Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 23 -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Wikipedia:Verifiability (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 22	Archive 23		30 >>

Contents 1 Discussion about image use and WP:NOR 2 A proposal to condense “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” 3 Self-published sources (online and paper) 4 Proposed amendment to prevent overdeletion 4.1 This may not be the best way to achieve consensus 5 Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves 6 Language clarification 7 self-publication exceptions 8 Signs as sources 9 Quoting lectures at university 10 Sources disappearing? 11 Google's new knol project 12 Government agencies cited as sources about countries 13 This is mostly why I have left 14 How can I challenge Unverifiable Material ? 15 Wikinews interviews 16 Open wikis 17 Self-published sources - newsletters 18 Foreign language and verifiability 19 sneaky overlap between WP:V and WP:NOR 20 It was unclear and I fixed it. 21 Do you need verification to say that a fictional character is such? 22 Fansites 23 Statements coming from a person 24 mnemonics 25 Use of Comedians providing political satire 26 Website links question 27 WP:SELFPUB 28 Googlefiability vs. Verifiability 29 Should there be an exception for table-of-contents-like lists? 30 Should there be an exception for indexes? 31 'respected publishing houses', how to tell? 32 YouTube 33 Avoid vague statements 34 Exceptional claims ? 35 Government statements 36 Self-published sources 37 Essay 38 Verifiability (fiction) 39 Making changes? 40 Verifiability artwork 41 Wikipedia as an SPS 42 Images Question 43 Galileo pic 44 Should topic deletion under WP:V be based on article as is stands or on article potential? 45 Discussion of interest on hard to find, archaic sources 46 What is a reliable third-party publication? 47 Policy toward very old sources? 48 Music Blog? 49 Proposed change 49.1 Take 2 49.2 Take 3 49.3 Take 4 49.4 Take N 50 Series episodes 51 Wikipedia is guilty of hypocrisy 52 proposal: "independent" of interests involved 53 Need help on application of WP:REDFLAG

Discussion about image use and WP:NOR

Please come participate in the discussion here. It involves image use policy issues far beyond the template itself. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A proposal to condense “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”

I don’t claim to be the best wordsmith, but I think I have all the elements included without making the wording unwieldy.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. Exceptional claims include statements likely to surprise the reader; claims not supported or that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community; or, that if true would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. Such claims should only be included when there is a general consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.

Thanks, Brimba (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Brimba, I think it is a good idea to condense, but I think that some of the original concepts in the forumlation have been lost. I have added the original formulation back, which you can wordsmith into a condensed version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done some ordinary condensation without change in meaning. I would disagree with the version above because (after fixing grammar issues, changing "high quality" to "highly", and restoring the conspiracy theory warning) it still introduces a much wider berth with the nearly unverifiable tests "likely to surprise the reader" and "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". "Not widely known" and "nonprevailing view" are relatively verifiable; "not widely assumed" and "surprising view" are not so. John J. Bulten 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken just replaced my condensation with a version of the same concept taken from WP:ATT. This edit generally strengthens and clarifies the section. However, it seems odd to copy from a dispute-locked nonpolicy page to an open core policy page, and to introduce slight changes made there under less review. I believe there should also be an attempt at consensus-building, so my comment is: I support the concepts changed as useful improvements, but after consensus is demonstrated here and dispute is resolved there, I would like my condensation remade in both articles. I will not revert or condense now due to my involvement already, but I believe the edit merits discussion whether or not reverted. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The version in ATT was taken from RS, and then imported here. It's also clearer. ATT is not in dispute, by the way; it's a summary of V and NOR. I think Francis's edit was a good one. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It reads well as it represents long term understanding of the issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not too happy about:

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources.

It can be misconstrued to read like: if you can't find "multiple reliable sources" (the preferred solution), then we'll settle for "the best sources" you can find (...they don't even have to be reliable...) - Maybe far-fetched, but if we can reduce ambiguity, why not. So, proposing this replacement:

If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim. If enough of these sources are also reliable there should not be a problem to include the material based on such sources, as far as also keeping to other policies like those on biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to remote opinions.

Or is that too wordy for a policy page? Anyway, for reference: I suggested this rewrite in part because I happened to be reading this thread yesterday: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Frank_LaGrotta (exceptional claim removed for BLP and undue weight reasons, notwithstanding that the "best source" was also a "reliable source" - see also User talk:Jimbo Wales#BLP Question). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First off let me say that I am sorry for having missed all of the above discussion, especially as I was the one to have opened this thread. Right now I am not sure where I have been, but not here obviously.

This section function is mostly to act as a gatekeeper. Its job is to act as a defense against persons adding material into Wikipedia. Why the material should be kept out depends upon the particular circumstance of what is being said. Material can still be added in, if it meets a high enough threshold. More than anything, this sections job is to say what that threshold is. With this in mind, I think wording such as “If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim.” sets the threshold too low for our purposes. Thus a simple statement such as “XXXXX is not "one marginal academic", he is nearly the only historian to have worked on this subject.” would defeat this sections function.

I think we need three things:

1) An acknowledgement that we are talking not simply about fringe science. If that is all we where talking about, this section would be redundant, as policy already functions quite well in such cases. I would say that our biggest problems come from the areas of historical events and politically charged issues, because in these areas it becomes hard to judge the validity of sources; everyone has some degree, everyone has some source that at first glance might be reliable.

The phrasing “especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and material about living people.” fills this function quite well.

2) We need a short, but not too short description of what we are talking about when w say “Exceptional claims”. We need this so that people trying to add material can not say that what they are trying to add is below the threshold.

3) We need a statement such as “Such claims may only be included when there is a consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.” This is the part that has teeth, this is the gate.

Personally I would feel a lot more comfortable with :

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and material about living people.

then what we have now. Brimba (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. "I think wording such as “If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim.” sets the threshold too low for our purposes.": misquote and straw man argument. What I proposed includes a quite firm threshold:

If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim. If enough of these sources are also reliable there should not be a problem to include the material based on such sources, as far as also keeping to other policies like those on biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to remote opinions.

Did you have problems to read more than a single sentence?

