Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63

Split from previous section

What about newspapers that are so clearly skewed by their own editorial agendas or owners' politics that much of what they publish is of dubious quality / truth / veracity? I'm thinking specifically of British papers like the Daily Mail or the Express, but they're not the only ones. Most of their news stories are basically National Enquirer level twaddle.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/apr/09/daily-express-weather-warning-beware-a-shower-of-extreme-inaccuracy http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/mar/17/dailymail-pcc and just to show I'm not a guardianista: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/24/1287082/-Guardian-s-NASA-climate-story-false-flawed-misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.73.219 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're asking. You put that entry here at the end of this section about primary and self-published sources, but I don't see how your question relates to that. Did you mean to start a new topic on just the subject that you mention or are you trying to relate it to the topic that's being discussed in this section? If so, how? If you're asking about particular sources (and not trying to relate it to this topic), you'd probably be better off asking your question at the reliable sources noticeboard since this page is really for the purpose of discussing the verifiability policy itself. These two searches show a lot of discussion at that noticeboard about those two sources in particular: Daily Mail, Daily Express. I've not plowed through them, but you should feel free to do so, though I suspect that the answer will be that, like most major publications, they'll be considered reliable for some things but not reliable for others. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased sources can be very useful. The challenge is making sure that they're WP:DUE. See WP:BIASED for more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. It's also important to focus on what you're citing them for; you can definitely cite a biased source for its own opinion, where that opinion is relevant and noteworthy (with an in-text attribution for that opinion), and sometimes to illustrate a particular view or position (if that that source is genuinely representative of it), with, as you said, the caveat in both cases that you have to make sure you're not giving them undue weight. However, they are generally bad sources for statements of fact, especially facts that are controversial or self-serving; when in doubt, try to find a less biased source, and only use biased sources with an in-text attribution (eg. "So-and-so in such-and-such a periodical said...") --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There's an interesting dichotomy, if not perhaps a conflict, between WP:BIASED, which is a guideline, and WP:NOTRELIABLE, which is a policy. NOTRELIABLE says, in pertinent part:

I suppose that it might be possible to be biased, but to not have a conflict of interest in the senses defined in the quoted material, above, but it seems to me that would be a pretty small subset of biased sources. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) PS: The word apparent in the phrase apparent conflict of interest makes the question of bias vs. conflict of interest particularly difficult, since even a source which appears to have a conflict of interest becomes a questionable source and unsuitable for sourcing purposes except in connection to references about itself. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The above seems to be considering largely financial bias/conflict of interest. It does not consider ideological bias, where the views of the reporter or of those in charge of a news organization favor one side of a controversy or issue. this can produce at least as much bias as financial conflicts do. DES ^(talk) 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Every news source has some sort of bias if you look hard enough. Having a bias does not mean a source is unreliable. What we (as editors) need to do is be aware of that bias, and give it due weight. In the case of news media bias... one needs to be aware of the distinction between news reporting, and news analysis and commentary. Whether we are talking about Fox or MSNBC, the Times or the Guardian... they are all reliable for (say) a report that a riot took place in Baltimore, MD. That much is simple news reporting, and can be stated as fact (and cited without attribution - regardless of the bias of the news outlets). Now, the reporter may also attempt to explain the causes of the riot in his news report... that is news analysis, and may well reflect the bias of the media outlet. So that part needs to be treated differently - as opinion. Whether to mention this analysis in a specific article is a matter of DUE WEIGHT... and depends on a host of factors... but assuming that it is mentioned, that mention needs to be phrased as being opinion (and thus attributed) and not stated as blunt fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So what do you think is the effect of the "apparent conflict of interest" material in WP:NOTRELIABLE? It can't be to just eliminate the ones which are most clearly conflicted, due to the inclusion of "apparent." So what does it do? (In passing, let me note that in my opinion, the apparent conflict must be apparent on the face of the source: there has to be something actually said there which clearly sets up the apparent conflict. Just saying that, for example, the New York Times or Fox News, has a conflict of interest because because some folks speculate that they have a liberal or conservative bias isn't enough: the conflict of interest has to be apparent and apparent without too much original research or interpretation.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar says, "Whether we are talking about Fox or MSNBC, the Times or the Guardian... they are all reliable for (say) a report that a riot took place in Baltimore, MD." That is unfortunately not always true. Ideologically biased sources have been known to make inaccurate statements of plain fact. Sometimes this is deliberate, a blatant lie to support the source's favored position. Sometimes it is what might be called wishful thinking, a tendency to accept statements that favor their agenda without though checking for error. Sometimes it is mere laziness -- journalists have been known to accept statements by alleged witnesses without double checking simply because it is easier, even if it does not feed any particular agenda or bias. And there have been out-and-out news hoaxes, either to support an agenda or to gain circulation for the news organization, or reputation for the reporter. Obviously, the more widely visible the fact the less likely any of these sorts of error are. A totally false report of a riot in Baltimore is probably unlikely. A false report that during such a riot a rioter clubbed a policeman, or that a policeman shot a rioter is much more probable, as there may have been few witnesses and no images to verify the reported events. Consider the withdrawn Wired story on campus rapes, for an example. That appears to have included completely false statements of basic fact. Many other examples might be cited. DES ^(talk) 03:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that there is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source or a 100% reliable source (examples: the National Enquirer is normally considered the epitome of "tabloid" trash... yet its reporting on John Edwards turned out to be quite reliable and was considered for a Pulitzer prize. Meanwhile, the New York Times is normally considered one of the finest broadsheets printed, until Jayson Blair came along).

The fact is, every media source has gotten specific reports wrong from time to time. When a specific report is shown to be wrong, we can consider that specific report unreliable... but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... we do not tar everything the source has ever reported with the same "unreliable" brush.

That said, I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make in my comments. Most of the time, when people complain about bias in the media, what they are talking about is bias in the outlet's news analysis and commentary, and not bias in it's basic news reporting. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course you are correct that any source will make errors, and this does not make the source entirely and automatically unreliable, nor are sources often considered unreliable always so. And you are also correct that bias in news analysis and commentary is more often complained of than straight factual error. However, it happens that I have gotten on the email lists for several rather politally partisan news outlets. They quite frequently complain of outright misstatements and indeed intentional lies in the mainstream but ideological news organizations on the opposite side of things. I often can't personally verify such claims, and I suspect that at least some of them are overblown, but they are widely made, and at least some of them appear to me to be accurate. DES ^(talk) 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The following definition of self-published (taken from a 2007 arb-com decision) has been added:

• "A source is self-published if no one stands between the writer and the act of publication (such as an independent editor or third-party publishing house)"

I think this definition is accurate, but incomplete. It does not account for self-publication of previously unpublished material written by others. For example, consider the scenario where I find a previously unpublished short story written by Mark Twain in my Great-grandfather's papers (not impossible, as they knew each other and corresponded). If I post this story on my personal website... I am not the "writer" (that would be Twain). I am the publisher. I am also acting as an "independent" editor. Yet I think everyone would agree that I am self-publishing. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that everyone actually would agree with this, since you are publishing something that you did not write. How is your decision to make someone else's work public different from pulling something out the slush pile at a small publishing house? How is your decision to make someone else's work public different from a professional archive making the same decision? You didn't write it (nor did any of your own family members). You encountered something that someone else wrote, and you decided to make another person's work available to the public. Making someone else's work available to the public is not self-publishing. You're also not using the most bureaucratic style of publishing-house publishing models, but you're not self-publishing.

Jc3s5h, corporate authors are easy: if "the authors" (e.g., employees instructed to create it) are the same as "the publishers" (e.g., employees of the same non-publishing business, who were instructed to make the other employees' stuff public), then that's self-publishing. It does not matter how many thousands of authors there are, or how many lawyers are involved, or anything else. All that matters is that the group that created it is the same group that made it public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure we can peg it all on who the author is. The nature of the publisher also is a factor. Let's amend my scenario... suppose I pay to have the book published. I hope we would agree that if I write a book, and pay a company to publish it for me - that is "self-publication". So how is that different from my submitting the unpublished Twain book I find in my attic to the same company and paying them to publish it for me. I am still the one submitting the book and paying for publication. And... Going back to my original scenario... where I post the Twain book on my personal website... how is a reader to know that this gem actually IS what I claim ... an unpublished book by Mark Twain? Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How is a reader to know that a standard corporate publisher that publishes a book under the name of an author didn't instead write it in-house, so that it is self-publishing a falsely identified work? One can never know this for sure, the reputation of the publisher (and perhaps of the independent author) is what we base such an assessment on in practice. As for your decision to publish a previously unpublished work by another, i would say that is not self-publishing. But it does not make the published work a reliable source. If an irresponsible publisher publishes something, no little or no reliability is added compared to the author having self-published. If you hire a printer/publisher to put out a work, and the publisher has no practical right-of-refusaul, if the publisher does not act as a filter on what is published, then the publisher does not "stand between" the author and the public, and so the work is for our purposes self-published, even if the author does not do the technical work of publication. DES ^(talk) 02:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:blueboar, your publication of a previously unpublished work by Twain on your personal website is, mostly, not self-publication. But your website is a questionable source because it has no reputation for reliability or fact-checking. Thus it couldn't be used in Wikipedia. The only element of your website that is self-published is your explicit or implied statement that you believe it was in fact written by Twain. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DES. "Self-published" does not mean unreliable, and "non-self-published" does not mean reliable. This is really not a complicated idea: self-publishing means that the author published it. Blueboar's scenario might be an example of "non-professional publishing", but that's not the same thing. Even dictionaries get this right: wikt:self-publishing, MW, Oxford, etc. It's really not complicated. Blueboar cannot, under any circumstances, self-publish a work that he had no role at all in creating. Blueboar's website might be a "questionable" source, but self-published is not an exact synonym for questionable. We mention both concepts in this policy because they are separate issues. Both need to be discouraged, and the combination (a source that is both self-published and questionable) needs to be very strongly discouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing wrote 'if "the authors" (e.g., employees instructed to create it) are the same as "the publishers" (e.g., employees of the same non-publishing business, who were instructed to make the other employees' stuff public), then that's self-publishing.' This interpretation of "self-published" confirms my view that I was correct to make this reversion. While the interpretation is one plausible interpretation outside Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines have all been formed around the concept expressed in this sentence from WP:IRS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field." The policies and guidelines have never regarded material produced by large organizations with significant internal editorial oversight as being self-published, even if the works do not give the names of individual authors. If such works were to be regarded as self-published the policies and guidelines would have to be completely overhauled to recognize that some such "self-published" works are among the most reliable sources available. (For example, where would you go if you wanted to know the population of the US, other than the US Census?) Jc3s5h (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The US Census Bureau is normally considered a reputable publisher, not merely an organization that decided to create something and put it out in the world.
2. Even if we did claim that they are self-published source, then the US Census Bureau easily meets the expert exemption.
3. The situation with the US Census Bureau contrasts strongly with, for example, all corporate/marketing websites, which do fall under SPS and cannot, for example, be used to make claims about any BLPs outside of their own organization.
   • To give a specific example: You absolutely may not cite Coca-Cola's website to make a statement about Pepsi's CEO. Coca-Cola's corporate website is written and published by the same people (namely, the employees of Coca-Cola), and therefore it is self-published. BLPSPS prohibits the use of self-published websites, including corporate websites, to make claims about third parties. There is no exception in BLPSPS for "if they have enough lawyers" or "if editors decide that Coca-Cola has an internal editorial oversight program". It cannot be used because it is self-published.

There really is no way around this. Please go look at a couple of regular dictionaries. I think you will find that it will help you understand what self-publishing actually means. And if we really do have to re-write policies as a result, then that's okay. We can do that. (I don't think that we'll have to, but that's okay: policies can change if that's truly necessary.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

From American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed.:

self-published adj. Having one's writing published by oneself: a self-published volume of memoirs; a self-published poet."

This agrees with the definition used in the development of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This definition would have to be stretched rather thin to apply to corporate author/publishers.

Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. At least in the U.S., corporations are people so the definition arguably would hold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if you don't really buy the "corporations are humans" idea, it still fits. If Coca-Cola, Inc. writes and publishes something "by itself", then doesn't it seem obvious that Coca-Cola's creation and publication fits squarely within that definition? There's no independent party involved in writing and publishing information on their corporate website. They are doing it themselves. In the end, it's the same as a small business website, written by the secretary and uploaded by the owner's kid, on a much grander scale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The plain meaning of the dictionary definitions cited in this thread is that whenever one natural person (or perhaps a few natural persons) publish something without any independent party exercising editorial control, the work is self-published. That's all these definitions have to say. What to call a biased publication by a large corporation is a subject for a different dictionary entry (if there is such a word or phrase). Certainly we can't say that every time a group of employees of a large corporation or government agency publish something without the exercise of editorial control by an outside entity, it is self publication; the examples of the census bureau is an example of a corporate author/publisher that is not a self publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So in your mind, if a husband and wife write a book together, and print it on their home laser printer, and offer it for sale, then this is not self-published, because two (2) natural persons were involved in it? Because if you're going to say that "a writer" obviously excludes "the writers of Coca-Cola's marketing department", then you can't really say that it excludes "two writers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no bright clear line between self published and not self published. A few people who are accountable to no one would be self publishers. Large organizations are not. A few people who write something and publish it in the large organization's name, and are held to account later is debatable. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a bright, clear line in that definition, and the sheer number of humans involved in it is not where the line lies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Something to remember... self-published does not mean unreliable, or unusable. We limit the use of self-published sources, but we do allow them in those limited situations. A press release from Coca-Cola announcing the date that they plan to unveil a new beverage is self-published, but perfectly reliable for a statement in Wikipedia as to when the coca-cola company plans to unveil the new beverage. Another press release that says that the new beverage will be the best beverage ever is also self-published... and can also be used as a reliable source if presented as opinion. However, a press release from Coke that warns that Pepsi's new beverage causes cancer would not be usable... It is self-published, and because it talks about a third party (Coke's rival Pepsi) it would not be a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm...no. Publications from large organizations may have the appearance of bias because they often promote the interests of the organization, but they're not self published. Substantial organizations control what is published in the organizations name in order to achive the organization's goal, whether that goal is primarily to inform the public (census, New York Times, GPS broadcasts), convert people to a religion, or make a profit. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

1. So who do you think creates Coca-Cola's marketing materials, if not their marketing department? And who do you think publishes those materials, if not the very same marketing department? Are they doing that themselves, as in "self" publishing?
2. Do you believe that citing Coca-Cola's website for claims about Pepsi's employees would be prohibited under BLPSPS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Of course Coca-Cola's marketing department creates the company's marketing materials. But basing the definition of self-published on the motivation of the writer(s) rather than the degree of editorial oversight means that a web page written by one person with no editorial oversight is not self-published if it appears the one person's motivation is to honestly inform the public, rather than enrich himself.

