the "verifiability, not truth" formulation from "Wikipedia:Verifiability", which has been replaced by a new formulation that means the same thing, but people object nonetheless because they are used to the old wording, poor as it was. GRBerry 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Verifiability, not truth" was a bad formulation anyway, since it was a self-contradiction that meant "Truth, not truth". It only made sense in the context of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not wikt:verifiability. The attribution phrasing makes more sense even if it doesn't flow as well. --tjstrf talk 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. I always read "verifiable" in WP:V to be synonym what WP:ATT calls "attributable": it referred to material that in principle could be attributed to a reliable source. I think that "attributable" is clearer, so I like the change of words. CMummert · talk 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Henrygb - Something you have to remember is that consensus does not mean the same thing as unanimity. None of our policies have unanimous support, and there are always people who disagree with what it says. The two previous policy pages (WP:V and WP:NOR) from which this policy emerged had those who disagreed with individual provisions. So will this policy page. However, the vast majority of Wikipedians approve of this policy. That is called consensus.
I am confused by your statement that this policy does not follow itself... This isn't an article, so it doesn't have to. This policy applies to Articles, it does not apply to policy/guidleine pages. Nor does it apply to talk pages, user pages or the Village Pump. Blueboar 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability started [1] as saying that "the goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia"; statements in articles should be verifiable (in the sense of checkable that they were true) and that citing sources and avoiding weasel words would help other editors check statements. The statement of policy is drifting towards "everything in Wikipedia should be attributed even if this makes it incomplete and even misleading". This new page is part of that drift - indeed it makes the change more explicit. My perception is that the majority of editors (most of whome come nowhere near this page) still take the earlier view and this is what has made Wikipedia so good. --Henrygb 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no drift, it's your interpretation that is wrong. "the goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia" does not have to equate with your assertion that "statements in articles should be verifiable (in the sense of checkable that they were true)". It would appear the policy draws a different meaning, stating that where an editor takes issue with an edit they should "check the sources. If you can confirm the statement using them, leave it in". This would suggest that it is not truth, as you assert, that was the goal, but accuracy. Accurate summary of source material, not positions which individual editors held to be true, a position the WP:NPOV policy would appear to dictate editors should not do. That would be my reading of how that policy was written. Looking at it, I'd also note that is not how the Verifiability page started, there's over 18 months more of history before the edit you picked. Surreptitiously 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I could have started with [2] at the end of MyRedDice's initial drafting in 2003, which said "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts. However, don't be too keen to remove unverified information at the cost of completeness." It still makes my point perfectly (neither it nor I disagree with NPOV) even if it did not have a policy label at the time, while my 2005 quote was the first to do so. --Henrygb 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rather than argue over which version is the first, perhaps it would be neater to address the other point I made. That your interpretation of what accuracy means is in this instance incorrect. In this instance it refers to the representing of the source accurately, as seen by the quote I reproduced above. I would also note that asserting a statement as truth is in violation of WP:NPOV, which states None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth. The quote you are using does not make your point, since your point is made on a misunderstanding of the use of one word. Accuracy has many meanings. Surreptitiously 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope that the new, shorter document that people have worked on so hard will succeed (with some changes) in replacing the two other documents. There has to be a proper process for changing policy. There was an RfC, but it pointed to this page which stated that no policy was being changed -- they were simply being merged, and any actual changes would be done later. So, busy people may not have looked closely at the edits. In order to make significant changes to policy, there needs to be an RfC that leads to a policy discussion, not to a statement that no policy is being changed.
To change policy, there has to be more than just someone saying "there was consensus". There has to be an actual record of consensus. Consensus can exist when there is disagreement, if those who disagree waive their opposition. In this case, how are those who disagreed alleged to have indicated that they waived their opposition? --Coppertwig 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've not seen an assertion in this thread that the policy has changed. Could you clarify where that assertion is, and what evidence has been brought to substantiate the claim? Surreptitiously 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like the point is that the rules were tightened during the merge, when nothing was supposed to change. - Peregrine Fisher 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've not seen an assertion in this thread that the rules were tightened. Could you clarify where that assertion is, and what evidence has been brought to substantiate the claim? Surreptitiously 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where any rules were tightened or changed. Some of the wording was revised, but the intent and meaning behind what is said is exactly as it was under WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS.
What I think is happening here is that the merger has drawn attention to what these policies said all along... and some people are discovering that they disagree with some of the policy points. The entire "verifiability" vs. "attribution" as they relate to "truth" issue is a case in point. It is clear that what WP:V meant was that Wikipedia demanded that a statement be verifiable as to who said it, and that they did indeed say it. Verifiability in context of WP:V did not mean that a given statement was true... only that it had to be verifiable that it was stated by it's source, and that the statement accurately reflects what the source said. With the merger, the word "verifiablilty" was changed to "attributability" (or something along those lines) ... but the intent and meaning of the policy point is the same.
Something else to consider, in this current discussion, is that there have always been editors who did not like WP:V and WP:NOR to begin with... since those were longstanding policies, however, with long standing consensus they had little chance of changing them to fit their desires. With the merger, they are seeing a chance to do so... by claiming that this "NEW" policy does not have consensus. I reject that argument. Since this policy does indeed contain all of the policy points of the previous two, with the same intent and meaning that they had, the consensus they enjoyed carries over into this one. In short, nothing has changed... except perhaps peoples awairness of what the policies have said all along. Blueboar 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict). Agreed. The requirements Coppertwig proposes for documenting consensus go far beyond the mere existence of consensus, which is all that is required here. There is no "proper process" to document consensus as far as I can tell. As with every other WP page, editors show they have waived their opposition when they don't make substantial changes and when the question "are there any serious objections" doesn't generate any. That appears to be the case here. CMummert · talk 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(in response to Blueboar, re. drawing attention to policy) I think the issue is a little more fundamental than that. I think a large part of the problems we're seeing with people not liking WP:ATT stems from them misunderstanding WP:V. As I see it, a huge number of people have seen 'verifiability, not truth' as requiring both verifiability *and* truth, usually because they somehow feel that something can't be verifiable if it isn't true. But that's not how WP:V defined verifiability, and that use of a word to mean something slightly different from what it normally means seems to have mislead a lot of people into thinking the policy said something different from what it actually said. And this is one of the reasons I think this version is so great -- it is easier to understand, and we're just seeing the natural fallout of that now. JulesH 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you are seeing fallout suggests that there is not a consensus now, and perhaps there was not before while verifiability was having its meaning changed away from the earlier and natural "capable of being checked to be true". I personally have no doubt that what is said now is not the same as what was being said in 2003 or 2005, and there are unanswered questions in the 11 archive talk pages here plus 17 at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability; to me that is a common symptom of a suggested policy failing to achieve consensus. To give an example of my understanding of verifiability, I don't think anyone seriously doubts that the British won the Battle of Trafalgar and so I think it does not need attribution (it is easily checked); there is less clarity over whether the British won the Battle of Corunna (though fewer questions about the details of the battle) and here sourcing of statements is more helpful. --Henrygb 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is the same under this policy. It's clearly possible to attribute that to somewhere, but as it is a statement that's unlikely to be challenged, it is not necessary to actually do so. What's changed? JulesH 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Two things. This page puts the source before the content and explicitly says "any unsourced material may be removed"; it makes no mention of the accuracy of the content, instead concentrating on the nature of the source. Secondly, I can find a secondary source challenging it (ISBN 978-2258038400 in French) "Curieuse «victoire», qui se traduisit par la morte de l'amiral de la flotte anglaise, Nelson, fauché par une balle tirée du Redoutable. Il faut avoir l'outrecuidance de nos amis d'Outre-Manche pour se vanter d'un tel désastre", roughly "Curious 'victory', which resulted in the death of Nelson, the admiral of the English fleet, mown down by a ball fired from the Redoutable. You need to have the impertinence of our friends across the Channel to praise yourselves for such a disaster", but this simply undermines the source, without affecting the validity of the statement that the British won.--Henrygb 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly the same thing that Verifiability said -- right up at the top, "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." The fact that sources contradict each other is irrelevant, it just means that you can "verify" (by the meaning described at Verifiability) things that aren't actually true. This doesn't help your point -- it just illustrates that sometimes it is hard to know what is true. JulesH 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Wikiquote, and the primary aim should be accuracy in encyclopedic statements, not accuracy in attribution. Sourcing is an aid to accuracy and building an encyclopedia, not an end in itself. I still don't believe there is a consensus around what is said now, while they may have been in 2005. --Henrygb 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
So, if I understand your point correctly, you basically wish to dispute that there has been consensus for WP:V since this edit in January 2006, which first added the statement that unsourced material may be removed? JulesH 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am disputing where there is a consensus for the current state of the page, not trying to revert one particular change or return to one particular date (though I think looking at changes since April 2005 is a good start for analysis). There have been many changes before and after that date while have switched the direction of the policy in a direction away from the practice of most editors. For example: removal of accuracy objective and weakening suggestion this is about fact checking [3]; removal of idea that degrees of verifiability should aim at those likely to know about the subject [4]; stopping aiming to be complete and reliable and remove advice on checking edits[5]-I could go on. -Henrygb 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Where was it asked whether there were major objections? Major objections about what? There's a big difference between "Are there any major objections? ... We're not changing policy" and "Are there any major objections to classifying Wikipedia:Verifiability as no longer policy?" How long did people wait to see whether there were major objections? Were people given adequate time to inform themselves by reading through the archived discussions before beginning to express their objections? Who decided which objections were "major"? I have a major objection. Changing the whole purpose of the encyclopedia from trying to provide information that conforms to reality as much as possible, to a purpose of merely collecting published stuff regardless of whether it's typos and misstatements, is a major, fundamental change and requires further discussion. --Coppertwig 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on secondary sources

The policy states that "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material." - I am only going to comment on this statement. As an academic myself, I would dispute that secondary sources "summarize" primary sources. In fact, the more scholars summarize, the worse a book or article is because they are not presenting their own interpretation of the texts or historical events (this is primarily a problem in the humanities). The aim of secondary sources in the humanities is to provide an interpretation of events or of a set of texts (or both). SparkNotes and things of that ilk try to "summarize." Awadewit 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think secondary sources summarize and/or analyze and/or interpret primary sources. Crum375 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this not covered in the policy in the line "A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources."? Surreptitiously 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the journalist example says it, but the generic description did not, so I just modified it. Let's see what others think. Crum375 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally, a definition that must rely on examples is not considered a good definition; it is vulnerable to attacks based on the specifics of those examples. In this case (secondary sources), examples are certainly not necessary for definitional purposes; they are illustrative only. I think that Crum375's changes are good. Awadewit 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of printed material rather than online sources

Is there any official Wikipedia policy prohibiting the use of resources that can be found in a real brick and mortar library rather than a blog or online version of a magazine? An editor removed sourced and relevant content from an article based on the argument that I was using offline sources of information, and he demanded that I provide online sources in order for the content to stay online. This is the first I've heard of such a standard, and it seems to me profoundly anti-intellectual. Can anyone comment? csloat 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I read through the entire *issue* including your Talk page. The block was inappropriate, imho, and you are correct that citing offline magazines like Vanity Fair is certainly appropriate. Wjhonson 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because it is usually difficult to get something published on paper without a fair amount of editorial oversight, offline sources are often more reliable than online ones. (This is not always the case, see vanity publishers. Also some online sources can have perfectly good editorial oversight.) It can be frustrating for other users who are unable to look at the offline source and check your work, but so long as the source is reliable, they should trust you. However, since offline sources can be hard for others to check, I would recommend using inline references to make it as unambiguous as possible which information is based on the offline sources. Also try to provide the ISBN to make it easier for others to find the book. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses! I have complete copies of the articles if anyone really doubts they exist, but I don't think anyone truly does. I've been editing for a while now and have not had problems before with citing offline materials. csloat 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Uploading the copies to Wikipedia would likely be a copyright violation, however I doubt anyone would mind if you sent them by email to another involved editor. Also note that attribution is most likely not the only relevant policy. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to note that most truly scholarly material in the humanities is going to be offline or inaccessible to the general public. Unfortunately, the databases that cover the major humanities journals are available only to those who have access to research libraries that subscribe to them (they are very expensive) and the most important work done in the humanities is almost always published in book form. If you want an excellent article on Jane Austen or Charles Dickens, for example, do not demand online sources. In my own editing on wikipedia, I have tried to follow the inline citation idea Armed Blowfish mentioned above, but it can get silly. See Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld. I also prefer offline sources since online sources can disappear and change (i.e. the information you cited may disappear from the page). Asking readers to dig up a cached version of the page is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Awadewit 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK hold on though, (I just found out about this discussion) we're not talking about "scholarly material" here, but allegations that Hitchens is an alcoholic and speculation that it's "getting the better of him". As this is sloat's replacement for poorly sources blogged insults which clearly violated BLP, it's reasonable to demand checkable citations to insure it's compliant. <<-armon->> 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The citations are clearly "checkable" Armon. I have checked them myself, and you are welcome to as well -- as is anybody else in the world! And there is no evidence that any of this violated BLP, so please stop making that false claim. csloat 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; in spite of this discussion (and in spite of a comment on his user page), the user in question has reverted me, again deleting the offline sources with the same demand that I find online sources because he doesn't trust the offline ones. Is there a solution other than an endless 3 reverts per day on this? I feel the material is sourced, relevant, and important, and I don't think there's any defensible case that it contravenes WP:BLP. I'm not sure this rises to the level of WP:AN/I; or perhaps it does? Can anyone suggest any other alternatives? I agree with all the comments here that offline sources are, if anything, more reliable than online ones, and not less. csloat 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In this specific case, although everything does appear to be well sourced, it isn't clear that having such a long section is NPOV. I moved it to the talk page (it is well-sourced, so not an apparent BLP problem) for discussion. CMummert · talk 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
AN/I it. This sounds like a classic case of an unreasonable Admin using his/her powers inappropriately. If I'm wrong, he/she should have no problem justifying his/her actions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand -- the user in this case who appears to be acting inappropriately -- Armon (talk · contribs) -- is not an admin. He's not using any special powers against me that I know of; just reverting sourced and relevant text and making demands on the talk page. csloat 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood, I thought that he had blocked you for your actions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are all the old redirects hijacked?

I have never ever seen that done before. Apart from the back that it makes old discussions confusing, what if I want to link to the old policies? -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki's change, if you want to be sure something will be there you need to include a revision number in your link. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not my point. My point is that some people might want to link to V and OR, and they are now shortcut-less. -Amarkov moo! 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to link to those pages. Everything that was there is here, so you can link to WP:NOR and be taken to the correct section here, or link to WP:V or WP:RS and be taken to the section about sources; or WP:ATT if you want to refer to the policy as a whole. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
They can still use the proper names. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone always could use the proper names. But people don't, because it's inconvenient. And I don't see what benefit comes from redirecting here; anyone who knows the old shortcuts knows about this, and people who don't won't ever have reason to use them. And being superseded does not mean that V and OR are now wrong, which they aren't. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
But WP:OR goes to the current #No_original_research section, and WP:V goes to the current #Reliable_sources section. I think it is more important to link to the current state of those concepts than some historical, old revision. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of this merger if they're still being treated as seperate concepts? I thought the idea was to treat verifiability and original research as different parts of "attributability". If it's not, why was this done? -Amarkov moo! 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A single concept can have more than one facet, that is why we have headings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with redirecting to sections within the new policy. It's very important and appropriate during a transition in a commonly-used resource to give legacy content a smooth path to the new resource as a matter of pragmatically managing a complex system without disruption. Providing a smooth transition is well worth the price involved, particularly prices consisting of esthetic or conceptual purity. --Shirahadasha 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
People are used to the old redirects, so letting people type WP:NOR rather than WP:A#NOR or something similar is helpful. You'll notice that the same thing happened when WP:VAIN became WP:MOREPOLITICALLYCORRECTTERMFORVANITYPUBLISHING. --tjstrf talk 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Research by a wikipedian

Previously the issue has arisen here, or on WP:NOR about a Wikipedia wanting to post their own Original Research into an article. If my memory serves me, which it may not, the suggestion has always been, post your link/material to the Talk section and see if another editor will add it for you, instead of you adding it yourself.