Also, I try to avoid reasonings in this vein: If something isn't in the sources that are usually accepted as reliable, then you need to prove your source is of more than usual reliability. Not only that, you need to have several sources, and for each of them you need to prove a more than average reliability. Sure, then one can keep a lot out of Wikipedia, but I'm afraid such reasonings can be used against WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE, a section of the NPOV policy, has the current balance on this). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You also suggested “Such claims may only be included when there is a consensus amongst editors that the sources cited are reliable for the claims made.” - too easy to circumvent NPOV with this too: a single editor declaring a source "unreliable for the claims made" (with or without giving a foundation for his/her declaration) leads to a no-consensus situation that would exclude the material from the encyclopedia. Of course consensus is the best way, but lack of consensus on the sources should not be used as an excuse to delete, nor, of course, as warranty for inclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that the best source does not always equal a reliable source.

“Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources” That is the standard for dealing with exceptional claims under the current wording. And yes I can read. It is preferable that we use multiple high quality reliable sources, but not mandatory. There in lies the problem.

If you are going to say “best sources”, then it is entirely possible, and very much probable that some people will insist on taking you at your word. Thus you get into situations such as this from the Talk:Operation Gladio:

My point:

WP:RS states in no uncertain terms:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

Even if we all agreed that Ganser is a high quality reliable source, under WP:RS the claims presented here requires multiple high quality reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia. They cannot be included based on only one source. Claims made solely on Ganser's work need to be removed, regardless of any debate concerning Ganser’s reliability, or the outcome of that debate. Brimba 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

Ganser's work itself is quite thoroughly sourced: he is not a primary source, but a secondary source, used as such. Tazmaniacs 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning WP:UNDUE:

By allowing one marginal academic to dominate the sources of this article, we certainly are violating WEIGHT. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The reply:

Ganser is not "one marginal academic", he is nearly the only historian to have worked on this subject. Tazmaniacs 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganser is only one of many such “best sources” that I could have pulled up to make my point, although he is probably the best known within the WP community, and therefore the best example to use. The point of including this is to show that people don’t always take things as written or as intended. They can put there own spin on things, so when we write, especially at the policy level, we need to say things clearly or risk people gaming the system to meet their own ends.

Ganser is someone who makes multiple exceptional claims, specifically that most every terrorist attack in Western Europe over the last several decades has been the work the CIA, designed as false-flag operations to discredit left wing political parties, specifically Western European communists’ parties, or achieve some other end as the White House desires. His claims include that the CIA tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II to make the Russians look bad; That the CIA controlled the Red Brigade, and ordered the assignation of Aldo Moro to make the Italian communist party look bad; that the US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur for geostrategic purposes. So forth and so on. He’s been savaged in peer reviews, left his university post for reasons that where never explained, and had good things to say about Lyndon Larouche and and had good things said about him by Lyndon Larouche. After all of that, he is still the Best Source for much of what he claims as he is often the only source besides Larouche and the Italian Communist party. Still, there are a number of articles within Wikipedia that use him as a source, and he has quite a dedicated following.

Here you have a source making claims that trigger probably every single redflag we list, and yet, despite his less than stellar reputation, one could argue that he is the “best source”. Ganser is not the point, the point is that the current wording defeats the intent of the “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” section. “Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources” does not even live up to the section heading. Brimba (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Rv to the wording that has held for at least several months. There is nothing on the talk page to indicate that consensus has changed. This is a change in policy, and needs to be vented on talk." [1]: incorrect and thus (again) a straw man argument.

The wording was introduced here less than a month ago, in a (still controversial) attempt to merge a guideline (WP:RS) into a policy page. 18 November to be precise [2].

The wording from WP:ATT (which I introduced here after lack of consensus over the section [3]), was an agreed upon formulation of the exceptional claims section.

Nonetheless, the formulation is problematic, as indicated above.

Making it worse again (as explained above) is not a part of the solution IMHO, nor is it consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Frank LaGrotta I am not sure why being a state representative makes one encyclopedic enough to be included on WP. He spent 10 terms in that position, but never did anything worthy of mention within his article until he was indicted? Thus he is only worthy of having a page because he was indicted? I think the solution is to AFD his page. Otherwise do some research and flesh out the guys life, but I would be skeptical that such would happen as he and his indictment are of limited interest outside of his community (using the word in a broad sense, not a literal sense). I think his page is problematic for reasons that go beyond what we are speaking of here.

The only argument you seem to have against any wording is this:

I'm still not too happy about:

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources.

It can be misconstrued to read like: if you can't find "multiple reliable sources" (the preferred solution), then we'll settle for "the best sources" you can find (...they don't even have to be reliable...) - Maybe far-fetched, but if we can reduce ambiguity, why not.

Which is pretty much the same as my argument, against wording your not fond of in the first place.

Concerning your preferred wording, all anyone who wants to defeat it has to do is portend that they miss the point, and keep quoting your first sentence and the door is open.

“If you want to include an exceptional claim in Wikipedia try to find the best sources that would support such claim.”

I understand the lack of consensus over the proposed merger; however, I don’t see how that translates into making the wording itself an issue of debate. You said “Making it worse again (as explained above)” could I ask you to restate your concerns once more, or cut and paste them to here. I am sorry, but I have not found what you are refereeing too, not trying to be a dick, just don’t see what your refereeing too. Brimba (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Frank_LaGrotta: I'm fine with the current solution: it has consensus on the noticeboard, and Jimbo commented positively about the discussion there (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#BLP Question). What made you suspect I wouldn't have been fine with the current solution regarding LaGrotta? Then I did what is normal: base policy on accepted current practice.

Re. "I don’t see how [the proposed merger] translates into making the wording itself an issue of debate.":

• "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources" is acceptable on a guideline page, per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Official guideline articles: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - On a policy page the "occasional exception" would be almost totally excluded: "A policy article is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions."
• WP:ATT was set up as a summary of policy on the matter, so reflects policy-level wording. That's why I copied the relevant WP:ATT text in an attempt to stop (at least temporarily) the disagreement of what should be on the policy page, as long as the discussions were going on here.

Re. "Which is pretty much the same as my argument, against wording your not fond of in the first place." - you must have understood in the mean while I was even less fond of the wording you proposed.