2. Citing Coca-Cola's website for claims about Pepsi's employees is not prohibited under WP:BLPSPS because it isn't a self-pubished source. It would be prohibited for contentious claims (but not all claims) by WP:BLPREMOVE because the claim would be poorly sourced, in that the source has an inherent conflict-of-interest. In many cases it would also be prohibited by WP:BLPPRIMARY since the Coca-Cola website is almost always a primary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How would you assess what the motivation of the writer is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But Coca-Cola's materials about Coca-Cola are, to the most part, self-published: no organisation with final control over the content stands between Coca-Cola and publication. Nothing about "self" says "lone individual": a corporation is a perfect example of an single entity composed of multiple individuals.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Then articles in the New York Times that lack a byline are self-published. The US Census is self-published. Technical information about Microsoft Windows on Microsoft websites is self-published. Information about disasters on the American Red Cross website is self-published. Yeah, sure. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times is not self-published. This red herring keeps coming up, so I'll explain below. It is, however, true that all information, technical and otherwise, about Microsoft Windows on Microsoft websites is self-published. They're experts on their own products, though, so you can still cite them (but not claim them as proof of notability). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• The definition of "self-published" has always been that no editorial structure stands between you and publication. Coca-Cola has a professional editing process and a legal team that oversees it. Coca-Cola writing about itself would make its website a primary source for that material, but not a self-published source. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• But who's "you"? In that case, "you" is "Coca-Cola", making it self-published. No editorial process stands between the Coca-Cola company as author and the Coca-Cola company as publisher. Now, if the Coca-Cola company was to have an essay contest and published submitted essays, we would be wary of bias, but that wouldn't count as self-published: the author (the essay submitter) and the publisher (the Coca-Cola company) are distinct.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "You" is almost always an individual, but it's sometimes a small group. The essence is the absence of a formal editorial process, the absence of oversight. Coca-Cola has that. Its lawyers could say no to probably anyone in the company; ignoring the lawyers would be very foolish. And even if they can be ignored, they exist and will make their views known in a way that has consequences for anyone ignoring them (e.g. that libel insurance would be invalidated). A self-published source has none of that. If a self-published source wants to add something to his website, he adds it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Slim, to my mind the distinctions you are noting are distinctions of reliability between two self-published sources... not the distinction between self-published and independently-published.

I see a company's website (when discussing the company and its products) as essentially qualifying for a corporate version of the "expert exemption" to WP:SPS... the company is an expert on itself. To the extent that it discusses things within its area of expertise, a corporate website is reliable... but that website is still self-published, and not independently published. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your definition would mean everything was self-published. The New York Times wants to publish something, then publishes it; therefore (you are arguing) its material is self-published.

A company writing about itself is producing a primary source. That is a completely separate idea.

"Self-published" on WP has always meant "creator straight to publication," usually a one-person operation, or a small group: no editorial process, no lawyers, no editors, no managers, no meetings, no-one who can say stop. Someone has an idea and (perhaps only seconds later) publishes that idea. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree about "always" and about "meaning" but I doubt if a discussion of such absolutes is really worthwhile. You say, 'it's primary', she says 'it's self published', -- well it can be both, or like both in many different ways and many different contexts -- RS are always judged in context Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that if you look into what reliable sources say on the subject, you'll find that there is commonly an explicit exception for traditional publishing houses. It is "by definition" not possible for an established publishing house, e.g., The New York Times Company, to self-publish a newspaper article. In the newspaper model, the "independent" reporter and the "independent" editor and the "independent" publisher collaborate to produce a newspaper in the same way that the independent novelist and the independent editor and Random House collaborate to produce a book. Anyone who thinks otherwise might learn more by expanding Editorial independence past the stub stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• In general we should treat corporate statements as self published for two reasons: 1) they are actually self published, which just means editors should always look closely at the manner, method, and material, as SPS and Selfpub warn to do (it should be easy to come to a consensus on whether that "Coca Cola, Inc." piece or the "Predatory Charity, Inc." piece are really worthwhile, but the analysis should be done, regardless) and 2) someone talking about themselves does not mean that anyone in the RS world cares what they say, which is one thing to consider when you write about it (like maybe don't write about it, or if you do, give it very little play). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I recently saw at the Help desk a suggestion that an editor using an offline (print) source scan it and upload a copy, and a fear that not doing so would make the citation invalid. I would like to add in the WP:SOURCEACCESS section, the following:

"Sources need not be available online, as long as enough information is provided that someone could find the source and verify the citation. It is not suggested that an editor upload a scan or copy of an offline source, and if the source is under copyright, doing so would be an infringement and not acceptable on Wikipedia."

Would any one object? DES ^(talk) 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How about saying only "Sources need not be available online"? I don't think that the suggestion to upload copies is very common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are newspapers preceded by "mainstream", but this is not done for magazines and journals? First, we need to define "mainstream". I'd suggest linking the word to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Audience, which as far as I know is the best definition of such a concept we have. Second, I think we should clarify that magazines and journals also should be mainstream. I will also note that that despite "Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources", WP:RS does not discuss the concept of mainstream, neither does it mention the word magazine at all, and it discusses journal primarily in the context of an academic journal. We need some clarifications here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It redirects to WP:NOENG for rationale, but it is not even mentioned here. See Template_talk:Source_needs_translation#When_to_use_this_template.3F for my proposed fixes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

On the page My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU, a translated title "My Youth Romantic Comedy Was Wrong as Expected" is mentioned as the translation for やはり俺のラブコメは間違ってる. This is mentioned on the cover of the book which would supposedly qualify as a reliable source. However, people in Japan have a habit of attempting to make translations that turn out not to make sense or are inaccurate usages of English due to the relative lack of people who speak good English in Japan. That is, although they are reliable sources for whatever they work on, they tend not to be reliable in providing English translations. In this case, I would like to ask if it is appropriate to provide a more appropriate translation alongside the "official" translation (the official translation would still be mentioned) so that people are able to read what the actual Japanese means without needing to make guesses from an inaccurate or unclear translation.--Tosiaki! (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

At All your base are belong to us we did just that. It's well known that the official texts in that game are broken English, so it was a clear-cut case. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is the governing policy which, lacking a high quality external translation, would explicitly allow an editor to translate the non-english part of the text. Diego (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant material elsewhere.

I've done a detailed write-up on this topic, in hopes that parts of it can be repurposed for WP:RS points, and perhaps worked into a supplementary essay. The confusion level with regard to these kinds of sources is high (see top of this talk page), inconsistent as to what the confusions are (ditto), and strongly indicative that the RS guideline and possibly the WP:V policy itself need clarification. (I added news publishers' blogs, and some other parallel cases like documentaries, editorials in journals not news publications, etc., since it was easy to cover them all at once, and they all raise overlapping issues.) I've posted it at WT:Identifying reliable sources#Distinguishing primary, secondary, tertiary material in op-eds, editorials, official blogs, documentaries.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

This topic has had a lot of churn lately, so I thought people here might be interested in this discussion: Template talk:Citation needed#When to remove unsourced info vs. when to add this tag?.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Um... which discussion? Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In the article on joseph Tainter, there is the sentance "Intense, authoritarian efforts to maintain cohesion by Domitian and Constantine the Great only led to an ever greater strain on the population." I think the author of this article meant Diocletian, not Domitian. You should have one of your editors review this. Diocletian preceded Constantine as the supreme ruler of the empire; Domitian ruled between Titus and Nerva some two centuries earlier when the Empire was (at least according to Gibbon) ascending to it's prime. Diocletian was the emperor that appointed a Caesar, subordinate to him, to rule the west while he dealt with troubles with the Germans (Danube campaigns) and the east (Syrian campaign). The final admission that things were out of hand for a single ruler was when he appointed four rulers. Later, Constantine's had some success against the Franks and the Germans and was able to reconstitute the Empire, albeit briefly. These gains were insufficient in the long run and are probably evidence to what Tainter was referring.

Sincerely,

Stephen Demos 209.119.129.74 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit... You can correct this yourself. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a real page of a real person and its a biography! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisconeribonilla (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The first attempt, which is the one I saw before it was deleted, was an advertisement, and written as a personal communication. Not allowed, sorry. Wikipedia is a reference work, not a place for attracting attention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey folks! I found this article published in Social Studies of Science exploring the history of one claim through multiple citations. It's a good read for anyone who has tracked down errors in published sources when writing a wikipedia article and I think it might be a neat addition to further reading or the notes. Since I'm not a regular editor of this policy page, I'd rather leave it here and ask the rest of the community for their thoughts. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to have a link to this; it's quite a story, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in our verifiability policies as a cautionary tale. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin raised an interesting point to me earlier today when she pointed out that op-eds are generally secondary sources. This is true by a conventional interpretation, but WP:NEWSBLOG has a bluelink from "opinion piece" to WP:PRIMARY, and because of this I have been operating under the assumption that op-eds should be treated as primary sources. So, according to Wikipedia, are opinion pieces primary or secondary? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say neither, in that the primary-secondary distinction presupposes an objective recounting of information. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that? I don't have a concept of how to practically deal with 1.5-ary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's sort of like saying that primary and secondary are classifications of English-language sources, but op-eds are in Urdu. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:PSTS seems to suggest that {primary, secondary, tertiary} is an exhaustive classification of sources. On a related note I have been in the habit of treating scientific papers as primary sources for their original claims, and as secondary sources for the background stuff, which can be invaluable especially in subjects where review articles are rarely written, but SlimVirgin also criticized me for not applying the classification uniformly to the whole article. Is that accurate? Or does the classification depend on which claims are cited?

I don't know what to make of Urdu op-eds. Is the bluelink to WP:PRIMARY just a misleading oversight? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, reliability of a reference depends on the context where it's used, so it must be evaluated for each sentence supported by a reference. Therefore, a paper might be reliable (and secondary) for some sentences in the Wikipedia article, primary for others, and unreliable for some claims. Diego (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Your approach to journal papers is the correct one. If it weren't, about 80% of WP material on scientific topics would have to be deleted as unreliably sourced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the 1.5/Urdu approach isn't useful to us. Primary and secondary (and tertiary) are descriptions of content in their contexts, not of types of publication, no matter how badly WP:Reliable sources confuses this distinction and some editors don't notice the accidental bait-and-switch. The publication format and editorial arrangement of the content are not determining factors. Any particular source may be a mixture of any two or all three, and may be primary with regard to one fact and secondary for another. On average, op-eds are primary and journalistic articles secondary, but there's a lot of wiggle room. Large swaths of many high-end op-eds are secondary material, bracketed by an opinional hypothesis that relies on that secondary analysis. Factoids repeated from, e.g., statistics sources by news articles are tertiary, while any conclusion drawn from them by the writer is primary if it did not come from another source attributed in the article; and so on. We have to stop thinking in terms of "newspapers are secondary", "science journal articles are primary", "a subject-specific encyclopedia is tertiary". It's like saying "a dish with chicken in it tastes good", "adult supervision will protect a child", "all Ford Tauruses run smoothly".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideally an opinion piece is composed of two kind of statements: (II) these are the facts..., and (I) these are my opinions about these facts...

(II) is the secondary source part of the opinion piece, (I) is its primary source part. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me - you're saying that the distinction between primary and secondary depends on what claim is cited. So maybe this should be clarified in WP:PSTS? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:PSTS tends to cause more confusion than it resolves... it needs an over-haul. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RSOPINION, maybe also WP:WEASEL, which I suppose Wikipedia's current way of dealing with this. These are guidelines: giving full detail about what exactly is primary and what exactly is secondary in which circumstances is hardly something we'd write in a policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:RSOPINION talks about reliability and attribution, which are different issues. Whether a source is primary matters, for example, because it determines whether it is subject to the "extreme caution" required by WP:BLPPRIMARY, whether it counts toward establishing notability in an AfD discussion, and whether a Wikipedia article can be mainly based on such sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In the context of notability (AfD, sufficient basis for Wikipedia article,...) opinion pieces count as secondary sources (they contain at least a secondary source part, that part contributes to the notability as much as any other secondary source that is not a mere listing).

In the context of WP:PRIMARY the "caution" provision only applies to the primary source part of the opinion piece. As said the policy doesn't detail for every type of "primary" source what needs to be done. But an advantage is that for opinion pieces the way the caution needs to be applied to the primary source part is a fairly standardized procedure, which is described in the reliable sources guideline under the header WP:RSOPINION (in short: "attribution" is the way to exert "caution" in such context).