The suggestion provides a way of vetting or peer-review if you will. Now I've done that on the Talk page of Michael Huckabee and a complaining editor has taken a case to WP:AN/I here. I would appreciate it if someone could comment here on whether my actions were or were not appropriate, and if not what the appropriate actions would have been in this case. Thanks. Wjhonson 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The material to be added should be published by a reliable source, whether it was written by a Wikipedia editor or not. The source, superficially, appears to be a wiki, and would be unreliable unless demonstrated otherwise. --Gerry Ashton 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea of having a wikipedian ask another editor to review and add material that he/she came up with is not a way around NOR, but a work around to prevent Conflict of Interest. For example, an author may have published something that he/she feels is relevant to an article. Since there could be COI problems if he/she adds it him/herself, it is better for him/her to ask someone else to do so. However, the rules for ATT still apply... the material should be reliably published as outlined on this policy page. Blueboar 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Now that you mention it, I remember the COI issue more clearly. So I guess what I did was pointless, I could just add the underlying sources to the article itself since they are all published by third-party reliable sources. I collected them all in one spot, but I suppose the act of collecting and presenting the information in a certain set format with interpretive clauses, would itself be considered OR. It's just a little annoying doing that work and then essentially having to do *part* of it all over to post each underlying citation here ;) Thanks for your guys input. Wjhonson 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In effect, a synthesis which has not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed would be original research, no matter whose it is. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You've given me an interesting idea. Sort of similar to Jimbo's idea of having a "stable" article and an editable article. This particular page, I've *locked*. It would be interesting to have a peer-reviewed site for genealogy. I don't really think there are any yet. Wjhonson 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank the three editors here who hve all clarified for WJhonson that his efforts do go against WP:ATT. Thank you. ThuranX 12:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by this policy. Say wikipedia were lucky enough to have X, one of the foremost scholars on Y, contributing to an article on Y. Could they not cite their own scholarly works on Y, along with other scholars' works? In my field, English literature, scholars often cite their own work in this way (especially if they are writing a book that includes ideas from a previously published article). I just want to be sure I understand the policy so that when I become the foremost scholar on something, I'll know what to do. :) Seriously, we shouldn't discourage scholars from quoting their own works, particularly if they are significant. Awadewit 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Note "has not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed" is original research. If the work has been fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and we would under any other circumstances accept that source as reliable, there certainly would be no problem with a scholar citing his own work. The problem would arise if the person wished to engage in synthesis which had not yet been fact-checked or peer-reviewed. But sure, anyone can cite a reliable source, regardless of whether (s)he also happened to write it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 15:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We are usually unable to confirm that the self-proclaimed expert has the credentials he claims if he does not give his real life name on his user page. We just went through the embarrasment of a "noted theologian, PhD, professor of theology, and former department head" who in editing fell back on his credentials to argue others into submission, and who turned out to be an imposter with respect to the credentials. Someone who claims to be a doctor, lawyer, rocket scientist or Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist may be none of those. If they have published something in a respected journal which satisfies WP:ATT they or anyone else can cite it. Edison 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX you mischaracterized what occurred. My *actions* did not violate any policy whatsoever. My actions were to post a link to a Talk page. ATT does not address this issue. Wjhonson 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Photographic evidence, paywalled sites allowed?

We're having a bit of a problem currently with the Dancing puppets trick article - the information in the article has been mentioned or alluded to in a variety of different websites, but none of them can be counted as reliable sources. To date, one article has been found which does seem to fulfill the requirements, but it's behind a paywall. A recent deletion discussion resulted in no consensus and a relisting in two weeks if no attributable sources are found. Anyway, my questions are the following... first of all, does anyone know the rules for paywalled articles? Also, I've found several photographs online of the thing which is described in the article. Can these photographs be used as evidence? The pics in question: [6], [7] Esn 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's always OK to cite a printed newspaper article (from a reputable newspaper). Linking to the newspaper's site is what's known as a "convenience link", and is not required, but you should give the exact day and if possible the page number. --NE2 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with citing reliable sources that must be paid for, whether online or printed. Last time I checked, bookstores were not giving away books free. The only objection would be a conflict of interest, where the editor who writes the citation somehow profits from sales of the material that is cited. --Gerry Ashton 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the photographs you point to are not adequate to support the article, which talks in-depth about details that are not visible in the photographs. I'd also be concerned that your newspaper article is unlikely to be anywhere near as in-depth as the article we have. JulesH 07:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I would generally tend to think that an editor's own interpretation of a photograph would be original research in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The article does have serious citation (ie none) and NOR issues. The list of where this scam has been observed, for instance, seems pure OR - relying on the personal observations of the editors who have seen it in action. It should be deleted or majorly re-worked. Blueboar 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Is "peer review" always a guarantee that a source is reliable? Should any source be automatically declared Reliable because it is peer reviewed, and should articles published in peer reviewed journals be given credibility based on the peer review? Along the same lines, is there any way of verifying that a publication that claims peer review actually does it, or what degree of scrutiny and rigor is used in a particular publication's peer review?

An association can publish a journal and say that it is peer reviewed - do we always accept that claim? A couple specific examples are things like the Journal of Scientific Exploration and journal of the Society for Psychical Research. There is concern that "peer reviewed" is being used to give an inappropriate impression of scientific credibility at fringe topics such as Electronic voice phenomenon. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously peer review does not guarantee reliability in the usual sense of the word. Neither does it mean the source qualifies as a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense. An individual judgment must be made as to what is a "reliable source", based on the situation at hand. The phrase "peer review" is also vague and can refer to a range of kinds of review. Some journals consider that they are reviewing for plausibility. Some journals demand correctness and require referees to give a submission extensive checking. This should be kept in mind when considering whether "peer review" suffices to make something a reliable source in a specific context.
Also, as you pobably intend to point out, peer review can be a chimera when the association does not adhere to high standards. A paper published in the Journal of the American Mathematical Society can be expected to adhere to higher standards than one appearing in a small, "local" journal. Not only because the AMS is a very respected mathematical society, but this is their "flagship" journal, known to use rigorous refereeing. It also depends on the standards of the field. In pure mathematics, quality of refereeing (correctness) is highly correlated to the prestige a journal has (the other important factor is the importance of the results they publish). Even a very prestigious journal will take a hit in its prestige if they are found to publish a seriously wrong paper. This does not appear to be the case in all scientific disciplines. In some subjects, I get the impression that for even some good journals, if a wrong paper is published; the blame goes almost completely to the author(s), not the editors or referees.
Anyway, I expect this is why the policy basically says to "use your head" so as not to be blinded by the use of buzz-words like "peer review". --C S (Talk) 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The point of all of this is that someone other than the author stands behind the theory or ideas being presented. In accademia this is achieved through "peer review", for the rest of us it is achieved through "reliable publication" (as opposed to vanity publication). Blueboar 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of peer review is to reflect that the material has been prepared in a manner complying with the methods and beliefs of the organization or community conducting the peer review. Its value is only as good as the organization, and is not an assurance that it is true. There are are topics where people disagree on basic questions such as what way of thinking or inquiry one uses to arrive at truth; on those issues, the key point is to accurately describe each organization conducting the peer review to avoid misrepresentation. The Catholic church conducts peer review on Catholic theology to determine whether it reflects a genuinely Catholic point of view and arrives at truth using Catholic methods. Whether one believes it true or not depends on whether one accepts the assumptions underlying Catholicism. It is a nonetheless a kind of peer review, whether one believes in the outcome or not. Similarly, a newspaper assures the material has been reviewed by journalists and editors, whose methods sometimes aren't perfect either. --Shirahadasha 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. That is why editors' best judgment is always needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is silly.

So, the old policies don't get force. That's reasonable, it would be hard to keep them updated. Then they don't get shortcuts. I disagree, but I can fix that with a Javascript hack to give me buttons to put the names it, so it doesn't matter that much to me. But now they don't get talk pages? Why don't we just go ahead and slap on a protected redirect, if nobody is allowed to do anything with them? -Amarkov moo! 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right; it's incredibly silly. The "old" policies are here, on this policy page, so why would anyone want to post on the old talk pages? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Think of the old policies as an archive, if you want to bring something up, come the this page, the current page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But they're not just archives. They're policies that existed for years. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
They were expressions of policy. There is nothing sacred about the form we give to policies, otherwise policies would be carved in stone. The policies and guidelines that were formerly expressed on the pages Wikipdia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are now expressed on this page. Those superseded pages are now historical, of interest in reviewing the history of our policies, but no longer the living expression of our policies. -- Donald Albury 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not why would anyone WANT to post on those pages. Rather the issue is a small group of editors trying to suppress any posting to those pages. Whether we want to or not, should not be in the hands of people who don't *want* us to. We should be able to post comments to *any* talk page we feel like posting. There could any number of reasons why we would want to, but that isn't relevant. What's relevant is that we should have the freedom to do so, without getting attacked. Wjhonson 03:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wjhonson, you are saying that you want to do something that many or most of us consider disruptive, without telling us why, and because "you feel like it". The only motivation I can see at this point is WP:POINT. Please invest your resources in more productive directions. Thanks, Crum375 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Change is the nature of wikis, the same policy still exists, just on this page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a conversation about a Talk page on that page can never be construed as disruptive. The active conversation that several of us were engaged in, on that page, did not disrupt any aspect of Wikipedia whatsoever. Can you be painfully specific as exactly *how* this could possibly be perceived as disruptive? That would be helpful. And again High, the issue is not whether we should post here, but are we being *forced* to post here. That is, are we to engage in suppression and censorship on that other Talk page from now on? That's the issue. Wjhonson 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you can talk there, but decisions will not be binding because it is done away from where the main populations of editors discuss such things. It is not about censorship, it is more that we are holding the meetings somewhere else now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wjhonson, when you start posting to old/mothballed/historical pages, it creates a disruption because editors must now monitor multiple pages referring to the same topic, and because newcomers may mistakenly be attracted into a thread on an old page, not realizing it is obsolete. It can also lead to conflicting and/or overlapping threads about the same topic. All of these are totally unnecessary and highly disruptive. Crum375 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously this man does not feel he is part of 'we'. There is never a good reason to remove or otherwise obstruct the use of a talk page unless it is being used to violate policy. Jtrainor 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Disruption and WP:POINT, per my comments above, and the impeding of the building of our encyclopedia, is a violation of policy and can result in a block after appropriate warnings. Crum375 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk: pages are for the purpose of improving article content. Since these are defunct policies, the Talk: pages can no longer be used for that purpose - in fact, they have no purpose any more, and are as defunct as the policies themselves. Wikipedia is not a message board or blog; if you feel you need places to have conversations with your buddies, please find more appropriate ones. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's disruptive because it's causing this disruption, and there's no need for it. The problem with keeping the old talk page active is that new editors may see the discussion, not realize the policy has moved, and then things will be discussed there rather than here, meaning other editors have to monitor both pages, and on and on with yet more pointless time-wasting. The policy moved and the policy talk page moved with it, and to ask people to cooperate with that isn't censorship, just common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So add a link to this page at the top of the old talk page with a notice that that policy is now obsolete. Problem solved. Jtrainor 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We've done that. Problem unfortunately not solved because some people could find problems in heaven itself. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I find that argument circular. You punch me in the face, I complain, but somehow I should accept getting punched in the face. My complaint "don't punch me in the face" is disruptive. If the comments had been left alone, as they should have been, this discussion would never have started. If anything is disruptive it's what occurred to *start* this, which is the wiping out of the Talk page comments. That is disruptive to the smooth editing of the project. If those editors who wish to force us to not talk on that page i.e. censor us or suppress us would leave us alone instead, they would show that they are not being disruptive. If you could explain how a person would *not* see it as antagonistic I'd appreciate it. But I'm not about to accept that those of us who wish to not have our comments wiped are being disruptive as opposed to the few who wish to wipe the talk comments of other people who are merely exercising their right to post comments on talk pages. Do not wipe the talk page comments of others unless you can point to a policy that those comments are violating. That's a pretty basic, civil request. I'd like to see an argument against it. Wjhonson 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


I find the use of pumpwords like "disruption" and "point" to be grossly counter-productive. They are words used to beat editors, not to assist them. I agree with the above, that there should be no restrictions to posting to talk pages unless they are used to violate policy. Whether that's common sense, isn't relevant. What's happening is censorship, not assistance. Repression, not expression. Wikipedia should never be the place where that sort of thing occurs. And no one should be wiping other people's talk comments for any reason other than policy issues. This isn't one. And speaking of pumpwords how about WP:AGF ? That wasn't done here, I do not enjoy being accused of disruption and WP:POINT when we are trying to improve the project. Wjhonson 07:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops... in reading over AGF I see that I shouldn't accuse someone of violating AGF "...without presenting supporting evidence". So my supporting evidence is that my Talk page comments were wiped out three times in as many hours, with no imho just cause and the last time was by an admin who then posted a personal Talk page comment asserting that I may be being disruptive and WP:POINT when really I was just annoyed that my Talk page comments were getting wiped in the first place. Those edits did not WP:AGF from my point-of-view, they WP:ABF which is rather insulting. So that's my evidence ;) Wjhonson 08:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin said: "...and are as defunct as the policies themselves.". No, the policies are not defunct. The policies have not changed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is still policy. To change the policy, there would have to be a consensus-building process which checks whether there is any major objection to demoting the old policies. This was not done. Instead there was a question as to whether there was any major objection, linked to statements that the proposed procedure would not be changing any policies. --Coppertwig 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Point of information: I said no such thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig - You take Slim's words out of context. The concept of "verifiablility" is still policy (as it is included in this policy), but the policy page "WP:Verifiability" is defunct. There is a difference. Also, you seem to be confusing consensus with unanimity. There certainly is a consensus in favor of this policy, but there is not unanimity about it. Blueboar 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(conflict) Yes it was done. The talk page for this policy was advertised in numerous locations, including on the talk page of Verifiability on multiple occasions, with the clear suggestion that it was a proposal to replace V. Objections were discussed and the vast majority of those who had objections were happy to drop them once minor changes to the phrasing of this policy were made to accomodate their views. This process lasted several months, during which time anybody was free to comment. The question about major objections was merely the last step of the process, one final check before going live, once we were already nearly certain that consensus had been achieved. JulesH 14:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Independent Sources, means not duplications? Or does it mean more than that?