Re. "could I ask you to restate your concerns once more, or cut and paste them to here": "I try to avoid reasonings in this vein: If something isn't in the sources that are usually accepted as reliable, then you need to prove your source is of more than usual reliability. Not only that, you need to have several sources, and for each of them you need to prove a more than average reliability. Sure, then one can keep a lot out of Wikipedia, but I'm afraid such reasonings can be used against WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE, a section of the NPOV policy, has the current balance on this)."

Re. "all anyone who wants to defeat it has to do is portend that they miss the point, and keep quoting your first sentence and the door is open.": don't treat Wikipedians as if they're morons. But I'll make it even more fool-proof now. Anyway, I suppose I'd like WP:RS to have a section about not quoting out of context. I once wrote something about that in an essay (but with a very limited scope, see Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem#Misquoting). Seems you think this is an imminent danger. And true, I pointed you a few times to where you quoted out of context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've revised your change for clarity of emphasis and wording.[4] Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper)

This section of the policy now says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I wonder if this statement is sufficiently nuanced. For a well-covered topic like George W. Bush or lung cancer, I seriously doubt if any fact or opinion worth noting would have appeared in a blog or self-published book, that has not also appeared in a mainstream source. For topics like these, I think it's safe to say that self-published sources are practically never acceptable.

But because Wikipedia is not paper, the encyclopedia now covers many below-the-radar subjects for which the best sources may indeed be self-published. I occasionally find editors aggressively removing citations from self-published sources, because they believed (per this policy) that such sources are considered categorically unreliable in almost all circumstances. The focus of the section should be on indicia of reliability, rather than blanket (or near-blanket) statements that put a patina of grave doubt on an entire category of sources.

The section has a footnote that is similarly flat-footed:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Newspapers' interactive columns aren't just called blogs; generally, they are blogs. This well founded exception ought to be integrated into the text, instead of being relegated to a footnote. (I do agree that "reader comments" are practically never reliable.) Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely with your thrust Marc! Go ahead and propose a change more directly. N.b.: The (only?) exception on reader comments is when the blogger writes one directly, clearly distinguishable as an admin comment. John J. Bulten 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

MikeBlas and I have been having a similar discussion. In our case it's a forum in question, but it's the same principle: can a source self-published, but self-published by someone with verifiable authority, be cited? --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to prevent overdeletion

Reference User:Kazvorpal#Truth, not Silence. WP:V as stated permits wholesale reversion of good-faith edits, by the process of an editor simply calling them unreliable (i.e., questionable) and refusing to discuss reliability, which is an unintentionally one-sided application of the policy. And since reliability is a spectrum ("the greater the degree of scrutiny involved"), there is not a clear line between reliability and questionability, which should also be emphasized. This would be remedied by insertions in the policy.

1. At WP:V#Burden of evidence, after "to find the text that supports the article content in question.", add the sentence: " When an editor provides a source and reasonably claims indicates good faith in its reliability, the burden of evidence shifts to the editor who challenges the insertion; to discuss the reliability of specific sources, continue at the talk page or consult the reliable sources noticeboard."
2. At WP:V#Reliable sources,
   1. Combine the paragraphs beginning "In general" and "Academic and peer-reviewed";
   2. Move the sentence beginning "As a rule of thumb" from that combined paragraph to a new paragraph immediately following;
   3. After the sentence beginning "As a rule of thumb", add the sentences: " If there is reasonable disagreement about whether Wikipedia should or should not use a certain source to support a certain fact due to reliability, deletion should be accompanied by invocation of a consensus-building method such as the bold, revert, discuss cycle or the reliable sources noticeboard. In the case of living persons, special care must be taken to weigh the reliability of the source against the exceptional or contentious nature of the insertion."; and
   4. Delete the last sentence, " To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.", as subsumed twice above.

(I am also making the minor change of correcting "living people" to "living persons" twice, and linking WP:BLP on first reference.) Please indicate consensus on this proposal below. Thank you for your consideration. John J. Bulten 19:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the best way to achieve consensus

Wikipedia policies are reflections of consensus, and usually not reflections of the results of polling. I strongly recommend that instead of asking people simply support or oppose this proposal, you instead simply encourage an open discussion that does not have the appearance of a vote. On another note, your suggestion would be a lot easier to understand if you make a userfied version of WP:V, edit it how you see fit, and then point to the diff of your edit! - Chardish 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Polling can be user after a discussion on the subject and not as a substitute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is a relevant guideline. -- Donald Albury 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I asked to "indicate consensus". Pardon me if my attempt to suggest comment groupings might have been misunderstood by those not familiar with the nonvote rule. I consider this approach to be a form of BRD in talkspace. Also, I have a personal preference for describing the amendment rather than creating and later destroying a temporary page, but anyone can userfy this page as easily as they can read a userfied page, if they like temps. John J. Bulten 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You straight out asked users to 'support' or 'oppose' your proposal. That is a poll, and such polls are strongly discouraged unless sufficient discussion has occurred to give some hope that a consensus is forming. Polls should only be used to clarify a consensus after thorough discussion of a proposal. -- Donald Albury 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue raised can be easily resolved by WP:CONSENSUS and if that is not achievable, the users involved in the dispute about the reliability of a source can engage in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm not sure if by "the issue raised" you mean my proposal or the reliability issues it describes. But either way I agree. I think guidance about burden of proof is essential. See above. John J. Bulten 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being imperious, I have shut down the poll. It's unhealthy to move to polling so rapidly on a policy. Also John, you're rolling a lot of suggested changes into one; it's a little hard to follow. Marskell 14:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I care about passing it, I have created a diff here which conforms to the strikethrough version above. So can we return to the merits now? John J. Bulten 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We can talk about the merits when the agenda's fully on the table. This appears to be a bad faith attempt at wikilawyering to change WP:V in favour of including material posted by User:John J. Bulten at Moneybomb - material that there was consensus to delete because of unreliable sources. See also WP:COI/N#Moneybomb. Gordonofcartoon 16:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the particular case. While John did disclose the COI, expecting to change policy in order to win an argument is, by long-established practice on Wikipedia, not allowed. Marskell 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Marskell, that makes sense, so please point me to evidence of the long-established practice for my edification. There was not "consensus" to delete, as WP:CON describes it, but a severe disagreement which a third opinion is attempting to resolve. There was no "expecting" to change policy on my part, but a good-faith request to see if there is consensus to address this policy deficiency; so far no one has spoken against its merits. That aside, even if the change passed, it would not favor my material or "win an argument", it would only create an explicit burden of proving that a source is unreliable, rather than permitting an editor to claim unreliability baldly and unsupportedly, as has happened for several days. I would be happy, without pressure, just to collect comments on the merits and demerits of my suggestion while we are awaiting resolution on my case, which I am doing everything I can imagine to resolve by consensus. Tips are appreciated. John J. Bulten 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

“When an editor provides a source and indicates good faith in its reliability, the burden of evidence shifts to the editor who challenges the insertion.”