Regarding main content of a Wikipedia article: start with filling the article with the secondary source content. Possibly add some opinions to it, but don't start with a list of quoted opinions before giving the facts everyone agrees on:

1. statement "this film was released in year xxxx and directed by xyz, with a cash return of abc,def"
2. statement "y1 thought it a good movie, y2 thought it a bad movie"

Guess which statement should be used first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, for questions regarding source/article/statement combinations you have in mind, please go to WP:RSN: we can theorize about this all we want, but I sense you have particular questions to resolve in this sense, here is hardly the place to sort that out. If the general answers you received here have helped you out sufficiently, I was happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces play a dual role. In principle they could be secondary sources for facts they assert about the world at large, but because opinion pieces aren't fact-checked the way news pieces are, they usually can't be considered reliable, except perhaps those from a writer well known for his or her reliability. Other than that, they are primary sources for the opinions of their writers (e.g. in an article Smith, we might write "Smith, in an opinion piece for the Morning Bugle, asserted that taxes should never be used for ..." etc.). However, we then run into the usual limitations on primary sources -- we generally wouldn't use such material unless some independent secondary source (e.g. a biography of Smith) discusses Smith's positions on taxes; in this case, we might use one of his opinion pieces to illustrate what the secondary source is saying. EEng (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • But could be secondary sources for facts they assert about the world at large, but because opinion pieces aren't fact-checked the way news pieces are, they usually can't be considered reliable, except perhaps those from a writer well known for his or her reliability is mix-and-matching rationales and definitions. An opinion piece that asserts facts is by definition a primary source for them. That's what "primary source" means. (Old sources, that were secondary when written, are be treated as if primary, because sources close to an event cannot benefit from later analysis of greater amounts of information, corrected factual errors, and broader analysis. Some publishers external to Wikipedia like to say that old sources "are" primary, but this is just unclear use of language. There is no transubstantiation from secondary to primary, and much confusion can be avoided on WP and in researching in general by being clear in one's mind about that.) Furthermore a 'writer well known for ... reliability" does not have some magic Wand of Secondariness that makes their work not primary when it's just their own opinion, or not treated as if primary when it's 100 years old. [Obviously, an op-ed may also include substantial secondary material supporting their own primary material.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Clarified.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is nothing to keep a journalist from writing a column that analyses some primary and secondary sources, and draws some conclusion about them, which would be a secondary statement. The journalist could go on to express his/her own opinion, which would be a primary statement. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes. I've been making this point elsewhere in the thread, and just wrote unclearly in that post. I'm clarifying it with insertion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• I have to ask: does it really matter whether an Op-ed piece is Primary or Secondary? I don't think it does... The important question is whether a specific op-ed piece is being used appropriately. There is a very good essay on the appropriate use of sources... see: WP:NOTGOODSOURCE and its sub-section WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Whether we consider an op-ed piece to be primary or secondary (or some mix of the two)... I would say that there are limited situations in which it is appropriate to use them. We always need to question how much WP:WEIGHT to give an op-ed piece... and when we do use one we should always attribute it to it's author. In essence, they should be treated as self-published works (even though they are not physically published by the "self" who wrote it). Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, the primary/secondary thing does matter in two repects:
    • Does the Op-ed count when determining the number of third-party sources in a notability logic (primary sources usually don't add up in that logic)? The answer is YES, the Op-ed counts as a secondary source there.
    • Are a journalist's opinions primary or secondary? Well, they're primary, I chose to explain the primary source precautions mentioned in WP:OR, as applicable to the context, by referring to a guideline – sure the same can be done by referring to an essay, and illustrate it by "don't read the three core content policies in isolation of one another". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as an op-ed counting towards notability goes... I think it is far more nuanced than a dualistic if Secondary = good / if Primary = bad. For one thing, not all op-eds are equal. Sure, an op-ed on some topic written by a nationally known columnistand published in a large circulation, big city newspaper should count positively towards notability of the topic ... but an op-ed piece on the same topic, written by an obscure unknown and only published in a small town, low circulation paper does not have enough of an audience to count towards notability. It's more a function of audience than the primary/secondary nature of the source. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A nationally-known columnist published in a large-circulation newspaper absolutely does not have their opinional material somehow transmogrify into secondary sourcing. It is, of course, true that not all op-eds are equal, and that publisher and author reputability are important factors, but it is impossible for reputation to change anecdotal opinion into researched analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) With regard to Francis Schonken's first point, it cannot possibly be true that an op-ed necessarily "counts as a secondary source" for WP:N purposes, as if by magic. It would only do so when the substantial, independent coverage of the topic in the (reputably published) op-ed is actually secondary material based on previous publication and, in that part, is expressing few if any opinional claims as a primary source on the topic, even if the piece as a whole is advancing an opinion as its main objective. Fortunately, that is often the case, so op-eds can frequently be used as sources that help establish notability. But this is not categorically true. As with so much else, it's a case-by-case matter.^[*]

I agree on the second point. There's no such thing as an opinion that's secondary. Secondary sourcing is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (WP:AEIS) of primary and/or other secondary material, that is not advancing a novel claim beyond connecting the dots between its own sources. If it's asserting something new (expressing an opinion) beyond that, then it's a primary source (even if it also relies on previously published sources to arrive at the new hypothesis), no matter who wrote or published it. If all it does is catalogue, summarize, or list previously published material without introducing even AIES, then it's tertiary. All three kinds of material are often found in the same source (any subject-specific encyclopedic compendium by a subject-matter expert will almost certainly be a three-way mixture, for example, and any newspaper contains all three between its covers every day). The reason people on WP are are having difficulty with this is that WP:Reliable sources is poorly written and tends to speak of these categories in terms of types of publications instead of types of content. This is something that badly needs to be corrected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

^* Clarification: While WP:N allows for the use of non-secondary but reliable material to help establish notability, after there's at least one reliable secondary source, it does not follow that every primary source that could be reliable for something in one context is necessarily reliable for notability or any other purposes for other material in it or in every possible context, because WP:RS relies on multiple context-dependent criteria, and the PSTS nature of the content in a single work can vary. Newspaper book/album/movie reviews are generally considered to help (but not alone) establish notability because they're part of an editorial review process that includes substantial winnowing. If a review of a new work makes into print (or e-print, whatever) in a major, reputable publication, this is evidence of notability of the work for the very reason that it survived such a process. When an op-ed writer, subject to little revision by publication's editors, writing about the environmental impact of Proposition 12 goes into a lengthy, promotional aside about how Green Today, Healthy Tomorrow by J. Random Activist, a self-published book no one's heard of (for all we know, the author is the writer's employer or spouse), was her inspiration for getting involved in the issue, and provides enough material about this book to be "non-trivial" "coverage", this does not actually constitute "coverage" by the reliable source (the reputably published newspaper) at all; it's just trivia and spam their editors didn't bother to excise. It has nothing to do with why they ran the editorial. The real substantiveness is in the political opinion of the writer on the environmental impact of the ballot measure. The relevance and neutrality of the material someone wants to claim is "substantial coverage" is actually quite important here. One of the principal problems with op-eds is that they are often non-neutral not just about the topic they express an opinion on (we already know that and we are accounting for it), but whatever other crap they're including, which often involves a direct conflict of interest. We cannot actually determine anything about the independence of op-ed material in most cases, yet independence is required in order for a source to help establish notability. Ergo, op-eds (vs editorials) often can help for WP:N purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Late reply: Blueboar's instinct is right: It doesn't actually matter whether an opinion piece is primary or secondary.

The reason it doesn't matter is that Wikipedia editors are almost never allowed to use opinion pieces to support claims of facts (e.g., "President Obama isn't a citizen of Kenya"). You may only use them to assert facts about the author's opinion ("Emily Editor wrote that Obama isn't a citizen of Kenya"). Regardless of the intrinsic nature of the source, opinion pieces may only be used on Wikipedia as if they were primary sources. Whether they truly "are" primary (and according to which academic field's standards, because they do vary) is a sideshow; you must use them as if they were primary. See the official rule at WP:NEWSORG:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

That's been present and accepted for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And in WP:GNG:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

For any subject mentioned in an opinion piece published in e.g. a reputable newspaper such pieces are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it adds up to the notability criterion for that subject. Also there the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction is mostly rather philosophical than practical for the determination of Wikipedia's content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As I addressed above, that is not categorically true.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For any subject mentioned in an opinion piece published in e.g. a reputable newspaper such pieces are "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it adds up to the notability criterion for that subject, as addressed above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've already addressed this above. That's usually going to be true for editorials, but not so much for op-eds, because independence from the subject can't be established with regard to the writer. You can't conflate editorials and op-eds on this, even if they are similar in many ways for other analyses.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is primary or secondary does not vary for WP; different fields' individual academic standards for what they consider secondary within their ambit is completely irrelevant to WP:RS. The only reason we would care at all is that some judgement must occasionally be exercised when evaluating some external source's description of some other source, or the ways it relies on other sources. WP cares about the end-product that is the cited source. If it contains a novel not analytic claim, it's a primary source for that claim for WP purposes, no matter how it's authors defined "primary" and "secondary" for their own purposes. Aside from that quibble, I certainly agree with WhatamIdoing's point. There is no question at all that WP treats op-eds and editorials as primary sources by default, and absolutely for any opinion, conjecture, or hypothesis in them, and that there is no conflict on this point between the relevant policies and guidelines. Francis Schonken's point is better expressed as something like "where an op-ed contains secondary material that is substantial, independent coverage of a topic, that material can help establish the topic's notability". But it can't go beyond that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Francis is correct in one respect: editors at AFD often seem to believe the entire contents of a newspaper to be secondary, because they don't understand that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. The result of this ignorance – or, let's put the blame where it's probably due: the result of using a fancy scholarly-sounding word in WP:N without explaining what was meant and why we're including it – is editors declaring that eyewitness news reports are "secondary sources", which not even the most lax historian would ever agree to. When questioned, they will tell you that the news story is secondary because the reporters only saw the events happen with their own two eyes, but did not directly participate in it. That's the definition of WP:INDY, but they don't get it. And they have no incentive to get it, because the fact is that the English Wikipedia routinely accepts articles about current events, under the GNG, for which no actual secondary sources exist. So they're giving the correct, consensus-based "vote", but they're giving a rationale for it that would get them flunked out of an introductory class on history.

I have wondered on occasion whether the solution is to remove the "secondary" requirements from the GNG. We are probably putting too much emphasis on this fuzzy distinction, and not enough on writing encyclopedic articles with due weight given to all aspects. (Another fantasy-land alternative is to enforce it quite strictly on any article more than a week or two old, possibly with the aid of professional historians to tell editors when their favorite sources aren't actually secondaries. I suspect that we'll just keep muddling through, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Re: 'Francis is correct in one respect: editors at AFD often seem to believe the entire contents of a newspaper to be secondary' – Sure, and it's a point I'm making consistently with him. But, 'they don't understand that WP:Secondary does not mean independent' – oddly enough, that's the point FS is missing about misuse of op-eds (vs. editorials) to try to support notability claims, even if he makes the same kind of point to others about some other kinds of sources. I'm chalking it up a temporary blind spot. It happens; I even contradicted myself on this very page earlier, regarding one of the three revision proposals, and had to change one of my !votes after realizing that one of my GAMING concerns was due to a side effect of something I was supporting. [shrug].

I very, very strongly agree with your take on the "it's in a newspaper so it must be secondary" belief being common and notable problem. I think our #1 problem in the WP:V / WP:RS sphere is the misuse of "secondary", etc., as if they are permanent descriptions of entire publications of mixed content types, or even entire classes of such publications, rather than descriptions of particular pieces of content in a particular context. This talk page is drowning in that confusion, even going so far as denials that journal articles can ever be secondary sources for anything unless they are literature reviews, and belief that third-party opinion piece (an opinion piece!) is a secondary source if it was published by a news media outlet. And this is coming from long-experienced, intelligent editors who are certain they understand this policy area. This is pretty much incontrovertible proof that the WP:PSTS wording has to be revised, though WT:V is not the place to propose the new wording.

If we do fix that, I think that this will auto-correct a lot of cascading problems, like confusing secondary with INDY with reputable and so on. They're being confused because the meanings of some of them are not just poorly explained, but in some cases irrationally "un-splained" by turning their real meanings on their ear. The misdefinition of PSTS as labels for publications or types of publications instead of content has been the result of a well-meaning but counterproductive attempt to keep it as simple as possible, to say "yeah, you can use a newspaper, now go write content". But the KISS principle only applies when oversimplification doesn't lead to increased complexity in the long run, which has happened here. GNG isn't broken; PSTS is, and that's where the unnecessary fuzziness is. It's not been caught by enough editors because most of the time when we cite a newspaper we're citing secondary material in it, and a immediate problem isn't apparent. It's only shows up when the "logic" [laugh] of the PSTS wording is used in more complex debates and it collapses in its own backward reasoning. I'm reminded of the death throes of the "pig-lizard" turned inside-out by transporter malfunction in Galaxy Quest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Meh, none of this seems particularily relevant regarding the topic of this section. We can make infinite distinctions regarding the nature of sources, and SMcC is particularily expedient at that, none of this has however much relevance for dealing with practical questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of only one "official" exception to WP:OR, and that is for plot summaries in otherwise notable articles on works of fiction. That exception seems to be detailed in MOS:PLOT, part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines, which is a subsection of the broader guideline WP:MOSFICT.

It reads:

"The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."

However, I find that there is a really massive amount of detailed original research arcana in the article space on Wikipedia, generally completely unsourced, on various minor characters from fictional works, or "List of characters in ..." fictional work articles.

So my question is, are there other exceptions of WP:V and WP:OR. Places where, by policy, the community has decided that fictional work OR is okay, and verifiability is not important?

Thanks. N2e (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No - there is no exception to WP:OR. If not sourced to third parties, any plot summaries / commentaries/ character descriptions must abide by WP:OR and be merely summaries or uncontested condensations of the primary source - policy does not allow any interpretation or commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get your point about "summaries or uncontested condensations of the primary source"; but I believe that is only applicable on (as I quoted MOS:PLOT above) a "a page about that work, [which] does not need to be sourced with in-line citations". So I get that plot summaries must not include additional sythesis. So I may have asked my question poorly. Let me try to clarify.

My question is really then, given that, how many other articles get this "plot summary" exception and don't need to be sourced to published, third party reliable sources? Can the exception to WP:RS, once allowed for a plot summary for a work of fiction, be allowed to then be extended to other articles? For example, to an unending list of minor characters? I occasionally run into editors who assert that the plot summary exception can be applied to a fair amount of arcana about particular characters in other articles, way beyond the original article on the named work of fiction. Here's one example:

"It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF. It's not original research to give a summary of a work of fiction using the work of fiction as the source itself. It's the primary source. You just don't know the rules when it comes to writing fiction and how EVERY page on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing."

I agree with that editor that a (very) large number of article pages "on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing." They have LOTS of unsourced OR detailed plot-related arcana about obscure characters in the show/book/etc. I'm just trying to find out if it is okay to extend the plot summary exception to WP:RS to all of that? N2e (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, there's no exception to WP:RS, nor to WP:V. "Third party" sources ("..independent of the subject..") is a WP:GNG concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Expanding (ec):

• (GNG:) if there isn't significant coverage of the subject in reliable third-party sources, you haven't got enough base material for a Wikipedia article on the subject (article can be deleted by AfD, PROD, or in extreme cases speedied).
• (OR/V/RS:) once there is a viable article its content and its sourcing should comply to NOR/V/RS (et.al., like NPOV), none of which make the exclusive use of third party sources obligatory. Not for any subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF" – WP:V is only complied to when the TV-show is obtainable (unedited at least for the part on which the Wikipedia content is based) after such information is added to the article (and no interpretative claims etc.). Very detailed Wikipedia content not covered by secondary sources may however present WP:BALASPS problems; on the other hand, a basic description of any subject based on available primary sources (when other reliable sources only have other content on the subject) is never a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Plot summaries are not "an exemption" to WP:NOR... they are explicitly allowed by that policy: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, Blueboar. N2e, are you interpreting the WP:OR policy to simply mean "unsourced"? Something can be unsourced, or without an inline citation, in an article and still not be WP:OR. Like the reference in the WP:OR policy states after the word exist for its second lead sentence, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

The play, book, television show, or movie is the source, just like you've been told. I've told the same thing to editors who've insisted that the plot section is unsourced and/or WP:OR because it lacks inline citations. If an editor engages in WP:OR with that plot summary, then that's obviously a problem. I understand that you are wondering how you can know if the plot section is true unless you've read the book or watched the show or film. Well, like I've stated on such matters, when it's not true, an editor usually comes along and corrects it. It's also commonly easy to Google the matter and see what's true and what is not; at least for some of the plot material. One area where this is difficult, though, is soap operas because daytime soap operas commonly air five days a week with a new episode each day, and usually don't play reruns (if the reruns happen, it's usually on holidays); that's how it usually is for American daytime soap operas anyway. See the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5#Storylines sections lack references 2011 discussion about this. Recently, American soap operas have been dying off, though, with occasional resurgences. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a very helpful response, Flyer22, and Blueboar. So I see now that I was confused as to exactly which actions in this sort of description of fiction is OR vs. Notability vs. etc. OR is not the same thing as just putting in a plot summary, in a named article on the work of fiction, without any source, etc. And, yes, definite problem is it is very challenging to insure Wikipedia keeps an NPOV in these cases were first-person research (but not OR) is done from viewing/reading the work of fiction. N2e (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue may be a conflation of several concepts. While WP:V , WP:OR , WP:NPOV (and its subsection WP:UNDUE ) and WP:N have inter-relations and impact how the others are applied, they are distinct concepts on their own, and how they apply depends upon the question being asked.