Where is the reference in wikipedia that sources have to be independent of each other? I'm sure it is somewhere, but with the changes that have been happening I can't quite see what has happened to it. I'm looking through WP:ATT but can't find any reference to independence of sources. I'm presuming they can not all be a repeat of each other. For instance if Australian Associated Press gives a press report about an incidence which is then published in a hundred newspapers unchanged we can not solely use that as a basis for an article when no other sources exist? At least I'll presume that is what is meant by independence, or am I missing something? Mathmo Talk 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be independent of each other in the sense that the previous guideline (WP:RS) said, but they also shouldn't be duplicates. If the AP reports something which is repeated by 100 newspapers, you can't use those as 100 separate sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I thought. Indepent = not duplicate. Mathmo Talk 06:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Independent of the Subject

Another related question I'd like to have confirmed that I'm thinking clearly about this, is to do with sources independent of the subject. I pressume by that it is meant sources that are not written by the subject. For instance I could not write an article about a physics professor if the only information about him had been written by himself. But if there existed several sources published about him which had been written by physics professors other than himself then that would be enough to write an article with. Mathmo Talk 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There have to be sources that are independent of the subject. If there aren't, we shouldn't write an article about that person. If there are, you can write the article, and then you can also use material published by the subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, already knew very well all of what you just said. You seem to be repeating back what I said. Trying to get confirmation/clarification on what "independent of the subject" means. I'll re-state it. The other physics professors are all independent of the subject, right? The fact that they do physics as well makes no differences, because the word subject is refering to is obviously the subject of the article which is the professor. Not subject area of physics. Of course for the article about physics we would like to have references from people who are not doing physics, as well as those who are doing physics. But that is completely different from the main example I'm concentrating on, because it is a subject area not an individual person. Mathmo Talk 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason for an article ion a general subject we should have sources from people who do not know the subject. There's no reason to have references for the physics article from other sciences. What there is need for is, that for a given controversial theory, there must be references (and probably quotes) from both supports of the theory and their opponents. For the article English, we have sources talking about the language, and they dont have to be in French or German to provide a theoretical "outside" view.
Yeah, I do realise referring to the physics article wasn't an ideal example, because nobody is going to dispute that we should have an article about physics. I just have physics and maths on my brain a lot, so it is the first example that came to mind. But if in a crazy alternative universe where we are disputing if the physics article should stay then we would like to see sources from people other than physicists. (all hypothetical, so replace words as need be) Anyway, this was merely a tangent to my main question to do with biographical articles. In which anybody other than the person themself would be independent of the subject (excluding I'm sure a few rare exceptions, they always exist. Guess an example would be if only close family members had written about the person). Mathmo Talk 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For the matters we are actually discussing, individual and things closely associated with them, we ned some reference from outside to a/be sure they arent making the whole thing up, and b/ there is some measure of objectivity, someone other than the author who says his book is important.DGG 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Mathmo, "independent of the subject" would mean not the subject and not any source of information controlled by the subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I got the impression he was talking about a biography. He did say "about a physics professor" as opposed to "about a physics theory". Maybe I'm wrong. Wjhonson 08:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, refering to biographical articles. Obviously when it comes to books the author would not be independent. What I was referring to (a biography) all seems pretty straight forward too, but no harm in double checking! Mathmo Talk 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes Mathmo. If a few of her colleagues write biographies of her, you can paraphrase them all together into one article. And then threw in some quotes directly from her for spice. Wjhonson 07:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Not quite what I was asking. More focussing specifically on independence from the subject, but I think this response has been enough for me to completely confirm that I am thinking along the right tracks. Mathmo Talk 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC

"in articles about themselves"

The wording keeps getting changed back to "in articles about themselves", but this isn't the actual criteria. This wording is both too broad and too restrictive for neutrality. Questionable sources should not be used for concrete statements of fact, but they should be used for statements about themselves or their authors. In other words, you can't say "the earth is flat", and use someone's blog as a reference for it, but you can say "blog writer x says the world is flat" and use the blog as a reference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in an article about the blog or about its author. — Omegatron 07:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think a random blog passes the test for use as a reliable source in the first place ? Wjhonson 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a reliable source in an article about the blog or its author. But why such an article would claim the Earth is flat is beyond me... JulesH 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"It has nothing whatsoever to do with being in an article about the blog or about its author." Yes it does, because such a statement would have no place on any article but one about the blog or its author. Marskell 10:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the idea that any fact is not contentious. The current article makes it sound like we can use an anime fan webiste as a citation for anime fans being predominantly male. Anything is contentious once somebody says it might not be true. Lotusduck 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The flat earth example isn't very good. For one thing, you don't need a blog for that claim. There are much better secondary sources for the existence of a tiny worldwide minority who support that idea, e.g., the Flat Earth Society.
"Flat earth" is actually an example of a view which has too few supporters to be mentioned or even linked to in astronomy and geography articles. Okay, maybe one quick mention that people may have believed in a flat earth in pre-literate times.
But there's not much of a controversy over it these days. More important is when there is a political controversy over a legal or scientific matter, and when the proportion of partisans is roughly equal (like 40-60 or 50-50) or when the minority is loud or obnoxious. --Uncle Ed 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Cloning and stem-cell research come to mind. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary source

See: Archive 11: Primary source --Philip Baird Shearer 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. There is a definition of what a primary source is, and a number of good examples too. JulesH 12:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The change I am making is to put similar information after the definition, instead of using the term before it is defined. Also it is not edits to text that are covered by this policy document but rather "All material in Wikipedia" (the text once the edits have been made). --Philip Baird Shearer 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using a term and then defining it in the next sentence. This is fairly standard practice and helps the document flow better. I'm also not sure why you're picking solely on primary sources when the exact same arrangement is also used for secondary sources, 'original research', 'reliable sources', 'questionable source', and 'self-published source'. I do agree with you that the reference to 'edits' is perhaps wrong, and should probably be changed to 'articles'. JulesH 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet altered secondary sources etc., because incremental changes are better than large changes. You may think that it helps the document flow better, but the structure of this pivotal policy document should be close to a well written legal document, and in those definitions always come first to avoid ambiguity in the text. After all the reason for combing WP:V etc into one was to clarify things which were already there but in several documents and it helps if this document should be constructed in such a way as to reduce ambiguity still further. One way to do this is to make sure that it is structured logically.

Also I have problems with "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Why pick out the Bible for consideration why not the Koran or any other religious book? The current wording implys that the Bible holds a special position inside Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The bible is the most widely distributed primary source material in the English language. This is the English Wikipedia. The Koran is not generally translated into English, so few of the English-speaking readers of this web site will be familiar with its content. The reasoning behing this choice is obvious.
I also disagree that the structure of a wikipedia policy should mimic that of a legal document. Most people find reading legal documents difficult and tedious; wikipedia is not a beurocracy and we want to encourage people to understand the policies rather than needing lawyers to interpret them for them. The policy should therefore follow the structure of documents designed to inform, i.e. educational texts. The style of using a word then explaining its meaning is common in such texts. JulesH 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Choosing the Bible may be in your opinion "obvious" but it is not in my opinion an example of systemic bias and probably breaks the WP:NPOV policy. If this needs to be mentioned it should be in the FAQ not in this policy article.

How do you know that most people find reading a legal document difficult and tedious? I think it depends on the document. In the past when solicitors were paid by the word I would have agreed with you, but modern contracts drawn up with a consideration for plain English are much easier to understand. I put it to you that if this article is structured in such a way as to minimise inconsistencies, it is less likely to misunderstood. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest that if we introduce the reason why the reader of the policy should care about a concept before describing the meaning of the concept, it is more likely to be read. What precise ambiguity is introduced by using the phrase "primary source" in the sentence before it is defined?
And, what other source can we use for an example that a significant proportion of our readers will be familiar with? JulesH 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One comment -- generally speaking, when writing about research or scholarly work, particularly recently published research that's reported in news media, given a choice between citing the original scholarly publication and citing a newspaper or other popular media account of it, citing the actual work should be prefered, and one should basically always cite the actual work where possible. Newspaper accounts on new studies etc. can sometimes distort and create a sort of telephone effect, citing the actual work both makes clear what the work is and enables some future expert to tell if it's been reliably described. In these cases, suggest that primary sources should be preferec to secondary ones even though the newspaper accounts will be in plainer English and easier to understand. One can always cite both. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the Bible example: the reference is to Jesus saying that if your eye or hand causes you to commit a sin, it's better to remove it than go to hell (paraphrasing for clarity here). Check out Mark 9:42-47 for the full context.
But the reason this is a good example has nothing to do with "Western" or "Christian" preference for the New Testament. It's rather a matter of interpretation. Traditionally, Christians have seen Jesus as using vivid physical to make a point. I cannot recall anyone, even a Fundamentalist, ever saying, "If you feel tempted to commit a sin, just commit suicide instead." And the example in Wikipedia:Attribution cautions editors against taking a scriptural passage literally, when it is mostly interpreted as a metaphor or analogy or 'rhetoric'.
Come on, you're killing me with this nitpicking. ('Killing me' is rhetoric, and 'nitpicking' is a metaphor.) --Uncle Ed 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

The introduction to this statement of policy mentions the "burden of evidence". I've never heard of the burden of evidence. Ought it not read "burden of proof"? DavidCBryant 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's really required is some evidence that backs up the editor's claims, not necessarily definitive proof. Evidence is really a minimum requirement since without any evidence there's certainly not proof. ChazBeckett 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The statement means that the burden of providing evidence to back a claim (ie a citation to a reliable source) is upon the person wishing to add the claim to the article. Blueboar 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and not to be confused with the burden of evidence about the truth of the cited assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If we said "the burden proof" people would think in terms of the truth of the assertion ... by saying "burden of evidence" we make it clearer that we are talking about who has to add sources. But perhaps "burden of providing evidence" would be clearer yet? Blueboar 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

question about application of Wikipedia:Attribution

What is the rule concerning a user who removes text because of Original Research of their own? For example, a use who removes an argument because they think its false based on their own original synthesis of other sources?--Urthogie 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we should not have argument based on an editor's original synthesis in the first place, the editor not only may, but is encouraged to remove it. If you like the argument and wish to keep it in the article, go look for an independant secondary source that states it. Blueboar 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my question. I'm saying when the removal itself is based on the removers OR.--Urthogie 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not prohibited. Neither, however, would restoring the information be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
I would say it is prohibited. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
JayJg - Which is prohibited, removing or restoring? Blueboar 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's not policy violation to restore non-OR (unless its 3RR). My question, though, is if its a policy violation to remove something because you find it to not be true based on your own obvious original research. And this is assuming everyone editing agrees with you that X isn't true after you show your evidence.--Urthogie 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It is prohibited to remove relevant material sourced to reliable sources because you have done some original research and decided the reliable source is actually wrong. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting) I'd say it depends. If by "original research" we are talking about an experiment, I'd say no: if you have come up with a rigorous experiment that contradicts received opinion, the best thing to do would be to see how you can get your results published in the appropriate periodical. If by "original research" we are talking about a secondary source that claims that source X had a given passage in it, & you have read source X & found that it does not -- I'd say that is possible grounds to remove that use of the secondary source. I'd try to find one or more Wikipedians who know the subject, show them your findings, & solicit their input first, though; there may be good reasons why this happened. -- llywrch 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Llywrch is addressing the issue. Sometimes editors reading about "original research" get it confused with "source-based research". Original research must assert a new fact, doing research to find that person X asserted a new fact is not itself "original research", but rather "source-based research". So perhaps the original poster can give us the specific example in this case? Wjhonson 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Another question, I don't see the new policy mentioning tertiary sources. Are they considred to be reliable sources? --Brian Wiseman 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATTFAQ says that "[t]raditionally published encyclopedias are reliable sources". All the same, unsigned encyclopedia articles are hardly desirable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Effects on External links

Via the WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #2 guideline, this policy page now applies to external links (normally). The nutshell states that this policy applies to material in Wikipedia. Was this intended? AndroidCat 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question really should be asked at the EL page... if the original intent at EL was that WP:V, WP:NOR and/or WP:RS were to apply to External Links, then this page (or the relevant sections) should apply as well, since this policy is a continuation of those Policies. Blueboar 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
External links are material in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean the content of the sites we link to must adhere to ATT. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The guideline in question reads: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: ...
...Any site containing factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
It then gave a wiki-link to the old WP:RS guideline. I think the purpose was to help the editor define what is meant by "verifiable resarch". If that is the case, then the intent is the same when linking to this Policy. If they mean something else, or find that their intent is not met within this page, then it is up to the folks at EL to re-word their page. Blueboar 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, that answers my question and I'll take it up in EL if I absolutely have to. :) AndroidCat 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak sources or sources used outside context

In the article Norouz as celebrated by Kurds, this source has been used:

"Rasbridge, Lance Andrew; Kemp, Charles (2004). Refugee and Immigrant Health: A Handbook for Health Professionals. Cambridge University Press, pg. 236. ISBN 0521535603."

To support a statement regarding legends behind a spring festival. This book is obviously focused on something completley different, not only to the festival, but to the ethnic group we are discussing here. I believe there was just a note regarding this festival to explain hazards probably regarding injuries caused by jumping over a fire (a tradition of this festival) or something similar.

I wanted to know whether this can be used as a primary source to support a statement and whether it can be called a "weak" source. It must be appreciated that the statement has another reference too so I am just using this as an example and do not object to the statement that the reference has been used for here. Regards, --Rayis 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The source should be fine if the statement within it is reliable and supports the claim. The need for a claim to be a primary subject in the souce is critical to establishing notability but doesn't make the source weak. Of course, if there is completely contradictory information from a more reliable source on the matter, such as a scholar of Kurdish issues, the scholar should accordingly receive more weight. The Behnam 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-scholarly sources

In a recent AFD discussion where someone was complaining of the sort of sources used in an article on a fictional subject, I had attempted to provide them a link to the section in the old WP:RS that discussed non-scholarly sources. When i discovered the recent merger and that the section was no longer included i looked and discovered that the section had been removed from the original RS on Feb. 24th without any discussion. I am restoring the section to the main page here, as it was removed without consensus in the first place. If anyone would like to discuss changes to the section I invite them to do it here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is in the WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Individual sections need tagging

I'm noticing that there are shortcut links to bring readers/editors directly to core principals (like NOR). This is fine but unfortunately it can be a bit disorienting to suddenly "teleport" via a hyperlink to a section and not immediately understand what it is pertains to. I think it would be sensible that each shortcutted section be tagged as being representative of policy so that individuals are not obliged to review the entire page (and in particular the top) to understand they are looking at Wikipedia policy. I would like to edit these features in. Is there anyone who disagrees with this idea? (→Netscott) 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you describe exactly what you intend to do? JulesH 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it is not uncommon to find links like this: WP:NOR as we edit Wikipedia. Obviously NOR is jargon for No Original Research but for editors not familar with the the term it's just a TLA. So when one clicks on a WP:NOR link they are instantly whisked away to the Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research section of WP:ATT. For such an inexperienced person to understand that what they are reading is policy they are (currently) obliged to scroll up to the top of the page to see the {{Policy}} tag. What I am proposing is to label each section with a mini tag so that when a user is brought to that section of the policy page they will instantly recognize that what they are reading is policy. (→Netscott) 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Netscott, I added a new "policy section" template to the NOR and RS sections in line with your concerns. My only worry is that it might lead newbies to think that somehow the other sections aren't official policy. If others want to remove the new template, I'm fine either way. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that adding a tag per section could get confusing, and create a bad precedent. The main problem I see, which SV noted above, is that putting the tag on one section necessitates doing it for all, which would create clutter and confusion, since we also have one for the entire page. I think we need to assume some minimal competence and intelligence on the part of our newer editors - it doesn't require a rocket scientist to scroll up to the top and get some context. Crum375 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well the section tag would need better wording, mainly that each section represents a part of an entire policy page. I was thinking of coming up with some slimline templates for such a purpose in line with what I am talking about here. (→Netscott) 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My concerns are precedent, confusion and clutter. I can see how once we have these sections tagged as 'policy', every section of every policy would require one, or else we would have inconsistency and confusion. Also, we already have way too many templates - this is very disorienting to newer (and some older) editors. I think we need less, not more, templates. I still think that one 'policy' template at the top certifies the entire page - adding section tags diminishes the role of the main one, IMO. Crum375 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't really even need to be tags... it could be as simple as a policy symbol much like the {{sprotected2}} symbol off to the right that'd be clickable and take one to the top of the page or something along those lines. (→Netscott) 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, smaller and less intrusive is better clutter-wise, but it may not address the precedent and confusion side, as we would need it for every single policy section site-wide to be consistent. Also, if they are small icons, then their utility for the newly-landed editors who don't scroll up would be reduced also, since they may miss or misinterpret the icons. Crum375 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I just made this. Would something like it work?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see:
That has potential. :-) (→Netscott) 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I could attempt to make a version in SVG format so that it scales better in smaller sizes. Will take some effort to do that, so I will wait for aditional comments and assess if there is some basic support for such a "seal". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My response was only half serious. I like the logo though. What I was envisioning was just to use the standard green check (and be clickable to the top of the page) something like this: (→Netscott) 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the logo a lot. It shouldn't be too small or newbies will likely miss it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would work a bit on making a logo in SVG format (vector) that will scale well and would be readable at smaller sizes. It may be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It does look nice, but again my question is: are we going to put it on every section of every policy site-wide? If not, which criteria do we use to decide which section gets it and which doesn't? And what happens to the ones that don't, do they then seem less important? And overall does this reduce confusion or add confusion and/or inconsistency? I can see the motivation for this, but my concern is that the solution could add more problems, if applied inconsistently. I can see using your nice icon (or similar one) at the top of every policy page, though. Crum375 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well there is a bit of a precedent actually: WP:FU with the policy section. I don't forsee a problem with adding small policy indicators. I'm really only proposing this as ATT has brought together under one roof all of these former policy pages that had a bit more "punch" and I'm just trying to reestablish some of that lost "punch". (→Netscott) 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The WP:FU example is exactly what I am worried about. It seems that in that case there is a policy embedded inside a guideline. So if we were to add an icon or tag on a section here, we'd have possible confusion about whether the entire page is a policy or not. If not, then why is it needed per section? And why not for every section of every policy site wide? I believe in simplicity and consistency. I fully realize the history of WP:A and the motivation, possibly temporary, to clarify that each piece of it is a policy, but I still see a potential for confusion. Crum375 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, so far you're the only one with who's voicing solid objection, maybe we boldly do a trial run here on ATT and see what others think? (→Netscott) 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it does have significant implications for every policy site-wide. I therefore suggest we discuss it with a wider forum - I have a suspicion that only a few of us are actually looking at this issue right now. Crum375 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Official policy" seal

65 pixels

40 pixels

28 pixels

In SVG format, that scales well and text is readable in small sizes. Hope it works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Version with text shadow:

At my resolution, the 28-pixel size is unreadable and the 40-pixel size is barely readable. I don't think that it's a good idea to include text in the icon, and I agree with Netscott that the familiar green checkmark should be used. —David Levy 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a diff of how the {{policy}} template looks with the seal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this "seal" pretty loathesome. I'm not sure why. It looks kind of like some sort of "Kid Safe!" seal on bin of PlayDoh or something, and I think it sends the wrong underlying message whatever it would look like - that some far-away body of comptrollers in an ivory tower has declared something inviolate and sealed it forever and with regal authority (look into the origin of "seal" in this context and you'll see why that implication is present). WP policy doesn't actually work that way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The many-pointed edge makes it look like something you would see in a print ad containing lots of exclamation points. Thumbs-down; sorry. —mjb 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

15px green checkmark, text link

Here's my proposed format:

==No original research==

Shortcuts

===What is original research?===

Material counts as original research if it:

  • introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
  • defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
  • introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
  • introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.