This would turn WP:V on its head, as few people add sources that they personal regard as unreliable. So ANY source that is added is de-facto reliable by the standards of the editor adding the material. Fallowing your logic, ALL material added to Wikipedia must be proven unreliable before it could be removed, unless the editor adding that material openly states that he himself/herself regards the source as unreliable. The burden must, and is, upon the person wishing to add or retain the material, and not to those removing the material.

“There was not consensus to delete.” I might point out that you have inverted consensus here, there is no such thing as consensus to remove questionable material, simply a lack of consensus to retain it. Anyone restoring questionable material on the claim that there is “a lack of consensus to remove” is being disingenuous. Brimba 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Well argued. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brimba and Jossi. It looks like John Bulten is trying to insert original research in violation of Wikipedia:No original research, and then attempted an improper modification to Wikipedia:Verifiability to support his position. As one of Wikipedia's oldest policies, NOR is a core policy of the project and is untouchable; people who persist long enough in violating NOR eventually are kicked off by Jimbo Wales himself, if ArbCom or the admins don't do it first. See User:Ericsaindon2 for what happened to the last user I ran into who consistently refused to stop violating WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT (I took Eric to ArbCom with the support of WillBeback). --Coolcaesar 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for not replying, I was sick. Brimba, I will accept your statement of "inverted consensus" as applying to Gordonofcartoon, who spoke of it first; in fact your statement agrees with mine, in that the repeated deletions should not have been justified as "consensus to delete".

Further, you are misreading my proposal, which may indicate it needs more editing. I did not say "unless the editor ... openly states ... unreliable"; I said "when an editor ... indicates good faith in its reliability". That is, I am requiring a good-faith statement of reliability, not the absence of a statement of unreliability. I agree the burden must begin with the inserter: but at some point that burden is met and it shifts to the deleter. The scope of this amendment is not for unsourced text, nor for obvious misuse of self-published and questionable sources; it is for clarifying dispute resolution when there is disagreement about reliability of sources. As it stands the policy, considered alone, permits the reverter to feel justified re-reverting multiple sources indefinitely without responding to inserter's good-faith proof of reliability; as amended it fosters consensus by indicating how to bring the parties together.

Also, I did not forbid removal of any sourced material: I continue to leave it up to the disputants. The deleter may invite talk via edit summary, or initiate talk. Or the inserter may decline to reinsert under WP:BRD. Or if unaware of BRD, the inserter may try again and the deleter may find the change to be good-faith enough to stand during discussion. Just as before, in fact. The key here is not that removal is forbidden, but that a pretty-well necessary duty of the deleter (discussion) has been underweighted.

One could argue that the dispute resolution procedures already solve this, because the deleter would already be expected to be open to discussion and to direct discussion of reliability to talk or other pages. Well, if so, all the more reason for that to be repeated here! In short, my "agenda" (if you will) is simply to request the community's consensus about cases (including the self-disclosed) of apparent unwillingness on the part of the deleter to discuss toward consensus. In addition to seeking specific mediation, I have also properly requested this consensus at the talk page of an appropriate policy where there seemed undue weight and which appears (see Kaz's essay) to have permitted misuse repeatedly. The responses first turned on my neophyte presentation and then relied on (apparently) misrepresenting the proposal, but no response has yet admitted the problem I cited in my first sentence, nor dealt with the merits as requested in my last original sentence-- except Marc Shepherd, who agrees with the problem and the line of solution. (I suppose I could game the system by claiming consensus of 2-0 on the merits; but in good faith I think you should have another chance to argue the merits of the proposal, as proposed, not as reinterpreted.)

Coolcaesar, I would appreciate knowing which edit of mine constituted OR and why. So far after numerous requests for this info I have been presented with two trivial clauses which happened to be sourced to the wrong footnote. I hope you're relying on your own eyewitnessing of OR rather than the allegations of others on this topic currently still in informal mediation. John J. Bulten 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for not replying, I was sick.

You forgot blocked. Gordonofcartoon 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a more policy-savvy user mind removing Gordon's comment and this response, under WP:BLP (which trumps WP:TALK, as I've confirmed at WP:BLPN)? Attributing me with forgetting is an unsourced contentious (i.e., false) comment about a living person. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

John, some friendly advice: Do not attempt to "fix" policy because it does not do what you want. It does not work, it is a waste of time, and it is unlikely that the motives for the fixes would be taken into consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that policy not doing what we want was the exact reason we make bold, good-faith fix attempts. My proposal remains open. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

John, I'd seriously recommend taking a breath and some time to better review wikipolicy. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Proposed change

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; if contentious or unduly self-serving, it is indicated to be a self-published statement; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Rationale
1. Missions statements are technically disallowed by the current policy, but they are obviously relevant and important. Here is an example from Wikipedia:

• • Amnesty International "defines its mission as 'to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.'"<ref>"About Amnesty International". Amnesty International. Retrieved on 2007-08-08.</ref>

2. Self-published statements should not only be allowable, they are essential, especially for controversial topics. Here are two valid statements from Wikipedia that under the current policy are disallowed:

• • "According to Campus Watch, the organization 'reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them.' The organization further states, 'it fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds.'<ref>CampusWatch.org. Retrieved on 2007-10-20.</ref>" Note that later in the article it is stated that "Opponents of Campus Watch describe it as an attempt to stifle any criticism of Israel in American academia."
  • "According to Kevin Trudeau, [his] book contains the names of actual brand name products that will cure a myriad of illnesses." ... "In some cases Trudeau has told his supporters, via his newsletters, that he has been “attacked” on a particular program or by a particular interviewer." Note that Kevin Trudeau is an oft-criticised man.