For example, "Do the policies allow me to put into an article the statement 'Marge Simpson's hair is blue' based upon the TV show itself?"

• Does the statement pass WP:V? Yes, it is verifiable by looking at the show that Marge's hair is blue.
• Does the statement pass WP:OR by not making any claim or analysis or implication that is not directly supported by the source? Yes, it passes WP:OR in that any person watching the show will agree that Marge's hair is blue.
• Does it pass WP:NPOV? In this case the answer is "It depends". If the article is about the Simpsons, then in many cases "yes". If the article is about hair salons in China, then probably no, talking about Marge Simpson's hair color would be WP:UNDUE.
• Does the claim and the source establish or help establish that the article the sentence is in meets WP:GNG? No. The TV show is a primary source for the color of Marge's hair and does not establish that third parties have discussed the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very helpful response TPoD! I've been conflating some of the core policies, for sure. Your delineation of the policies and issues is quite helpful. Moreover, now I realize I may even be confusing some of the good people trying to help me as the Talk page section title is "How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?", but we are really talking about a larger issue, and what WP core policy says with respect to that, and what are the implications for the quality of the encyclopedia, and particular articles, as a result. Should I perhaps change the section title now, to make it more clear? Or start a new section??? N2e (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@N2e: I wouldn't change the section header name at this point because it would change the context of other people's comments. You may wish to insert a subsection header. Or if the conversation below is heading in the direction that answers your question, just let it roll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article the OP is talking about is List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters. When the editor arrived at the article, it had no sources at all (see this version)
  • On the Talk page, at one point they seem to make the error applying NOTABILITY to specific bits of article content (e.g. whether to discuss a particular character at all, and perhaps how much) which is a mistake - NOTABILITY only applies to articles as a whole. I think the WP-appropriate policy question is whether the mention of the character (or weight given to the description) is UNDUE, which you can generally only settle via independent, secondary sources. That is a good question.
  • IP editors arguing with the OP on the Talk were making the point that the descriptions of the characters didn't need any sourcing per MOS:PLOT - in other words, the whole article didn't need sourcing at all. That seems to be a bad argument to me, as nothing showed NOTABILITY for the article as a whole (but List articles are generally a nightmare to me)
  • The OP seems to making the claim that this article, List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters, is not the article on the show, which is Power Rangers Dino Charge and so MOS:PLOT does not apply anyway. That seems kind of wiki-lawyer-y to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• As an aside, the article has all kinds of interpretative language in it, cited only to the show:
  • "Tyler Navarro is the enthusiastic and adventurous leader of the team, "
  • "Shelby Watkins is a clumsy, slightly ditzy tomboy who works as a waitress at the Dino Bite Cafe inside the Amber Beach Dinosaur Museum. Shelby also has a vast knowledge of dinosaurs, "
  • "Chase Randall is the suave laid-back member of the group from New Zealand with a cat and mouse personality. He is a skateboarder and likes to flirt with pretty girls."
  • "Wrench is another of Sledge's generals who has a whining personality if he is badly hurt. "
• The "color" in these description is WP:OR I believe, as we cannot interpret primary sources. Seems like a fan-blog, not a wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK... here is my advice on the article... first is the issue of WP:Notability ... the lead of the article needs to establish that the characters of "Power Rangers Dino Charge" are notable enough as a group for Wikipedia to have a separate list article about them. For that, we need reliable secondary sources that are independent of the TV show ... sources that discuss these characters as a group. If this can not be established, the list should probably be merged into the article on the show (as a sub-section).

Assuming we can establish notability, we then move to the issue of content... which characters to include and exclude. This is a function of WP:Due Weight... It may be that some of the characters are worth mentioning while others are not. Characters that appear in every episode would appropriately be given more weight than those that only appear occasionally, and those that have only appeared in one or two episodes are probably too marginal to be worth mentioning at all. Characters that have been discussed by reliable sources should be given weight... those that have not been discussed by reliable sources should not.

Finally, once we determine which characters are worth mentioning, we have to determine what to say about them. This information needs to be Verifiable. VERY BASIC description ("Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode nineteen that he is gay") can be verified by the show itself. Character analysis and evaluation (such as "Fred is likable and kind, but overly trusting") requires an external source. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes.Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Slight persnickety: "Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode nineteen that he is gay when he came out to his parents" => OK - content of the show directly establishes claim. "Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode eighteen that he is gay when he said he likes to arrange flowers and listen to kd lang and admires Harvey Milk" =>Not OK - evaluative interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the spirit of Blueboar's comment, but I believe the implied line described here is too tight. Broad aspects of character that any reasonably competent reader/viewer will notice is not OR. (I am too old for the Power Rangers, so I will switch examples.) "Scooby-Doo is easily scared and not too bright." Do we really need to source the fact that he is definitely no Einstein? If you insist. Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How dare you! scooby doo is a genius! see here.  :) pop culture articles in WP give me hives.Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Can I point out that WP:PRIMARY, which is part of the no original research policy, says in one of the strongest statements in Wikipedia policy: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Note the word "evaluate." I would suggest to TRPoD that his statements about the color of Marge Simpson's hair and that about Fred Smith aren't necessarily consistent, though as I'm about to say I generally agree with the end result. That is: I agree entirely with TRPoD's statement about Fred Smith, but I'm uncomfortable with the one about evaluating Marge Simpson's hair color as blue, at least in Wikitheory. On the other hand, I'm okay with evaluating her hair as blue as one of those kinds of local exception to policy which stand because no one reverts it and which thus weakly implies that no one disagrees with it. But like all of those exceptions, if someone objects to it (either because they disagree with the evaluation — is Scooby Doo's coat tan or brown? — or merely because it violates the no-evaluation rule), then a "positive" consensus has to be formed to support the exception or a reliable source has to be found to support it. Choor monster, yes, indeed, we do need to source that fact and if it's that important to the character it's certainly been discussed in some episode or third party source.Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say that I greatly appreciate the help in clarifying and interpreting the Wikipedia policy(ies) that have emerged to make this such a great, and very useful, encyclopedia. I've learned much, including that the presumption I had in my original question in the Talk page section header above ("How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?") was incorrect. While OR does not allow synthesis, it is fairly clear that WP:GNG and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE are probably more of the problem in the sorts of articles with excessive (often unsourced) fancruft in articles on works of fiction that brought me here to ask the question.

I've learned a lot, and am still learning, from the discussion here. Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to help with a project—or point to a project if one already exists—to develop a set of friendly, policy-compliant "best practices" to use when one approaches a WP article on a fictional characters to improve the encyclopedia and do it in a civil and constructive way? I'm thinking of lot of WP articles that are full of fancruft, and nearly "Wikia"-ish in the actual content one sees in the article, rather than Wikipedish. So if an editor would like to help, at the margin, and select an article or few to improve over time, is there a "best order" (e.g., article notability [{WP:OR]]/WP:SYN; or just looking for secondary sources first; or ???) that might have emerged as a good way to tackle such improvement efforts? Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't followed this conversation, but might recommend Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction as a good starting point, though it isn't character-specific. I'd be willing to help with the development of the project in a limited capacity, but don't really have the resources to do any significant article improvement at this time. DonIago (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not going to wade into this in whole-thread detail. I concur with TRPoD near the top. The MOS guidance here is not some magical NOR exception; it's an interpretation of V / RS. If people are engaging in their own novel analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (WP:AEIS) of a work of fiction that's an NOR problem. On a side note, the wording in MOS cannot be interpreted with WP:LAWYER level nit-picking. :-) All of WP:POLICY is interpreted in relation to all the rest of WP:POLICY; the fact that WP:SUMMARY exists and tells us to branch long articles into subarticles automatically means that any guideline that applies to the main article on work of fiction doesn't stop applying if some of its content forks out into sub-articles to keep the main one from being a mile long. A published work is still a source, naturally, for what the published work says. And the published work is actually cited, once, at the article on that work. What the MOS bit means is we don't add redundant citations, statement after statement in plot summaries; the entire plot summary as a whole is sourced by the most reliable source possible on what the work says, itself. It's perfectly legitimate to cite a list of characters in the work to the work. It's not legitimate to add personal interpretations to the main or sub-articles. It's also unwise to only cite the novel/whatever one time in something like a list of characters, but rather to do so once per entry; if the work is notable enough to need such a list, its highly likely that secondary source material has been written about various characters and that details from such sources will be added to our list article, citing those sources. As with glossary articles (which character lists are often formatted as), such pages are almost always best sourced on an entry-by-entry basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:V contains this text:

"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material"

while WP:BLP contains this text:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

Given these policy statements, once material has been challenged and removed, under what circumstances can an editor restore it without providing an inline citation in the same edit? Any? Or is the editor obligated to find the source prior to restoring the material? If there's an acceptable lag between restoration and sourcing, what is it?—Kww(talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The restoring editor might be putting the disputed statement back in one edit, then intend to provide the source in a subsequent edit. I think a suitable lag would be the time it takes to find and fill in a CITET template. I'd give it an hour, tops, assuming the restoring editor isn't explaining why it might take longer than that. Reyk _YO! 14:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And, politely, without intending to hound: why don't we demand that the editor find and fill in that template before saving?—Kww(talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In purely practical terms, and with sometimes mildly demanding wikitable markup, it's much easier to add the citations alone rather than re-insert sections into tables along with their refs. Plus, it's easier to work with a crib sheet of "missing answers". As long as it's not controversial, there shouldn't be a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Some articles have the list of references in a section the the bottom, such as this one. It's not unreasonable for someone to edit one section to add the info, put the citet template in the references section in a second edit, then come back to do the inline^[1] thing in a third edit. I think an hour is generous enough for someone who's slow about it. I don't think waiting forever on the off chance they might come back to source their stuff is required. Generally if you've got a reason for breaking the process up into multiple edits you'd want to communicate why in edit summaries. Reyk _YO! 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template as the question is answered in great detail on the policy page, both in general for WP:V (see WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations, third paragraph of the section) as in particular for WP:BLP (WP:BLP#Challenged or likely to be challenged, and subsequent subsections). I oppose calling an RfC for a question that basically comes down to: can you point me to the appropriate section in the guidance?

When you're challenging the guidance, first ask, before calling an RfC. Or go straight to a dramaboard (which this talkpage isn't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken I've restored the RFC template, for the reason that the interpretation of those sentences is being disputed to the point that I am risking being desysopped for enforcing my interpretation (which is that the source must be provided in the same edit). I was hoping to get an interpretation divorced from that conflict, and I guess that opportunity is shot to hell now, but it is apparent that there is some community disagreement about the timing and sequence of when the source must be supplied vs. when the material is restored.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, then go read the policies. You'll have your answer. Sorry to hear about the challenging of your sysop bit. Calling an RfC for something that is plain in the guidance is however not how a sysop should behave (and would incline me to support removing the sysop bit if I were interested enough to have my voice heard in this). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I've read the policies, Francis Schonken. Can you point at any piece of them that supports the restoration of challenged material while unaccompanied by an inline citation?—Kww(talk) 15:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Not every removal of unsourced material is "challenging" – it may e.g. be plain vandalism. BLP has a few conditions built in, e.g. that the removed material is "contentious", if you can't make the judgement call whether material is contentious or not, you shouldn't be "enforcing" anything. Removals of non-contentious material can often be reverted with the addition of a {{cn}} notice (which WP:V describes), but that also is a judgement call, e.g. countering plain vandalism removals with a {{cn}} may be heavy-handed. So the answer to your question, when material without an inline citation is removed can it only be reinserted with a citation is: IT DEPENDS, and requires a judgement call more often than not. Trying to shortcut the judgement call part goes against policy, and editors acting without the judgement call part would probably better not be enforcing anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How could there possibly be any GREATER "challenge" to content than outright removal????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • Really, is that the level of this discussion? I'm not going to see a removal like this one as a "challenge" to the validity of the removed content. ever. whether there are refs in it or not, no difference: removal, but no "challenging" of material. Repeating my proposal to fold this discussion with a link where the discussion was (and still is) going on before this forumshopping began. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an unexplained removal of cited material, not what we are discussing at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"outright removal" is not by definition a "GREAT challenge", QED. Quite often it's not even a challenge of the material at all.