—David Levy 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy shortcut
WP:NOR
WP:OR

The green check mark may be familiar to long standing Wikipedians, and graphically only says "check", not "official seal". Here is a version of the seal that has not text, that could be used in the sho7rcut boxes:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, a "seal" is just another arbitrary symbol. I don't see how it better conveys the "policy" concept, and I see no valid reason to abandon the setup (green checkmark for policy, blue checkmark for guideline, red X for rejected/historical page) that's been in use since December 2005 and copied by various Wikimedia sites in different languages. —David Levy 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A "seal" as a "seal of approval" could be a more effective way to denote official policy, while a check mark says very little. In any case, I was just trying to improve on the long-standing version, and if it can be improved then why not? (I can easily create different color versions for guidelines and for policies) Let's see what other editors think. (≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
To me, the checkmark/x mark symbolism is quite clear, and it would be confusing to change a setup that has become recognizable throughout this site and numerous others in various languages. That consistency is highly beneficial. —David Levy 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure ... to long standing Wikipedians that already know the policies by heart... But that only represents a tiny percentage of users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Save for the fact that the green check is already established a seal does make sense in that it is essentially a worldwide recognized symbol that I would argue almost all cultures are familiar with. That said the blue symbol here seems a bit kid like (techno anime)... not serious enough... imho... but I'm liking what I'm seeing in terms of a symbol in the shortcuts area... that is essentially what I was thinking of... something unmistakable about a section being policy. What about the symbol but back to gold? (→Netscott) 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the concept of a seal recognizable to more cultures than that of a checkmark/tick? (That's a serious question. I don't know the answer.)
I agree that this particular seal seems kid-like. (No offense intended. I wouldn't be able to create an SVG anywhere near as good.) It also is too busy, and I don't like the idea of duplicating text from the template (or introducing an element requiring localization before wikis in other languages could even consider adopting the icon). —David Levy 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I see from our checkmark article that the symbol is not commonly used in Japan, but the Japanese Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikisource all use this icon in their policy templates. That it symbolizes an error in Finland and Sweden is of greater concern, but there might be countries in which a seal has little or different meaning. (I have no idea.) —David Levy 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone with an SVG editor, such as the open source Inkscape, could localize the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, but I prefer the idea of an icon that can simply be used (and I see absolutely no benefit to duplicating text from the actual template). —David Levy 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I perceive the symbols themselves as inherently meaningful. Speakers of no fewer than 26 different languages evidently agreed, and I was referring to consistency with these wikis (not with our own). —David Levy 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas for a different symbol? I am sure we can improve on the checkmark. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a stamp? "Stamp! Official". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that a check mark denotes the just the concept of "yes" or "validated" and it is very much of US-centric use. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what to tell you Jossi, maybe we should make a post over on WP:VPR? (→Netscott) 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I know that the "US-centric" claim is false; checkmarks (known as "ticks" in British English) are used in many countries. As I noted, Wikimedia wikis in numerous languages use this icon in their policy templates. —David Levy 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it was decided that check marks would the symbols used for guidelines and policies. Obviously the check mark is readily recognized in English speaking countries. I think gold seals (as typically found on legal documents, etc.) are a bit more universal though for denoting a "seal of approval"/authority. (→Netscott) 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but I do know that checkmarks are far from US-centric (or even Anglocentric). This icon presently appears in the policy templates of Wikimedia wikis spanning no fewer than 26 different languages (and possibly more if some are using a different filename).
Incidentally, there was no formal decision to use the checkmarks here. I simply added them to our templates and people approved (and editors of the other wikis followed suit). —David Levy 05:46/10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I see... I will work in creating a Gold version for policies (and a copper version for guidelines maybe?), to replace the blue design that may be too cute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but the color isn't my primary concern. —David Levy 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold version of seal ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With caption: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking much better Jossi imho..much more "official" looking than either the check mark or the blue seal. The only other thought that occurs to me is that green could be an alternate color in line with the current green check. (→Netscott) 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking actually on "gold" for policies, and "silver" for guidelines. Color is culture sensitive, while Gold and Silver are widely accepted and recognized. What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Diff of how this will look on the {{policy}} template. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking good. My only reservation is that the seal is a bit busy with so many points. If it is not too much trouble maybe you could come up with one that has about half as many points? I agree with you about silver and gold (and copper too for that matter) particularly given the significance of such colors (Olympics, etc.). (→Netscott) 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am running out of time now, but will work on a "less points" version later tonight. In the meantime, other editors can comment further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but I see no benefit to the use of a bulky icon (with completely redundant text) that increases the template's minimum size for many users (myself included). —David Levy 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Even at 62px, the icon's text is extremely difficult to read on my screen. I don't know what settings you're working at, Jossi, but please try to be considerate of those of us with high resolutions. Mine is 1400x1050 on a 15" LCD.
And again, I strongly object to the use of text in this icon. It's completely redundant and creates unnecessary work for wikis written in other languages.
I believe that you're working on a solution to a nonexistent problem (the false premise that a checkmark is "US-centric"). Given that readers of 26 different languages (not counting English) decided to use the green checkmark, its cultural significance clearly isn't anywhere near as narrow as you've claimed. I see no need or benefit to starting over.
Additionally, the widespread misconception that guidelines are "ranked lower" than policies would be reinforced by the use of such colors as gold and silver (or copper, bronze, et cetera). I deliberately selected a pair of colors lacking such a connotation.
Having given this some thought, I also believe that the connotation carried by the seal imagery itself is inappropriate. Another widespread misconception is that our rules are sacrosanct laws that must always be followed to the letter. To me, this new icon seems indicative of such a situation, while the checkmarks convey the reality that these are mostly consensus-based checklists of concepts determined to be appropriate via use and discussion (descriptive, not prescriptive). —David Levy 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the gold seal look with the blue style text/lettering? - Denny 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the text centered rather than around? Or just the same typeface with the shadow? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry, that wasn't clear. I think the Gold Seal itself is better than the blue. The current gold seal with the darker lettering doesn't work quite well. make that lettering white (and shadowed) but with the same current wrapping/curved appearance could work. What I was thinking really could be nice however could be the gold seal image with the larger, bolder centered text with shadows you have on the latter of the two blue seals. - Denny 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have a couple new iterations later tonight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

New version: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

that is nice. That's what I meant (but you went black instead of white text as suggested--I like your idea better). - Denny 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are you reading my criticisms? You aren't replying to me, and now you've added additional English text and made the intended display size even larger.
The bold lettering helps somewhat, but it remains difficult to read at my resolution (even at the enormous 82px image size).
And again, you haven't demonstrated a problem with the status quo. I've debunked your "US-centric" claim, and you seem to be ignoring this. —David Levy 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Debunking? Why should I debunk anything, David? Status quo for the sake of status quo, is not a very strong argument, is it? Or is it that there is no room for improving our graphics? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read my above comments. I didn't say that you should debunk anything. I noted that I debunked your claim that a checkmark is "US-centric." And no, I'm not arguing in favor of status quo for the sake of status quo. I'm pointing out that your justification for this change (the checkmark's "US-centric" nature) has been proven false. Meanwhile, I've raised various specific objections to the new icon that you haven't addressed. —David Levy 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Much improved there Jossi, the seal with fewer points is much clearer. While I like the lettering in the image I'm going to have to agree with David Levy. Universality is important. In response to to David's concerns about policies being considered moreso like flexible guidelines I don't see that changing with the seal imagery. The core fundamentals of policies hardly change and I think it is in the interest of the project that policies be taken a bit more seriously particularly if we want the project to be taken more and more seriously. This as we're coming under more and more scrutiny with the Essjay controversy making headlines. (→Netscott) 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am all for our policies to be taken more seriously, but I do not believe that replacing a tick mark with a seal has much to do with that issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not that policies are taken too seriously. On the contrary, it's that guidelines aren't taken seriously enough. It's common for people to argue that they're entitled to disregard any guideline with which they disagree (because "it's only a guideline"). While it's true that guidelines sometimes have more wiggle room than policies do, they generally should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. That's why I selected a pair of colors that doesn't reinforce the notion that guidelines carry no official weight. Gold and silver (or any other "lower" color) would be counterproductive. —David Levy 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But guidelines are ... guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Meaning what? —David Levy 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a Diff of how this will look on the {{policy}} template. I will place a notice at the Village Pump to seek comments from the wider community. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the gold seal (as well as the blue one) looks rather silly on a policy page, and at any rate it's not such a good idea to affix any kind of Official Seal Of Authority to our policy pages. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Keep the checkmark. >Radiant< 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly concur with Radiant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Move the dots closer together and make them bigger and it would be a smiley face. Edison 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That's because we have such friendly, happy policies here at Wikipedia! Blueboar 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong venue

By the way, this random policy page is an unbelievably inappropriate venue for trying to decide how to visually mark official WP policies. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

There is an ongoing dispute about whether to change the policy from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable ... not whether it is true".

I put the following at the top of this page to reflect the fact that there is a dispute and that there is not consensus:

(However, there is a dispute about the change of policy from "verifiability, not truth" to "attributable, ... not whether it is true." See "Role of truth" below. --Coppertwig 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Someone has deleted it. Please put it back. I have major objections to the alleged change in policy. My questions in "role of truth" and in "Is this really policy?" have not been answered. There is definitely a dispute here. --Coppertwig 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a dispute. The current version that has been worked on for the last fourth months, represents a fair consensus of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly pointed out to Coppertwig, the two statements mean exactly the same thing. There is nothing to dispute. This is getting tiresome .... see WP:POINT. Blueboar 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It's becoming disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no dispute. We changed one word to go from an oxymoronic claim that made some sense at a shallow level but literally meant "truth, not truth" to one that is clearer and says what it actually means. How is this even disputable? --tjstrf talk 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"Verifiable" and "true" do not have the same meaning, and "attributable" isn't even the same thing. "Verifiable" means "could be verified". If I cite a scholarly paper, you can go and verify that the paper says what I claim it does. On the other hand, I can say "I had a turkey sandwich for lunch today." It is true, I really did. It's even attributable (to me), I said so. What it is not is verifiable, there is no reasonable way anyone can verify that what I said is true. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The "verifiability, not truth" wording very accurately describes a long standing, and very important, point of policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
To verify is normally to demonstrate the truth of, [8] so Tjstrf is right when he says the previous phrase was almost contradictory, though in the context we were using the word, it was, as HighinBC says, an important part of our core policies. One of the reasons for the move to Attribution was so we could retain what was important but ditch the misuse of the term "verifiability." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of the new wording along the lines of "Attribution to a reliable source, not truth", but this "not whether it is true" seems a bit awkward. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If the old and new wording mean exactly the same thing, let's solve this dispute by going back to the old wording, which was shorter. In my opinion they do not mean the same thing. --Coppertwig 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
They mean the exact same thing, but the new wording fits the name of the new policy better, and "verifiability" was being misunderstood. There is consensus on this. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There is not a consensus on this so-called policy. Saying that there is does not make it so. --Henrygb 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither does saying that there isn't make that so. Hundreds, if not thousands of editors have been through here and seem happy with the change. It has been discussed extensively. A small minority are unhappy with it. This doesn't mean there isn't Wikipedia:Consensus. The policy tags have been on the page for some time now. JulesH 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The present wording is far more useful than the previous one. I have come across editors telling me that they can verify a subject's notability because they have met them (cue messy discussion of what is meant by "verifiability"). qp10qp 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The present wording takes the amateur's side at Wikipedia:Astronomer vs Amateur. Does the so-called consensus? --Henrygb 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Only if the amateur can cite the suggestion that the moon is made of cheese to a reliable source. I.e., no it doesn't. JulesH 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a herring. Made of Double Gloucester. qp10qp 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
NASA is a reliable primary source and Google's use of NASA imagery is therefore a reliable secondary source. Go to http://moon.google.com/ then put an Apollo landing site in the centre of the screen and zoom in as far as possible. You may have to adjust the colour settings on your screen. So, as I said above, this page supports the amateur. --Henrygb 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is taking your own interpretation of a reliable source that isn't explicitly backed up by the words of the source. It may look like cheese, but it requires an expert to interpret it and publish explicit results in a reliable source before we could cite it. So, as I say, no it doesn't support the amateur. JulesH 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
All your arguments are those of the amateur not the astronomer. The moon is not made of cheese, you know it, I know it, and basing everything purely on sources is not how encyclopedias are written.--Henrygb 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't understand your point. Nobody has pointed to any reliable sources that say the moon is made of cheese. There are plenty of reliable sources that document the actual composition of the moon. There is no difficulty writing an encyclopedia article on this subject based on reliable sources. So what, precisely, is the issue here? JulesH 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moon/cheese fights aside, it appears to me that Henrygb, Coppertwig and Seraphimblade have all raised essentially the same issues and that the matter needs further discussion and consensus-building, but I wouldn't support a go-in-and-change-it move right now because the material has been in place for some time; there certainly isn't (yet?) a consensus as to what to change it to either. (Contrast this with the addition of material being objected to elsewhere, which should simply be removed for now pending further discussion, because it didn't achieve consensus before being added.) I hope this is a helpful clarification. I'm trying to show some paths for more cooperative editing and less bickering. If I get shot a couple of times in the crossfire, that's OK. I have thick skin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: Bringing up WP:POINT and "disruptive" which has a very specific meaning in some important Wikipedia contexts (e.g. WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT itself) when all that's happening here appears to be an honest and good-faith disagreement about some wording, doesn't seem very helpful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis section

The plagiarism example on synthesis remains very difficult to follow. I've mentioned this before, but giving more detail:

  • The whole background to the case is complicated and not explained. What does "copying references" mean? The reader is left guessing as to what the case is about.
  • The claim that "The whole point of this paragraph is the conclusion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it." does not follow from the text quoted in the example. The paragraph cites a definition of plagiarism, and makes no comment on whether or not Jones committed it or not.
  • The example is supposed to be illustrating synthesis, i.e. putting together two sourced ideas A and B to come up with an unsourced conclusion, C. None of the conclusions in this passage appear to rely on more than one source. In particular:
    • The conclusion, "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." does appears to rely on one source only - the Chicago Manual of Style. It is not at all obvious how this is meant to be illustrating synthesis.
    • Similarly, the conclusion "The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism."" appears to rely on one source only - again the CMS. So this is not synthesis either.
    • The third line "instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.". Again, this is based on ideas from the CMS only - there is no hint of a synthesis with other ideas or other sources.