3. By insisting that the material be indicated to be a self-published statement, we avoid sentences such as "Kevin Trudeau's books offer cures for a myriad of illnesses."
— DavidMack 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I don't think it will open the door to abuse and misuse (and if it does, we can always go back to the current wording)... so with a modicum of hesitation, I agree with the proposal. Blueboar 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, too. Leadwind 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for that; though the section includes also questionable sources, the clause excludes them. Just happened to notice this because I proposed a change to this page also, which (without being too subtle) you might want to review above. John J. Bulten 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Missions statements are technically disallowed by the current policy. That is an incorrect assessment. Mission statements are indeed allowed and featured in many articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Would you please clarify for me how mission statements are allowable? As shown in the examples above, they are self-published statements that opponents may see as unduly self-serving, which violates current Wiki policy. — DavidMack 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the change. It loosens what is already an exception to the general rule. If a self-published source is contentious, it should simply not be used (as under current policy). Allowing contentious self-published sources would seem to be almost asking for a new crop of edit wars. I also don't understand the need for a loosening of the restrictions on self-serving sources. I've never seen anyone assert that reasonable self-serving material (like a mission statement) is unduly self-serving. So, in essence, I believe changing one would be to the detriment of the wiki and that the other shows no need for change. Remember, SELFPUB is an exception to the normal rule. Some significant proof and a strong consensus is going to be needed for an expansion of an allowance that is contradictory to the general consensus. Vassyana (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain. — DavidMack (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Language clarification

I think we need to add a minor clarification in the first paragraph: change "any reader" to "any reader conversant in the language of the source" If an article's sources are all in Russian, I obviously am not able to check that the article's material has been previously published in reliable sources, nor is any other reader who is not conversant in Russian. Thoughts/reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a pedantic clarification. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that editors are using the current wording to argue that articles without any English sources are not verifiable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And to a large degree this is true. If the only source is in Russian and this has not been published in an English translation, then we are reliant on wp editors a) having the requisite skills to translate from Russian, b) applying their skills accurately, and c) not abusing their inside track by allowing pov to intrude (not that any wp editor would ever do that). This smacks too muck of OR for my liking. IMHO citing foreign language texts that have not been published in English is valueless except to back up English citations and even then they are only of secondary importance. This is not to be xenophobic but it is in the cause of verifiability. Abtract (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your reasoning, the guidance on linking to non-English-language web sites, even as cited sources, is less restrictive. See Wikipedia:External links#Non-English language content and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Non-English-language sites. -- Donald Albury 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If the WP article says the same thing as the non-English-language source, but in different words, it's not OR. Furthermore, it may be much easier to find an editor to verify a source written in Spanish than to verify a statement sourced to a rare, out-of-print book - but we allow the latter as a source, so why shouldn't we allow the former?—greenrd (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course we accept and have always accept non-english language references--how else can we write a w that covers the entire world in a non-discriminatory fashion. Since this is enWP, the articles are in English. The references are in English if possible, but if the best or the only references are in other languages we have always used them, accompanied if necessary by a translation of the key points. There are dozens or hundreds or thousands of active people at enWP who known any given language, and any questioned translation can be quickly verified. for the example given, w have no shortage of editors who can read and translate Russian. All the more reason we should cover topics for which the sources are in Russian, since we provide the opportunity for English speakers who do not know that language to find information on them. Anything notable anywhere in the world for which we have editors willing to write an article belongs in WP. To the extent we have greater coverage of English-speaking places, it is merely the greater knowledge and interests of the available editors. I hope those who know Russian will greatly expand the number of articles on notable people for which there are only or predominantly Russian language sources. DGG (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But then aren't we still left with the problem of the wording of this policy, which says "ANY reader" (emphasis mine). How about this as an alternative to the pedantic addition I first proposed: I change "any reader" to "readers"? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, any doubting reader can ask any active contributor fluent in that language to go and verify. The idea that non-English sources are not verifiable seems quite strange, and their being excluded for that reason, quite ridiculous. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (Now, the alternative method is of course to learn the language, just like Jerome learning Hebrew to translate the Bible...;o)

Seems like you're trying to re-invent WP:V#Non-English sources.

No, not all sections (nor their summaries) of the WP:V policy are crammed in the first paragraph (I can assure you, it has been tried before).

If you're looking for an article built on non-English sources, here's an example: Wikifonia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say this does makes a lot of sense; pity I didn't read it a while ago. Abtract (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

self-publication exceptions

"self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

On talk:Purgatory, some editors read this sentence to mean that these sources are usually not acceptable, but that we can make special exceptions as we see fit. Since the exceptions listed are not explicitly said to be the only and exclusive exceptions, these editors say that there are other exceptions to be determined at the editors' discretion. Is that right? Does this policy mean "no self-published sources unless most editors on the talk page agree that it's OK"? If you want to see the actual discussion, it's at Talk:Purgatory#Dr._Anthony_Dragani. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've long been concerned with the statement that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." It leads a lot of editors to make blanket statements that these sources is categorically unacceptable. A case-by-case analysis would be more appropriate.

Having said that, a topic like Purgatory is an excellent example where we should be looking for better sources. I strongly suspect that anything worth saying on the subject is available in conventional reputable sources, allowing us to bypass entirely the question of whether Dr. Dragani is reliable. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As one of the "some editors" of whom Leadwind writes, I must protest against his presentation of the question. Leadwind (alone, against the views of all the other editors involved) holds that a statement by a certain theologian about the theology of his Church may in no way be quoted in Wikipedia, on the grounds that the statement is found on the theologian's own website. Leadwind holds that this policy statement is an absolute prohibition of any such quotation. The other editors do not hold that "we can make special exceptions as we see fit": they think that the policy "personal websites ... are largely not acceptable as sources" certainly does not exclude quoting, as his view, a statement by Anthony Dragani, someone who is widely considered to be an expert on the field in question: see EWTN's Catholic Experts, Dr. Anthony T. Dragani, Clément's Reply to Rome,A Center for Learning. Dragani is the author of the book Adrian Fortescue and the Eastern Christian Churches Lima (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the private website of an assistant professor at a small college. To me, that's hardly the kind of exception that is intended in policy. Additionally, it is a subject which has no lack whatsoever of highly reliable references. Anything less than clearly reliable and noteworthy sources should (at the least) be subjected to intense scrutiny. Vassyana (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