Re. "what we are discussing" – whatever we're discussing, platitudes don't help. FYI, I was discussing "Not every removal of unsourced material is challenging", that's the comment you replied to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we were all discussing removal of unsourced information. And you replied by linking to an unexplained removal of sourced info. To which I responded "What does that have to do with what we are discussing?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The off-topic "How could there possibly be any GREATER "challenge" to content than outright removal?????" remark came before I gave the example that contained both sourced and unsourced material. Besides the example contained enough unsourced material to illustrate what was said: vandalistic and/or clueless "removals" don't "challenge" encyclopedia content on any level, whether the removals contain sourced or unsourced material (or both). So, no "outright removal" is not necessarily a challenge to content, and certainly not by definition one of the "GREATER challenge(s) to content". So can we skip platitudes and get to the topic being discussed here? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not "off topic" to point out that your position was based on the weird presumption that removal of content is not a challenge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is, again, not what I said. I said it is not always a challenge. Can we quit this non-level of discussion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • Actually, Francis Schonken, {{cn}} is only discussed in terms of what an editor can do before removing challenged material. There's no mention at all about using in when restoring text.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Again, if you can't distinguish between "removed material" and "contentious material", and think "challenged" applies to both in the same degree, getting better acquaintance with the actual policy would probably be more beneficial than fighting the desysopping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Your comments center exclusively upon what practices policy indicates should be addressed in the context of removing material, and do not address the question I attempted to start an RFC over at all.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Your question was about "challenged" material. "Challenging" is not a mechanical concept (we'd have bots to handle it if it were). The policies explain the nuances, depending on circumstances, of what challenging is. No RfC is needed to explain "hey, don't interpret challenging as if it were a mechanical concept, for example by enforcing that no removed content would be brought back without an inline citation". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
            • We're not talking about undoing a vandal's section blanking and in the process restoring an unsourced paragraph. We're talking about material removed specifically because it is unsourced and, yes, that is a bright line rule, just like 3RR. It is never OK to restore it without a supporting citation. The only question is whether there's a bit of wiggle room about the sourcing and the restoration being in the same edit. Reyk _YO! 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
              • A vandal removing a single unsourced sentence and writing "challenging unsourced statement" in the edit summary would still be a vandal. So "unless the challenged statement is vandalism or potentially libellous" (as it was in the answer already given to kww before coming here) the editwarring is a far brighter line than the judgement call needed to assess whether a removal is a WP:V challenging that supersedes WP:BITE and whatnot (as carefully explained to kww before coming here with the same question he had already gotten an answer to). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                • "A vandal removing a single unsourced sentence and writing "challenging unsourced statement" in the edit summary would still be a vandal."- nope, you are wrong. That is not vandalism, ever. Reyk _YO! 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • Re. "That is not vandalism, ever" – It could be vandalism, easily: below "retaliation" is mentioned as a reason why it could be vandalism, to which I'd add other possibilities like WP:SOCKing; WP:DISRUPTing Wikipedia for whatever (lack of) reason; WP:GAMEing the system;...and whatnot. All of which require sensible editors to interpret whether that's the case or not. Rewriting WP:V in bulldozer format so that these judgement calls are no longer necessary is not helping the encyclopedia at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

                Note: WP:FORUMSHOP is also a very bright line, and I'm inclined to fold this discussion with a link to where the original discussion is taking place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The BURDEN section of this policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (Emphasis added.) I would ordinarily argue that the "should" makes that a best practice, not a requirement, but the language first quoted by Kww, above, says "must" so I think that this is merely a re-emphasis of that requirement, not a new rule, and is therefore mandatory. Moreover, any unsourced material can be removed, whether it's a restoration or a new edit, so in some ways it doesn't matter. However, it should be noted that there's no exception to 3RR or the edit war policies for removing restoration of unsourced edits. On the "same edit" question, I agree with Reyk. Heck, though I'm absolutely committed to previewing and providing edit summaries on every edit I make, I still sometimes hit the save page button before I remember to do so. Editors are human and instantaneously reverting a restoration fails to AGF. Give them some time and then remind them of their obligation and give them another chance before reverting. If they still revert after that, take them to ANI or seek dispute resolution, don't edit war. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• To the above I would add, the BURDEN section of this policy says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Right there is the answer to the question of whether the citation must be added at the same time the material is restored. And, I might add, a claim that X won Y award followed by [Citation needed] or [unreliable source] tells the reader not to trust the claim. Deleting it when you have no real reason to think it is false harms the LP (slightly) if it turns out to be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, Guy, that tells you that the speed of the removal depends on numerous factors. It pretty clearly states that restoration should not occur without an inline citation.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Imho this highlights the problem: picking one ore two policies while ignoring the broader context of other, as applicable, guidance. Thinking that taking half a paragraph of this policy is a token with which to smash all other relevant guidance including WP:BITE, WP:AGF etc., even when the second half of that same paragraph clearly indicates limits with which this can be enforced.

  It is clear why kww wants to have this discussion on this talk page: in order to maximise ignorance of behavioral constraints (note that ArbCom cases generally judge behavior, not content) – so, repeating my proposal to hat this discussion here to take it back, with an appropriate link, to where the discussion is taking place since before the forumshopping began. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, this discussion ignores the possibility that the restoring editor has provided a valid reason for not providing an additional citation. Instances I've seen of editors failing to recognize a valid pre-existing citation include:

1. Substantially the same claim, with a valid citation, appears elsewhere in the article.
2. The article contains a valid citation that is not in the form of a footnote, like "Jones explains in chapter 6 of his autobiography.... (where the autobiography is in the reference list of the article).

Second, it is often convenient to make a change in a few edits rather than one edit. This would apply if short footnotes are being added to the body of the article, and a new source to the reference list. It would also apply if named references are being used and some adjustments are needed so that the named reference applies correctly to each spot where the named reference is used. If an editor is trying to do a good job by using these more sophisticated citation systems, and gets reverted in the middle of the process, the editor is justified in being angry at the reverter. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say that the citation may be provided after the text is, so long as this is done in a reasonably prompt manner, i would say up to several hours. If the current policy and guideline pages don't provide for this, then they should be changed to clearly and explicitly do so. Addingf a CN tag promptly seems not unreasonable, it documents the request for a citation. Reverting, much less blocking, does not, and I think it is clear that the community consensus does not support such action, and so any policy page that says otherwise is in error. DES ^(talk) 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have this wonderful history feature which provides all prior versions of the article. There is absolutely no need to return challenged material before verifiability is established even for a little while. There is no need for a partially completed edit to sit in the public article. You can use your user space, you can use a text editor. The burden of verifiability was very intentionally placed where it is, and I think it is a good idea. How many times has someone said they were going to fix an article and did not? Chillum 16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's the practical side of this: Unless there is something else going on, no one is ever going to be blocked for either restoring unsourced material (even if they never provide a source) or for deleting that unsourced restoration just one or two times. Trying to parse out whether the sources have to be provided in the same edit or can be provided later is a colossal waste of time. Would anyone here want to go to ANI with the complaint that an editor restored unsourced information but X minutes/hours/days late provided a source for it but ought to be blocked anyway only because he/she didn't do it in the same edit? Yes, of course it ought to be in the same edit, but on a practical level — again without something else going on — it's irrelevant other than, perhaps, something to use to try to bluff someone (usually a newcomer) into capitulation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) PS: I wrote the foregoing before the subsection about the Arbcom Case, below, was added and got an edit conflict because of it. I strongly predict that what I've said here will be proven true in that case, as is already appearing to be the case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting that editors are expressing widely different and frequently contradictory opinions as to what the policy says in respect to this issue, yet it is so obvious to some that an RFC is unnecessary. So obvious to one that he was even willing to remove the RFC tag twice in order to make certain that no RFC was held.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO there are three steps:

1. What to do to make material as challenge-proof as possible?
   1. Find reliable sources. If needed ask advice at the article's talk page and/or WP:RSN.
   2. Source the material in the article to the reliable sources, with an appropriate technique (which e.g. may be somewhat different for tables than for running text)
   3. Additional recommendations: the more easy to find the sources are, the more unquestionable their reliability is, and the more easy the material that is supported by the source can be found in the source (e.g. by providing page numbers), the less likely the material will be challenged.
2. How to challenge material?
   1. For material that is not supported by a reliable source and at the same time is a WP:REDFLAG or potentially libellous, there's only one method: immediate removal (edit warring about this can however only be excused for countering obvious vandalism or when keeping potentially libellous material that is not verifiable to reliable sources out of BLPs).
   2. For other unsourced material (or material that is sourced, but not actually supported by a reliable source) it depends on context & content: techniques going from removal for quite unlikely or somehow contradictory material, over {{cn}} (or one of its more specific ore more general alternatives) when it seems unlikely without immediate threat to Wikipedia's integrity, to raising the issue on an appropriate talk page for less pronounced doubts (or in addition to the techniques used for more pronounced doubts).
   3. In any of these cases, looking for reliable sources and sourcing the content to such sources and/or update the content to what can be verified to reliable sources is appreciated (subject to consensus that the material isn't unduly elaborate etc.)
3. What to do when material is challenged (by removal, {{cn}}-like notice, talk page discussions, etc.)?
   1. Step 2.3, often combined with talk page discussion to find consensus, is usually the optimal approach.
   2. Same restrictions for edit warring as mentioned in 2.1 above.
   3. Even if the material is no longer challenged, see whether you can make it more challenge-proof per the recommendations of step 1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there, or can/should there be, a section or line that discusses {{Nonspecific}} citations? For example, I have come across statements that are cited with just CNN [www.cnn.com www.cnn.com] or LA Times [www.latimes.com www.latimes.com]. In actuality these statements should be cited to an actual article, not just the homepage of the news agency. Would be great to have a WP:Nonspecific link... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that there is a piece of previous consensus is this regard at WP:DEEPLINK. I do not disagree that it should be mentioned in WP:V, but people tend to habitually oppose every improvement to this page, so you may find it easier to just point to WP:DEEPLINK.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a template that can be used to indicate the problem: {{Bad linked references}}. As an in-line template I suppose {{Full citation needed}} can be used, containing a link to WP:CITEHOW (where there's a subsection on webpages used as citation). {{Nonspecific}} exists, but is for vaguely formulated article content not even having a citation.

A similar issue (regarding citations to the homepage of Google Books) came up here: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Cleanup of "naked" Google Books? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

All DVD & Blu-ray technology is unverifiable because the specifications are proprietary, requiring a payment and completion of a non-disclosure contact, therefore, all DVD & Blu-ray subjects in Wikipedia should be removed. --MarkFilipak (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but actually, "freely accessible without effort" is not a criterium in verifiability. Sources you need to pay for are still valid sources for the purposes of this policy (-->WP:SOURCEACCESS).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus is right about sources requiring payment being citable in Wikipedia, but sources that require signing a non-disclosure agreement to see are not published, and so cannot be used to support claims in an article. But I suspect enough published sources can be found to write articles about DVD and Blu-ray technology. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The technical sections of DVD & Blu-ray subjects are full of bogus information, "facts" of the most grossly speculative sort. What is written cannot be challanged by informed people without either breaking copyright law or causing a war in the subject entry pages or both. I'm an engineer and I can assure you that the information there is of the poorest quality. Most of the errors are the result of notions that have a certain internal consistency and have therefore achieved a sort of community conscensus, but that are nonetheless wrong; not simply wrong in fact, but wrong in fundamental ways. Sources requiring non-disclosure are and should be ineligible, but that leaves only information that has been leaked to other "sources" that can be cited. Such clandestine information, while accurate, has no currency against the notions that are flawed and therefore cannot stand up to them, especially when such notions are based on popular misconceptions that are internally consistent and easier to understand than are the actual facts. Visitors reading technical articles about DVDs & Blu-rays have no way to differentiate between the accurate and the bogus because both are unsupported. The Wikipedia model of universal editing simply does not work in the case of proprietary knowledge subject to non-disclosure. Such articles should be removed altogether or they should be operated as a user forum within the wiki with one or more moderators who are recognized subject-authorities. The current situation is intollerable and getting worse. --MarkFilipak (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If content in a Wikipedia article can be verified only through sources access to which is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, doesn't it follow that its inclusion here is a violation of the nondisclosure agreement? If so, is that a legal concern for Wikipedia? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not subject to any non-disclosure agreements that other companies may have made up between themselves.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The situation you describe sounds highly implausible. Wikipedia articles should not be based on primary sources such as the proprietary DVD and Blu-ray specifications. A simple Google search reveals that Encyclopedia Britannica (unsurprisingly) has articles on both DVD and Blu-ray, and undoubtedly there are plenty of reliable technical sources as well. This concludes the discussion [about DVD and Blu-ray] here - the discussion of which of the existing non-primary sources should be used belongs on the talk pages of those articles.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

MarkFilipak has a (general) point imho, related to policy on the matter: if we're too easy on "connecting dots" in fields of knowledge where in principle there is no legitimate access, that might be something we want to write about in guidance: if not in policy, then possibly in WP:RS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say the discussion around DVD and Blu-ray sourcing specifically should not evolve here. I've amended the comment accordingly.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for article content can be challenged at WP:RSN too, just saying, if can't get it worked out at the article talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. One may also ask one's mom or one's dog for advice. A comprehensive list is not necessary.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder, the situation is not implausible, it's real and, I believe, serious. I would bet that the Encyclopedia Britannica articles are general in nature, not citations of specific format modes and programming and the like (specifics that are covered by non-disclosure). There are reliable sources for some of these, but those sources can't identify themselves due to legal consequences AND, due to the structure of Wikipedia, they cannot be attributed any more credibility than that given to notional sources that I know to be bogus. If Wikipedia is to be a real encyclopedia and not the encyclopedic equivalent of Popular Science, then a method of factual verification needs to be developed. A consensus of notions will not do when the authoritative facts are hidden by non-disclosure. --MarkFilipak (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but you seem to misunderstand the aim of Wikipedia, which is roughly as general as Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, one project standard suggests that if "you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." If we can provide better information, that is great, but not required. We are not an instruction manual or a textbook.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Who are you? --MarkFilipak (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you ask?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Folks please take a step for a moment. Mark you have had an account since 2008 but you have made only 150 edits; you are still a newbie here and that is clear from what you are writing above. I will write more to you on your Talk page, as what I have to say isn't appropriate for this Talk page. This Talk page is for discussion of the Verifiability policy, and not for questions like the ones you are asking (which are not the right questions). Please do see your Talk page. If other folks want to join there, great. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been told that one should not remove Wikipedia citations, but instead add {{Better source}}. Documentation of {{Better source}} specifically links to the WP:NOTRS section, which WP:CIRCULAR is apart of. Only when a valid reference has been added, can the Wikipedia citation be removed. This applies to bots and people removing the Wikipedia citations. Bgwhite (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested in what Bgwhite means when they say "I've been told", they're referring to a small discussion currently taking place about how a bot (not mine) should handle citation templates that use links to Wikipedia in the 'url' parameter. Background on how the bot came to be marking circular links with {{Better source}} can be found further up that same talk page. Please read my response that apparently prompted this section here; I very clearly state "Anyone seeing these references pointed out by the bot's edit (it's not like the bot is inserting them) is welcome to remove them if they think that is the best course of action" (emphasis added), so I honestly have no idea where Bgwhite gets "Only when a valid reference has been added, can the Wikipedia citation be removed. This applies to bots and people removing the Wikipedia citations", which even charitably seems a willful misinterpretation of my opinion on the matter.

Bgwhite has been "told" nothing, I'm just a nobody who likes expanding articles no-one gives a crap about, and I only offered an opinion in what semed a pretty mundane discussion. Bgwhite has decided to start this conversation here without informing folks (such as myself, and the bot's owner, Basilicofresco) that would likely be interested. Antepenultimate (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Antepenultimate is not the only person I've discussed this with, sorry, but this isn't about you and what you said. The bot owner hasn't responded to my email, discussion and is rarely on-line. They don't have the only bot that can do this. This is the edit Antepenultimate complained about that the template would be applied to instead of removing the Wikipedia reference. He sailed to New York on the [[Packet boat|canal packet]] ''Seneca Chief.''<ref>{{Cite web|url = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_boat|title = Erie Canal Time Machine | ... </ref>. I also received complaints on removing the Wikipedia ref in this manual edit. This is an example were the template was applied. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course they should be deleted, and I'd be stunned to see anyone argue otherwise. But that is a separate question from whether bots should be doing the deleting. The best course of action may be to simply remove the citation, or it may be to turn it into a normal WikiLink. There could also be an actual reference in the article history or somewhere else on the page that a human editor could find. Thus I think having the bot simply flag these citations makes sense. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The entire saga that I've been aware of has been completely in the context of bot actions. I don't know where Bgwhite gets the idea that anyone thinks circular refs can't be removed without replacement by actual editors, a link to a discussion alleging that would be helpful. For manual, non-bot edits of these sorts, presumably the bad ref would at least need to be replaced with a {{citation needed}}, or the "cited" passage should be removed, assuming it isn't WP:BLUE. Or, the editor could do a bit of legwork and dig the proper source out of the wikilinked article. Those decisions couldn't be made by a bot, but can be easily accomplished by in-the-flesh editors, which is why I also support this sort of bot-flagging of poor refs. Antepenultimate (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I support having a bot that tags citations to Wikipedia (as opposed to simply removing them)... As is highlighted at WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, while removal of problematic citations is allowed, it should be a last resort. When Article A contains a citation to Article B, simply removing the citation only fixes part of the problem (it resolves the issue of having a problematic citation, but then leaves the information unsourced). Tagging, on the other hand draws attention to the issue and allows the entire problem to be fixed. Editors can go look for a reliable source to support the statement (which may well be cited at Article B... a citation that can be cut and pasted into Article A to replace the flawed citation to Article B). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Let's face it, we don't have many articles with editors regularly checking their histories and reviewing edits. Thus, while in a perfect world it would be the best to simply delete such circular references (which a perfect world would never see anyway), in the real world it should be much better to tag circular references simply because that approach increases chances for someone spotting the issues and fixing them. All that applies to a bot doing that work, of course, while an editor that finds a circular reference should do their best to replace it with a proper one, and delete the circular reference only as a last resort. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. I have seen where editors seemed to have thought it was good enough to merely point (with a wikilink) to where a citation can be found (in another article). Retaining such links (suitably tagged) gives a subsequent editor a heads-up on where a source might be found. Hopefully the tag will suggest following up on that rather than simply deleting the link. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

I'm the bot operator. Placing a {{Better source}} tag seems the best solution to me because draws attention to the issue (my original intent), but at the same time preserves all the informations useful to fix it. For additional details see User talk:Basilicofresco#Bot removed only useful portion of reference. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar the thing here is that we do not actually remove references because these were not references at first place. Wikilinks, independently of how they are written are not references and they should not be presented as references. In fact, we should search for "references" that are sole wikilinks and replace them by proper references or remove them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my comment. I agree that a wikilink is not a citation, and is not enough to satisfy WP:Verifiability... but there is often a citation that will satisfy WP:V at the linked article... a citation that should be copied and pasted into the problematic article. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 29 September 25 (UTC)

EEng changed the text:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

to

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for statements about themselves, for example in an article about such a source; see below. They are not suitable sources for anything else.

Bbb23 reverted to the text as edited by Flyer22, and there has been some subsequent back and forth.

Can we please come to agreement here rather than in edit summaries while the policy page goes back and forth? DES ^(talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

views on the substantive issue

• This does at least slightly change the meaning. I, for one, prefer "especially in articles about themselves" to "for example in an article about such a source" as this is the main place where use of such sources is proper. As to whether it can be said that such sources are not suitable for "anything else" or only not for "contentious claims about others", I would like to know what sort of non-contentious statements about something other than themselves and their views such sources might properly be cited for? DES ^(talk) 23:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, DESiegel (DES), I was just about to state the following, before you beat me to posting: As seen here, here and here, EEng and Bbb23 are in disagreement about content that EEng recently added. I agree with Bbb23 that EEng did change the meaning. The text "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." is obviously different than the text "They are unsuitable as sources for anything else." And neither text is consistent with the WP:SELFPUBLISH section, since questionable sources may be used in cases where the topic is not specifically about the source. For example, they may be used for exclusive interviews (for instance, a site that interviewed a celebrity). If we classify that as "about self" because the interview is coming specifically from that source, then disregard my "they may be used for exclusive interviews" statement. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad my bold edit has stimulated discussion, since there's clearly a gap between should only be used as sources of material on themselves and not suitable sources for contentious claims about others, as DES has observed; I leave it to wiser heads than mine to find the ultimate resolution on that. The heavy hand on the revert button was unwarranted, I have to say. EEng (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per what I stated above, the "should only be used as sources of material on themselves" part should be changed to include "usually" so that it reads as "should usually only be used as sources of material on themselves." Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Now then... Given that, in all the confusion, this edit has survived for 12 hours, can we now agree to add on Flyer's suggestion, so that are now at --

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should usually be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

--? EEng (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't include the "Exclusive interview" exception urged above. Should it? If a subject chooses to give an interview to a questionable source, and there is no serious suggestion that the interview was simply invented by the source, then it is the subject's words, wherever they are published. I haven't seen this exception on any of the relevant policy or guideline pages, but perhaps it makes sense. DES ^(talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, but are we OK on the "usually" language so far? As to interviews...

But are they the subject's words? Interviews are always edited to at least some extent (removing "er... um... wait, let me back up... um", selecting/omitting Q/A pairs, etc.) and I'm not sure that the same qualities that make us doubt a source's judgment for straight facts shouldn't also make us doubt their reliability in presenting the interviewee's responses in an undistorted light. Certainly the National Enquirer routinely says, "In an exclusive interview, Celebrity X said '[totally made up bullshit]'. When asked [outrageous question], he added, '[absurd alleged answer]'.". I wonder if the "usually" language isn't enough to allow the possibility of interviews, without inadvertently making a blanket exception for them. EEng (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For what I mean by exclusive interviews from questionable sources, see this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) from the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. It addresses reliability, trustworthiness, reputation, and so on. I wasn't suggesting that we mention anything in the policy about exclusive interviews; I was simply giving an example of where a questionable source may used for something that is not specifically about itself. I agree that the "usually" wording is enough. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I suggest you go ahead and make the "usually" change. Either that, or I will. There is no valid excuse for having the aforementioned inconsistency on the policy page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I changed the heading of this section by adding ": Questionable sources" on to it, so that is clearer what this discussion is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The text of this policy does not mention Wikidata at all, so my question is this. Assuming:

1. A piece of information exists in Wikidata, and...
2. ...is appropriately referenced in Wikidata, and...
3. ...is retrieved from Wikidata into a Wikipedia article using e.g. the #property parser function...

...is it necessary (or even desirable?) to provide a reference for that statement in the article itself? In other words: does WP:V extend to Wikidata in a sense that Wikidata references count towards verifiability? GregorB (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it should be treated as information obtained from any other Wikipedia Foundation site; there must be a reference in the article. This is particularly true since Wikidata often obtains its information from Wikipedia, and I strongly suspect the reference was imported from Wikipedia too without being read, in many cases.

I would go further; it is wrong to import a piece of data from Wikidata, which has a reference in that database, unless the person importing the data reads the reference and confirms it truly exists and supports the claim.

An additional point: Wikidata currently is broken with respect to dates before AD 1, and insists that all dates are in the time zone 0 (no offset from Universal Time, such as Britain in winter). Thus all birth dates and death dates for events not located close to 0° longitude are wrong. I would say no dates should be imported from Wikidata until these flaws are fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Jc3s5h here (except I have no knowledge on whether or not dates before year 1 are handled correctly nor about time zone offsets). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote "appropriately referenced", I meant "referenced in a way compatible with WP:V", i.e. using reliable, non-circular sources.

In order for Wikidata to be truly useful for Wikipedia, properties must be used en masse, chiefly in an automated fashion, which would obviously preclude manual checking of each claim.

Suppose dates get fixed one day on Wikidata, and suppose e.g. {{Infobox person}} is enhanced so as to fetch the date of birth/death from Wikidata, using properties P569/P570. Take Michael Jackson for example: currently, 175 Wikipedia editions have his bio, each giving his DOB and (ideally) providing a ref. (I'm assuming here for the sake of the argument that all these articles have infoboxes, which of course is not true.) Also, when he died, 175 wikis had to provide the date of his death, again providing a ref. This is highly wasteful and redundant, which is one of the main reasons we have Wikidata in the first place. However, a strict interpretation of WP:V (sourcing within the article only) would completely preclude this scenario of Wikidata integration - unless, perhaps, referencing is completely decoupled from data (i.e. "fetch DOB/DOD from Wikidata, but reference them locally"), which would probably be even worse than what we have now. What is the way to go regarding Wikidata then and can WP:V be made compatible with it? GregorB (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The WMF analytics team is presenting a pair of talks on the subject of m:Wikipedia as the front matter to all research this Friday December 4, 2015 (two days from now) at 12:00 noon PST. They will talk about unique identifiers and scholarly citations in Wikipedia. One of the speakers is from CrossRef, and his subject is primarily about how Wikipedia citations bring non-scientists into contact with the scientific literature. The talk will be broadcast on YouTube, so that anyone can watch it. There is more information on Meta. Please join if you're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead says: verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. What does verifiability mean here in a practical sense? That

1. a link to a reliable source is provided in the article, or merely that
2. such a source must exist somewhere, or
3. something else.

Now,

• If the first option is correct, which I think it is, the quoted statement contradicts what follows. Combining the statement with All material in Wikipedia mainspace, [...], must be verifiable. would then give All material in Wikipedia mainspace, [...], must link to a reliable source. But then it says: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Now it suddenly says that only a subset of all content needs a source (mathematically that is not a contradiction, but in normal language it is). Also: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed implies that not all material needs a source.
• If the second option is correct, we wouldn't even need to include the existing source to the article, unless other guidelines require that, such as BLP. I think that is not the correct interpretation of verifiability.

I tried to work my way through the archives where related issues have been discussed many times, but I can't find a clear answer to my question. It would be really helpful to editors if we can improve the definition of the title word of this guideline as it is one of the core content policies, and if needed we need to solve the contradiction. Gap9551 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

All material must be verifiable, but only certain material requires an inline citation (which need not be a hyperlink; it could be a citation to a paper book or the like). Some material is so uncontentious and well known that the reader who hasn't already verified the claim just through the process of living can easily verify the claim by looking it up in innumerable readily available sources. For example, I don't need a book to tell me Paris is the capital of France, I've been there. If I don't happen to know who the senators are from Idaho, it will be very easy for me to find a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• It means all three of the following:-

1. All material in the encyclopaedia must be verifiable, in that a reliable source for it must exist somewhere; and
2. All material in the encyclopaedia which has been challenged must be verified, in that a reliable source for it must be provided by means of an inline citation, or else the material can be removed; and
3. All material in the encyclopaedia which is likely to be challenged must be verified, in that a reliable source for it must be provided by means of an inline citation, or else the material can be removed.

Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C

Thanks both, that does help. So my second option is correct after all, not the first (in the general sense, only in specific cases), which wasn't obvious from the current definition verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Unless I'm the only person who finds the current phrasing of the lead unclear, would it worth explicitly stating a version of your clarifications in the project page, in particular that non-contentious material need not necessarily have a source listed in the article provided it exists somewhere (but that it may still be good practise to add one)? Gap9551 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I question the first sentence, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It is cited to various statements that exceptional evidence or proof is required. To me that means we need a good reliable source from a recent, relevant high-quality secondary publication that explains where it obtained its information. That allows us to investigate whether the source has accurately reported the information and we can always challenge it with other sources that contradict it.

The problem with the current wording is that it is an invitation to source bomb, to provide numerous sources, none of which are conclusive, and require anyone challenging it to read through each of them. In fact when a news source reports news inaccurately, it is often picked up on wire services and reported in hundreds of other publications.

I suggest instead that it read "Any exceptional claim requires a high quality source."

TFD (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you give an actual example of your hypothesized scenario actually happening? EEng (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Any single source can be in error, regardless of its quality. Therefore, if a single source were to report, for example, that a cold fusion experiment demonstrated that a magic box could produce 1 MW net power output for 24 hours the article would be cautious about how that result was reported, even if the source would normally be regarded as high quality. If it was a recent report, the concern would be that a mistake might have been made (if not fraud—a lot of money is made when magic devices get good reports), and we should wait for confirmation by other sources before reporting it as a known fact. If it was an old report, the concern would be that there should have been other experiments to replicate the result, and the fact they cannot be found suggests the single finding was not significant. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Johnuniq that the current wording is best, for the reasons he stated. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Me too, especially since the problem the proposed change claims to solve appears to by hypothetical. EEng (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention if someone is determined enough they will invent some loophole in whatever rule we come up with. I think this should only be changed if the rule is being exploited on a consistent basis or there is genuine confusion about it.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that TFD does not appreciate the problem with exceptional claims, nor the proper application of WP:WEIGHT. A claim is exceptional when it is contrary to the majority viewpoint, and if there is only "a" source in support then (to quote Jimbo) "it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article."

TFD may also be unaware that high-quality sources (i.e., journals) often publish work that makes exceptional claims. Publication in itself does not make a claim credible or grant approval, it only exposes the claim for consideration. "In fact", the wire services, and the popular media generally, are more likely to light-up on a report that "Einstein got it wrong" then on all those boring, hard-to-understand reports that Einstein still has it right. Determination of scientific consensus can be challenging because there is rarely any headline when that consensus comes together, and because WP editors are often unfamiliar with what secondary sources are truly reliable. I believe this is also true in other fields. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing WP since 2006, and I refer to WP:V a lot. I really like this sentence about WP:

Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.

Plenty of editors think that they can just edit WP in ways that make sense to them. That's what I thought when I started years ago. I have edited a lot of controversial pages, such as Jesus, Historical Jesus, Purgatory, and Evolutionary Psychology. Getting editors to be true to published sources is often a challenge. Based on my experiences, I have a simple suggestion to make this line stronger. Change it to:

Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the opinions or experiences of its editors.

Here's my reasoning.

1. Editors freely share their opinions but not their beliefs. Someone who believes in creationism might oppose a reference to evolution, but they will do so by stating an opinion rather than by referencing their own beliefs. They'll say, "This reference to evolution is outside the scope of this article," rather than "I'm a creationist and want to remove this reference to evolution."
2. The term "opinions" is broader. Sometimes editors have opinions that are not connected to anything that would normally be called a "belief." For example, I often hear that a page should describe all sides of an issue without favoring one side over another. That's an opinion but I wouldn't call it a belief.
3. Editors are not supposed to speculate about the personal beliefs of other editors. If I say, "WP isn't based on your beliefs," that requires me to infer what their beliefs are and how they affect their editing. But if I say, "WP isn't based on your opinions," that's legitimate because their opinions are right there on the Talk page.

WP:V is a touchstone for good WP editing, and I think this change will make this important sentence even stronger than it already is. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Week Opposed - I think you are overthinking it... opinions are beliefs... no one would state an opinion that they don't believe. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even though I do sometimes state opinions that I do not entirely believe in (there are some subtle differences), yet I find JT's argument in favor underwhelming, and even too much of a stretch. Overthought, indeed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that the RfC on the necessity of secondary sources for In popular culture-style items occurred here (see the most recent archive), I am asking here for additional editors to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Little Boxes#In popular culture. Thank you for your input. DonIago (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As we know, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

I personally, think that self-published sources must explicitly declare themselves as such in some way, shape, or form within articles, to inform readers that the source may not be vetted by third-parties. Presumably, on citation templates, compliance would be maintained by listing |publisher=[[WP:SPS|Self-published]] in the template. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Requiring" it isn't going to work, because editors get to choose their own citation styles, and this isn't included in some (e.g., Chicago, MLA, etc.). But you could propose "encouraging" it at WT:CITE and in the docs for citation templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been having a disagreement over original research regarding an editor's insistence that her personal correspondence (e-mail, instagram, texting) with a subject of BLP is a reliable source. The editor has then posted screen captures of the correspondence to a picture site and referred to that as the source. Is this acceptable for verifying information? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

heck no. WP:SPS above all. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What Jytdog said, but also, "Yes, absolutely"... if the claim you're trying to source is something like "This linked screen capture contains this information". I'm not sure why anyone would want to put that kind of information in an encyclopedia article, but those sources would properly verify that kind of information. Reliability always depends upon the content to be supported, not just the nature of the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Patents are very good sources for certain burdens of proof, and absolutely not for others.

Much greater discernment is required on part of Wikipedia's project pages on this source of reference, if there is to be accuracy on this subject. For example, there is a fundamental difference between a published application and an issued patent. By definition, issued patents are the most reliable secondary source (yes, secondary) of information concerning what are valid claims of novelty (by definition, a legal determination).

As an additional example, it makes little sense, particularly in light of the great number of "infommercials" disguised as articles on Wikipedia, that, when there is a question of novelty, or of the commercial history of a technology, that readers cannot be referred to the legal recordation of prior art searches that are professionally conducted by trained government employees on precisely the claimed point of novelty. That's part of what is called a "patent." It has its place. Wikibearwithme (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand who writes the patent specification. The patent office can't change so much as the punctuation in the specification. The prior art search isn't part of either the patent specification or claims. (Also, inventors and patent agents are supposed to do their own prior art searches, not just the patent office.) And if your claim is that the independent (NB, not "secondary"; WP:Secondary does not mean independent) patent examiners are ruling on novelty and therefore a reliable source for saying that something is new, then I have some sympathy, but I remind you about the patent issued to a boy in 2000 for swinging sideways on a swing – something that had, in fact, been published before (for example, by school handbooks prohibiting the practice) decades before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikibearwithme's point is about claims in an issued patent, which are indeed the product of a negotiation between an examiner and the applicant. However even an issued claim can be challenged any number of ways, and many an issued claim has thrown out in court or an administrative proceeding. In my view, the point of mentioning patents and patent applications in this policy document is to ensure they are rarely used (and if used, lightly) because as WAID notes the specification is self-generated and on top of that, is a legal document intended to argue a point on behalf of the inventors - not indepedent at all. And interpreting claims is not something that editors in WP should be doing. If some secondary, independent, authoritative source says something about a patent or application, that would be the thing to use. Not the patent or application itself. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the footnotes on the policy page reads:

Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back. - Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-2

A better-defined example than "unencyclopedic content" should be used. I've several times encountered "unencyclopedia" used in content discussions and disputes, and it is almost always in the context of trying to back up a (imo) broad, "I don't like it" type of argument.

I looked for another Wikipedia PAG reference to unencyclopedic and all I could find is an essay, which says, under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted".

Maybe something like "overly promotional wording" - WP:SOAP seems popular in certain types of discussion? --Tsavage (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It refers to WP:NOT, and I've linked it to clarify. You yourself have referred to WP:ISNOT when you wrote, "if the item is not obviously trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic (as covered under other PAGs, like WP:ISNOT" , so I'm unclear why the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy wording should be clear and straightforward. While linking "unencyclopedic" to WP:NOT may make sense in the context of the footnote, in practice (as noted in WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), the term "unencyclopedic" is often used as a broad, throwaway challenge, whereas ensuring verifiability requires clearly identifying the issues.

"Unencyclopedic" does not appear in the What Wikipedia is not policy page, so we shouldn't introduce it here. If we can avoid encouraging misuse, even with regard to a minor mention in a footnote, we should.

A more clear wording, in line with the example that precedes it, would be: (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, content not suitable for Wikipedia, etc.).

I will wait for more input. --Tsavage (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a very important content policy and, to me, does a decent job of the way in which the community considers Wikipedia to be an encyclopedic. That policy starts "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not." What is "unencyclopedic" for the purposes of Wikipedia is what falls in the broad content parts of that policy (I say "content parts" only because it includes matters of community as well). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not expressing an issue with WP:NOT, I am referring to using the term "unencyclopedic" in the WP:V policy wording, for reasons explained above. The less hot-button shorthand terms to throw into disputes, the better. --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not (as an online encyclopedia) is, in other words, what is unencylopedic.--Dwy (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WP's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." But according to WP:Consensus, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia."

I'd love clarification on how verifiability relates to consensus. If editors on a page reach consensus that they want to treat a topic differently from how RSs treat it, how does that resolve? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Consensus is typically needed to establish whether the "previously published information" is actually suited for inclusion on Wikipedia (because such information may be unreliable, overly one sided or irrelevant to an encyclopedia for example), since people can disagree on whether it's suitable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, suppose the RSs are the best RSs around on the topic, but the editors prefer describing the topic differently anyway. If they reach consensus to diverge from RSs, I don't see how that resolves. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about a particular website that compiles expensive offline sources into an online database that is linkable and thus generally prefered to the offline sources. The precise discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#catholic-hierarchy.org. This site is maintained by 1 editor/compiler so in some technical way some argue it is WP:SPS.

In this article there is a line "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This particular editor/compiler has not been published on 3rd party sites but his website is widely used as a reference on 3rd party sites (reporters covering the issue, significant organizations in the field, academic libraries, etc. as can been read in that discussion). Maybe we could add to the expert sentence so it read: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published or extensively referenced by reliable third-party publications." This would allow for people compiling online databases of offline info which I think is a reliable source if extensively used so off Wikipedia. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Verifiability has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This paragraph should be deleted:

It is Carla Shatz who coined in the nineties the famous sentence summarizing the Hebbian theory : "Cells that fire together, wire together". The exact phrase, first published in a Scientific American Article published in 1992 is: "Segregation to form the columns in the visual cortex [...] proceeds when the two nerves are stimulated asynchronously. In a sense, then, cells that fire together wire together. The timing of action-potential activity is critical in determining which synaptic connections are strengthened and retained and which are weakened and eliminated".[3]

The phrase was first published by Siegrid Löwel in her January 1992 Science article. Schatz's piece was published in September.

I wrote Löwel to find out who came up with the phrase. She wrote back:

"well, I came up with the expression and published it – as far as I know – first (in my 1992-Science-paper together with Wolf Singer: Löwel & Singer, 1992, Science 255: 209-212)."

Note that on another Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory the attribution is correctly made to Löwel. Ctskelly (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome Ctskelly. This talk page is only for proposing changes to the Verifiability project page. The correct place for your comment would be Talk:Carla J. Shatz, or there is nothing stopping you editing the Carla J. Shatz article yourself: if you include a full reference to Löwel's article in Science there shouldn't be a problem: Noyster (talk), 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If all quotations need to be attributed to their sources, what do we do with quotations that appear in long sentences followed by multiple refs? I was about to tag such a quotation in Gospel of Matthew#Author but I couldn't figure out which template to use.

Or is it OK to give an unattributed quotation as long as it appears in one of the citations?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, quotations must be attributed. Your case seems to be where a sentence requires a number of citations (notes), and the question seems to be: how to connect each citation with specific material. This becomes a matter of style. Some of us editors believe in putting each citation immediately adjacent to the material, others believe that interrupts the readers' attention, and that all citations should be gathered up at the end of the sentence. Take your pick. Note that you should also provide the page number (or other in-source specifier) to facilitate verification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a recent academic paper that may be of interest in the context of this policy. I have written a review for the Wikimedia Research Newsletter aka the Signpost's "recent research" series: "Test of 300k citations: how verifiable is 'verifiable' in practice?" (see also the talk page discussion there). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a quick look at that paper the other day, and was not too impressed. My (somewhat accurate?) impression is that they were concerned about where verification can't be done because (1) the citation lacks suitable identifiers to do automated verification, or (2) some readers cannot verify because the source is behind a paywall. I find such concerns to be somewhat specious: WP:V has no requirements that verification must be automated or universal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree... The standard is that information be verifiable... Not that it be easily verified. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-02/Recent research#Test of 300k citations: how verifiable is .22verifiable.22_in_practice? indicates that the authors of the paper read the opening sentence (which I have suggested changing in the past) in the most impractical possible fashion. It says "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." They seem to interpret "anyone can check" to mean anyone with an internet connection can read the source itself by clicking on a link (or two), even if they have no time, money, knowledge, or even enough interest to ask their favorite web search engine whether there's a free (gratis) copy of the source lying about on any website except Google Books. They appear to make the mistake of assuming that what's visible to them in Google Books is what's visible to everyone (which isn't true). It sounds like they didn't even consider things like looking for books at Amazon.com, where a lot of books are searchable.

The question for this page is: Shall we finally change that "anyone" to be a little more accurate, e.g., "someone other than the editor who originally added the information" or "any person willing to dedicate sufficient resources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have long thought we should change the "anyone" in "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for similar kinds of reasons, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. I think there should be a little more qualification on just what constitutes verification, but until we get a better handle on what that should be I think it is premature to propose specific changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I have raised the issue of whether it is OK to combine material from three different Wikipedia articles without re-verifying the sources. It seems to me that is treating the precursor Wikipedia articles as reliable sources for the claim that the stated sources really do support the associated claims in the article, but other editors disagree. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We should do periodic re-checks on sources anyway, even in established articles. A merger or spin-off seems like a great time to do so.

That said, a lack of re-checking is not grounds for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rechecking sources from time to time, and perhaps particularly at the time of a merger may be a good idea. Using AfD to try to force such rechecks is not; see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Still less is it OK to seriously propose deletion of the merged article because such checks were not done -- rechecking all cites on a merge is not currently common practice, still less is it mandated. DES ^(talk) 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone point me towards a guideline, an essay even, regarding the optimal approach to tagging article text and/or accompanying sources? I've come here after seeing what I consider to be a case of excessive application of tags – auditing rather than editing – at Baroque pop. The same zeal, imo, has been applied at Pet Sounds – specifically, in the three subsections under "Recording and production". Both of those diffs show a range of tags; in the case of Baroque pop, I'm confused about why there would be a banner across the top when each potential transgression is highlighted in the text below. And in both of these articles, the application of a "verification needed" tag following a citation (to a reliable source), or perhaps two citations, concerns me, because the message it gives out to readers is that, despite there being sources supporting a statement, its veracity is automatically questionable. In other words: I can't help wondering what this approach says about everything that appears in mainspace on the encyclopaedia if reliable sources are accompanied by "verification needed". I could understand if it were a case of the statement being contentious or contrary to a widely held view, but I'm talking about when this approach appears to be used almost as standard. (In which case, what about Assume Good Faith?) Add to that the greyed-out span accompanying a "citation needed" tag (in those Pet Sounds subsections), which serves to highlight a problem twice over, when it's quite clear where the issue lies.

My feeling is that this approach reflects badly on Wikipedia. Besides, doesn't this sort of zeroing-in on problems and highlighting them twice over and ensuring the top of the article carries a tag and questioning the citations we do have, belong in a sandbox rather than mainspace? In the same way, rather than applying "verification needed" tags if one doesn't have access to the source, should issues not be taken up on the article's talk page; should editors not be looking through the article history to see if an editor who made a previous addition is still active and able to confirm the verifiability of the sourced statement?

Any thoughts on this would be very welcome, in addition to any relevant links. I've certainly read something about avoiding excessive tagging in the past, but it could well have been another editor sounding off … JG66 (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Verification needed" indicates that while a source has been provided, there is some question as to whether the source actually supports the material (I suppose editors might also use it where they have other concerns). It's logical that that would be placed following a source, and if that calls the statement into question, well, it probably should.

Of course, the most important question, to me, is whether the statements that have been tagged deserve to be tagged. Which is to say, are the editor's concerns valid, or are they perhaps making either no effort or insufficient effort to validate the sources for themselves? Have you made any effort to validate the tagging?

I couldn't really see an issue at Pet Sounds; the tagging there looks reasonable to me. On Baroque pop, it could be argued that tagging the entire article when the specific statements are also tagged may be a bit of overkill. On the other hand, having the article tagged may call greater attention to the issue.

Have you discussed this at all with the tagging editor, or notified them of this conversation? It might be worth getting their perspective, though I would understand if you wanted a "gut reaction" here first. DonIago (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Doniago. I hope others might post here too.