From my understanding of the original case, I think that the real dispute was over the interpretation of the CMS (or rather, the Harvard student writing manual, which was the source actually referenced). Smith interpreted it one way, Jones the other. Because Wikipedia does not take one interpretation of the "truth", each interpretation needs "Smith says..." or "Jones says..." before it, and an appropriate reference. This is a very straightforward and well accepted application of the attribution policy, and has nothing to do with synthesis. I propose that the example is removed, and preferably replaced with an example that is easier to follow and actually addresses synthesis. Enchanter 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Proposed new example of synthesis. I agree with you that a simpler example would be better (or a simpler example, plus a link to this complex one elsewhere). I think, though, that one of the points being made in this example is that Wikipedians should not put two sentences next to each other to make a point if the point is Original Research. Maybe in the original, Smith and Jones didn't refer to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), but argued using other definitions. By putting the mention of the CMS in the same paragraph, the Wikipedian editor made it look highly relevant -- practically almost drew a conclusion for the reader. That's what's being deprecated. Maybe if the text introducing this paragraph were better written it would go over better. It could prepare the reader for what's coming. It could say "Note how, by putting two sentences together in the following paragraph, the writer strongly implies something." Instead of saying "now comes the synthesis" when actually there's no synthesis in the first sentence of what comes next -- or in fact anywhere within the paragraph. The synthesis to me comes at the very end of the paragraph, when the reader has taken in all the information and suddenly jumps to a conclusion. There are also other complexities which are not needed here. The simplest example that demonstrates synthesis should suffice. I give some hypothetical examples in the discussion at the link I give above.
Here's another example: Suppose one Source A says "In this town, men often walk around shirtless on the street in the summertime, but women always wear tops." Suppose source B says, "Jane, a resident of this town, was interviewed on the street in this town during a march of the Topless Freedom Society." A Wikipedia article should not say, based only on these two sources, "Jane was wearing a top during the interview." A similar example might be constructed using a Barefoot Freedom Society. However, this example doesn't illustrate juxtaposing two sentences to make a point.
Here's yet another example: Suppose source A says "Any liquid colder than 0 degrees C can be used for this purpose." and source B reports, in a different context, that liquid nitrogen is normally stored at -196 degrees C. Based only on these sources, a Wikipedia article should not juxtapose sentences to say: "Any liquid colder than 0 degrees C can be used for this purpose. Liquid nitrogen is normally at -196 degrees C." because this implies that liquid nitrogen would be suitable for the purpose. --Coppertwig 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For the examples, it would be nice to find something that looks more like it could actually be from an encyclopedia article. Coming up with good examples can be surprisingly hard!
Your interpretation of the case as being that the CMS is being introduced when it is not relevant makes sense, but does not appear to be the issue in the real life case - both Smith and Jones had discussed the definitions of plagiarism in the CMS. And in any case, the example is meant to be illustrating synthesis, not the introduction of irrelevant sources. Enchanter 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've now removed the plagiarism example, for the reasons given above. Finding an alternative example would be possible, but maybe isn't that important - none of the other sections of the policy are illustrated with examples, and the explanation of synthesis is reasonably clear without an example. Enchanter 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't remove material, please, and especially not long-standing stuff like this. You'd need a clear consensus to remove it. It serves to illustrate a point that a lot of editors just don't get at first, and it's a real example, which is perhaps why it seems confusing. SlimVirgin (talk)
Could you address the concerns raised above? I understand that, as the person who originally inserted that example, that you find it easy to follow. However, I personally find it very hard to follow, and similar concerns have been raised repeatedly by other users. Firstly, the example is hard to follow for the casual reader, because it is based on a complicated case. And secondly, if you follow the logic carefully, it still does not make sense. The goal of a policy page should be to explain policy clearly and simply, so that readers understand the policy. I don't think the current example achieves this at all
Similarly, the fact that it is based on a real case may be of interest to you, but for new readers of the policy page who are here to find out about Wikipedia policy it does not matter at all whether the example is real or made up. What matters is whether it helps them to understand the policy, and it's here that the example fails. Enchanter 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate, in my view the example currently does not make sense - it's ambiguous and hard to follow for the casual reader, and does not logically hang together if you follow it through carefully. I again propose that it is removed - we shouldn't keep a bad example in the policy page merely because it has been there a long time. Does anyone have any specific comments or objections? Enchanter 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've again removed the example, as none of the problems with it have been addressed. Enchanter 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, I see you have changed this back. Please could you respond specifically to my concerns above, to explain whether and why you think my understanding is incorrect. I understand that you are reverting to text that you yourself wrote, so I think it's reasonable to ask you for an explanation of what it is trying to say.
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing any changes to the actual policy. My concern is that the example in its current form is ambiguous and confusing, does not stand up logically to scrutiny, and does not explain the policy clearly. Enchanter 06:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly concur with Enchanter that the example is pointlessly longwinded and decidedly nonhelpful for the reasons in his/her analysis. If editors are going to editwar to preserve it just because they want an example there then they need to markedly improve the example or (more likely) replace it with one that is actually more useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The example is bollixed in another way: With a minor edit it would not be OR at all. Simply noting the cited facts from which the editor drew the "forbidden" conclusion and allowing the reader to come to that rather obvious conclusion on their own is actually good editing. All it takes is a minor rewording to get rid of constructions like "if" and "since". Meanwhile, this example appearing in the policy misleads editors into thinking they can't do something that simple to repair a passage like this! Yeesh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I propose that the example is removed for the reasons above. Before I make the change, does anyone have any further comments, objections, or alternative suggestions? Enchanter 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be ideal if a better, replacement example were installed, but I do not think at all that the lack of one should hold up removing one this misleading, complicated and confusing. With regard to some of the earlier discussion, I think that the eventual replacement would be better as a made-up one that only addresses the issue at hand. Searching for another real-world example would likely introduce additional consideration and confusions the way this one did. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This will need to be replaced with another example if removed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that one or more examples would be desirable, and would support adding one or more examples to the FAQ, where there would be more room to expand on the examples. I suggest adding one along the lines of the "violent crime" example discussed here, although many other examples could be thought up which could do the job. Enchanter 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, though I reiterate that it is far worse to have a misleading and confusing example than to have no example. This is much like the general WP principal that it is better to remove false information from an article, without replacing it with the correct information, than to leave the false information in place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've now removed the example again for the reasons given above, and proposed an alternative example to be added to the FAQ at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/FAQ.Enchanter 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a brilliant example which helps stifle the worst kinds of synthesis. It's clear and concise; there is nothing misleading or confusing about it. Please stop trying to weaken the policy by removing longstanding examples. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's a very good example, which newcomers really need to digest. The only thing I don't like about it is the tone of the line:
Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
I find it a bit too informal and chatty. It's almost like using second person pronouns in an academic essay: it sticks out a bit. I'd prefer something like: "The following example from a Wikipedia article shows that . . . ." well, whatever it shows! But I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the example, as it's a particularly helpful one. ElinorD (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
ElinorD, Jayjg, please could you explain in more detail why you think this is a good example? I started this thread with some specific comments about aspects of the example which I think are confusing, ambiguous, and do not follow logically. Please could you explain whether you disagree with these specific points, and if so, why. Enchanter 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I again ask, please could you give your specific response to the issues raised above? You have reverted the article after I have specifically asked on the talk page whether anyone had any objections to the change, and given people several days to respond. I asked you specifically, twice, to explain your reasons for supporting the policy as it is, and I also left a message on your talk page two days ago. You haven't responded to any of that, and have reverted again without discussion.

I noticed that too. Randomly reverting things without justification seems to be a pattern around here. The flaws in the example have been identified, have not be convincingly argued away, and are agreed up on as flaws by more than one editor. SV seems to demand consensus to delete, but that's backwards; there's no longer any consensus to include and no one, SV or otherwise, has justified the inclusion of the example others think is fatally flawed. Not to mention that we have a FAQ for a reason, and examples, especially long ones, belong in the FAQ not the policy, meanwhile what example to include with regard to this particular part of the policy in the FAQ is in fact a matter of current discussion. I restored the removal of the confusing example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Predictably, someone reverted my revert with an edit summary of "this has been part of the NOR policy for a long time..." as if that means anything. This is not the NOR policy, it is the ATT policy. Consensus can change. Wikipedia is not a legal precedent system. More to the point though, why on earth would anyone want to keep an example that has been flagged by multiple editors as worse than useless, and editwar to keep it in, especially when the policy page is no longer the place for explanatory examples anymore in the first place?! The FAQ exists for a reason. This is turning into "I'm going to revert and preserve the status quo just because I like reverting and I don't like change" game. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You have asked that I ensure there is a consensus. A fundamental way of establishing consensus is to ask if there are any objections before making a change, so that people can give their specific thoughts and we can work together to an outcome that satisfies everyone. If you fail to raise these objections at this appropriate time, and revert later, the consensus process breaks down. We need to address concerns carefully, with reasoned arguments and discussion, to make the policy pages as good as they can be. At the moment you are not engaging in the consensus building process, and simply reverting a change that you don't like without explaining why. Enchanter 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The plagiarism synthesis example has been in the NOR policy, now incorporated into ATT, for a long time. It is an important part of the NOR aspect of ATT, as it helps elucidate a concept that unfortunately many editors routinely miss. It belongs in the main text, not in the FAQ, as it is critical to the understanding of the 'no synthesis' principle. Given its importance, the only way to remove this example or even replace it with another, would be to attain a clear and wide consensus, that should include the main contributors to this policy page. Crum375 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to make the following points in response
  • To attempt to establish a consensus I had asked here on the talk page, repeatedly, if anyone had any objections to the change or alternative suggestions. Building a consensus requires that everyone involved is willing to discuss issues in detail, at the appropriate time - not simply revert changes that they don't like.
  • On this being a long standing example - this example has indeed been on the NOR page for just under a year. However, for this page, drafting began in October, and the example was only added in February, not long before the policy went live (Previously it had been on the Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, which I think is a more appropriate location for an example).
  • You say that the example is necessary to clarify the policy. As I have said above, I find the policy pretty clear, but the example is confusing, hard to follow, and does not hang together logically even if you follow it through carefully, for reasons I have given in more detail above. At the moment, you are asserting that the example is clear. It may be clear to you, but it is not clear to me, and when I have repeatedly asked for it to be explained, I have had no response. Enchanter 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: It really seems unnecessary to using language like "please stop trying to weaken the policy" to characterized others' edits. Yes the language in question is contentious, but that doesn't mean that any editor participating here really is "trying to weaken the policy". That's the fallacy ad hominem. If someone feels that removing the example (even when it is being contemplated what example to have in the FAQ - maybe this example, maybe a different one; i.e. the discussion really seems to have relocated) will have the effect of weakening the policy, this point can be made without imputing bad faith motives to other editors. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I understand you are one, if not the, originators of this essay. Your input, as to, if the scientific POV should be privileged or not would be greatly appriciated. Thx, Fossa?! 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Role of truth

This is a continuation of an ongoing discussion, the earlier part of which has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Role of truth.

As I said before, although I'm OK with the change from "verifiability" to "attributable", I worry about the change to "not whether it is true" without a word such as "verifiability" to counterbalance it. I think it would be closer to the original meaning of "verifiability, not truth" to simply delete "not whether it is true" or to insert "merely".

I gave one example earlier of a situation where I think the new policy would produce undesirable results; I'm waiting for those who favour the words "not whether it is true" to comment on that situation.

Here's another hypothetical situation where the "not whether it is true" wording wouldn't be good: Suppose several publications have been reviewed by publishing houses in the normal way, but that the authors and reviewers all come from the same religion, ethnic group or political group, and three publications, of the type normally considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, all state that at a certain time and place a UFO landed and aliens came out and shook hands with people. Suppose no other publication mentioned the incident -- it isn't considered important by other publications. Now suppose someone insists that a Wikipedia article state, "A UFO landed and ...". And suppose other Wikipedians argue that it either shouldn't mention it at all, or should use a prose attribution. The first Wikipedian could use this policy, with its "not whether it is true" wording, to support keeping the statement in as an assertion by a Wikipedia article, without a prose attribution. The user could challenge others to find a publication that denies it, saying that only if such a publication is found must a prose attribution be added. ("prose attribution" means inserting something like "Fun and Games Magazine states that ...")

Here's another example. Suppose three sources report a person's birth date as 1901 and one source reports it as 1801, and many sources report the person doing things in the 1900's and no sources report the person doing anything in the 1800's. Someone could use the "not whether it is true" provision to insist that the 1801 date be mentioned with approximately equal weight (or precisely one-third the weight) as the 1901 birth date. Thus the article would not say "J. Smith was born in 1901," but would say "According to several sources J. Smith was born in 1901, while another source reports the birth date as 1801." People could argue that it's ridiculous to include the 1801 date, but they could be overruled by this policy which states that whether something is true is not the issue.

Here's another example. Now, normally, when someone says something, it is assumed that the person is asserting it, and if it isn't true and the person knows that, the person can be accused of lying (or fraud, or perjury). But if the person says "What follows is fiction." then that doesn't apply. Well, the wording "not whether it is true" could be taken as a grand "What follows is fiction" applying to all of Wikipedia. Someone might take up the hobby of scouring books for typos and misstatements and whenever they find one, inserting it into Wikipedia. The "not whether it is true" wording can be understood to be encouraging this behaviour. If the pattern of the person's edits is noticed and the person is accused of disruptive behaviour and of wilfully writing false material into Wikipedia, the person could point to this policy and argue that the person has a right to continue doing the same sorts of edits on the grounds that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to present true information, and that others should leave the attributed misstatements in the articles. The person could claim that the person is helping to write the encyclopedia according to its stated purpose.

In reply to SlimVirgin: I don't understand the phrase "do truth". Perhaps you would be willing to explain what you mean in different terms. Re your second comment: Either the new wording means the same as the old or it does not; you can't have it both ways.

In reply to BlueBoar: Of course Wikipedia does not care: Wikipedia is a thing, not a sentient being. It's not capable of caring about anything. But Wikipedians do care about the truth, often passionately enough to engage in edit wars about it. I suppose by "accuracy" you mean accurate representation of what is in the sources as opposed to conformity to reality. I think the dictionary definition of "accuracy" is conformity to reality, so you might do well to explain what you mean when you use the word that way -- I'm still not quite sure that's what you mean. As I see it, we should care about conformity of assertions in Wikipedia to reality as high a percentage of the time as feasible, and requiring attribution is simply a method of achieving both high conformity to reality and less time spent on edit wars. What do you think the purpose is of trying to write an encyclopedia that conforms to other publications and not necessarily to reality? The purpose of writing an encyclopedia that conforms to reality as much as possible is to make a useful reference that people can get useful information from.

In reply to Crum375: I don't think there's a platonic version of the policy somewhere of which the wording on the policy page is merely an approximation. I think the wording on the policy page is the policy itself. If different people had different interpretations of "verifiability", then it's not the place of one Wikipedian to say that one of the interpretations is right and another wrong, (or that one is "true" and one is "false") especially when large numbers of Wikipedians had the same interpretation. If the words meant one thing to large numbers of Wikipedians, we can't assume there was a consensus supporting a different meaning.

In reply to Jakew: Why do you say we're not in a position to determine whether a statement is true or not? Wikipedians come from many walks of life; probably many are the authors of material used as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Do you mean we sometimes are not in that position, or that we can never determine whether a statement is true? Can we determine whether the following are true?