About the theology of present-day Eastern Catholic Churches on the topic of purgatory, what more highly reliable references are there? An (as of now) assistant professor at a small college, author of a book (no pamphlet, by any means) on Eastern Catholic Churches, the EWTN expert on the field - I do not think someone like that should be simply ignored, as if he didn't exist. And replaced by whom? Lima (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's talk about usage here. If the article states,

Some theologians think this. Mr. XYZ claims, "PQR was ABC."[1] However, others say DEF. Mr. GHI states, "If PQR were ABC, then JKLMN."[2] I see no problem. You are showing something that is verifiably true and can easily be verified (uh, if it is from his website, didn't he say it?). Each person said that, provided their websites state as such. It is a statement of fact and allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

That said, they should not be presented as facts in this case: "PQR was ABC."[1] In the case stated above since a lack of further information violates WP:UNDUE. If you consider him to be unreliable, then that is a different subject altogether.

Both of you have made your points clear. Why not take a step back, refrain from discussing the matter for 24 hours, and just see what others say? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with BQZip01. The statement was simply in the form "This theologian says the following". The person who is insisting on removing it should instead look for a contrary statement by someone (if such exists, which I strongly doubt) to put beside it. Lima (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signs as sources

I do some work with small historical sites, mostly those listed on the NRHP. I am curious about how I should go about using information I glean from signage at the site. It seems to me that this is usually (but not always) a version of self-published information, so I limit my use of it to small factual matters. I use other sources to establish notability, etc. An example of my aproach can be seen at Barnsdall Main Street Well Site. Is this an acceptable approach? Should I upload images of the signs in question? Should the title of section 2.3 be changed to Self-published source (Online and on paper, wood, metal, stone, or any other substance) :)? Dsmdgold (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting lectures at university

How do I quote a lecture? For example, if I'm studying at medical school, and I'm adding an article about a cell using information from a lecture, is that an acceptable source? I'd like to imagine it is (if medical professors are telling us incorrect stuff about medicine, you guys are in for a load of hurt in 10 years when we all start hitting practice), but how do I quote it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenrodman (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lectures aren't published (although the lecturer's write-up might be), so aren't a reliable source. Most of what is normally in a course lecture will be available from published sources (you just have to find them). If it isn't then you will have to wait until the lecturer publishes his material in a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 12:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I couldn't disagree more. The {{cite conference}} template exists for a reason. That said, most people will publish what they said in a lecture and it might be more prudent to cite those sources. Another example would be a newscast of a football game. It certainly is published as is a lecture, just not in written form. As long as you are stating content of the lecture and not commenting on their appearance/demeanor in such a way that would be construed as Original Research ("Mr. Smith looked dapper in his snappy tweed suit..."), I see no problem with it. Again, simply be careful in what you say and how you say it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And just how is a reader supposed to be able to verify a citation to a lecture? Unless a recording or a written version of the lecture has been published, the contents of the lecture are unverifiable. Oh, and the {{cite conference}} template requires little details like publisher, date of publication and ISBN or other identifier; in other words, it is for citing the published proceedings of a conference. -- Donald Albury 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because the template has a place for that information doesn't mean it has to be used (what if the publisher wasn't stated?). Furthermore, how would you verify a news broadcast? A TV show? You would have to get a recording from the originator of the broadcast. The same goes here (you would contact the lecturer or host of the lecture). Verification isn't always easy and Wikipedia doesn't require it to be so. On top of that, I would say the actual content of the claim would need to be taken into account. If someone claims Dr. Watts (a meteorology professor at Stanford) says, "The sky is blue because nitrogen diffuses blue light at 10 times the rate of oxygen," then there is little need to worry about it. If he said, "The Unites States Navy is shooting UFOs out of the sky in order to begin an intergalactic war," that is quite another and should be backed up with an additional reference if the fact is in question (exceptional claims require exceptional sources and this isn't one of them). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with DA on this one: lectures are not "published" and so are not reliable sources. News broadcasts certainly are. I can't imagine that anything that was put into WP based on a lecture, and not available in any other source, would be informaton we would want in WP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They may not be published, but they certainly have a verifiable source. Additionally, people's comments in public are certainly their own and cannot be used carte blanche as original ideas by others...that would be plagiarism.

Lenrodman, what exactly is it that you want to say? I think that would have direct impact on what exactly you want to put in Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So how would I verify a lecture after the person who gave it was dead? Difficult verification is ok, but impossible is not ok. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can talk to those in attendance, those who knew him, etc. Again, let's hear the specifics before we judge anything. Lenrodman? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion for quite a while - I suppose that given what everyone's said here, I'd probably agree that it's best to quote a published, written source if possible; for a conference perhaps I'd say differently as new material might be presented, but anything in a university lecture should be in a book somewhere already.Lenrodman (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DA on this. If the info comes from a lecture in medical school, I would expect it to be possible to find a textbook or medical reference book which supports the information and which can be cited as a verifiable supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it should probably be published somewhere (unless it is really cutting edge (no pun intended) stuff. That specific source would also be useful. Perhaps you could ask the professor/doctor where he/she got that information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{cite conference}} certainly exists for a reason. Academic conferences can be important sources of information. Conference proceedings are published in standard practice. Everyday university class lectures are certainly well-outside the bounds of the intended use of that template. I'd also dare say they are clearly outside of the accepted range of verifiability and reliable sourcing. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I would normally only accept conference proceedings as RSs if a/ there was a clear indication of substantial peer review. b/ and b they were actually published, not merely posted on the web. The quality varies very widely. Not all of them are like the main conferences series in computer science and related fields of engineering, where they are probably more important than journal articles.DGG (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I spent one term transcribing the recorded comments to papers read at a conference. Due to the poor quality of the recordings, another assistant and I could go whole paragraphs without agreeing on a single word that had been said. The comments were left out when the proceedings of the conference were published. And the papers read at the conference were never peer-reviewed. -- Donald Albury 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just butting in here to mention this related discussion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been on committees for a range of conferences. sometimes full manuscripts are required half a year in in advance--and some presented talks may bear no relation to the text that was sent and printed. More and more talks are recorded and podcast--what gets said can be very different from what was proposed. conferences do not stop speakers when they deviate from their texts. Speakers say things without due thought, sometimes to be outrageous--sometimes with the declared intent of enlivening a debate. Every such conference must be considered in light of its own practices. Conferences where the published texts are accepted as authoritative can be told from their inclusion in the customary indexes in full--not just as abstracts, and from heir being cited in papers in first rate journals. The conference series in Web of science are almost always acceptable. There are other guidelines, but these are the ones I use. DGG (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that we should even consider citing a source that has not been published and is therefor not verifiable. A lecture or conference paper must be available in printed or video form for it to be verifiable ... and available means more than just in the hands of one wp editor. To cite from notes (or worse still from memory) taken by someone attending a lecture or conference is so open to error and abuse as to be unthinkable surely? Abtract (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, but there seems to an argument being made here that one can verify what was said in a lecture by speaking to the lecturer, or even worse, by speaking to someone who heard the lecture. So I would say that is not unthinkable, but it is certainly unacceptable in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think there is a confusion around what exactly is the source: the lecture or the person giving the lecture. The lecturer may be a prominent, Nobel winning physiologist, but the lecture itself can't be used as a reliable source in WP without being published (and preferably peer-reviewed also) UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I would consider citing a lecture, my first question would be whether the information exists in a reliable published source. Ordinarily, it would be the reliable published source, not the lecture, that should be cited. Of course, if the lecture itself is published at some point (as sometimes happens with lectures), then it becomes citable. It may also be that the lecture is so noteworthy that it becomes news in itself, in which case published sources will surely report on it.