With your comments on "verification needed" tags – I agree with what you're saying ("It's logical that that would be placed following a source"), my point is that the tag seems to be used whenever the editor appears not to have the source at hand. Or put another way: if this editor hasn't personally viewed the source text, then the veracity of a statement is automatically called into question on the page. In that Recording section at Pet Sounds, for instance, the tag appears after statements sourced to the 2003 CD liner notes (and to another, 3rd party source): well, if an editor doesn't have that particular reissue of the album, then surely they should get it somehow instead of applying a tag that effectively says "Could someone just check these liner notes for me, please?" Or, of course, there's the talk page where a discussion can be started (one sees such threads all the time regarding sources). Aside from that, if an editor really wants to zero in on each and every statement in an article – which is great, all power to them – then perhaps much of the work should be carried out in a sandbox, rather than the article becoming something akin to a homework assignment in progress. With Baroque pop, yes, I think it is a case of overkill.

I haven't raised this with the editor in question, no (nor looked into the tagged items individually). I thought it best to first find out if I knew what I was talking about. Also worth pointing out that Baroque pop had already moved on from the diff I supplied when raising this here; the reason for choosing the outdated version was (and is) to have a discussion about that level of tagging, rather than how the article might look now. Same with Pet Sounds: although I don't believe it's changed since (but in case it does), it's the version per this diff I'm focusing on. As I say, I have read something on this issue – ensuring that problems are highlighted for readers, sure, but avoiding excessive tagging and generally keeping aesthetics in mind when it comes to article mainspace. Perhaps it was at an article talk page where the thread happened to grow from the specific to cover this point in general terms, not sure … Cheers, JG66 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to review the sources that were tagged to verify them, unfortunately, but I think unless there's clear evidence that the editor is tagging indiscriminately, we shouldn't assume they are doing so. That said, I would agree that an editor simply not having access to a source doesn't justify applying the tag. I really think we need this editor's perspective on the matter before drawing any conclusions, though.

If the editor genuinely believes that the sources they tagged need to be verified, and particularly if it turns out that one or more of them actually is being used inappropriately, then I'd have a hard time with the argument that they are over-tagging.

TL;DR I think your concerns may be valid, but I also think we need to know a) whether the editor's concerns appear to be valid, and b) what the editor's rationale is for their changes. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. From my original intention, to find whether threes some sort of a guideline, this discussion has grown to become more about two particular articles. I'll ask the editor if they'd care to join the discussion. JG66 (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources in Baroque pop and Pet Sounds failed verification when I checked them (I then swiftly removed the text). For the ones I couldn't check, I applied the tag. Simple. I'd say there's probably a 90% chance that the sources do not support the information. But I didn't want to remove the text for the 10% chance that maybe it does. For example, in Baroque pop, it's stated that the book Music USA calls In My Life, Wildflowers, Joan, and Baptism some of the "most notable" baroque pop albums. It's highly likely that the only thing written in the book is that the albums have "orchestral, classical inspired arrangements" or something equally as vague.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, hang on, the statement currently attributed to that Rough Guide publication is somewhere between the two. It highlights those albums by Collins and Baez as the most notable examples of folk artists incorporating baroque influences and classical orchestration in their work.

Aside from that – fair enough. But what I'm trying to address here is not just the application of tags on an individual basis, but the overall approach and the overall effect. For instance, whether the banner across the top at Baroque pop is really necessary when every single instance in the article has already been highlighted. Also, say, in Pet Sounds#Recording and production, why the sentence beginning "Thanks to the freedom offered by the recent development" is afforded a cite-needed span when there's no confusion about what the cite-needed tag could be referring to. Same situation with the span covering the phrase "instrumental overdubs only rarely added", later in that section.

And, towards the end of the section (under Unreleased material), there's a verification-needed tag following the statement re Sloop John B. appearing on Wilson's provisional track list, and the significance of that. Yet, in the first source there, we have a link to the liner note text, which supports the statement perfectly (and similarly supports another point carrying the same tag, in the previous sentence). That would seem to be an instance where we can lose two of the tags – I'm mentioning them because they contribute to the overall effect.

Whether it's your work or not at Pet Sounds, btw, I don't know. I'm referring to the effect that's created on the page, both at Baroque pop and in that section at Pet Sounds. I've raised the issue here to see if there is an optimal approach to using the tags and banners, whether in a guideline or essay (it seems not), or whether perhaps we should decide on one. We don't use bold, italics or underlined text to draw emphasis to a point in article mainspace; customising quote boxes and the like with colours of our choice is frowned upon; our fonts are discreet rather than eye-catching or flashy; the tone (obviously) is neutral and objective throughout. So I guess I find it surprising that there appears to be no guidance on limiting the extent and the intrusiveness of tagging. JG66 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That raises this question: Was it reasonable to assume that the remaining sources were suspect without checking to see if they were added by the same editor or editors who added the bad sources? Taking both the low importance of tagging and whether it can reasonably be expected of editors to dig through a page history to discover that, my opinion is that it was acceptable. (And if Ilovetopaint did check that, but simply failed to mention it here, and it was the same editor or editors, then I think that it was perfectly acceptable to add the tags.) All the instructions to the {{verification needed}} tag say is that you should have some doubt that the source supports the text and what Ilovetopaint had discovered would certainly support some reasonable doubt. JG66 in his/her initial post, above raises the question of whether we should AGF about the sources. But the mere existence of the {{verification needed}} tag, not to mention its instructions, suggests that there only needs to be some reasonable doubt. Moreover when someone does tag material with the tag we should, as DonIago says, also AGF that without other evidence to the contrary that the addition of the tag was done properly. Let me end by saying that I recognize that JG66 attempted to bring this question here in the abstract without blaming or otherwise questioning Ilovetopaint — s/he was indeed attempting to AGF by determining the ground rules before going ahead — and I see no AGF failure on JG66's part for doing so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The automatic importation of WikiData by Infobox telescope is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Avoid importing Wikidata at Infobox Telescope? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello - I have updated the entry for Ohio Citizen Action and added inline citations. Do more citations need to be made before the error message on the page can be removed?

"This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2014)"

Thanks, Princeps2016 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think that everything that this policy requires to be cited — that is, everything which has been challenged or is likely to be challenged — has a citation to a reliable source as defined by this policy, then you can remove it. The best practice is that everything in the article should be cited to a reliable source, but what I just said above is the minimum. If someone else disagrees and restores the tag, don't revert them. Discuss the matter on the article talk page and try to come to consensus on whether or not the tag should be there. Remember that tags are not badges of shame, merely an indicator that the article may need more work. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Does each entry in a list of alum etc of a university need to have in-line citations to meet VERIFY?

Related, does each entry in a list of works by a composer need to have an inline citation to meet VERIFY?

I'll give my opinion after others have weighed in, to keep this neutral. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many times before. Short answer: yes. Longer answer: it depends on how controversial the topic is (and, thus, how likely it is that inclusion on the list will be challenged). Note: it may not be necessary for every entry to have its own separate citation. If there is a single citation that covers the entire group, citing that single source at the end of the list would satisfy WP:V. (For example, if a school maintains a list of notable alumni on its website, and every entry listed in the Wikipedia article is on that website's list... we can cite the website once for the entire list.) Blueboar (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Content does not need a in-line citation to be WP:Verifiable, but yes if it's challenged or likely to be (see, "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable."), a citation should be added (but see, WP:BLP for living people, which is stricter) 'taking into account the state of the article', if it's all blue-linked then it's likely an RS has already been found, which can be used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is very unusual to see a non-WP:POINTY, good-faith WP:CHALLENGE of material in simpler lists, especially if those lists do not include information about living people. So we have "technically, according to the strictest wikilawyer" rules (cite each line separately) and "reality" rules (most bluelinks don't get cited, and WP:General references are commonly used for other entries), and you will have to figure out which type of editor you're dealing with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure how to react to what you write here, WAID. In both of these cases I have moved big unsourced lists to the Talk page. There is an additional element here and that is promotionalism; if you want to call that POINTY, so be it. In any case the list of works by the composer was added to the article by the composer; it is promotional and an effort to use WP as his webhost/CV. If we are going to have it, it needs to be cited, in my view. On the New School list of "famous alum" the promotionalism is both ways - people who are listed there get a de-orphaning link and are listed as grads of a great school, and the school gets the boost of being associated with a famous person. One of the great functions of VERIFY with strong sourcing is that it eliminates a lot of promotional content that people want to add to WP. So yes my stance is that asking other editors to click through to blue-linked article and hope to find a citation there is not reasonable and it completely unreasonable to have a non-linked, unsourced item in any list. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe that this allegedly promotional material is factually wrong? Do you have any reason to believe that the information could not be supported by a source (including self-published, non-independent, and other lower-quality reliable sources, e.g., the subject's own website) if you spent enough time searching for sources? If the answer to these questions is "no", then the material is already verifiable and you shouldn't have blanked it on grounds of verifiability. (Remember that the policy is that material must be possible to verify through some means, including the means of "doing your own search for sources"; the policy does not require that all material already be cited. Material only truly fails verifiability when sources cannot be found).

Promotionalism is NPOV's problem, because promotional material followed by an inline citation is still promotional. I very strongly doubt that you will get any support for removing such information on grounds of promotionalism/non-neutrality. I doubt this because if a list of compositions or alumni is promotional for this composer or this school, then it's promotional for all of them, and including this type of material is absolutely typical for such articles. But you could try to get support for that idea at WP:NPOVN, if you wanted to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of you wrote. VERIFY keeps unsourced promotional content out of Wikipedia. Good policies have more than one positive effect on the encyclopedia. Generally If something is unsourced and "sky is blue" I of course leave it. I generally move plausible/truthy unsourced stuff to the Talk page. I remove implausible unsourced content. That is entirely consistent with VERIFY and the editing policy. A big laundrylist that is unsourced is not OK in my view - it fails VERIFY. yes there are piles of garbage everywhere in WP - this place is shot through with bad content just like it has great content in places. I'll add here that there are plenty of times where i go to find sources about some topic that has unsourced content. You know how often I just tack a citation on and don't change the content? Almost never. That is because unsourced content that is not sky-is-blue is pretty much always "truthy" - it doesn't actually summarize accepted knowledge as expressed in reliable sources. About your question -- the question I ask is "Do i have a reason to assume this unsourced content accurately summarizes accepted knowledge?" In these kind of contexts that are highly prone to padding/spamming - like lists of compositions for emerging composers or "famous alum" in a university article, things should be sourced. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I know that WP:V gets abused as a way of removing inappropriate information, just like MEDRS gets used that way (perhaps largely because we've not yet written MEDDUE). The fact that it's easier to say "unsourced and challenged, so it's gone" than "let's have a long argument about my subjective impression that this is promotional" affects the stated excuses that people give, but promotional material does not belong, regardless of whether it's sourced.

The fact that this policy is abused that way does not mean that an uncited statement like "Shimon Peres graduated from this college" or "Joe wrote a piece called 'Whatever'" is actually unverifiable. Or – exactly which sentence in this policy do you believe is "violated" by such sentences? The non-existent one that says "It's not possible for anyone to verify any claim in an article unless said claim is followed by a little blue clicky number, so if it's not already cited, then it's not verifiable"? There's no such rule – and there is a rule that says sourcing the list of compositions or famous alums to the subject's own self-published, non-independent websites would be 100% acceptable. WP:V is not the best strategy for attacking promotional material (assuming that we agreed upon what constitutes promotionalism, and in both of these cases, I suspect that your POV is not the overall community's). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope it is not abuse. In any context, good policies and practices have many good effects. I am not happy about your claims about my approach and actions here and it is not clear to me how to take this discussion forward productively in a way that doesn't damage our relationship. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, WAID is correct. WP:V could hardly be more specific that it is problematic to tag or remove material because you don't like its POV, under WP:V policy - that's another policy discussion. Please re-read WP:V policy especially the paragraph with note 4 (where removing large chunks of material is frowned upon, and it is practice to state, after consideration, no source can be found). Again, WP:Verfiability does not mean there is an in-line citation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You too are missing the point here. What I am saying has nothing to do with POV, at all. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you said you were removing things because they are promotional, which is most certainly a POV issue, and in some cases a COI issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No. What I said was that I moved these to the Talk page because they were unsourced. People have argued that it is fine if nothing in the list is sourced, especially with regard to items in the list that are wikilinke (where I guess they assume that people wanting to verify will find a reliable source with which to verify). I don't agree with any of that. I also noted' that these two particular lists were ones that served promotional purposes. That is a secondary issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What don't you agree with? It just is a fact that V policy says: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. . . . When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. . . When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified. . . .If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

That there are bluelinks is a "material and state of the article" fact suggesting that there is a "considered reason to believe" that material can be WP:Verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Then again, sky is more often black, and frequently grey, so attribution for blue has some merit too. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, what you do to resolve this is you read the whole policy, and see whether you can find a specific sentence that you believe is "violated" by the inclusion of unsourced, promotional material – and not equally violated by unsourced, non-promotional material. If no such sentence exists, then you might consider taking on board the idea that the purpose of this policy does not happen to include fighting promotionalism. Anti-promotionalism is a good fight to fight, and I do appreciate, but this isn't really the tool for it. It's sort of like trying to keep drunk drivers off the road: there are many ways to do it under some circumstances, from calling taxis to stealing their cars to putting them in jail, but only some of the methods are really designed for that purpose and likely to be effective in the long term. Fortunately, we have a different tool that is extraordinarily well suited to that fight. I encourage you to use that one when you're fighting promotionalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Again what you are writing here is based on almost willful mis-hearing of what I am saying. Why you are persisting, I don't know. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Everyone so far pretty much agrees with WAID. If that's because we're misunderstanding you, then I suggest that you re-state your position more clearly.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar above and Francis Schonken below understood the question and responded to it. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dead composer examples:

• Example of a list of compositions in table format that has separate references for every row: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Works in Bach's catalogues and collections (not necessarily footnoted references: see prior discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202#Lists need individual sources to avoid list-copyright for how that works).
• Example of a list of compositions with one single reference in the lead section: List of cantatas by Christoph Graupner.

Both of the previous work for me.

Unreferenced problem for a dead composer: see for instance List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Not in the Deutsch catalogue which has an "unreferenced" tag for some time now (I put it there). I can imagine if it were a living composer and someone added The Stoned Guest to the list of compositions, yeah it would be best to have some sort of reference for that (and in that case: rather move to talk page than add a {{cn}} tag).

Further, I agree with Jytdog that the commercial aspect is secondary, but please don't think this doesn't apply for dead composers: there's always some fancy new score rediscovered, or a new critical edition that obviously outranks scores of the same piece published before (e.g. prepare to buy two new full score editions of the St John Passion). And that is still only a very, very small fraction compared to the money that circulates for recordings (indeed I sometimes wonder how "commercial" we are by listing "selected" recordings when the Wikipedia editor's "selection" is nothing more than copying a list of recordings from a single, commercial, source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)