"We're not in a position to determine whether a statement is true or not."
"This book contains this statement on page 53."
"There was consensus in favour of the new policy."

I think we often are able to determine whether a statement is true, at least with a high degree of certainty. The problem is that sometimes people disagree about what is or is not true, and requiring attributions is a good way to resolve those disagreements, since attributions are often more objective than other things people might bring into an argument (e.g. personal experience); people tend to agree more about what the sources say than about whether what the sources say is true. So that's fine to require attributions. But it doesn't follow from that that we have to claim we never know what's true or that we have to change the whole purpose of the encyclopedia.

In reply to Mackan79: Excellent point. Without the word "verifiability", there's no more need to say "not truth" than to say "not whether it is relevant, interesting, important" etc.

Would those who support the wording "not whether it is true" please provide an example of a real or hypothetical situation (such as a content dispute) where you believe that wording would be helpful? Please explain why those particular words would be helpful, not just the change from "verifiability" to "attributable".

I note that no one has specifically addressed some of the specific suggestions I made for addressing my concern. For example, no one has objected to my suggestion to insert "Not all attributable statements are worthy of inclusion." If there are no objections, I will soon edit this sentence into the policy. --Coppertwig 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, as for what I mean by "accuracy" ... I mean that we should report what the sources say accurately. This means we should examine the entire source to be sure that it does indeed say what we claim it says. We should also examine a source to make sure that it states the facts accurately. If it misquotes someone, or takes a quote out of context, then we have good grounds for determining that the source is unreliable. These are issues that must be hashed out on the talk page of each article.
Lets take your 1901 vs 1801 example... if there is honest debate as to these dates, then yes, we do need to report that one source says the person was born in 1801 while two sources state he was born in 1901. In reality, if there was a range of 100 years between the reported date of someone's birth, the editors would know that there was probably something wrong with one of these dates and hash it out on the talk page of the article... some common sense would probably come into play. For example, if the source that says the person was born in 1801 later states that he died in 1978, at the age of 77, then it is fair to assume that the 1801 date was a typo. There would quickly be a consensus that the article should disregard the first date as unreliable. But, let's take a more realistic situation: say two sources say a medieval King was born in 1355, but another source says he was born in 1353... we should indeed report the fact that the date of his birth is debated, and give both dates. Wouldn't you agree?
As for your UFO story... (assuming it met the criteria of WP:FRINGE which usually covers such claims) if the landing of a UFO is reported in a reliable source then, yes, according to this Policy we would indeed have to say "A UFO landed..." In reality, since UFO sightings are rarely if ever reported in reliable sources (they tend to be the stuff of the marginal press) it would be proper to attribute the statement as "According to a report in UFO Magazine <cite> a UFO landed..." This is a statement that accurately relfects the facts and fits with the parameters of this Policy. It is not up to us to determine if a UFO actually did land... only that this was reported.
As for "What follows is fiction"... if the statement is relevant to the article, then yes, we should report that the author made the statement and note that he stated that is was fiction. Blueboar 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for replying. I agree completely about how we ought to be reporting birth dates and hashing out on the talk page whether a birth date given in a source seems to be a mere typo. In other words, we need to concern ourselves with whether the material presented in the sources seems to be plausible and to accurately conform to reality as far as we can reasonably tell. This is why I would like to delete "not whether it is true" from the Policy. It seems to me that the policy, with the "not whether it is true" wording, could be used to avoid any discussion of whether 1801 is a typo and to insist that 1801 be mentioned in the article regardless of whether it could possibly be true.
I agree that the policy as currently written could be interpreted as requiring Wikipedia articles to state things like "A UFO landed ..." if the sources, of a type normally considered reliable, say so. I see that as an undesirable aspect of the policy as currently written. What do you think? Do you think it's productive for Wikipedia to report that sort of thing, and if so, why?
I think you missed my point about "what follows is fiction". I was not talking about an author of a source saying that. My point is that the "not whether it is true" wording in this policy in effect states that all of Wikipedia can be taken as being fiction, and in so stating, it frees Wikipedian editors to insert known falsehoods. I see this as a major flaw in the policy as currently written.
What if several books printed in a certain country state that the leader of that country physically shook hands with God, and those books are the type of source normally considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and have no other surprising information, and there are no published sources stating that the leader did not shake hands with God. Should Wikipedia report "The leader of this country has physically shaken hands with God."? I don't think so. At most it should be, "Several books state that ...". In other words, Wikipedians do need to concern themselves with whether the statements made in Wikipedia articles seem to be true as far as the Wikipedians can tell using their common sense. --Coppertwig 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that a claim that the leader shook hands with God would be a significant part in an article on him. We should indeed report that these sources say he physically met with God... Chances are, if such a claim were included in three reliable sources, then the leader is tied into his countries religious practices and belief due to this claim. Wouldn't that be worth mentioning? Have you never tried to edit an article on a religious topic? See: Muhammad as just one example. You might not agree that what the islamic texts say is "true"... but could you really see not mentioning what they say in the article? In fact, going back to your example, if you didn't include the claim that the leader physically met with God, you would have a hoast of editors from his country, his followers, yelling at you for violating NPOV. Blueboar 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no objections here to the addition of this sentence in the 12 days since I proposed it: "Not all attributable statements are worthy of inclusion." This is one of the suggestions I made to address the concern being discussed in this section. Although there is no objection expressed here, someone has reverted the addition of the sentence. Please don't revert edits without discussing on the talk page. The editor who did this revert was specifically invited by me to participate in discussion in this section and had expressed no objection to the sentence, nor suggested any alternative way of addressing the concern. Discussion should take place here on the talk page, not via edit summaries. Would anyone who objects to the sentence please express your objection here, and discuss how to resolve the dispute. You have already has 12 days to discuss it. --Coppertwig 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If people don't respond, it probably means they don't agree. From now on, please take that to be the case with me. You can't change the policy without clear consensus (actively expressed) from the editors who are involved with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't been my observation that no one makes changes to this policy without "actively expressed" agreement, nor that the "default" is disagreement. In any case, since I share Coppertwig's and (Beit's) concern and his suggested solution, may we please hear any objections thereto and alternative ways of addressing the concern expressed? Lethiere 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If Coppertwig had not proposed including this sentence, I would have done that myself. I've seen the argument "this is sourced to a reliable source; you can never ever remove it" so often that it's getting sickening. It is very important that the policy gives this obvious editorial advice clearly and unambiguously. Beit Or 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Unfortunately, that sentence doesn't say anything. We can similarly add "Not all sentences beginning with the letter A are worthy of inclusion; though some are." It's clear that not everything from a reliable source must be included, otherwise we'd have to copy whole books into our articles, but this isn't the place to write that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately. what is clear to you is not clear to many Wikipedia editors; at least, this has been my experience. This sentence is powerful reponse to "it's sourced, don't remove it" argument. People will have to find better arguments for includion of material than the fact that it is attributed to a reliable source. Beit Or 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It is important that anyone who disagrees with the proposed change be willing to discuss their objections here. SlimVirgin and Crum375 have reverted the proposed sentence, against the consensus on this talk page, but have not articulated here any reason for preferring the version without that sentence. We still haven't heard here, if I remember right, from anyone who supports the new, unqualified "not whether it is true" wording an example of a situation in which they think that wording would have a beneficial effect in comparison to not having those words.
Please do not revert the new sentence without expressing clearly here the reasons for opposing it. We're still in the process of trying to find a wording that consensus can be built around after the new, unqualified "not whether it is true" wording was proposed. We need everyone involved to state their opinion clearly so that we can search for a wording that everyone is reasonably satisfied with. Reasons have been stated for including the sentence "Not everything which is attributable is worhty of inclusion." No reasons have been stated here for not including this sentence.
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to interpret silence as objection. If people have objections, they need to communicate not only the fact that they have an objection, but also the reasoning behind the objection, so that a discussion can continue from their in search of a wording that everyone can live with. I've noticed that some changes have been made recently to the policy without my having commented in advance, so I don't think taking silence as objection is the norm. We also need to consider the silence of those who used WP:Verifiability for many months, without seeing any merge tag on it, only a notice that it was policy. If such people are now reverting the new wording in various ways it should not be surprising. --Coppertwig 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In reply to BlueBoar: I was imagining that the statements that the leader physically shook hands with God would be a minor part of each of the books, somewhat more prominent, but not much more prominent, than inserting "may he live forever" after someone's name. In any case, a clear distinction needs to be made between Wikipedia mentioning something with a prose attribution, and a Wikipedia article stating that something occurrred; that is, between "Three books say that the leader shook hands with God" and "The leader shook hands with God." My question to you is: Should the Wikipedia article state "The leader shook hands with God."?
Here's another example. I believe in a recent year I heard a (normally) reliable news service report that a strange flying object had been seen in the Northern sky. Updates were given as the object reportedly got closer. It was reported as being pulled by flying reindeer, and with a man in a red suit at the back. The date was Dec. 24. If several reliable news services make similar reports, and if no news service reports "There is actually no flying object pulled by reindeer as reported by other news services tonight", then should a Wikipedia article state "A flying object pulled by flying reindeer was seen in the sky."? (Note, I am asking whether a Wikipedian article should state this, not merely whether it should mention it.) Or, should Wikipedian editors pay some attention to whether the material being reported by the news service actually seems to be true? --Coppertwig 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem reported in this topic remains unresolved since two proposed fixes for it have been reverted. --Coppertwig 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this language has the same merits as the "verifiability, not truth" kernel of WP:V, and means exactly the same thing, without the possible linguistic quibble of whether we are using "verifiability" correctly.

The story on December 24 about flying reindeer is a question whether the news source, generally reliable, is being reliable here. That has never been part of policy; it is a matter for editorial judgment, now as always. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User Crum375 has just clarified in section Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Request unprotection of page that "And by the way, I am not in 'content dispute' with you - I have not decided even on the merit of your changes - my only point is that a wide consensus is needed prior to making them. Crum375" This leads me to wonder: Is there anyone at all who is actually against inserting the sentence "Not everything that is attributable is worthy of inclusion"? (In the middle of the 3rd paragraph, after "written from a neutral point of view.") Please reply if you support adding this sentence, and please reply if you are against it, and explain why. Please also comment on other possible ways of addressing the same concern. This is an attempt to build a positive consensus for a method of addressing the concern I raised in this section; the same or similar concern seems to be shared by a number of users. If anyone is aware of other methods of building positive consensus over and above what I'm already doing on this particular issue, please tell me about them or take positive action. If wider discussion is needed before making this change, where should I post notices to stimulate that wider discussion? Thank you. --Coppertwig 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that that sentence "not everything attributable is worthy of inclusion" covers Coppertwig's examples, and therefore conclude it will be misleading. This surprises me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus.

CMummert said on Feb. 23, "ATT has been tagged as policy for 8 days, and as far as I can tell there are no outstanding objections. Perhaps it is time to implement the redirects? ... CMummert · talk 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)". But in the 8 days previous to this, six different users made the following six comments (extracts of the comments are shown, and in most cases diff links), and with the exception of possibly DCB4W, I see nothing to indicate that they had retracted their objections:

And perhaps if WP:V redirects to it, mention the word "verifiability" at least once in the policy? GracenotesT § 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (At Village Pump. See [[Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 12#Case in point: WP:ATT]].)
Are you really suggesting that an editor who knowingly includes cited, but false, information, is helping write the encyclopedia? ... DCB4W 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [9]
(Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear an answer to this from those who support the new wording. Coppertwig)
I think it might be best to just keep the name it "Verifiability". —Centrx→talk • 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [10]
"Strong objection" A435(m) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [11]
[12] "It seems to me that an overly strict reading "The threshold for inclusion [is] not whether it is true" will open the door for unscrupulous editors to convey attributable information that they know to be factually inaccurate as simple statements of fact. I cannot help but think that this would compromise the reputation of our project. CJCurrie 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"
"Having "attributablity-not-truth" embedded into policy gives the upper hand to pushers of fringe theories. Wouldn't it be better to water down the opposition between attributability and truth here with a "not merely" or "not necessarily"? that is, to identify "truth" as a necessary but not sufficient condition? semper fictilis 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)" [13]