In a case where an unpublished lecture is the sole source, then the information probably does not belong in Wikipedia. Now, it may be that the lecture is the first place that you personally encountered the information — after all, the purpose of a lecture is to inform the audience. But if the material belongs in an encyclopedia, then there will inevitably be a published source for it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to nitpick about the language here. By the standards of copyright law, any public performance witnessed by a sufficiently large number of people is legally considered to have been published, regardless of whether it was recorded or otherwise transmitted on fixed media. So by the standards of law, most university lectures are "published". See also, publish: To bring to the public attention; announce. I realize that you mean the more restricted sense of "publish", i.e. refering to a fixed work that others might look up and verify, but since that is not the legal standard I would encourage you to be explicit about the meaning you intend.

That said, a lecture is somewhat difficult to verify, but personally I already think some Wikipedians take too strict a position on verification. For example, it's probably a great deal easier to verify that Professor X believes Y (i.e. ask him) than to determine what is said in obscure foreign books or in a 4 year old news program. A university lecture is a poor source (limited basis for reliability and difficult to verify), but in my personal opinion, it is not an unacceptable source. In other words, if you use it in writing an article, I wouldn't object to citing it, but I would encourage you and others to replace it with something better for the same reasons others describe above. Incidentally, if you read WP:V, there is not a single reference to "print" or anything to say that the concept of "publication", as used by WP:V, excludes the more expansive, traditional, and legal sense of publication, i.e. any forum by which information is presented to the public. Dragons flight (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And I see using what a professor says in a private communication (such as by asking him) as unacceptable. We can't operate on hearsay. The whole point of WP:V is that readers (or at least a reasonable sub-set of them) must be able to verify the information from the source. Last year an attempt was made to allow archives at schools be used as reliable sources, and that was knocked down. By-and-large, books and journals from established mainstream publishers remain the most consistently reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can verify it, you ask the source. Simple. In my opinion, sending an email is just as valid a means of achiving "verification" as checking a book out of a library. The use of "private communication" is well-established in academic publishing, and that's even less verifiable than public presentations (which is the topic at hand). Dragons flight (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is, why would this ever be necessary? If the lecture includes facts or opinions that are important within the field, there will usually be other sources. By citing those sources, we short-circuit all of the difficulties with an editor inserting, "My professor said...," and then someone calling the professor to ask, "Did you really say that?"

If, on the other hand, the lecture includes facts or opinions that have never been stated before, then they probably haven't yet made it through the crucible of peer review and refereed publication. Do those facts or opinions belong in Wikipedia? Probably not.

Remember, the original question referred to a lecture at Medical School. In that context, the lecture is likely to be grounded in established medical science. It's not often that a lecturer says, "Here is a brand new discovery I've made, and it's never been published anywhere else." If these statements are not allowed in Wikipedia, how much are we losing? Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The question I would pose is: What do you do if someone wants to expand an article based on what their professor said but after a good faith effort haven't been able to locate better sources. Do you:

1. Not include your professors' information
2. Include the information, but not cite any source
3. Include the information while citing your professors' presentation

In my opinion, option 3 is easily the superior one. It likely improves Wikipedia by expanding our coverage. Since professors are usually reliable (in the accuracy sense) there is a low risk of false information. Since the source is clearly identified, and shown to be weak, it encourages opportunities to improve the citation and/or take the information with a justifiable grain of salt. And lastly it allows a method of verification (i.e. contacting the professor) if truly necessary. If the information is challenged, we know where it came from and can back it up (or disprove it) based of searching for further sources. Basically, I prefer expanding our coverage, and am opposed to blocking the inclusion of credible information simply because the source at hand is weak. Dragons flight (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary undent.] I think it would be truly rare that a fact or viewpoint satisfies all of our other requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the editor (after a "good faith effort") can find no better source than a school lecture. This isn't exactly scientific, but my guess is that in 99% of cases, either the editor is being lazy, or the professor's statement isn't reliable. I certainly wouldn't update this policy to reflect this possibility, as the potential for abuse is far greater than the potential for improving the product. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with MarcShepherd and would choose option 1. above. Abtract (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. If it's accurate and worth saying, it has almost certainly been said in a venue that can more easily be referenced. Contact the lecturer and ask them to give you a cite to a paper. It's partly a philosophical question; DF prefers expansion of coverage even if the reference is weak, while I prefer that only the most solid information be included in WP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many people just aren't very good researchers. So when it comes to specialized topics, I am prepared to accept that some good faith efforts don't actually get very far. For example, I could tell you interesting things about microbial autofluoresnce that you'd have a darn hard time referencing if you weren't already familiar with the specialist literature. Secondly, I don't think it needs updating, I consider WP:V to already be consistent with citing public presentations. Dragons flight (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Most teachers lecture on a general subject. Some of what I teach is on subjects where i consider myself an authority; some of it is on a general topic where i am competent perhaps to give an lecture to beginers. The accuracy required when preparing class lectures is not quite that of peer-reviewed papers or edited reviews or a well-edited textbook. One tries to be as accurate as feasible for the situation, knowing that one is often necessarily oversimplifying. The test of reliable sources is publishing them. Now, a lecture presented to experts at a major conference--that's close to a peer-review, if not more so. so there are exceptions. But the classroom lectures of professors mounted on the web are not acceptable sources. We're just not that good at everything we need to talk about. Thats why we have no special authority here, either. V is not compatible with citing school lectures, and should not be changed to indicate otherwise.DGG (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources disappearing?