--Coppertwig 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole verifiability/attributability vs. truth things make sense if you distinguish between fact (i.e. undisputed) vs. opinion (disputed), or better yet the varying degrees of disputedness, and point people in the direction of WP:NPOV. The main point is, it is not Wikipedia's place to judge what is true and what is not. Trying to do so can lead to very ugly content disputes. We should document disputes without engaging in them... at least not on the article. Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I contend that it often is the place of Wikipedians to judge what is likely or apparently true and what is likely false or contentious. An article in Wikipedia should not say "God really exists." but it can say "Acquinas argued that God really exists." On the other hand, an article in Wikipedia can easily say "P. Jones was born in the year 1901", but it would probably be awkward and inappropriate for the article to say "A recent biography reports P. Jones's year of birth as 1901." In most Wikipedia articles that I've seen, most information is presented in the form of ordinary sentences without prose attribution. To do this requires judgement on the part of Wikipedian editors about the likely truth value of the information.
Wikipedia needn't report whose account is being used for P. Jones' year of birth only if there is no notable dispute about it. If there is a dispute, then Wikipedia would have to report whose version of events was being supplied, just as it has to regarding the existance of God or any other notably disputed fact or claim. Only a small percentage of the world's claims are ever disputed, particularly when it comes to mundane details, so most of the time there's no need to worry about mentioning the attribution in the article's text (as distinct from its footnotes or sources). --Shirahadasha 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I expect uglier content disputes with the "not whether it is true" wording. The reason is that if the policy flies in the face of common sense, some editors will passionately follow the policy while other passionately follow common sense, leading to edit wars. It's better to have a clear, sensible, easily followed policy such as simply requiring attribution without saying anything about truth. I don't see how that would lead to any more edit wars than any other policy. When Wikipedians disagree about whether something is true or not, they simply put in a prose attribution, making the assertion in the Wikipedia article trivially true (i.e. it's true that the source said that.) --Coppertwig 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedians try to judge what is true, then quite likely they will argue about whether or not God really exists, and for that matter, which God exists, and what is the correct meaning of God. Not able to agree on the answers to these questions, they may simply revert each other endlessly. If we put aside the question of the truth of the existence of God, we can simply report what our sources say, proportional to the relevance of their opinions, and attributed to their source, and write an article sympathetic to all major points of view. If something is undisputed by all sources that are significant, it can be stated as fact. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians can judge whether some things are true without having to argue about whether God really exists. As soon as they notice that some Wikipedians believe that God exists and some do not, they can start using prose attributions; no argument is necessary. Part of the purpose of requiring material to be "attributable" is to cut down on edit wars.
Do you really think a Wikipedia article should state as fact that a UFO landed and aliens came out and shook hands with people if all 3 sources (sources of the type that are normally considered significant and reliable) that mention this particular incident agree on it? --Coppertwig 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there was an excellent example above somewhere, it must've got archived but it was a great example. Generally, if something is contentious at all, it's best to state with a prose attribution, if not, we can simply state it. "Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States.[1]" is fine, but "Scholar X states that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was constitutionally permissible under wartime power based on the Smith v. Doe decision.[1] However, Scholar Y disagrees, citing the Was Not Either clause, as well as the Whoever vs. Someone case.[2]." Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Seraphimblade's procedure, which is the one I normally follow. If a remark is bland "Britney Spears was born in Dallas" we can cite it without explicit attribution and merely include a source like "The Life of Britney Spears by xyz" under "References". However if a remark is likely to be seen as contentious "Britney Spears was abducted by aliens three times" then we should attribute it explicitely to a particular source. "Britney Spears was abducted by aliens three times", according to her mother<ref>"Amazing facts", New York Times, Apr 4, 2007</ref>Wjhonson 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This really seems like a Neutral Point of View issue to me. Why not simply talk about the distinction between facts and opinions (which are unrelated to truth), with a nice link to that policy, tying other parts of WP:ATT into WP:NPOV if we feel like it? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure NPOV covers it completely. I mean what about the case where an "assertion of fact" is neither positive nor negative? "Britney Spears says banana pie is her favorite pie". Wjhonson 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is good to talk about how sources affect neutrality, but I think WP:NPOV has a lot to say about that example. Suppose, for example, Britney Spears said that banana pie was the best kind of pie. Now, on the pie article, for example, suppose they are writing a section about the best and worst kinds of pie. Britney Spears is not an expert on pies: including her opinion on the pie article would be giving her undue weight on the subject of pies. However, Britney Spears is an expert on her own opinions, so we can include her opinion about banana pie on the Britney Spears article. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
However, even in the Britney Spears article, we cannot say that banana pie is the best kind of pie: we must attribute this disputed opinion per WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. Also, when we are discussing the best kinds of pie in the pie article, even better than saying "X thinks banana pie is the best kind of pie" is stating why X believes that. For example, is banana pie generally sweeter or smoother than other kinds of pie? See WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.
I think WP:NPOV covers the topic quite thoroughly. WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation discusses the difference between facts and opinions: I think WP:ATT can expand on this by showing how to use sources to tell the difference, but should let WP:NPOV tell what to do about it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Broke this up into paragraphs for easier reading, 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
(Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear an answer to this from those who support the new wording. Coppertwig)
The new wording is no different in this regards to the old wording. A reliably-sourced but incorrect statement is verifiable, according to the definition of verifiable that was used in the old wording. JulesH 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely true. There are some problems with WP:NOTTRUTH, such as the incident with Cohen's Persian descent, where a reliable source copied Wikipedia and this same source was used to perpetuate the falsehood. The important fact is that the cited examples all used WP:VERIFY to justify the inclusion of cited falsehoods. The role of truth has not changed. --Merzul 23:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, please add another example, raised on February 22nd, to the six you enumerate above as unresolved objections to implementation of WP:Attribution as policy. To wit: "I still think this policy should include text that instructs editors to use common sense. Reliable sources publish incorrect information, and unreliable ones publish correct information. If there's a good way of telling the difference (which may be specifc to the particular situation), that should be enough for us. JulesH 09:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)" -- see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive_11#Can information be both verifiable and demonstrably false? I had raised a variation on this complaint here on February 8th and March 1st as the Diligent dissident's scythe. My concerns were dismissed, as were those of the others, (in particular the cogent arguments of Ken Arromdee in the above-cited discussion, and those of Tearlach in Dissident's scythe).
The common thread in the complaints is that one cannot declare truth to be irrelevant to decisions about what factoids stay and go in WP -- on the grounds that people turn to an encyclopedia because they seek truth, and they count on its editors to hold truth as the ultimate standard for entries. Because editors fully realize that "truth" is a slippery slope, what those concerned have called for here is not the blanket right to appeal to truth, but guidelines and examples clarifying when it may be an appropriate consideration (e.g. undersourced but undisputed statements may be deleted on sight under WP:A, whose wording and tenor emphasize this deletability in a way that was not usually applied under the previous policies).
The response given to this point is invariably, "attribution being the closest encylopedic proxy for truth achievable, it is also WP's goal and standard in lieu of truth, therefore: 1. We don't believe WP:Attribution will permit known untruths to enter WP or known truths to be removed, but to the extent it may, this will be trivial and speedily corrected; and 2. Since our intent was to change nothing in previous policy, this new iteration cannot encourage any more negative or unintended results than the predecessor policies -- so if you think it does, you just don't understand what we've done here." Henceforth the objections raised, no matter how elaborated or documented, are deemed answered and rebutted. They haven't been. But until a broader audience, perhaps of slashed-and-burned WP editors of good faith (as john k becomes in this case), finally turn their attention to this new scythe, the WP:A grim reaper won't be restrained. Lethiere 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would point out that my comment there was not an objection to WP:ATT being implemented as a policy, but a suggestion for an improvement to it. The same weakness also applied to the previous version at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I also have not yet heard a response to my answer to these complaints, that all of them applied equally to the previous policies that WP:ATT has replaced. Except User:Henrygb's suggestion that verifiability hasn't had consensus for over a year now, which I'm pretty sure is wrong -- WP:V has been cited by a large number of wikipedia users scattered across hundreds of talk pages, afd debates, and other debates during this period, and nobody has challenged it until now. So: people who oppose this, can you point out a real, practical problem that this policy has but which the previous one didn't. Because nobody has done so yet. JulesH 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that WP:V did have consensus. But there were several different reasonable interpretations of what it meant. I mistakenly spent a long time last fall discussing these differing interpretations in the context of WP:CITE. For the time being, in order to have consensus, WP:ATT has to be a "big tent" policy that can accomodate both:
  • editors who feel that the ultimate goal is truth, but accept that true but unattributable material can be removed
  • editors who feel that the ultimate goal is to have every statement backed up by a reliable source and feel that truth is irrelevant
Of course these are not the only two possible viewpoints. My point is that neither of these two groups would be able to get consensus for rewriting WP:V or WP:ATT to explicitly reflect their interpretation. This is fine, because WP uses consensus to interpret its policies, not a pseudo-legal system, and there is no bar for wikilawyers. CMummert · talk 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to WP:ATT either -- provided that it addresses the concerns repeatedly raised about not granting license 1. to delete content whose accuracy is not seriously disputed, 2. nor to protect sourced content which is demonstrably (but not necessarily attributably) incorrect.
The expected difference in impact between the old policies, as practiced, and the new one, as promulgated, has been stated repeatedly. For example, I pointed out the potential fallout on Feb 8th, "Again, it's acknowledged that these aren't new policies. But the point and effect of refining and re-iterating them is to emphasize their applicability and to legitimate all intolerance of undersourced content". At the "practical" level, the difference may be seen (and was cited upthread) in a recent edit-war that grew out of WP:V being cited -- atypically -- for deletion of truthful content, "I've been here for four years, and I've never run into anyone demanding sources for utterly uncontroversial statements the way that you are. If we are obsessive about this kind of thing, wikipedia will never grow, and it is completely counterproductive to revert unsourced statements of what is essentially common knowledge. And I think my understanding of this is a lot closer to the way wikipedia actually works than yours is, which is based on a completely non-existent perfect world idea of what wikipedia should be. john k 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)"
Obviously, we can't yet cite the impacts of WP:ATT, but both WP:V and WP:ATT authorize anyone to delete unsourced content without regard to whether it is true or has been disputed. But in fact, under WP:V, the tacit implementation of that dictum has usually been to overlook or (increasingly) to tag, rather than to delete, such material. WP:ATT implicitly revokes that tacit understanding by 1. failing to incorporate it explicitly instead of blanket authorization for immediate deletion, and 2. by the apparently growing desire, bordering on impatience, among some editors (evident during this process) to enforce the official policy literally and maximally, henceforth if not retro-actively. The result, I predict -- and keep calling attention to -- is the kind of edit-warring mentioned in the case above, where old-school editors butt heads with those of the new regime.
And that's only the problem to be expected when two reasonable editors conflict. When one of an article's editors is a "diligent dissident", I predict that WP:ATT will be used as a scythe to delete or tag-to-death undersourced but widely accepted content -- because the tacit consensus against challenging truth will have been over-ridden by promotion of WP:ATT. Lethiere 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've repeated the senence encouraging civil behavior in removing stuff to the lead; it was down below. I hope this will help keep a culture of restraint. We are the same people, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another example similar to the "diligent dissident": Talk:Video_game_crash_of_1983#Serious Problems. This one is interesting because the guy asking for sources actually admitted that a similar request for sources was improper, when it was being used against him in an article he liked. Ken Arromdee 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Some areas where I've argued against the "consensus":

  • Using the Dershowitz (Smith/Jones) example as an example of NOR
  • Including false information (see above)
  • Not allowing the popular culture exception
  • Not allowing wikis as sources even when the objections (self-published sources, can change at any time, hard to determine who really wrote it) don't apply

Consensus? Not in the least.

By the way, "W:V has consensus, because it's been cited a lot" is not valid. It could very well be that some parts, which are cited, have consensus, and other parts don't. It could also be that people are reluctant to argue against a policy and may not be sophisticated enough to know they should point out the policy has no consensus. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

For a while, Flatbush Depot and a number of similar articles have had information about what types of buses are located there and what bus routes serve the depot. The only source given is a "fansite", and I do not believe that it is possible to find a better source. If I remove the information, I know that it will be reverted. What should I do? --NE2 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend first trying to find a better source, if you have not done so already. If you can't find one, you can try putting {{Unreliable|article|March 2007}} on the article. If no one adds a reliable source in a reasonable amount of time, which will depend on the traffic the article receives and talk page comments, I would recommend nominating it for deletion or merging, documenting your efforts to make the article well-sourced.
Some editors may disagree with me.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to find a better source and failed. I might create bus depots of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) bus depots of the New York City Transit Authority and then redirect everything there, but the issue is that it will be me against all the regular editors of these articles. --NE2 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD will bring it to the attention of a broad cross-section of the Wikipedia community, not just the regular editors of those articles. However, if you try putting {{Unreliable}} on the article for awhile, giving other editors a chance to look for good sources, I would think that the AfD would probably go better. Other editors might look for sources in places that you have not thought of, and in the meantime the template will alert the reader not to trust the article too much. I do not know if you can nominate things for merging on AfD, although merging is the outcome sometimes, but there is also Article RfC. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure AFD is for deletion only. I don't think the topics are bad (I added some historical information to Flatbush Depot); I just think some of the information is bad. --NE2 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this brought up at WP:NYCS. Perhaps ask there? Gimmetrow 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And so it begins... any advice? --NE2 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... BWCNY seems to have accepted it. Thanks Edison if it was your revert that did it. --NE2 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments needed

Sorry for intruding, but we could use some WP:ATT expertise at Talk:Johann_Hari#Request for Comment: Disputed Photo. Briefly summarized, the parties dispute whether an image is usable in the Johann Hari bio article - Hari denies that the picture is him, but some editors believe that the image is unmistakably him, and the image is captioned (on Flickr) as being a photo of Hari taken at an event that he later wrote about. Is the picture subject to WP:ATT, and, if so, does it meet the requirements? The full explanation is here, and comments are welcome here. Thanks, TheronJ 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirming editors' credentials

I'd like to propose adding this new section to the policy in order to deal with the confirmation-of-credentials issue that is being wrestled with in various places. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen the proposals from this ed. to be eminently sensible, but this one needs rethought. How can it be sourced that I was born in Philadelphia without violating privacy. or that another person is heterosexual? or that a third has worked in the past as a railroad engineer? Or that someone else is a member of the Lutheran Church? All factual questions. For people in article space, there is a bio from which documentation can be taken. But most of us are not of that much importance yet. If someone does want to write an article about one of us, then it has to be sourced. I might claim a degree i music from somewhere, but the documentation would at best prove there is someone with my name who has a degree in music. All this has been discussed. For N individuals, such material can be found without COI. But not the eds. (I do know a few eds. who edit under their real name and have bios in here. Let it apply to them. DGG 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How about something to the following effect: "User pages and the claims made on them are not encyclopedia articles and cannot be verified. You should not trust such claims any more than you trust the user making the claims." – Þ  01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides the good points DGG makes, I don't like this for the simple reason that this policy is about our content and not about our editors, and it should stay that way. --Conti|✉ 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it covers academic qualifications and professional claims only. Please look at it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, but it still would be about editors and not about content. Also, where do we stop with this? When we demand sources for academic qualifactions, why not demand source for claims like "I work at the University of X" or "I work at Microsoft"? Even if I would agree with the general idea behind this, I'd say that WP:ATT (and WP:BLP, for that matter) is the wrong page for this. --Conti|✉ 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion about what it says. Here it is:

Editors should not make claims about their professional expertise or academic qualifications anywhere on the site, including on their user pages, without supplying reliable, third-party source material in support of it. The source must be independent of the subject and should include the subject's real name. If the material has been published, the publisher must be a reliable, non-vanity press. If not published, the source material must be provided by a trusted source such as a university; for example, a degree certificate from an accredited body uploaded onto the site and displayed on a user subpage would satisfy this provision. Any such claims on user or other pages that are not attributed to a trusted source may be removed by any editor, although editors should use their common sense and be sensitive in their approach when considering whether to do so.

SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: There is a vigorous debate ongoing at WP:CRED. I would suggest to wait and see how that proposal plays out, before adding something here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble imagining how the proposal would provide real verification. Can you provide some specific and detailed examples of how this proposal would work in practice? --JWSchmidt 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A much easier idea, tell everyone to take unsourced statements on userpages with a grain of salt, but do so on another policy / guideline. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the proposal is problematic for the reasons stated above by others. Slimvirgin when you say "professional expertise" that is a very broad statement. How do I prove that I've been an auto mechanic for five years? How do I prove that I have a business, out-of-my-home, decorating birthday cakes? "Professional expertise" is a bit broad. Also credential images can be easily faked. I got a copy of person X's diploma, put my name on it and voila I'm a Doctor of Divinity.Wjhonson 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see three basic problems with the proposal to offer verification for claims of professional expertise.
  1. Some people may put information on their user pages in a way that makes information such as their home address accessible to a wide audience, without thinking through the possible adverse consequences.
  2. As pointed out above, most of us can only prove that a person with a certain name has certain credentials; we can't make a verifiable link between the name of the professional and the Wikipedia user name.
  3. The practice of providing professional credentials will suggest we are moving to do away with the requirement that articles be attributed to reliable published sources, and that it really isn't so bad to rely on the original research of a Wikipedian with suitable credentials. --Gerry Ashton 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my voice to the opposition here. There are thousands of Wikipedia users who already have listings of academic qualifications on their user pages. See Category:Wikipedians by degree for just some of them. Are we really going to require all of these users to provide evidence of these qualifications, despite the fact that in 99% of cases those qualifications are totally irrelevant, and nobody will treat the user differently because of them? User pages currently enjoy an exemption from this policy, and there are good reasons for this. JulesH 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless the whole content of this page was to be applied to user pages, I don't think the content of user pages should be covered here. A major policy innovation like this needs its own page. --Zerotalk 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving asside the issue of whether verification of claimed credentials is something we want to do ... We have long held that the policies that were merged into this one only aply to articles, and not to user pages, draft articles attached to a user's page, or an article's talk page. If verification of credentials is something we as a community want, it should be made a policy on it's own. Keep this one purely on articles. Blueboar 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think, per Jossi, that WP:CRED is the place to have this discussion. I also don't know how we'd enforce the "should not". Will other editors have a right to remove such info from user pages? That would create a terrible situation, IMO. Marskell 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Where ever it gets discussed, I think SV's raised a good point that needs discussing. See the longest thread at Talk:Albinism for a mega-example of why this needs to be dealt with. There definitely are incoming noob editors who (allegedly) have serious professional credentials but who believe that having such credentials literally makes them a source, or that their edits should carry more weight than those of others. I think this problem will only get worse over time. I raised it at the talk page of WP:ATTFAQ as I recall, but even that might not necessarily be the proper venue. I'm definitely don't think WP:CRED is; because it is flagged as "Rejected", it is highly unlikely to attract any serious attention. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I oppose including anything about Wikipedian's credentials in this policy. If it needs to be covered in a policy at all, it should be in a separate policy. If there are differences in the standards of citation for the two sitations (articles versus Wikipedian credentials) then including both in the same policy could lead to confusion as someone might read the policy and think they had read something in one section when it was actually in a different section. If the standards are the same, then the credential policy (if any) can simply refer to the Attribution policy. There is little overlap between the two concepts therefore little or no benefit to including them on the same policy page. --Coppertwig 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

The discussion was previously at Reliable sources, now putting this here for lack of a better place: US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We're you going to add this to the article, or what? Alex43223 T | C | E 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually have any idea what to do with it, or what to make of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Without reading to much into both policies... correct me if I am wrong but does this policy's first sentence contradict Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Specifically: (to enter examples here)

  • WT:A states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."
  • WP:AI states: "...just because something is true and verifiable doesn't automatically mean it should be included in Wikipedia."

Any comments? --FR Soliloquy 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comment: Article inclusion is a personal essay and should not become a policy or guideline. Marskell 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


No conflict... AI talks about whether we should have an article on a topic or not ... this policy comes into play after that decision has been made, and talks about what can and can not be included in that article. For example... AI says that we might choose to not have an article on "Hairstyles of US Presidents", even if there are several books on the subject of Presidential hairstyles. The topic may not be considered notable enough for an encyclopedia. However, if the decision is that we should have an article on Presidential hairstyles, then ATT states that we must avoid original research and back statements up with reliable sources. In other words, AI talks about whether to have an article, while ATT talks about what goes into the article if it is written. Blueboar 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if there are enough reliable sources on Hairstyles of US Presidents, then we should have an article on it. Wikipedia does not determine what is important or worthy of being included in an encyclopedia -- that job is left to reliable sources independent of Wikipedia and the subject itself.
I think AI needs to be reworded here. Perhaps what they're driving at are trivial details that may be verifiable, yet have not been noticed by reliable sources. For example, "Peter Griffin farted 15 minutes, 23 seconds into Episode 6 of Season 3 of Family Guy" may be verifiable (by watching said episode), but no reliable source is going document that. – Þ  01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar that there's no contradiction. Nothing in WP:ATT says that every single verifiable piece of information must be included in Wikipedia. It simply says information that is not verifiable should not be included. —Celithemis 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In short, there is no real contradiction and these two rules compliment each other! Though in the long run it may be nice to work WP:AI into WT:A, one is a only guideline while this WT:A is a policy. So I would probably be correct to say that the probability of doing such a thing is slim, right? --FR Soliloquy 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AI isn't a guideline, just a proposal that may or may not ever achieve consensus. —Celithemis 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, WP:AI is a recent proposal that's still very much in the planning and editing stages right now. Any apparent contradictions will be ironed out, the intent is to make it complementary to this as a viable replacement to WP:N. Input, as always, is very welcome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Can you give your opinions about application of NOR in Talk:White_people#Behnam.27s_view? Basically he says that the sources must explicitly mention "white people" to be included in the article. And I say info about European people may also be given because that info is relevant to the topic as long as we do not make a synthesis (ex: because X is true for Europeans, X is also true for whites). The relevancy of Europeans to the topic has also been sourced by many sources throught the article. Lukas19 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOR ... "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The genetic studies Lukas19 is trying to add weren't about white people, or even used to bolster the 'genetic' view of white people. But Lukas19 is using them to add to the 'genetics' view. Hence, OR. Also, if you do investigate, try taking a look at the whole page rather than just one section. We could use some help. Thanks. The Behnam 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As I told you many times before, "directly related to" does NOT equal to "having the same topic". It exactly means that, directly related. European people and white people are related topics. This has been sourced.Lukas19 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this Original Research?

Could someone take a look at the article Unholy Alliance. My take is that there is a lot of original research and synthisis involved, but I need a second oppinion. Also, the article uses a google search result as a source... I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. Perhaps one of the pages that came up IN the search might be a good source, but not the search itself. Blueboar 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

never mind... it's being nominated for deletion on exactly those grounds. I consider my querry answered.Blueboar 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need to specifically point somewhere else for queries of this sort. (Did I just spell "queries" right?—I hate that word). Wikipedia talk:Attribution and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view etc. are meant to discuss the policies themselves, not specific cases. Not to discourage you Blueboar, but on a talk page that is rapidly becoming unreadable due to it's length, we should point things like this elsewhere. Marskell 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Attribution Noticeboard? WAS 4.250 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Attribution Talk (Policy) and Attribution Talk (Application)? I'd also really really appreciate if any of you can comment about the above section. Lukas19 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We used to deal with things like this on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Also, examples are a good way of considering how policies/guidelines work practically, furthering our understanding of the spirit of the policy/guideline, and helping us reconsider if it is properly worded to handle as many different circumstances as possible so that minimal use of WP:IAR will be needed. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think it would be useful to have a talk page that is dedicated to answering querries. At WP:RS we used to get at least two or three "is this reliable?" querries a week. I expect that before too long similar querries will be directed here. (Note: often the answer to these querries was, "Yes, but..." The majority of these types of questions were about reliably sourced statements of opinion, as opposed to statements of fact... and could be answered by pointing out the distinction between these two conscepts. We might save ourselves some hastle by including a statement about that distinction on our FAQ page). Blueboar 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I never thought I'd return here to see that Wikipedia:Attribution had finally made it. I thought the arguments from the past year or so would still be continuing in a never-ending cycle. Which archive should I look at so see how it finally came to fruition? Carcharoth 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So maybe this wasn't advertised widely enough. The discussions are still ongoing and see this for the latest. Carcharoth 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stealing attributions from somewhere else.

A serious but common sin is to copy an attribution from a third party without look at it. For example, to copy a newspaper reference off a random web page without looking at the newspaper or mentioning the web page in the edit. This has long been discouraged as a guideline on WP:CITE, but I think it is very relevant to this page and ought to appear here as a policy. For convenience, here is the present text from WP:CITE:

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

I propose to add the same or similar to this page. (I'd change "your article" at the end to "your citation".) --Zerotalk 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be mentioned in the FAQ/advice guideline. Blueboar 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it should not be just a guideline; it should be an enforcable policy. Violations of this rule are a serious problem which is hard enough to deal with without people claiming the rule is optional. --Zerotalk 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It already is "enforcable policy". The FAQ explains enforcable policy with examples and details. This information explains what we mean by "source". If you did not look at it, then it is not your source and must not be listed here as the source used for the claim being sourced. WAS 4.250 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect from moves

It seems sensible to protect this page from pages move vandalism [14], given that's an official policy page. ChazBeckett 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... please do. Blueboar 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not an admin, I was just making a suggestion. ChazBeckett 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

references to subscription-only websites

I understood that references to Websites that are subscription only are not acceptable; it's been suggested at Talk:John T. Reed (regarding the persistent addition of unsubstantiated claims) that this is no longer the case, and this page was cited. I can't see that the issue is adddressed here; are there any opinions? Perhaps interested parties could also have a look at John T. Reed. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that what's being cited is the court case; the link is a "convenience link". Is this correct? --NE2 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Subscription web sites are allowed; if we were going to ban information sources that have to be paid for, we would have to ban books and magazines too. However, information sources must be cited in the article. It isn't good enough to wikilink to another article, which in turn cites references, nor is it acceptable to depend on citations contained in external web cites. Information sources mentioned on the article's talk page don't count either. In summary, we don't need to discuss subscription web sites because the article does not cite any subscription web sites. --Gerry Ashton 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Gerry's argument that subscription sites are equivalent to having to purchase a book or magazine ... for almost all books and magazines you have the choice to obtain them at a library for free, something you can not do for the information on subscription sites. The rest of what Gerry says I do agree with. Blueboar 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The citation isn't being given at all; it was mentioned in a Talk-page comment. The editor concerned steadfastly refuses to give a citation.
Books and magazines are available in libraries, so it's not clear that the analogy between them and subscription-only sites is justified. Certainly, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided includes: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content." --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that to use an exclusive source which requires subscription would be problematic, as the verification cost for a reader could in principle be prohibitive. I would only use it if the cost is nominal and/or the information is supplementary and/or non-controversial. I agree that most books and magazines are in principle available for free in libraries. Crum375 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Some readers will not be able to access to some sources no matter what we do. For example, young readers may not be allowed to go to the library, except on rare occasions, for safety reasons. Sources should not be prohibited just because they are expensive (unless the cost is kept artificially high to intentionally limit access to the source). --Gerry Ashton 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the External links guideline indicates that subscription-only sites should normally be avoided, but the References and citation section of that guideline make it clear that it does not apply to references. As for books and magazines being available at libraries, some web subscriptions are available at libraries too, although I would guess the chances of getting free access to a magazine or book is better than the chances of getting free access to a subscription web site. --Gerry Ashton 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
We should also note that there is a difference between sites where you have to register, and sites where you have to PAY. I would be inclined to accept the first, but not the second. Blueboar 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just another opinion, seeing as this one seems to be debated: read the policy. Nowhere does it say that the source you are citing must be available without paying. It says it must be published, and must be reliable. These are the only criteria. JulesH 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that opinion. The sources in the article in question are all freely publicly available from appropriate libraries: two newspaper articles and a court case. It is only online access that (might) require payment, and there is no requirement that sources be freely verifiable online. I have recently seen another article where someone claimed that only free online sources are acceptable... no way. The New York Times is a reliable published source even though its online archive is not free.
This is extremely relevant to science articles. We cite published journal articles that are freely available to the public at any research library (just pick up the bound journal off the shelf). Online access to these papers would require payment or subscription, however. CMummert · talk 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, thats what was said a few months ago last time this came up (anyone want to archive search..--BozMo talk 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).)

It's difficult to follow this, as people keep conflating talk about the principle with talk about the particular case. If at John T. Reed a reference could be given to a source freely available in libraries, such as newspapers or magazines, then fine — my current question here would be irrelevant to that. (No reference of any sort has in fact been given, so the question is moot.)

If the only source given is one that requires a paid subscription, then (unless Wikipedia is willing to pay for such subscriptions) this essentially means that we have to take such citations on faith — and I don't see the difference in practice between that and saying that we take the claim itself on faith.

I should add that appearing on a private Website, available only to paying subscribers, is not the same as being published (i.e., it isn't being made public). A book might have to be paid for, but it is then open to anyone (not only libraries) to lend it to friends, etc. Moreover, it can usually be looked at in shops before or without purchase. None of these things is true of a paid-subscription-only Website, and I think that it shouldn't count as a verifiable, published source. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Personally I think the payment part is a red-herring. I am old and losing my memory but last time it turned on verifiability, good faith and subjective nature of what was listed. For example there are plenty of out of print but not public domain books which are only available as scans on pay per view sites, or heavily advertised sites. We kind of have to accept them on quite a few bits of history. Equally a lot of newspaper archives become pay only once the article reaches a certain age. The claim about Reed's court case is in principle verifiable from newspaper etc. and there is no particular reason to doubt it. It is a purely factual description without any silly language. So it should probably go in with a fact tag asking for a proper reference. There are lots of local newspaper reports etc like [15] which make it look to me like this should be easy to substantiate--BozMo talk 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to cut in front but that seems like a valid issue on a community level -- i.e. access to the subscription sources through your local library, regional library, university research library, etc. are huge issues both in support of the services (usually protecting them from home-access), and to provide just such services to "researchers." Also remember that specialized and even private libraries do exist. Hell -- get the subscriptions and give it a go. In my little town that shall remain unnamed there are perfectly good Lexis-Nexus terminals sitting vacant 8 hours a day for months in the public Law Library near the courthouse, while a block away people queue up six and ten deep for a half hour slot on MySpace in the regular library. Xgenei 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I added the "tags" subsection, copying its text from {{Citequote}}. I did this without previous discussion, because I thought this change is hardly controversial. But I was mistaken.

SlimVirgin reverted it saying, "keep it simple". I have to respectfully disagree. Simplicity cannot have priority before the completeness of instructions. I was not aware of this diversity of the tags, and when seing them, I immediately appreciated their utility. I have no doubts that I am not alone in this, both ignorance and appreciation. IMFO such things must be kept in one place, and the policy is the natural place for it. I understand the concern of SlimVirgin (in fact, I am thinking along the same lines, see my another section below). But "simplicity" for complex things is achieved by the inverted pyramid principle, rather than by merciless trimming.

Below is my suggestion for the "Tags" subsection:

  • If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template (shorter synonym: {{cn}}), or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution.
  • {{Request quote}}, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification
  • {{Citequote}}, for tagging quotations that are used without a citation
  • {{Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
  • {{Verify credibility}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
  • {{Citecheck}}, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
  • {{Not verified}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
  • {{Unreferenced}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has no citation or reference for its information

Please comment. `'mikka 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them seem unnecessary; hard for editors to remember; some are saying the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also some of them have no method in place to resolve them. There is no "verification" process, so presumably every article qualifies for {{not verified}}; this would be true except that {{not verified}} is really a synonym for {{unreferenced}}.
The strangest one is {{citecheck}} - the description says that if you find the sources are not correctly cited, instead of moving the text to a talk page or deleting it you can use this tag - huh? The {{Failed verification}} tag is similary self contradictory - why tag a bad citation instead of just replacing it with {{fact}} or removing the unsourced claim? CMummert · talk 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'all may be right. In this case, please arrange the cleanup of these tags, merge/delete/edit, whatever. But whatever is left, must be described in this policy, can we agree at least with this? `'mikka 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't include in this policy a reference to every template any Wikipedian might create at any point. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think the tags must be described in the policy? The policy is here to specify rules about article construction, not give advice to editors about how to follow the rules. I think there's an argument that they should be described in the FAQ, but not the policy itself. JulesH 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is a difference between content-based tags and policy-based tags. Just as creation and editing of policies follow much stringent tules, the same goes with tags. There should no arbitrary proliferation of policy tags (see some criticism in this section above) and they must be described in one place, to ensure proper usage and to avoid confusion. `'mikka 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jules and Slim made good points. There is no need to list these tl's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagreed. `'mikka 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Excess verbosity

Having pairs of subsections with synonymout sitles looks confusing to me (like, "No Original Research" and "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought")

IMO the section "Key principles" must be trimmed to the very nutshell and refer to detailed explanations in the subsequent sections with synonymous titles.

Alternatively, I'd suggest a more logical subsectioning:

  • Key principles
    • "No Original Research": Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought
      • Details
    • "Reliable Sources": Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources
      • Details

Any thoughts? `'mikka 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This version went through about five months of discussion by hundreds of editors before being accepted, Mikkalai. I don't see the advantage of opening that up again, to be honest. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Slim; the current version is comprehensive, yet succinct. — Deckiller 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfuly disdagree. My very point that it is not succinct: the structure is confusing and repetitive. "Hundreds of editors" is not a valid argument. Please address the merits of the proposal, not intimidate me with the head count. `'mikka 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The merits are that it follows inverted pyramid structure, which is useful because it aids understanding by putting important points first then elaborating on the details of them. Trimming the key principles section any further is likely to make it incomprehensible or misleading. Restructuring as you suggest means we lose the advantage of having a key principles section. JulesH 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. `'mikka 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on an RS

If a source that is extensively used in an article, was deemed to be non-notable enough to be deleted from WP, would it still be acceptable as an RS? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a leading question. There are enough unknowns in the circumstances you describe to mean yes or no are both possible. --BozMo talk 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would rather not get into specifics, as it could provoke a firestorm, but the individual wrote two books, one is in 84 libraries, the other in 35. Google scholar lists one publication citing the author exactly once and the AfD was nearly unanimous. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that the individual is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we'd need the specifics. Whether he's a reliable source depends on who he is, what he's writing about, and who has published him. It's unconnected to whether he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


The specifics: Daniele Ganser and he is used in dozens of articles as an authority. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes... 9/11 theory ... very tricky and highly controvercial. The quick answer is that it might be reliable and it might not, depending on the topic of the article and how it is being used. How to deal with various theories, books and websites centered on 9/11 is an issue that has plagued the various 9/11 related pages since at least 9/12. The relevant project has developed a host of consensus internal guidelines as to what is acceptable and under what circumstances... I would suggest you ask on the those project pages. Blueboar 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thats another thing, I only mention that as an adjunct although it is very loosely related to the material in question. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the list of books cited during that AfD debate, and considering only those that are in English, I'd say:
  • Nato's Secret Armies was published by a well-known academic publisher, and can therefore be used as a reliable source in many situations
  • Reckless Gamble was published by a little-known small press, but nonetheless an academic one that at least claims to perform reviews for accuracy; it could be used, cautiously, in some situations
Looking over his newspaper articles, it seems most (if not all) of them are in small local-distribution papers, which suggests to me that including them in nationally important topics would probably be inappropriate. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it seems a sensible one. JulesH 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A book can be a Reliable Source even if the author of the book is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article; also, a book might be unreliable for some reason even if the author is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. --Coppertwig 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Archive_13&oldid=1137402579"