Wikipedia seems to have a fundamental problem with sources. If you cite online sources (articles and such), well... what happens when that article is no longer around? In theory, an entire article's sources could disappear from the Internet. What if there were plenty of sources when the event occurred, but absolutely none ten years later? Does that make the event any less significant? I do not believe so. I think this is a fundamental long-term problem with Wikipedia that will eventually have to be resolved for its articles to have verifiability for many decades. --Ihmhi (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Two solutions. 1. Cite to Web sites that are already regularly archived by the Internet Archive. Even if the IA falls apart for some reason, its collections are so valuable that someone will certainly step up to give them a new home (just as Google did for the old Deja.com archive). 2. Cite to sources that are preserved in other formats besides the Web---that's what scholars have always done and still do in most intellectual work product. For example, even though I find most of my sources for Wikipedia through Google Books or ProQuest or InfoTrac, I am always careful to cite to such books and articles based on the hard copy pagination as reflected in those databases. Keep in mind that libraries will continue to preserve books and periodicals in paper format for several decades more until e-book technology matures. Judging by the very slow progress of e-book readers (which engineers have been playing around with for over 20 years), it will take at least another decade before e-book readers are good enough to replace regular books, and then another decade after that for paper books to be phased out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big problem. The majority of reliable sources (at least for contemporary articles like BLPs) are news stories. Most of these are preserved in news databases that can be accessed from libraries, even the ones that are not also in print. In theory, such links are for convenience only, and the articles can still be cited even when the online content disappears. Cool Hand Luke 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a service specifically for that problem, called WebCite. It's like the Internet Archive, but archives on request, rather than crawling in general. I keep meaning to use it for important articles... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Google's new knol project

It would be good to think about how to handle knol references before we start getting links to them. I've started a discussion to get editors' opinions:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#knol's implication for policies and guidelines

Your inputs there are welcome. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Government agencies cited as sources about countries

I notice in country articles that government agencies are cited as sources (often via the US Central Intelligence Agency "Factbook"). We do not like individuals or corporations to cite themselves - shouldn't governments be subject to the same rule? But there seems to be an unwritten rule in WP that "we've always used the CIA Factbook, so don't question anything it says". Fourtildas (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The CIA Factbook is a book available online CIA Factbook in Libraries and in bookstore- googlebooks-(pick any bookstore you like). It is in my opinion a Reliable sources--Looktothis (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mostly why I have left

Congratulations Wikipedia, you are on your way to becoming a collection of uninspired senior-undergraduate essays before they are proofread by a native speaker. Verifiability? Nuts, I say. Need a reason why? I give you Ralph Furley. C'mon already. As though the NPOV b.s. were not bad enough... 129.128.67.23 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How can I challenge Unverifiable Material ?

Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." Master Redyva (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several ways to "challenge" unverified Material... 1) If it is a single sentence or paragraph, tag it with a {{fact}} tag. 2) If it is an entire section or entire article, place an {{unreferenced}} tag on it. But the best way is to: 3) raise the issue on the article talk page.

Simply deleting the material without discussion is also a form of "challenge"... but deletion without any discussion first should be saved for extreme cases and for potentially harmful material in BLPs. How long you wait between tagging/raising the issue and deletion is a matter of choice... but I would recommend waiting at least a week. You also have to figure in the difference between unverified and unverifiable... If you think the information is verifiable (ie it is not currently verified, but it can probably be verified), give people a chance to do so (or do so yourself). If you think it is unverifiable (ie it can not be verified, no matter how long you wait), go ahead and delete now.

If you delete, and someone reverts you... STOP... don't re-revert as that leads to an edit war. Go to the talk page and discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule about removal. Some {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} tags hang around for a very long time (months or even years). If I think a particular statement is probably true, but ought to be verified, then I am generally in no hurry to remove it. As my confidence in the material decreases, so does the time I am willing to wait before deleting it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Me has ayudado mucho." Master Redyva (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews

I have a concern about the growing number of quotes and citations to interviews posted at Wikinews... to me these are unreliable (Wikinews is a wiki... there is no verification that the quote is accurate). Comments? Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the reliability of the interviews, and I share your doubts. At the least, interviews should not be used to comment on third parties. See RSN#Wikinews redux, RSN archive#Wikinews. Whether wikinews quotes are generally reliable is for our community to decide. See Jimbo#Wikinews interviews are being questioned. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See also the particular live dispute at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews: Please post definite answer. Cool Hand Luke 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Ever since Wikipedia:Reliable source examples was turned into an unofficial essay recently, any claim that appears on a blog, forum posting or other wikia, including Wikinews, has suddenly become OK. Until this point, we could revert such "cited" claims by pointing to this exemplar — and now we can't. Judging from all the blog and forum-post "citations" that people try to add — whether because they're unversed in substantiated research or just pushing a POV — the change to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples means we're going to see a lot more edit wars by people saying, "Hey, no one says we can't use blogs, forum postings and outside wikia". Not everyone has the stomach to fight insistent POV'ers, for example, so a lot more unsubstantiated "citations" are going to appear in Wikipedia — exactly the kind of thing that can kill any credibility it has. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews has guidelines: n:WN:OR which in theory imply verifiability from notes. In theory, you can ask for proof on interviews, for a sound recording or for notes to be checked by an administrator. But if someone is a trusted Wikimedian and has photos to prove he's not making it all up, we have been quite lax about providing interview notes and things on Wikinews. Even then, notes are not 100% guaranteed. But most quotes from interviews seem reliable to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (