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. |
Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
Spun off from the above discussion. WP:ONUS directly and unambiguously implies that if one editor removes longstanding material, and another editor objects, the default is that that material is removed until consensus is reached. WP:QUO directly and unambiguously implies the opposite - longstanding text remains unless there's a clear consensus to remove it, ie. when dealing with longstanding text, the default is to keep rather than to remove. I've seen frequent disagreements between these, and it contributes to edit wars by leading editors on both sides to think that policy supports putting the page in their preferred state during discussion. These need to be reconciled and either an unambiguous statement added to WP:ONUS referencing WP:QUO and indicating that longstanding text is presumed to have consensus by default; or an unambiguous statement added to WP:QUO referencing WP:ONUS. For the record, I think it's obvious to anyone who has edited for any length of time that WP:QUO is the policy that is actually followed here, and that WP:ONUS, as written, is wrong and does not reflect current policy; anyone who tries to invoke WP:ONUS to remove longstanding text during a dispute without a clear affirmative consensus to do so is going to have a bad time, ie. WP:ONUS applies only to new additions because anything that has been on the page for long enough is presumed to have consensus. But either way one of these needs to be corrected. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You are misreading the policy. Status quo says specifically not to revert. Onus says specifically to remove material without consensus. The answer is always keep the consensus version regardless of status quo. If you don't know what's the consensus, don't revert. Bright☀ 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"It's also quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean one thing and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean something different."What does that mean? Please expand on that. Bus stop ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"originally intended". So, please tell me—how might it have been "originally intended"? Bus stop ( talk) 14:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"new content"that we are concerned with. We are concerned with different versions of articles. A dispute is about different versions of an article, with one group supporting one version, and another group supporting another version. Bus stop ( talk) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"new content". We are talking about different versions of an article. Bus stop ( talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Bus Stop I think you are grievously misreading the policy. Please refer to the previous discussion where the current phrasing of the policy achieved consensus. Bright☀ 17:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that it is best as-is. Despite that fact that prescriptive "what should happen" wording is problematic due to the large amount of variables and factors. First, most of the new suggestions are adding more prescriptive material which would expand that problem. Just like most things in the fuzzy Wikipedia system, the current wording can't be taken categorically or too broadly. And the distinction between contesting new material vs. contesting long-standing material is certainly an influencing factor. I think that the context and preface wording is important. Which is that it largely addresses the common implicit or explicit argument that meeting wp:ver is a force or mandate for inclusion rather than just one of the requirements for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 ( talk • contribs) North8000 ( talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is about differences of editorial opinion. WP:BURDEN is more objective. It is not about opinions. It is about the availability of support for material or assertions in sources. That is either present or absent. The burden is very clear: the burden for providing support in sources is on those adding content. It is a different situation in WP:ONUS. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether material warrants inclusion. RfCs can resolve this. But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material.
At WP:ONUS there is simply a difference of opinion between which version of the article is the "right" version. Arguments are presented in an RfC and a closer evaluates the strengths of the respective arguments. They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments. I think that is very unlikely. Even if one side's arguments are only slightly stronger—that side should be awarded their version of the article. Bus stop ( talk) 21:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material.There is "no special burden" until the added material is challenged. At that point there is the special burden of achieving a consensus to include the material. As has been explained to you more times than I can count, here and elsewhere. But keep repeating the falsehood enough times, using articulate language resembling that used by people who know what they are talking about, and maybe it will magically become true by sheer force of will.
They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments.And yet they do, all the time, and AFAIK nobody has a problem with it except you. If you wish to propose a radical change to the way Wikipedia works, take it to VPP and stop cluttering this page with repetitive out-of-venue comments. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the last sentence is a bombshell. It is an overwhelming surprise. The section heading reads Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The first and second sentences read "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." And then comes the bombshell, that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The last sentence is a non sequitur vis-à-vis that which precedes it. Bus stop ( talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue is about a change being introduced, not necessarily inclusion, it can also be removal, depending on what constitutes longstanding text. But regarding Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus — I reiterate that this is what a closing of discussion defaults to (to the longstanding text) whenever there is agreement against a proposal or when there is no agreement at all. El_C 06:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This may sound like me conflicting with my earlier post but it really isn't. First I'm going to agree that such a thing, taken out of context has no business being in this policy. And, in fact, a prescriptive "what to do" that defines an (interim) end result in what should really be a "case by case" situation is a bad idea period. But, in this particular place, it was to mitigate a common mis-use of wp:ver, in essence someone using "it's sourced" as a basis to force material in. And it was a compromise because we couldn't get in what we really needed to do then and do now. Which is to add "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" and then delete the whole onus section. North8000 ( talk) 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
We should salvage the usable language from WP:ONUS and add it at the bottom of WP:BURDEN. Thus we would add "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."
But we should not add the last sentence which reads "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Whichever side prevails in a dispute resolution process, commonly an RfC, is understood to enjoy consensus. Any version of an article is only considered temporary while any dispute resolution process is underway.
Those closing RfCs should not close with "no-consensus", thus eliminating the need for "defaulting" to any version of the article. RfCs should be closed in favor of the stronger of two sides of an argument, even if one argument is only slightly stronger than the other. Bus stop ( talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"If something has been in the article for a long time, it's presumed to have reasonably strong consensus"—I agree. But what if it's been in an article for a short time? What if the article is newly created? And also, why should there be "no-consensus"? Closing an RfC means weighing arguments and deciding the stronger of two choices. No one forces anyone to close an RfC. If one is unable to decide which is the stronger argument one should not close that RfC.
Please note the discussion at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting#Unprotection and moving forward. It is an article that has been in existence for a few weeks. Yet some are arguing that there is version that has greater status than another version. I find that ridiculous. An RfC can resolve the dispute. But such a resolution should depend solely on the strengths of the respective arguments. And the RfC should not be closed as "no-consensus". Bus stop ( talk) 19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see some discussion regarding the following: When there is a disagreement between editors as to whether some bit of information belongs in a specific article (or not)...
Philosophically, I don't think these are mutually exclusive... but, in purely practical terms I do lean more towards favoring the first than the second - as it is almost always far easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar ( talk) 19:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"Philosophically, I don't think these are mutually exclusive."I agree with that. Neither side has to be considered to have a greater burden in matters of opinion. I oppose placing a burden or an onus on any side in a dispute that hinges upon matters of opinion. WP:BURDEN correctly requires those adding material to provide sources. That "burden" is justifiable. But differences of opinion do not call for a "burden" to be placed on either side. Bus stop ( talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"It's fairly standard that a "no consensus" assessment means the article stays at status quo ante.") You are correct that it is
"out-of-venue". But it can be discussed. It is not taboo. Compartmentalization has its pros and its cons. Bus stop ( talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Those are but three out of ten RfCs I closed that week."They are saying that they closed 10 RfCs in a week, 3 of which as "no-consensus". (It may be difficult to find because it is within an area of the page which has been hatted.) Though I have never closed an RfC I question that frequency of "no-consensus" closes. There are two problems that go hand in hand, one of which is the last sentence found at WP:ONUS. El C says here:
You are wrong on the policy. WP:ONUS reads: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."I harbor zero animus toward anyone. Mandruss is also very concerned with the last sentence of WP:ONUS although they do not quote it at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. WP:ONUS is different from WP:BURDEN. At WP:BURDEN there either is or there is not a source to support material. That is a clear line. It is therefore understandable that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." But WP:ONUS is different. WP:ONUS is merely about opinion. There is no clear line. Therefore there should not be an onus to achieve consensus for inclusion on those seeking to include disputed content. That sentence is not supported by any wisdom. An RfC decides whether material should be included or omitted. And if there is not a close of "no-consensus" the RfC is decided simply on the strengths of the arguments of the opposing sides. The present arrangement is an uncalled-for morass. In my opinion the first step is to remove from WP:ONUS the sentence reading "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". As a second step I am in a little bit of a quandary. I am not sure how frequently RfCs are closed as "no-consensus". But if this occurs frequently, I think that has to be addressed. That is because a close of "no-consensus" still leaves open the question of which version of a disputed article stays up. Basically, I am opposed to RfC closures of "no-consensus". I think such closures open up a can of worms. I wish to remain on good terms with the editors I've mentioned. It is just the issue I am addressing and not any of my fellow editors. Bus stop ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus by both real world and wiki-definition is something stronger than exists in a "close one". So there are situations which are inherently "no-consensus". Providing a better framework / metrics for such dispute in some of the dysfunctional or missing policies would help these a lot. A few that come to mind:
These would both help avoid disputes and help resolve them. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"That would be the status quo ante. One version precedes another, by definition of time being a continuum that goes from past to future. It doesn't matter how much time passes."You are wrong when you say Currently, the only actionable finding from an RFC is "consensus". Defaulting to a long-standing version that is not really long-standing is an "action". Bus stop ( talk) 14:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Since my previous flowchart cleared up the previos discussion, let's see if this other flowchart will clear up the current discussion:
I want to include material in a Wikipedia article! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
It's pretty straightforward and there's nothing philosophical about it. You want to include something? It needs to follow policies A, B, C... You want to remove something? You need to explain why it goes against consensus or policies A, B, C... The onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to move away from existing consensus. Bright☀ 15:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Although using Wikipedia as a reference might create a circularity, this is not necessarily, and not usually, the case. For example, using a (referenced) German WP article as a reference in an English WP article is not circular. This is one of those areas where WP editors can be too anal. The idea that a normal (non-obsessive) WP editor would want to go to the trouble of copying references from the German article is daft - especially if s/he does not speak German. Dadge ( talk) 10:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
Expand language}}
tag to the article and let someone more proficient in German handle the article. Editors at the
language reference desk and
WikiProject Germany may also be able to help. However, editors should only cite sources that they understand. —
Newslinger
talk 10:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure about something. If I'm not mistaken, everything added to Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. But what if reliable sources are factually wrong? or what if two reliable sources contradict each other? How to go about from there?
KoopaLoopa (
talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a flaw with wp:ver. Knowledge and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it should be additional metrics that determine the strength of the sourcing in that particular context, and being clear-cut in error should / would then certainly affect that. Maybe some day we can fix it. North8000 ( talk) 18:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if it is missing from wp:ver, the reliable sources noticeboard generally factors in these common-sense criteria so you could get help there. North8000 ( talk) 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: KoopaLoopa has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Zawl. There’s no need to give this discussion the time of day. WP:DENY.— N Ø 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Like always, a the problem is when a wiki-lawyer POV warrior wants to keep the clearly erroneous material in. I remember one case where an otherwise reliable source chose one word wrong thus making an outlandish statement about a public figure. It was so outlandish that no other sources even addressed the question, so the statement stayed in with no contravening coverage. North8000 ( talk) 20:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A key point often overlooked: aside from self-evident errors and such, on what basis can some point be deemed incorrect without some other source? A lot of times people just "know" something is (allegedly) incorrect, without considering just how they came to have that supposed knowledge. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
||ॐ||
I am wondering, how can an independent source's information be considered as a more valid than what I directly experience?
ॐ Tat Sat (
talk) 01:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone want to try to decide what the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 67#Must and should was?
The options are:
The first is a direction given to editors (something you really should do); the second is a declaration that any article that doesn't do this is in violation of the policy (something you must do, i.e., without exception). (Either way, the end of the sentence is the same; we're all in favor of good sources.)
The version currently in the policy was boldly changed a few months ago, and it is a stronger statement than has been there (for the last eight years?) in the past. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
upon reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
...all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources....
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I would like to know the stance on adding sources that require one have a paid subscription to read. If all you are able to see without paying is a short blurb that does not actually reflect the statement for which one is sourcing, is it still allowed? How can a reader, or an editor, establish that the source actually does back up the statement if they cannot read it? (For example, a website article that has a short paragraph ending in ... to continue reading, please log in or purchase a new subscription. Thanks in advance, Ariel ♥ Gold 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ought to be very careful about using paywalled sources for BLPs, I'd think. Verifiability ought to be at a higher standard, especially if source is possibly being selectively paraphrased to support a POV. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Leviv ich 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
To editor EEng: Discuss first, edit later. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion relevant to the section on circular references on this project which may be of interest to you, is taking place at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. See WT:INB#The Hindu copying misinformation from WP. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
An RFC is being held at WT:MOTOR#RFC on referencing results sections in motorsport articles re the referencing of results tables in motorsport articles. Mjroots ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
But how to deal with cited sources that may meet all or most the "reliable" criteria, maybe were not even debunked (overlooked) by other reliable sources (or these are way too obscure to find), but make blatantly wrong or outright bullshit claims. E.g. a picture of two donkeys and a bactrian camel standing together titled as "llama herd" or "ruritanian army used these local horse breeds extensively" in some "reliable" source. Since just pointing at it here would be an "original research"?.. 95.32.25.39 ( talk) 11:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
In case someone here has an opinion on it, I listed the shortcut at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion § WP:SELFPUB – Thjarkur (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I added a band member to Green Jelly page and it was removed why? Bambamm109w ( talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This may be of interest [ [3]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
ABOUTSELF has four listed exceptions. I have a question about the intent of #1, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
What is considered unduly self-serving or exceptional? I've seen this debated in several articles so I think a clarification of the intent may be helpful.
Springee (
talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Curious about this myself, actually. Would presume some claim that would raise an eyebrow, like speaking seven languages or the like. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I can think of three not recent examples where aboutself could have come into play. The first was EXXON's reply to some news stories claiming it's scientist understood the impact of CO2 on global warming as early as the 1970s [ [5]]. EXXON issued an extensive rebuttal to the report including a number of internal documents. RS's noted that the company issued a denial but such phrasing often sounds like "the guy with the spray paint on his hands denied tagging the wall." In such a case I think it is reasonable to include a link to the company's statements and some level of summary. It shouldn't be long but if we have 2 paragraphs of accusations then at least a few sentences to summarize the rebuttal seams reasonable. I think a case like this easily meets the standard Masem has suggested. Per DUE the new article made it to the Wikipedia page. The company specifically replied to the news article thus the aboutself was directly related to something in the Wiki article. I certainly don't see a direct and detailed reply to a new report with a great deal of damning claims as unduly self serving.
I would argue the same of GM's reply to the Dateline NBC expose on the saddle mount gas tanks. In that case a lot of news was made regarding Dateline's rigged demonstrations but I'm not sure if the article ever references any of GM's own replies to the controversy. Probably not needed in that case but I feel it would be reasonable per ABOUTSELF.[ [6]] This case raises an interesting question. GM paid Exponent to investigate the NBC story. Does the Exponent report count as 3rd party or ABOUTSELF?
My third example I'm sure will be more controversial. It involves a suggestion to add a summary of the NRA's position on various possible gun laws. Not something simplistic like "against red flag laws". Rather something more like "The NRA opposes red flag laws for the following reasons:" In this case there wouldn't be any one particular story that the NRA would be replying to. Instead my thinking goes more like this. The NRA generates a huge amount of controversy because it opposes various proposed gun laws. Additionally, it puts a huge amount of money and effort into fighting against those laws. This is what but the article is very light on details as to why. Even if readers don't agree with the thinking, I believe readers would get more out of the article if it explained the logic behind the actions even if that means directly referencing the NRA's reasoning. While I personally think such information would make a better article, I know some opposed the idea as unduly self serving and this point isn't without merit. I think we would object to spreading a politician's talking points, cited to their website, for the same reason. I bring it up here not to debate the merits of changing that article but rather as a talking point to debate the reasonable boundaries of ABOUTSELF point #1. Springee ( talk) 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think these Honda Ridgeline articles are good examples of ABOUTSELF being UNDULY self serving [
[7]][
[8]]. In the case of the first generation vehicle we have a long list of unremarkable equipment such as front and rear tow hooks and power windows. All sourced directly to Honda websites. In the second generation we get some PR puffery to boot. Earth Dreams V6 engine with variable cylinder management—which is designed to operate in three-cylinder mode when not under load
This strikes me as the sort of ABOUTSELF material that we are trying to avoid.
Springee (
talk) 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've never edited a policy page so I wanted to follow up with some of the discussion above. First, if I'm going about this the wrong way please let me know. Second, I know we need consensus to make the change but does that mean RfC or just local consensus after a discussion like this?
The objective here is to add something to the effect that:
If actions/ about self material may be both DUE and not unduly self serving in an article in cases where it is in direct or indirect response to questions/comments/criticism raised by others
Anyway, the current ABOUTSELF text says:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is generally not considered unduly self serving.
Are there any objections to my proposed edit? Does this need to go through a RfC process first? Springee ( talk) 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. I added the sentence to the end of the section rather than in the bulleted list because I couldn't figure out an elegant way to avoid messing up the semi-colon list. Springee ( talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, the added text was:
Material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to WP:DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is generally not considered unduly self serving.
So first of all, WP:DUE is about whether this or that bit of fact is worth the reader's time and attention, or unbalances an article's POV. I don't know what it means for questions/comments/criticism raised by others
to be WP:DUE, unless maybe you mean they're the kind of criticism we would mention in the article.
Beyond that, I'm still unable to tell exactly what the proposed use case is. There's discussion above of Exxon and other cases, but I'm still unclear of what is wanted to go in the article, which is where the rubber meets the road. Please post a clear example: Person/company X was criticized this way, they responded this way, and we (maybe) can't use that response under current wording but could under new wording. Give examples of envisioned article text and links to the sources. The reason I'm asking for such specifics is that I have a feeling the response can, in fact, be used under currently policy, if it's properly interpreted, so I need something specific to talk about. E Eng 03:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"unduly"in bullet point #1 of WP:ABOUTSELF restricts the amount of content that can be included from self-published sources that are used in this way.
Instead of altering this policy, I think a better solution would be to link the word I think an expansion of
WP:DUE would be the best way to address this. The quantity of content permitted under
WP:ABOUTSELF is a due weight concern, and if the current text of
WP:DUE leads to the exclusion of self-published rebuttals that should be included in articles, then a proposal to amend
WP:DUE should be submitted to
WT:NPOV. —
Newslinger
talk 03:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Changed suggestion to reflect point made by
Ryk72 below. —
Newslinger
talk 06:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)"unduly"
to
WP:DUE.
"unduly"in bullet point #1 as a reference to undue weight.
proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I say that because it is used here as an adjective modifying "self-serving", and WP:DUE makes no sense in that context. WP:ABOUTSELF is an explicit, limited, exception to WP:PROPORTION & WP:DUE. - Ryk72 talk 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."I can't find a similar rule for entities who are not considered public figures, so this could use some clarification at WT:NPOV. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't given up on this but I've been busy off line. Springee ( talk) 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in this discussion at VPPRO about deprecated sources. -- Izno ( talk) 21:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The policy says that mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. How can we determine if some newspaper is mainstream? Should we explain the mainstreamness criteria?
Second question: are all newspapers by default considered mainstream unless the opposite is demonstrated, or vise versa: those editors who add a newspaper article are expected to provide a proof that they are mainstream?
Do policy or guidelines say anything about that, and if not, maybe we should explain that?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
- University-level textbooks
- Books published by respected publishing houses
- Magazines
- Journals
- Mainstream newspapers
Seems like re-inventing WP:NEWSORG – and doing a bad job at it. I'm not averse to finding a short summary of the essentials of that guidance and putting it in the policy, but starting with a new set of ideas ("newspaper of record" and whatnot) that doesn't even connect to the current operational guidance on the matter seems to be going nowhere. "high-quality mainstream publications" are sanctioned as reliable sources by the current WP:V policy (*and* by the current WP:RS guideline, see introductory paragraph of its WP:SOURCETYPES section). What more do we need to say about newspapers in the policy? I've not seen anything come up in the current discussion that would even be marginally better than, nor even nearly as good as what already is in WP:NEWSORG. "Mainstream" is at best, to all extents and purposes, unrelated to the quality of a source, it doesn't define, as in not at all, whether a source is reliable. In the guidance (policy *and* guideline), mainstream is only used to differentiate from "academic", pointing to the fact that Wikipedia is not exclusively built on academic sources. Being "non-academic" is not a synonym for "reliable": the reliability depends on the quality of the mainstream source, and that quality is defined, in detail, at WP:SOURCETYPES. The short definition is in the first two paragraphs of the WP:SOURCE part of WP:V. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I see no further comments or objections, so O remove the RfC box. Let's hope the amended version of the policy will stay.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, WP:NEWSORG is correct (and importantly so) that only some material in newspapers is reliable or secondary. Editorials, op-eds, columns, humor pieces, most forms of review, most forms of interview, and of course the advertising(!) are all primary-source material. So is "news" that's just a regurgitation of a press release, or regurgitation of eye-witness testimony or other primary sources, without any significant WP:AEIS on the part of the writers/editors. And some investigative journalism can be primary, at least in part, e.g. when it's one of those "Here's my grueling odyssey of how I dug up the dirt on this company over the course of two years, and here's my pointed conclusions based on what I found and how much they dodged" kind of heavily first-person-perspective piece (more common in magazines). Some material can be tertiary, such as sidebar tables of stats cobbled together from official sources.
I agree that this policy should not delegate anything to essays, nor to guidelines, or even other policies, except where the material better fits in the other policy, or the material is non-essential detail/explication that's better in a guideline. Essays (including how-to/information page essays) are off the table.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
"Journals, magazines and newspapers that have a broad circulation and demonstrated a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness".
The type X, Y, Z sources are reliable; other sources may be also reliable, but the decision about their reliability should be made on a case-by-case basis as described in details in guidelines AAAA".-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Other reliable sources include:we say
Preferred non-academic reliable sources include:(with your above text for newspapers/journals/magazines) and then after the list
Other sources may be used on a case-by-case basis if they are determined to be reliable sources by consensus.But the gist is there. We do not want to imply the list given is the only extend of allowed sourcing. -- Masem ( t) 17:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
an article published in a high rank peer-reviewed journal is allowed without reservations, whereas some other sources may also be allowed if some criteria (follow the link to see details) are metthat would be a good policy.
It says When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
And then provides a qualifier about outdated sources. I think you may be misreading it.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
... usually ..., but not "always and comprehensively" – the former is what is in that sentence of the
MVBW's "it would be a perfectly valid RS to source views by Darwin." is a typical example of primary source usage. And, to avoid possible misinterpretations, let me reiterate that "old" does not necessarily means "outdated". I doubt Euclides Elements is an outdated source, whereas all XX century books that say the Great Fermat theorem had not been proven yet is outdated.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Make it really simple: Wikipedia is not a news aggregation website. As such newspapers and similar publications are inappropriate as sources. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
And Paul, WRT if some piece of news was published in 1950, and that fact was left unnoticed by historians, then it is probably poorly checked or unreliable news, and it hardly deserves inclusion.
I agree with you entirely. I just don't think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a piece of news published in 2019.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems the discussion has become so convoluted that it would be difficult for new participants to joinn it. Let's summarize our arguments. We have a current version, an interim text, and Francis Schonken's version. Let's summarise pro et contra. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.
This version is a blanket approval of "Mainstream newspapers", all "Journals" and "Magazines", which contradicts to guidelines, thereby making them useless. In addition, "Mainstream" is vague and misleading.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in high-quality mainstream publications. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Further details on how and when such sources can be used as reliable sources are explained in guidance such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.
the burden to demonstrate reliability of the source lies with the editor who adds or restores material.I understand that that seems obvious, but many disputes are caused by the fact that people expect to get a consensus for removal some source, not for keeping it.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
You are talking about disputes among good faith users.No, I don't think I am -- peer-reviewed sources make an off-handed comment peripheral to their main point and completely outside the area of expertise of the peers who review them, and Wikipedia editors who appear to be primarily interested in promoting a particular ideology regardless of what specialist sources say want to add them "no matter what". Whether such editors are engaged in undisclosed paid editing or are just trolling me and the other Wikipedians involved, I don't think either could be called "good faith". People who are just ignorant and think "Newspaper=Reliable" would probably give up after it was pointed out to them that specialist sources disagree. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
References
The text below is an attempt to summarize the above discussion, as well as related discussions at the ARCA page ("Antisemitism in Poland, and Antisemitism in Poland II, see the permalink) and MILHIST), which forced me to reconsider my original point of view. In addition, I found some other problems with this section of the policy, and with NEWSORG.
All opinia about usage of newspapers/journals/magazines can be subdivided on two camps; below I conditionally call them "rigorists" and "liberals". Rigorist views can be summarized as follows: "Newspapers and similar sources are by default not reliable sources, but can be used according to the rules described in WP:NEWSORG." In contrast, liberals believe that any newspaper article is a reliable source unless that newspaper is not broadly discredited. Below, I present my analysis of strenghts and weaknesses of each approach, and propose a solution.
The advantrage of a rigorist approach is obvious: Wikipedia stops being a collection of various rumors, poorly checked facts and questionable opinia that, alas, can be found in virtually any newspaper. However, there is one importrant negative consequence: the scope of Wikipedia will become significantky more narrow if this approach will be implemented. Let me give just one example. Piotrus asked me to take a look at the source usage in the Michler's Palace article, and majority of sources appeared to be newspaper articles, more concretely, editorial or op-ed materials. If we follow the "rigorist" approach, we must concede all these sources are used inappropriately: per WP:NEWSORG, they are not reliable sources for facts, just for author's opinion. Therefore, the first paragraph of the article should be rewritten as:
According to Wojciech Rodak and Paweł Czechowski,it is best known for an eponymous wartime song, Pałacyk Michla, which was written by poet and insurgent Józef Szczepański. [1] [2]
Obviously, addition of explicit attribution to every piece of text written based on newspaper articles (actually, the second source is a popular Polish history portal, which, probably, makes it as reliable as an average newspaper) makes the whole text look ridiculously. Meanwhile, I doubt the facts about this building look not trustworthy, and that we need better sources to support the first paragraph.
The strengths and weaknesses of a "liberal" approach are complementary to those of the "rigorist" one: it allows writing articles about a wide range of subjects easily. However, it may lead to a dramatic decrease of the quality of Wikipedia articles. Thus, the policy does not prevent some school student to introduce a questionable statement from some local newspaper into the article about Black holes, and, if that will be supported by a group of poorly educated users, it will be hard to remove it per our policy.
The solution to this problem may be in more explicit linking WP:SOURCES with WP:REDFLAG. The latter says: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", however, WP:SOURCES provides no explanation of what does "high-quality source" mean. That section outlines the criteria for a reliable source, but it does not introduce the term "high(er)-quality and "low(er)-quality reliable source". That creates a false impression that as soon as some source is considered reliable, it is reliable without any reservations, which is obviously not the case.
Indeed, for many non-controversial and low importance topics, even ordinary newspapers, journals and magazines can be considered as "reliable but low-quality sources", and it should be quite OK to use them, because, otherwise, the articles like Radomsko or Eger would be virtually impossible to write. However, this approiach would be totally unacceptable for the article that are either of high importance or are dealing with controversial and/or sensitive subjects. How to discriminate these two cases? IMO, REDFLAG provides an answer, and as soon as some edit/source has been contested, that should immediately raise a REDFLAG, so all low-quality reliable sources sould be removed, until their re-introduction is clearlyt supported by consensus.
In connection to that, I propose to modify the WP:SOURCES section, and to explain that
In my opinion, this approach would allow us to reconcile the "rigorist" and "liberal" approaches and to avoid many content disputes.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
off-topic
|
---|
I find it quite strange, that some sources are deprecated on the ground that they are under control (in most such cases under control of a government) and others not, although they actually are under the control (in most such cases under control of few economical interests). I think of the situation in the country of my origin (Greece), where actually two persons control almost all the media. This is the case with most (if not all) of the media of the world (at least for every separate country). So, maybe there is a solution avoiding this discussion (I mean the discussion about which news media is trustworthy and which not), namely sticking by the facts. Example: (suppose) In some newspapers (under control or not is irrelevant) you may read, that a person shot with a gun at the heart of another person expressively wanting to kill this person and the second person died because of the shot. Suppose that there are no Media that contradict this incident. Suppose once more that no media calls it a murder. Is it because of this no murder? Of course not. So, if we don't mention it as a murder, only because no media mention it like this, we are quite away from our aims. Not writing (in the title) that it is a murder, reminds me of the situation with Galileo Galilei: just because the church didn't want to accept it (and write it somewhere), doesn't mean that the earth doesn't go around the sun. So here is my concrete proposal with the use of another example of an actual dispute in Wiki. We can always create a tablet (see example) which contains facts that may be disputed or not in a main article or somewhere else and we can make decisions according to this tablet. We should totally avoid opinions or show opinions in a table that has both sides (like the spanish wikipedia tried to do in the same example). Staying though only by the sayings of media (which may be for some people reliable and some other not, and this from all sides) is not objective and doesn't have to do with "Verifiability" in the means of wiki. Staying only by the writings is what religions do... Do we really want to do this too? In the German wiki I read: A neutral point of view tries to present a theme in such a way, that both people against and for it can accept it. Not everyone should accept it, this happens only very rarely. One reason is, that there are ideologies (and people), that can only accept their one point of view. For this reason we should concentrate on the presentation of the theme in such a way, that every rational thinking person would tolerate it. I have no idea who wrote this, but I find it genial. The only rational way I can think of (and I hope that I'm not irrational in this) is to stay by the facts and use the common definitions of the notions. So, if we see in the facts (bringing back my example), that a murder is described, we should call it a murder, even if no media calls it like this. Media are unfortunately not always rational and they do represent different interests (economical, ideological or what so ever). I still must say (unfortunately): Even the solution, that I'm proposing here is not adequate, in a world that becomes more and more affected by fake news. On the other hand, it is a step to being more objective, in a world where maybe no media are not under control. |
This proposal has to do of course only with issues that happening right now or happened recently or more generally with issues that are disputed. thanks Yomomo ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If a secondary source confirms or reproduces a claim made in a primary source (e.g. a social media post), should we include both sources in a citation or just the secondary source? Thanks. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:TERF#RfC - Draft paper needs more input from uninvolved editors who are have experience with sourcing issues. Most of the responses so far are from users who have already been involved with the article, myself included. Thank you, -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I explained my proposed change at WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Improving_precision_of_definition_of_WP:BLPSELFPUB_and_WP:ABOUTSELF. Please dicsuss there. Xenagoras ( talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are infoboxes, and the need that the information they convey also be verifiable, not covered in this WP guideline? 2601:246:C700:19D:1C66:B776:33B0:EE87 ( talk) 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems I am starting to understand the core of the problem, and it seems that it is a part of a bigger problem: the proposed format of the solution is incorrect.
The core idea of WP:V, as I see it should be: "everything what Wikipedia says can be verified by a reader, who can go by a reference, read the source, and to verify if the source X really says "Y"". (Disclamer. The above description is not a summary of the current version of WP:V, it is a summary of my vision of the policy). In connection to that, the major criterion of a reliable source is its stability: it should not be, for example, a blog, which can be deleted or modified by an owner at any moment. In that sense, RS is any material that, once published, can be, potentially, available to everyone, and cannot be altered of removed from a public access. That should be a core of WP:V.
However, WP:V moves further, and it introduces some categories of sources that are considered reliable and sources that are not reliable. It implicitly introduces the term "quality of sources" (although that term is never explained), and the term "mainstream sources". I see two problems with that.
I propose to abandon the flawed (in my opinion) strategy, which consists in an attempt to allow/prohibit some category of sources based on purely formal criteria. I also propose to fix a problem with an obvious conflict between the policy and guidelines, which de facto cancels many good ideas described in guidelines.
Since this post was partially inspired by the Holocaust topic, let me give an example of how can the dispute between
Buidhe and
SarahSV be resolved within a paradigm proposed by me. To the best of my understanding, Buidhe says "Non-English sources are good, let's use them", whereas SarahSV says "Non-English sources are hardly better, and everything important about the Holocaust that deserves attention has already been translated to English, so there is no need to use non-English sources". (I apologize in advance if I summarized your view incorrectly, but the point is not to make a precise summary, but to show a difference in opinia). Meanwhile, if we abandon a strategy that is based of formal categories of sources, we can say: "Best possible sources should be used. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are preferable. For each category of sources, their quality should be determined before they are used in Wikipedia. The burden of proof that some source meets our quality standards rests with those who adds it. Our guidelines provide detailed description of the procedure of quality determination
. Period".
That would resolve the NOENG issue quite easily: NOENG are quite acceptable, but, keeping in mind that it is much more difficult to determine its quality, some specific criteria must be applied to them, and these criteria should be described in relevant guidelines.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Prior noticeboard discussions have repeatedly rejected efforts to strengthen the guideline: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". But what exactly does "preferred" mean? Especially, I want to know if and when it is acceptable to use non-English sources when there are equally reliable English ones available, such as the following cases:
I hope this can be clarified because I frequently cite non-English sources. My opinion is that it should be allowed in all the above cases; arguably, a free access non-English source is easier to verify than an out-of-print English book. b uidh e 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are several reason behind NOENG.
In my opinion, that does not mean non-English sources should be completely banned. They are quite acceptable for non-controversial and/or low importance subjects. But as soon as some user expressed a legitimate concern about such a source, it should be replaced with similar English source or removed altogether. Let me give an example to demonstrate my thought. Let's take an extreme case, Arab-Israel topic. Would it be acceptable to use an Palestinian newspaper as a source about a small Arab town to describe some non-controversial facts of its history? I don't see who we cannot do it. However, imagine the Gaza Strip article written based on mostly Arab or Hebrew sources? Clearly, it would have opened a can of worms, so it is always better to use sources that (i) can be independently verified by a larger number of Wikipedians, and (ii) are less connected to this sensitive topic.
That is why, and to avoid future discussions about blanket allowance/banning of some category of sources (I frequently see this type discussion on this and related talk page), I propose to return to a discussion of my version of WP:SOURCES (see above), which stipulates that all sources, except articles in peer-reviewed journals and university books, should be treated as conditionally reliable, and their reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis as explained in relevant guidelines and in WP:REDFLAG.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Re. "You de facto propose to abstain from estimating relative reliability of these sources" – no, I don't: please go elsewhere if that is the level you want to have this discussion: I'm no game for this kind of nonsense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"equal reliability" is part of the premise", and that is a problem, because the word "equal" in your phrase implies some non-binary criterion of reliability. However, WP:SOURCES sets a binary criterion ("reliable - non reliable"), so, following WP:SOURCES's letter, an English book published by OUP is of an equal quality as a Ukrainian book published by Києво-Могилян. акад., which immediately moves the dispute about a conflict between these two sources to the NPOV area. Meanwhile, WP:V could do its job better by explicitly explaining that "reliability" is a non-binary term that must be understood in a proper context: some sources are more reliable that others, and some reliable sources are acceptable in some context and unacceptable in another. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
you are right, the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"". English is not my mother tongue, so a possibility cannot be ruled out that this sentence is not completely grammatically correct. Nevertheless, the words "although you are right, lorem ipsum dolor" usually mean: "what you say is correct, but lorem ipsum dolor". In other words I never said, and never wanted to say that the words "the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"" belong to you: that was my own thought, and I never ascribed it to you. Therefore, it looks like you owe me apology for misinterpreting my words. However, I am not insisting on that because it could be quite possible that I was just not clear enough. In future, I will try to be more careful in citing your thought.
The thing is that I have quite some experience with articles using multi-language sources: that experience may (or may not) be helpful to address the issues raised here. Problem is that talking about such experience is futile when all of it is translated, by a single contributor to the discussion, in a single-purpose vision that excludes all other approaches outside the prejudiced one. For now, I'd just oppose rewriting the policy to suit the needs of a limited set of articles, if that would mess up sound verifiability in other sets of articles. Maybe in Holocaust-related articles English-language sources may, in a practical way, generally be superior to those in other languages (except German). I can't judge that. In the area in which I'm most active, foreign-language sources are often more reliable than English-language derivatives. So, I'd reject any attempt to have, at policy level, a principle inscribed that language, in general, is an indicator of the quality of a source. If anything needs to be said about language and reliability of a source it should be (1) nuanced, and (2) in subsidiary guidance, not in policy-level guidance. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The page linked above is currently an essay, but by looking at it, I feel that it may be an option to discuss as part of this thread. Would there be an interest in exploring if it's feasible for WP:HISTRS being adopted in the Holocaust topic area as a guideline? That would require an RFC of course, but want to float the idea here, to begin with. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Not so long ago I wrote the BWV Anh. 167 article. Here are some sources that write about that composition:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |volume=
(
help) Containing:..., of which Bach ... wrote out the whole of the first twelve pages ...
Scribe (in detail): H. W. Ludewig (...); from p. 13 (middle): J. S. Bach
Notes: ... Schreiber: bis p. 13 (Mitte): H. W. Ludewig (...); der Rest ist von J. S. Bachs Hand (mittel/spät).
..., welche Bach ausschließlich der ersten zwölf seiten, ..., ... abgeschrieben hat.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Containing:... 1–13 paginirt, so weit der Copist geschrieben hat; von Seite 13 der zehnten Linie an, also noch 14 Linien von der Seite bis zum Ende hat Bach Alles selbst geschrieben: Seite 13 die grössere untere Hälfte, Seite 14–39.
Schreiber, detailliert: H. W. Ludewig (...); ab S. 13 (Mitte): J. S. Bach
Bemerkungen: ... Schreiber: bis p. 13 (Mitte): H. W. Ludewig (...); der Rest ist von J. S. Bachs Hand (mittel/spät).
Notes: ... Scribe: up to p. 13 (middle): H. W. Ludewig (...); the rest is in J. S. Bach's (middle to late) handwriting.
..., which Bach copied, apart from the first twelve pages, ...
... pages numbered 1 to 13, as far as written by the copyist; Bach has written everything from the tenth line of page 13, which is another 14 lines on that page, until the end: [that is] the larger lower half of page 13, [and] pages 14 to 39.
If only plain English published sources would be used, that is #2 and #3, then 50% of the sources write that Bach wrote the first 12 pages of the manuscript and 50% of the sources say he wrote nothing before the middle of the 13th page, in terms of the WP:BALANCE policy. Then one would have to write, in the BWV Anh. 167 article, something like:
According to the Bach Digital website, Bach wrote everything after the middle of the 13th page of the P 659 manuscript, while according to Philipp Spitta Bach only wrote the first 12 pages of that manuscript.
Instead, the BWV Anh. 167 article has ( Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167#Bach's manuscript):
The first part of that manuscript was written by one of Bach's scribes, ..., while Bach himself completed the handwritten score ...
The reason is clear: according to WP:RSUE, other-language sources can only be suppressed if the English-language source (or: sources) is/are "... of equal quality and relevance". Since that is not the case, while one of the English translations does not match its German original, no source can be missed. Then the picture becomes completely different: the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation becomes, on this point, a negligible minority vision (in WP:WEIGHT terms), in fact a simple error – the overwhelming majority of relevant reliable sources say it differently. The primary source (#1) is available, and if one has seen a few Bach manuscripts even that confirms, without that being useable directly in Wikipedia, that all secondary sources except the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation have it right. That is saying nothing about the general quality of that translation: anyone can make an error.
So, no for the wording proposed above, containing "... usage of non-English sources is more risky ..." (etc): in the given example using the published English translation is "more risky" – no such dismissive thing can be said about foreign-language sources at policy level. There is no "quick and dirty" way to get rid (or even subtly undermine the value) of foreign-language sources in this way, and certainly not at policy level. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "risky", Francis Schonken, I was probably not clear enough. Under "risky" I meant the following: imagine a similar situation with, e.g. Sibelius, when one Finnish user is advocating some edit based on a Finnish source about that composer. That user provides evidences of the same kind as you did above. All other user feel uncomfortable, because the proposed edits contradict to what English sources say. It may be quite possible that Finnish sources are more reliable about a Finnish composer, but a possibility cannot be ruled out that that Finnish user just incorrectly uses them, or even took some sources that are considered fringe by Finns themselves. Can we check that independently? theoretically, yes, but in reality it is very hard to do. I believe now you understand what I wanted to say: as soon as it has been demonstrated that some foreign source is a high quality source, it is quite ok to use it, but the procedure that determine its quality should be somewhat more strict (more evidences should be presented). By the way, you provided a good example of how should it be done.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
When I started to edit the Pietro Torri article somewhat over a month ago it contained the grand total of one single source ( [21]):
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Verona: Della Scala. p. 120. ISBN 8885099734.
One of several problems with this source is what has been written above: "... sources are cited that do not exist as described": according to Google Books the publication only has 118 pages ( [22]), while the reference, as found in the Wikipedia article, cites "p. 120" of the edition..., so also "sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them" seems to apply. As a whole, the backbone of the English Wikipedia article on Torri seems to be a (partial) translation of it:Pietro Torri by someone who never saw another source for the article than a Wikipedia article in another language (which may, or may not, have had far laxer rules on sourcing than current English Wikipedia standards).
So, at that point, I could have pasted some tags in the article, like {{ Refimprove}} etc, and move on, leaving it to someone else to clear out the apparent mess (like I had done here). I tried to do better for the article on Torri (... which was going to "absorb[ed] significant volunteer time", using the words written above). One of the first things I did was to update and expand the content of the {{ cite book}} template used for the Groote reference:
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493.
But that was still dancing around the main issue regarding this source: it is virtually inaccessible, i.e. probably only found in specialist libraries (not even a summary or the shortest of quotes to be found on the internet), and in Italian, which I don't understand very much. I do think it is not a crucial distinction whether the source is inaccessible for language or for difficulty to get hold of a copy: for practical purposes I could not use the Groote source in a WP:V logic when I wanted to improve & expand the Torri article. So I "demoted" the Groote publication from reference to "Further reading" ( Pietro Torri#Further reading). There was not a single footnote referring to this publication in the article, so, as such, my decision to not use this publication as reference (while still keeping it available if someone who has access to it in the future can still pick it up and rejoin it with the sources used as reference) did not deteriorate the (at that point virtually non-existing) sourcing of the article. This is not an appreciation of the reliability of the Groote source: without having access to it a reliability discernement is not really possible (but more about that later). I found 14 useable sources ( Pietro Torri#Sources): one in Latin [sic], one in French, one in Italian, five in German, and the remaining six at least partially in English. And another inaccessible source, this one in German, which I added to the "Further reading" section. Plus several dozens of sources only mentioned in the (currently) 270 footnotes ( Pietro Torri#References). And, checking these sources, I saw several of them using the Groote publication as source (so, yes, that kind of confirms that the Groote publication would normally be a "reliable source" in Wikipedia's WP:V logic).
Again, I had no problem applying core content policies such as WP:V, and their subsidiary guidance such as WP:RS, in the form they currently are – but none of these can, of course, be applied without using sound jugdgement (Wikipedia is not written by trained monkeys using guidance that can be interpreted without exerting sound judgement): whether my judgement regarding the content of the Torri article was sound enough is of course open to further appreciation & improvement of the article (that's a basic premise of any wiki system). The point I'm trying to illustrate is that despite problems described above as "Sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them. ... And sources are cited that do not exist as described. ... trying to find and understand those sources has absorbed significant volunteer time.", that despite problems of this nature, WP:V (and related guidance) seems to work fine when trying to address the difficulties. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
a source they maybe don't really understand with one they do understandis a pretty clear reference to this.
a single contributor to the discussion, in a single-purpose vision that excludes all other approaches outside the prejudiced oneis also quite obviously a reference to "version C" on the relevant page, the "single contributor" being me (even though Nishidani and Ryk72 were both involved as well). In the case in question, Francis was (still is?) trying to cite an unreliable English source that very obviously gets the relevant point wrong, apparently because it got its information from Wikipedia, based on the claim that English sources are inherently better than non-English ones, even when there is talk page consensus that the non-English ones are more reliable under the circumstances. The fact that the comments made on this page are fairly direct mirrors of the personal attacks he was recently called out over on ANI just makes it all the worse... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no agreement to include the changes you did. Most especially on a policy page, but on any page, please do not make changes while discussion on this issue is ongoing. If I have missed a clear, agreed-upon, community-wide consensus please provide a link. A discussion is not a consensus. Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I see that several users (including myself) expressed a justified criticism of the current version of the policy, and several others reverted proposed changes, but the only clearly articulated reason is that this change has not been properly discussed. To facilitate a discussion, let me summarize again the problems with current version. The current version, where I took liberty to restore the "under discussion" template says:
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
University-level textbooks
Books published by respected publishing houses
Magazines
Journals
Mainstream newspapers
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and
Wikipedia:Search engine test.
I see several problems with that version.
Clearly, a literal interpretation of the above list is a source of big problems, which means it is supposed serve just as an example of what may be (under some circumstances) reliable. In other words, it is more like a soft recommendation. However, that is hardly an appropriate style for a policy. Examples of that type are more appropriate for guidelines.
Literally every item in that list is poorly defined, and that is a source of constant conflict disputes. I already cited the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case. ArbCom introduced specific sourcing restrictions to stop incessant edit war in that topic, and I am sure the problem with the above quoted segment of the policy is one of the reason for that step. I think this part of the policy should be fixed, and if there will be no rationally explained objections to that, I am ready to propose the way to fix it (actually, what Francis Schonken has done was a step in a right direction, but that version can be further improved).
One more point. Currently, the policy refers to the "Search engine test" essay. Whereas I agree with many ideas of that essay, I think it is not completely correct that the reference to an essay is included in a policy. Maybe, we should take some steps to convert that essay into guidelines first? -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Academic and peer-reviewed publications, as well as the books published by top rank universities are considered the best quality reliable sources for such fields as history, medicine, or science.
Non-academic sources may also be considered reliable, particularly if they appear in respected mainstream publications, such as books by reputable publishing houses, magazines, journals, and newspapers, including electronic media.
Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements (see WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Search engine test for further details).
Actually, I have an idea. What if we expand the policy a little bit to make more direct and clear reference to guidelines? For example, if instead to the current version we write something like that:
Editors may also use material from non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications, including:
.....
.....
- mainstream newspapers, as described in WP:NEWSORG;
.....
and do the same for each item in the list, that would resolve a situation. By doing that, we demonstrate that the policy provides just general principles, and the decision about reliability should be made on case by case basis as described in guidelines. BTW, similar idea was expressed by Blueboar below.
Regarding wikilawyering, I would love to avoid that, but in that case I am working as "devil's advocate" in attempt to eliminate a possibility of usage of possible gaps in the policy by POV pushers. I also find a situation with Antisemitism in Poland case a worrying sign. I think, by fixing the policy, we could create a situation when these sanctions could be made redundant.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Francis, you referred above to "what you propose", and the indenting made it look like a reply to me. Just noting here that I don't have a proposal. Paul, there was a long-term dispute between you and My very best wishes about Soviet gas vans and now you're both on this page. I think you've misunderstood this policy and what a policy is. We do, as a matter of fact, accept "mainstream newspapers" as RS. The policy has stated that for many years, and it reflects what actually happens on WP. Policies must be descriptive as well as prescriptive; a policy that is no longer descriptive is not a policy, no matter what it calls itself. Your dispute was caused by someone wanting to use, as you put it above, a "very obscure newspaper" for what you regarded as an important point. So there's your answer. SarahSV (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
SarahSV, you are not right. The content dispute that I used to have had already been resolved, and I am pretty satisfied with its outcome. In contrast to another participant of that dispute, I openly declared the fact that I was a party of the dispute (see above on this talk page). I am not aware of any policy, giudelines, or other rules that prevent users who were a party of a content dispute to discuss the policy. In addition, I am here primarily because I see some general problems with the policy, and I think that the ArbCom decision about Antisemitism in Poland case (a conflict I was not a party of) is an indication of problems with WP:V.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I also think that mainstream newspapers should be allowed, but it is subject to some additional limitations and restriction described in NEWSORG. It should not be a blanket approval, and I agree with Francis in that. In addition, if we allow "mainstream" newspapers, we should define (in policy or in guidelines) what does that term mean. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
SarahSV, in my opinion, even if some editor is rude, that is quite forgivable if their contribution to Wikipedia is generally positive. Therefore, I beg you to ignore personal attacks (or something that you see as a personal attack), and continue our discussion. I came to a conclusion that I should have to explain my position better, and here I am trying to explain my major ideas, which had been inspired by the Holocaust in Poland topic and a discussion that involved several editors, including Piotrus. First of all, I myself prefer to use only top quality English sources for editing, mostly peer-reviewed publications. As I already explained, my approach to source selection was described as good in this peer-reviewed publication, so I have a right to claim that I know how to find good sources, and that fact is based on what a reliable source says. However, I fully realize that my approach to source selection is not universally applicable. Indeed, Wikipedia is a very non-homogeneous collection of articles, it includes diverse topics starting from quantum mechanics, gene editing, or the Holocaust to baseball teams, recent Trump's activity, or local high schools in the middle of nowhere. Obviously, lion's share of Wikipedia articles couldn't be possible to write using the sources selected according to my approach. And I fully realize that that is absolutely ok.
What is not ok is the following. The current policy does not explicitly prohibit to use different quality sources in the same article. Formally, it is quite possible to add an article from a popular kid's magazine to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox article. Removal of such a source is a matter of editorial consensus, which makes a situation shaky. I think you yourself would object adding a claim to some Holocaust related article that Ukrainian nationalists had never been engaged in killing Jews during WWII. Meanwhile, such claims can be found in nominally scholarly peer-reviewed articles that are being published in modern Ukraine, for example, by Volodymyr Viatrovych. Obviously, for important topics and important articles, for which top quality sources are available, the level of sources should be as high as possible, and the sources should be of comparable quality. However, for less important topics, for which no good sources are available, lower quality sources can be used, unless that causes no justified objections from some editor(s).
Unfortunately, our policy does not allow us to implement that approach easily. Sometimes, enormous efforts are needed to get rid of garbage sources that are being advocated by some POV pusher. In my opinion, good faith users should be provided with better tools for comfortable editing, and our policy does not serve this goal as efficiently as it could. Thus, during a recent content dispute, one admin (a good admin, by the way) seriously proposed me to start an RfC to remove some recently added questionable source despite that fact that it was added in violation of WP:REDFLAG, and no clear support of that addition was obtained during the RSN discussion. That means even experienced admins sometimes do not interpret the policy in the way it is supposed to be interpreted according to you. That means, it must be made more clear.
If you believe I am not right, please explain me why. Otherwise, let's discuss possible ways to improve it.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 04:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I reverted your recent edit because you're part of a long-term dispute that hinges precisely on the wording you removed. Please wait for consensus to form; if it has already formed and you disagree, you can try to change it here on talk. Or if it's a key issue, open an RfC, but please first seek advice and consensus labout how to word it. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC); edited 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
In all of the years I have been on Wikipedia I have never seen an agreement that allows for a policy to be changed without consensus-BOLD does not apply here. And it is controversial to make any kind of substantive edits to aspects of an article, especially a policy page, while that aspect is under discussion. If that has changed please link to it. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This section in bold (mine) is not acceptable. If there is community wide consensus for this please link to it. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This section is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this section, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first.
WP:WPEDIT Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages...
Taking up part of an idea of Paul Siebert, and some of my own suggestions above, I've:
[23]. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
as a rule, best quality sources. See guidelines for further details", that would be fine.
Thanks for all the procedural advice, which is, however, partially lost on me: not as if this is the first time I initiate some guidance, or contribute significantly to policy pages. I even wrote the basis of the how-to essay on "How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance". So all the lecturing on procedural issues largely diverts from the topic at hand. For instance, @ EEng: I'd really like to know how you think on whether or not it is is time to implement recent consensuses (i.e. last two years or so) on broadly barring tabloid journalism as reliable sources from Wikipedia on this policy page. And if so, how?, and if not why not? – yeah, it's really interesting to read that this is not a "must" but only a "should", but that leaves the more interesting part of the question unanswered. Same question, of course, for Littleolive oil, Visviva, Alanscottwalker, TransporterMan, North8000: you've all reverted for procedural reasons and/or commented on procedures on this talk page (so that the whole topic is now drenched in procedural comments). All that is now exceedingly clear, ie how you think on procedure, for me, and for anyone reading this section. I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines (and to a lesser extent Wikipedia talk:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance) if you want to change policies and other guidance on how Wikipedia's policies are written. This is not the place to hash that out. But let's move on regarding the topic at hand: to me it is exceedingly clear that some form of updating is recommended regarding all too easily recognising all sorts of mainstream newspapers as reliable sources in this policy. All thoughts and suggestions on that topic are welcome. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
"Mainstream newspapers may be used as reliable sources as described in WP:NEWSORG.
"Mainstream newspapers, journals and magazines may be used as reliable sources as described in WP:NEWSORG.
"Mainstream newspapers, journals and magazines may be used as reliable sourcesas described in WP:NEWSORG. Isolated publications of that type cannot be used as a source for controversial or sensational claims, per WP:REDFLAG.
The section on self-published sources could do with tightening given recent fights at, e.g., Knights of Columbus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I suggest adding the following below the list of exceptions:
This will help forestall arguments about exactly how much of an article has to be self-sourced before it's "based primarily on such sources". Self-sourcing is supposed to be a qualified exception, not a default allowing a subject to be framed primarily according to their own self-image or that of their fans. Guy ( help!) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
only for adding a non-controversial content. Otherwise, SPS should be used only to add some detail to the content obtained from independent reliable secondary sources. Content along the lines of "$SUBJECT states $OPINION (source, $SUBJECT stating $OPINION)" should be avoided, especially if they are predictable reactions to criticism."
non-controversialinformation about themselves"
non-controversialinformation about themselves. Otherwise we'll end up arguing on Talk whether marketing claims are "controversial" or not, for example. Alternatively:
@ JzG:@ Springee:@ North8000: Let me explain my point again. My major idea is that sourcing criteria cannot be absolutely uniform for such articles as, e.g, The Holocaust or Uncertainty principle and, such articles as, e.g., Cheerleading or Troy High School. Obviously, for lower importance and/or less controversial topics, sourcing criteria may be loose (of course, they are still should be minimally allowable by the policy). Otherwise, some articles could be impossible to write.
It is impossible to define in advance if some topic is controversial or important. However, that still can be done. If some users object to some text, and their objections are logical and based on good quality reliable sources, then we can speak about a controversy. In other words, a properly sourced edit is deemed non-controversial until no properly sourced objections have been presented. If some statement has been contested, and the criticism is well sourced, best available sources should be used to resolve a dispute, and, accordingly, usage of SPS should be reduced to the lowest possible level.
The advantage of that approach is obvious: we do not need to write a separate rule for every case or every type of sources. Instead, it literally says: "you guys can do whatever you want until there is no content disputes, however, in a case of a serious content dispute, sourcing criteria automatically become stricter."
That my proposal fully addresses Guy's concern, for his major idea seems not to limit SPS usage in all cases, but to limit their usage in controversial cases. However, my proposal also addresses a broad spectrum of problems, for, from my experience, lion's sgare of content disputes or edit wars develops according to a standard scenario: each party is pushing their own lousy source and rejects lousy sources that is being advocated by their opponent. In a situation when any edit war immediately makes sourcing criteria more stringent, majority of edit wars could be avoided.
@
Masem: "Business XYZ purports to be a modeling agency,(source)
" is by no means a controversial claim. Only a claim "Business XYZ is a modeling agency" is controversial. --
Paul Siebert (
talk) 17:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
only for adding a non-controversial content" discriminates between controversial (scenario #3) and non-controversial (scenario #2) cases.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@ JzG: Liberty University is a good example, let me continue with it. If my proposal is implemented, any materials taken from university's web site or university controlled newspapers are allowed, but thay can be removed if someone provides serious arguments demonstrating that that material is controversial. Thus, in this particular case, if you can support you words "pretty much everything about Liberty is inherently controversial" (I believe, you have all needed evidences), the modified policy would allow you to remove that content, and noone would be able to restore it. However, that would be done not based on some purely formal criteria, but because that SPS is controversial. Why that is important? Because materials from university's web sites are usually not inherently controversial. Thus, I doubt materials from Harvard University web site are controversial. Actually, I can imagine a situation when that could be controversial: for example, in the article about some scandalous event in Harvard. However, that is more an exception. The idea you are advocating is not good because it is based on formal criteria that are equally applicable to a wide range of sources, each of which may be of totally different quality and reliability. And that is a fundamental flaw of the policy, which makes no difference between, for example, Nature and Indian Journal of Pharmacology. According to our policy, both of them are peer-reviewed publications, but in reality, a difference in the level of publications in these two journals is greater than the difference between Harvard and Liberty universities.
However, due to unhomogeneity of Wikipedia, we have to use all types of formally reliable sources (otherwise, some articles will be impossible to write). To do that efficiently, we need a flexible mechanism that would allow us to remove some formally acceptable sources in cases similar to the one provided by you. And we will never achieve this goal by inventing additional ad hoc formal criteria. The approach should be totally different, similar to what I propose: lower quality sources (which minimally fit our RS criteria) should be allowed until some user provided serious counter-arguments. The counter arguments may be either that the source is too controversial (with proofs), or that the quality of that source is significantly lower than the quality of other sources in that concrete article. Again, as I already explain, that approach may allow us to quickly finish lion's share of all edit wars.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been threatening to talking about creating
Wikipedia:Based upon for years, and now is apparently the time. I have followed the idea behind
WP:LIKELY, under the belief that we benefit from having a shared understanding of what these common words, used across multiple policies, mean on wiki. In this case, I think we need to have a shared understanding of what it means for an article to be based upon something. For example, if most of the article's content comes from self-published sources, then it's "based upon" self-published sources. Or whatever.
Breast cancer awareness cites more scholarly books than anything else, so it is "based upon" scholarly books.
Schizophrenia cites mostly medical journal articles, so it is "based upon" medical journal articles (and its structure is "based upon"
WP:MEDMOS's suggested order). It's really not as complicated as some people might make it out to be. If people are basically satisfied with this explanation, then please feel free to link it wherever it might be helpful.
User:JzG, I have not adopted your suggestion that an article can't be "based upon" independent sources until 90% or more of the content comes from them. This is probably a desirable goal for articles about large businesses or major politicians, but I don't think that it is practical for short articles (e.g., most notable academics). So I have proposed a simple "majority" as the bare minimum for calling something "based upon" a particular source type. If you want to propose a higher standard for articles (e.g., "nearly all of their content is taken from"), then that means RFCs at the core policies, to change the core policies.
I predict that most editors will think that this is all perfectly fine, until their favorite oxen get gored. If we're serious about basing articles upon independent sources, then that limits our ability to create articles about "neglected" subjects (such as academics). Again, the place to relax (or to raise) that requirement wouldn't be at WP:Based upon; it would be at WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. This page reflects and explains the requirements that have been in the core policies for years. It does not create any new ones. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a possibly over- bold edit to insert a sentence (and footnote) on freedom of the press; please revert and discuss here as needed. HLHJ ( talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of sources in countries with low press freedom is a very controversial topic, since it involves judging not only the source, but also the country that it is based in. Perhaps you can start by editing the independent sources supplement, since it's quite clear to me that these sources are non-independent (though not necessarily unreliable) for government-related topics. If that goes over well, consider discussing it on WT:RS, as the guideline can afford to be more specific than this policy. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources based in countries with low press freedom may be non-independent; this applies especially to state media, and to coverage of politics and other government-related topics. Consider using these sources with in-text attribution to clearly identify the provenance of the content, especially when it is opinionated or controversial.
I've notified WT:IS of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This is out of place here. You are talking about ACTUALLY reliable sources. Wp:RS is not about actual reliability. Otherwise you would see things like "objectivity" and "knowledge in the subject area" in this policy. Or to put it less flippantly, the discussion is dancing around the gorilla in the living room which has never gotten fixed. North8000 ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.That means it implicitly introduces another criterion: "high quality sources - low quality sources". These two type criteria are, by and large, independent. Thus, some articles published in top rank peer-reviewed journals are of very poor quality, whereas some blogs may be excellent in terms of fact checking and accuracy. Of course, that does not mean that we should allow usage of some SPS because it looks good. That is obvious. What is not obvious is the following:
Sometimes, some sources that meet formal criteria applied to RS are of poor quality, and they cannot be used in Wikipedia to support certain statements.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications, as well as the books published by top rank universities are considered the best quality reliable sources for such fields as history, medicine, or science.
Non-academic sources may also be considered reliable, particularly if they appear in respected mainstream publications, such as books by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and newspapers, including electronic media.
Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements (see WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Search engine test for further details).
North8000I cannot understand how your last post follows from your previous post. In your previous post, you write that actual reliability has no relation to verifiability. Yes, I agree with that. Strictly speaking, the very name of the policy implies that it deals mostly with verifiability, and "reliable source" actually means "reliably published source", so everybody can take a reference, go to a library and see that the source X really says "Y", and Wikipedia transmits this information correctly. However, if we leave actual reliability beyond the scope, then which policy is supposed to define which sources are trustworthy and which are not? I don't see how NOR or NPOV can do that. To create some additional policy dealing with actual reliability is hardly a good solution, which means WP:V should focus on both verifiability and actual reliability.
Answering Paul, the big issues are that in the core of policies:
The 3 part big fix would be:
Unfortunately, I think that due to it's processes, en.Wikipedia is no longer capable of big fixes. But we can still try. :-) Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements). I do not think the policy should be more specific, the goal is to remove what some people see as blanket approval of some types of sources. Instead, the policy should redirect a user to WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Search engine test, which explain reliability criteria in more details. In addition to that, I propose to make a stress on WP:BURDEN, to emphasize that the user who adds some source is expected to be ready to provide evidences that that source is reliable and can be used in this particular context. Currently, the policy implies that, but it does not say that explicitly. It should be clear that the user who wants to remove some source should not prove that the source is unreliable. In contrast, if adequate evidences of reliability and relevance are not presented in response to a justified criticism, that should be a sufficient criterion for removal.
I think we 90% agree. The 10% is:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw the note at
WT:IS.
User:Newslinger, the difficulty with saying "Sources based in countries with low press freedom may be non-independent" is that you need to specify what they're non-independent of. Even the most oppressively state-controlled media outlet would still an independent source for some content. If The Official Ruritanian Press Organ, in a country that produces neither coffee nor cacao, declares that coffee is a better drink than hot chocolate, then they're still independent for that claim. Being thoroughly biased (or even, as in my example, obviously and greviously wrong ;-)
) does not make a source any less independent.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 04:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
== Saudi sourcing problems ==
I ask editors to please be wary of some sources on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects. This has been raised here before, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews, but that was 2007.
The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, [1] requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. [2] [3] People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed. [4] [2]
The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country ( Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.
The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. [5] [6]
References
- ^ Campagna, Joel. "Saudi Arabia report: Princes, Clerics, and Censors". cpj.org. Committee to Protect Journalists.
- ^ a b "The High Cost of Change: Repression Under Saudi Crown Prince Tarnishes Reforms". Human Rights Watch. 350 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10118-3299 USA. 4 November 2019.
Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location ( link)- ^ Ismail, Raihan. "How is MBS's consolidation of power affecting Saudi clerics in the opposition?". Washington Post.
- ^ Yee, Vivian (26 November 2019). "Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Crackdown on Dissent, Rights Groups Say". The New York Times.
- ^ Massoglia, Anna (2 October 2019). "Saudi Arabia ramped up multi-million foreign influence operation after Khashoggi's death". OpenSecrets News. The Center for Responsive Politics.
- ^ Thebault, Reis; Mettler, Katie (December 24, 2019). "Instagram influencers partied at a Saudi music festival — but no one mentioned human rights".
How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to New Pages Patrol) HLHJ ( talk) 19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples of Saudi government position changes
|
---|
Obviously it has an interest in portraying the Saudi government as capable, and Saudi Arabia as a thriving country in which nearly everything is going very well (and as an appealing tourist destination). I read a headline a couple says ago which said ~"Saudi Arabia excels in human rights". However, sometimes it can be more complex. For instance, until a few years ago, Saudi Arabia supported some groups of official clerics, who controlled the information ministry and the religious police. Then they ran a media campaign against them preparatory to transferring control of the ministry and stripping the religious police of most of their powers; the media were criticizing part of the government with support of a more powerful faction. Until a few years ago the Muslim Brotherhood were officially praised and members were appointed to official roles; the media followed suit. Now they are declared a terrorist organization, and condemned in the news. Relations to Qatar; once an ally to be praised, it can now be death to support them, or, sometimes, fail to oppose them actively enough. Yemen and Canada have also suffered abrupt reversals of esteem. Women driving was opposed, then supported (with the government explicitly honouring some activists in a public-opinion campaign), then it was announced that it would be permitted and and the activists who had called for it were arrested, so that activism to win concessions from the government would not be encouraged (this was in 2018; many are still in jail). Tourism was illegal in Saudi Arabia until recently, pilgrimage tours excepted; now the government is promoting it.
|
I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.
Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.
Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This revert was presented as a restoration of an old consensus version. However, as far as I understand, the reverted change was made year ago, and I am not aware of any objections. That means the reverted version can be considered a long standing consensus version too.
I am not going to revert Visviva for two reasons. First, I think, BOLD should not be applied to policy page: if a possibility of revert cannot be ruled out, it is always better to discuss the change on the talk page. The policy is something that is supposed to be stable, so the less changes, the better.
Second, what Visviva is saying is correct: the version reverted by Visviva "would justify deleting >90% of the encyclopedia". However, that is only a part of truth. The second truth is that these 90% of Wikipedia content is not the most precious part of it. In reality, it is remaining 10% (i.e. articles like World War II 30,000 views per day, Global warming 14,000 views daily, or United States 45,000 views daily), which make Wikipedia a respectable and trustworthy resource.
In other words, Loose sourcing criteria allow Wikipedia to grow rapidly, to cover a broad range of subjects, and to recruit myriads of amateur editors. However, the very same liberal sourcing rules make creation of a top quality content much more difficult, and I suspect that is a reason why many professional experts are not too enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia.
We have a dilemma:
All of that means that the policy should set floating criteria for sources. These criteria should allow us to use marginally acceptable sources (local newspapers, magazines, movies, etc) for low importance or stab articles, and to prohibit usage of questionable sources in high importance/good/featured articles, or in the articles that are based upon, for example, scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Any thoughts?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The common sense version that is used in reality (except when there is wiki-lawyering) is that when the material is more questionable or questioned, stronger and more "by the book/ideal" sourcing is required, and when the material is less questionable or questioned, weaker or less "by the book/ideal" sourcing is OK. Since 100% "by-the-book / ideal" sources are maybe about 10% of the sourcing in Wikipedia, this practice is very important, and IMO any wording that would tend to preclude it is not a good idea. North8000 ( talk) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"does not answer whether a source should be used or not"and
"does not understand context", and WP:UPSD § Common cleanup and non-problematic cases provides good advice. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Are members-only sections of websites considered WP:V? On the one hand, any member can verify the source. On the other, membership may be difficult to obtain and if only one or a handful of editors have access, how can we know for certain? Thoughts? Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If I can visit the website, sign up, pay a fee, and boom, I'm a member, that's fine. If I have to be friends with a particular person, or an employee of a particular company, or a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon, then it's not. Also factored in here would be whether there is any kind of secrecy requirement to being a member. If access to the publication requires signing an agreement not to share it outside the group, then that is clearly a private communication and not something meant to be public. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hiya I have two questions provoked by a current Good Article review in which I am the nominator. Bilorv is the reviewer and we are in amicable disagreement about these things, so I suggested asking here for feedback on two specific issues:
Firstly, the article in question ( We Are Here (collective)) is about a Dutch collective, so a fair few of the citations are in Dutch. In using a foreign language citation, I am aware that I am translating the information and I could be challenged to provide a quotation by another editor (as set out in the Citation subsection), so I have been including (in Dutch) the relevant sentences in the citation under the quote parameter. I feel that this is best practice, since it would be wrong to expect people reading English wikipedia to speak Dutch and/or to expect them to trawl through an entire article to find a reference, but in the age of machine translation it isn’t too much for anyone to translate a few sentences, and I am providing the relevant ones so they don’t have to ask. If they did ask, I would then add the same text.
To give an example of what I am talking about: The city council argues that its actions are limited by the policy of the Dutch Government.
is backed by a citation from Karman writing in Parool newspaper and I provided a quote from the article, namely “Dat tot frustratie van de burgemeester en de gemeenteraad, die allebei graag meer wilden doen, maar moesten blijven herhalen dat niet Amsterdam, maar Den Haag over het asielbeleid gaat en dat de stad geen asielzoekers mág opvangen” which shows the council was clashing with the Government in Den Haag (which thus backs up the English sentence in the article).
Bilorv is quite rightly raising concerns about copyright and so I wondered what the best practice is here. Would it best to delete the Dutch which is currently held in the references as a quote or does this serve as a useful way for others to factcheck? The relevant bit of
WP:NONENG is As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page
.
Secondly, regarding the the Quoting subsection, I am wondering how best to deal with a direct quote in the article. So to again take an example from the text:Acting mayor Jozias van Aartsen remarked that ”You must be very careful with the mayor's office and not go down the route of politicizing the mayor's role."
Having written this translation of what Aartsen said in the article text, I added the Dutch original in the quote parameter of the citation - "U moet heel voorzichtig zijn met het ambtburgemeester en niet de route op gaan om de burgemeester te politiseren."
Having done that, do I then need to add the English translation again in the citation in square brackets?
The relevant sentence of
WP:NONENG here is If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.
And I suppose also In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians
.
Bilorv suggests I do add the English translation which is in the text again in the citation, so it is then right next to the Dutch, but I feel it's unnecessary to do that. Obviously in this case, it isn’t a major problem either way since it’s no work at all to add the English quote from the article text into the citation as well, I am just again interested what people think the best practice is.
Since this is something that I have been considering with other articles, including other GA noms, I’d really appreciate some feedback to set me on the right path. Bilorv I hope I haven't misrepresented your position. Thanks for any help! Mujinga ( talk) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
When your write "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable", does "verifiable" mean that all material should be verifiable in the text (i.e. not just as external links, but with inline-citations or similar) or that a source much exist, but not given in the text? Looking forward to your answer. Tøndemageren ( talk) 14:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable sourcea paragraph up? -- Izno ( talk) 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Simon of Trent an interesting debate is going on.
I added material I thought I saw in an RS (but a google preview). When it was challenged I could no longer find it (I had also checked one or two other sources, and it may be I read it in one of those). I stated I could not verify the text I added and a third user took "Umbrage" to this and has argued that the user who challenged the text should have AGF about my claim to have seen it (in essence I said I had read it and that should have been enough to keep it). I argued that I could not find it anymore and thus could not give (for example) even a page number and (in effect) I was told that I should AGF about having seen the text and it had been verified.
Now another user has fetched up and said I do not understand verifiability.
So my question is this, is it correct to say that if I can remember seeing something that is enough and the text has been verified (I know the answer, I want someone else to say it), or am I in fact correct and I still have to be able to "prove" (verify) the text with a cite? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, so far yes I think my interpretation seems to be correct, I still have to be able to provide a citation if it is challenged, and AGF does not trump that. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
Spun off from the above discussion. WP:ONUS directly and unambiguously implies that if one editor removes longstanding material, and another editor objects, the default is that that material is removed until consensus is reached. WP:QUO directly and unambiguously implies the opposite - longstanding text remains unless there's a clear consensus to remove it, ie. when dealing with longstanding text, the default is to keep rather than to remove. I've seen frequent disagreements between these, and it contributes to edit wars by leading editors on both sides to think that policy supports putting the page in their preferred state during discussion. These need to be reconciled and either an unambiguous statement added to WP:ONUS referencing WP:QUO and indicating that longstanding text is presumed to have consensus by default; or an unambiguous statement added to WP:QUO referencing WP:ONUS. For the record, I think it's obvious to anyone who has edited for any length of time that WP:QUO is the policy that is actually followed here, and that WP:ONUS, as written, is wrong and does not reflect current policy; anyone who tries to invoke WP:ONUS to remove longstanding text during a dispute without a clear affirmative consensus to do so is going to have a bad time, ie. WP:ONUS applies only to new additions because anything that has been on the page for long enough is presumed to have consensus. But either way one of these needs to be corrected. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You are misreading the policy. Status quo says specifically not to revert. Onus says specifically to remove material without consensus. The answer is always keep the consensus version regardless of status quo. If you don't know what's the consensus, don't revert. Bright☀ 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"It's also quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean one thing and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean something different."What does that mean? Please expand on that. Bus stop ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"originally intended". So, please tell me—how might it have been "originally intended"? Bus stop ( talk) 14:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"new content"that we are concerned with. We are concerned with different versions of articles. A dispute is about different versions of an article, with one group supporting one version, and another group supporting another version. Bus stop ( talk) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"new content". We are talking about different versions of an article. Bus stop ( talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Bus Stop I think you are grievously misreading the policy. Please refer to the previous discussion where the current phrasing of the policy achieved consensus. Bright☀ 17:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that it is best as-is. Despite that fact that prescriptive "what should happen" wording is problematic due to the large amount of variables and factors. First, most of the new suggestions are adding more prescriptive material which would expand that problem. Just like most things in the fuzzy Wikipedia system, the current wording can't be taken categorically or too broadly. And the distinction between contesting new material vs. contesting long-standing material is certainly an influencing factor. I think that the context and preface wording is important. Which is that it largely addresses the common implicit or explicit argument that meeting wp:ver is a force or mandate for inclusion rather than just one of the requirements for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 ( talk • contribs) North8000 ( talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is about differences of editorial opinion. WP:BURDEN is more objective. It is not about opinions. It is about the availability of support for material or assertions in sources. That is either present or absent. The burden is very clear: the burden for providing support in sources is on those adding content. It is a different situation in WP:ONUS. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether material warrants inclusion. RfCs can resolve this. But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material.
At WP:ONUS there is simply a difference of opinion between which version of the article is the "right" version. Arguments are presented in an RfC and a closer evaluates the strengths of the respective arguments. They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments. I think that is very unlikely. Even if one side's arguments are only slightly stronger—that side should be awarded their version of the article. Bus stop ( talk) 21:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material.There is "no special burden" until the added material is challenged. At that point there is the special burden of achieving a consensus to include the material. As has been explained to you more times than I can count, here and elsewhere. But keep repeating the falsehood enough times, using articulate language resembling that used by people who know what they are talking about, and maybe it will magically become true by sheer force of will.
They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments.And yet they do, all the time, and AFAIK nobody has a problem with it except you. If you wish to propose a radical change to the way Wikipedia works, take it to VPP and stop cluttering this page with repetitive out-of-venue comments. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the last sentence is a bombshell. It is an overwhelming surprise. The section heading reads Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The first and second sentences read "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." And then comes the bombshell, that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The last sentence is a non sequitur vis-à-vis that which precedes it. Bus stop ( talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue is about a change being introduced, not necessarily inclusion, it can also be removal, depending on what constitutes longstanding text. But regarding Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus — I reiterate that this is what a closing of discussion defaults to (to the longstanding text) whenever there is agreement against a proposal or when there is no agreement at all. El_C 06:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This may sound like me conflicting with my earlier post but it really isn't. First I'm going to agree that such a thing, taken out of context has no business being in this policy. And, in fact, a prescriptive "what to do" that defines an (interim) end result in what should really be a "case by case" situation is a bad idea period. But, in this particular place, it was to mitigate a common mis-use of wp:ver, in essence someone using "it's sourced" as a basis to force material in. And it was a compromise because we couldn't get in what we really needed to do then and do now. Which is to add "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" and then delete the whole onus section. North8000 ( talk) 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
We should salvage the usable language from WP:ONUS and add it at the bottom of WP:BURDEN. Thus we would add "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."
But we should not add the last sentence which reads "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Whichever side prevails in a dispute resolution process, commonly an RfC, is understood to enjoy consensus. Any version of an article is only considered temporary while any dispute resolution process is underway.
Those closing RfCs should not close with "no-consensus", thus eliminating the need for "defaulting" to any version of the article. RfCs should be closed in favor of the stronger of two sides of an argument, even if one argument is only slightly stronger than the other. Bus stop ( talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"If something has been in the article for a long time, it's presumed to have reasonably strong consensus"—I agree. But what if it's been in an article for a short time? What if the article is newly created? And also, why should there be "no-consensus"? Closing an RfC means weighing arguments and deciding the stronger of two choices. No one forces anyone to close an RfC. If one is unable to decide which is the stronger argument one should not close that RfC.
Please note the discussion at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting#Unprotection and moving forward. It is an article that has been in existence for a few weeks. Yet some are arguing that there is version that has greater status than another version. I find that ridiculous. An RfC can resolve the dispute. But such a resolution should depend solely on the strengths of the respective arguments. And the RfC should not be closed as "no-consensus". Bus stop ( talk) 19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see some discussion regarding the following: When there is a disagreement between editors as to whether some bit of information belongs in a specific article (or not)...
Philosophically, I don't think these are mutually exclusive... but, in purely practical terms I do lean more towards favoring the first than the second - as it is almost always far easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. Please share your thoughts. Blueboar ( talk) 19:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"Philosophically, I don't think these are mutually exclusive."I agree with that. Neither side has to be considered to have a greater burden in matters of opinion. I oppose placing a burden or an onus on any side in a dispute that hinges upon matters of opinion. WP:BURDEN correctly requires those adding material to provide sources. That "burden" is justifiable. But differences of opinion do not call for a "burden" to be placed on either side. Bus stop ( talk) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"It's fairly standard that a "no consensus" assessment means the article stays at status quo ante.") You are correct that it is
"out-of-venue". But it can be discussed. It is not taboo. Compartmentalization has its pros and its cons. Bus stop ( talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Those are but three out of ten RfCs I closed that week."They are saying that they closed 10 RfCs in a week, 3 of which as "no-consensus". (It may be difficult to find because it is within an area of the page which has been hatted.) Though I have never closed an RfC I question that frequency of "no-consensus" closes. There are two problems that go hand in hand, one of which is the last sentence found at WP:ONUS. El C says here:
You are wrong on the policy. WP:ONUS reads: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."I harbor zero animus toward anyone. Mandruss is also very concerned with the last sentence of WP:ONUS although they do not quote it at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. WP:ONUS is different from WP:BURDEN. At WP:BURDEN there either is or there is not a source to support material. That is a clear line. It is therefore understandable that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." But WP:ONUS is different. WP:ONUS is merely about opinion. There is no clear line. Therefore there should not be an onus to achieve consensus for inclusion on those seeking to include disputed content. That sentence is not supported by any wisdom. An RfC decides whether material should be included or omitted. And if there is not a close of "no-consensus" the RfC is decided simply on the strengths of the arguments of the opposing sides. The present arrangement is an uncalled-for morass. In my opinion the first step is to remove from WP:ONUS the sentence reading "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". As a second step I am in a little bit of a quandary. I am not sure how frequently RfCs are closed as "no-consensus". But if this occurs frequently, I think that has to be addressed. That is because a close of "no-consensus" still leaves open the question of which version of a disputed article stays up. Basically, I am opposed to RfC closures of "no-consensus". I think such closures open up a can of worms. I wish to remain on good terms with the editors I've mentioned. It is just the issue I am addressing and not any of my fellow editors. Bus stop ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus by both real world and wiki-definition is something stronger than exists in a "close one". So there are situations which are inherently "no-consensus". Providing a better framework / metrics for such dispute in some of the dysfunctional or missing policies would help these a lot. A few that come to mind:
These would both help avoid disputes and help resolve them. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"That would be the status quo ante. One version precedes another, by definition of time being a continuum that goes from past to future. It doesn't matter how much time passes."You are wrong when you say Currently, the only actionable finding from an RFC is "consensus". Defaulting to a long-standing version that is not really long-standing is an "action". Bus stop ( talk) 14:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Since my previous flowchart cleared up the previos discussion, let's see if this other flowchart will clear up the current discussion:
I want to include material in a Wikipedia article! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
It's pretty straightforward and there's nothing philosophical about it. You want to include something? It needs to follow policies A, B, C... You want to remove something? You need to explain why it goes against consensus or policies A, B, C... The onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to move away from existing consensus. Bright☀ 15:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Although using Wikipedia as a reference might create a circularity, this is not necessarily, and not usually, the case. For example, using a (referenced) German WP article as a reference in an English WP article is not circular. This is one of those areas where WP editors can be too anal. The idea that a normal (non-obsessive) WP editor would want to go to the trouble of copying references from the German article is daft - especially if s/he does not speak German. Dadge ( talk) 10:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
Expand language}}
tag to the article and let someone more proficient in German handle the article. Editors at the
language reference desk and
WikiProject Germany may also be able to help. However, editors should only cite sources that they understand. —
Newslinger
talk 10:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure about something. If I'm not mistaken, everything added to Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. But what if reliable sources are factually wrong? or what if two reliable sources contradict each other? How to go about from there?
KoopaLoopa (
talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a flaw with wp:ver. Knowledge and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it should be additional metrics that determine the strength of the sourcing in that particular context, and being clear-cut in error should / would then certainly affect that. Maybe some day we can fix it. North8000 ( talk) 18:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if it is missing from wp:ver, the reliable sources noticeboard generally factors in these common-sense criteria so you could get help there. North8000 ( talk) 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: KoopaLoopa has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Zawl. There’s no need to give this discussion the time of day. WP:DENY.— N Ø 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Like always, a the problem is when a wiki-lawyer POV warrior wants to keep the clearly erroneous material in. I remember one case where an otherwise reliable source chose one word wrong thus making an outlandish statement about a public figure. It was so outlandish that no other sources even addressed the question, so the statement stayed in with no contravening coverage. North8000 ( talk) 20:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A key point often overlooked: aside from self-evident errors and such, on what basis can some point be deemed incorrect without some other source? A lot of times people just "know" something is (allegedly) incorrect, without considering just how they came to have that supposed knowledge. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
||ॐ||
I am wondering, how can an independent source's information be considered as a more valid than what I directly experience?
ॐ Tat Sat (
talk) 01:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone want to try to decide what the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 67#Must and should was?
The options are:
The first is a direction given to editors (something you really should do); the second is a declaration that any article that doesn't do this is in violation of the policy (something you must do, i.e., without exception). (Either way, the end of the sentence is the same; we're all in favor of good sources.)
The version currently in the policy was boldly changed a few months ago, and it is a stronger statement than has been there (for the last eight years?) in the past. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
upon reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
...all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources....
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I would like to know the stance on adding sources that require one have a paid subscription to read. If all you are able to see without paying is a short blurb that does not actually reflect the statement for which one is sourcing, is it still allowed? How can a reader, or an editor, establish that the source actually does back up the statement if they cannot read it? (For example, a website article that has a short paragraph ending in ... to continue reading, please log in or purchase a new subscription. Thanks in advance, Ariel ♥ Gold 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ought to be very careful about using paywalled sources for BLPs, I'd think. Verifiability ought to be at a higher standard, especially if source is possibly being selectively paraphrased to support a POV. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Leviv ich 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
To editor EEng: Discuss first, edit later. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion relevant to the section on circular references on this project which may be of interest to you, is taking place at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. See WT:INB#The Hindu copying misinformation from WP. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
An RFC is being held at WT:MOTOR#RFC on referencing results sections in motorsport articles re the referencing of results tables in motorsport articles. Mjroots ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
But how to deal with cited sources that may meet all or most the "reliable" criteria, maybe were not even debunked (overlooked) by other reliable sources (or these are way too obscure to find), but make blatantly wrong or outright bullshit claims. E.g. a picture of two donkeys and a bactrian camel standing together titled as "llama herd" or "ruritanian army used these local horse breeds extensively" in some "reliable" source. Since just pointing at it here would be an "original research"?.. 95.32.25.39 ( talk) 11:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
In case someone here has an opinion on it, I listed the shortcut at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion § WP:SELFPUB – Thjarkur (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I added a band member to Green Jelly page and it was removed why? Bambamm109w ( talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This may be of interest [ [3]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
ABOUTSELF has four listed exceptions. I have a question about the intent of #1, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
What is considered unduly self-serving or exceptional? I've seen this debated in several articles so I think a clarification of the intent may be helpful.
Springee (
talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Curious about this myself, actually. Would presume some claim that would raise an eyebrow, like speaking seven languages or the like. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I can think of three not recent examples where aboutself could have come into play. The first was EXXON's reply to some news stories claiming it's scientist understood the impact of CO2 on global warming as early as the 1970s [ [5]]. EXXON issued an extensive rebuttal to the report including a number of internal documents. RS's noted that the company issued a denial but such phrasing often sounds like "the guy with the spray paint on his hands denied tagging the wall." In such a case I think it is reasonable to include a link to the company's statements and some level of summary. It shouldn't be long but if we have 2 paragraphs of accusations then at least a few sentences to summarize the rebuttal seams reasonable. I think a case like this easily meets the standard Masem has suggested. Per DUE the new article made it to the Wikipedia page. The company specifically replied to the news article thus the aboutself was directly related to something in the Wiki article. I certainly don't see a direct and detailed reply to a new report with a great deal of damning claims as unduly self serving.
I would argue the same of GM's reply to the Dateline NBC expose on the saddle mount gas tanks. In that case a lot of news was made regarding Dateline's rigged demonstrations but I'm not sure if the article ever references any of GM's own replies to the controversy. Probably not needed in that case but I feel it would be reasonable per ABOUTSELF.[ [6]] This case raises an interesting question. GM paid Exponent to investigate the NBC story. Does the Exponent report count as 3rd party or ABOUTSELF?
My third example I'm sure will be more controversial. It involves a suggestion to add a summary of the NRA's position on various possible gun laws. Not something simplistic like "against red flag laws". Rather something more like "The NRA opposes red flag laws for the following reasons:" In this case there wouldn't be any one particular story that the NRA would be replying to. Instead my thinking goes more like this. The NRA generates a huge amount of controversy because it opposes various proposed gun laws. Additionally, it puts a huge amount of money and effort into fighting against those laws. This is what but the article is very light on details as to why. Even if readers don't agree with the thinking, I believe readers would get more out of the article if it explained the logic behind the actions even if that means directly referencing the NRA's reasoning. While I personally think such information would make a better article, I know some opposed the idea as unduly self serving and this point isn't without merit. I think we would object to spreading a politician's talking points, cited to their website, for the same reason. I bring it up here not to debate the merits of changing that article but rather as a talking point to debate the reasonable boundaries of ABOUTSELF point #1. Springee ( talk) 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think these Honda Ridgeline articles are good examples of ABOUTSELF being UNDULY self serving [
[7]][
[8]]. In the case of the first generation vehicle we have a long list of unremarkable equipment such as front and rear tow hooks and power windows. All sourced directly to Honda websites. In the second generation we get some PR puffery to boot. Earth Dreams V6 engine with variable cylinder management—which is designed to operate in three-cylinder mode when not under load
This strikes me as the sort of ABOUTSELF material that we are trying to avoid.
Springee (
talk) 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've never edited a policy page so I wanted to follow up with some of the discussion above. First, if I'm going about this the wrong way please let me know. Second, I know we need consensus to make the change but does that mean RfC or just local consensus after a discussion like this?
The objective here is to add something to the effect that:
If actions/ about self material may be both DUE and not unduly self serving in an article in cases where it is in direct or indirect response to questions/comments/criticism raised by others
Anyway, the current ABOUTSELF text says:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is generally not considered unduly self serving.
Are there any objections to my proposed edit? Does this need to go through a RfC process first? Springee ( talk) 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. I added the sentence to the end of the section rather than in the bulleted list because I couldn't figure out an elegant way to avoid messing up the semi-colon list. Springee ( talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, the added text was:
Material that is the cause of, directly related to, or in response to WP:DUE questions/comments/criticism raised by others is generally not considered unduly self serving.
So first of all, WP:DUE is about whether this or that bit of fact is worth the reader's time and attention, or unbalances an article's POV. I don't know what it means for questions/comments/criticism raised by others
to be WP:DUE, unless maybe you mean they're the kind of criticism we would mention in the article.
Beyond that, I'm still unable to tell exactly what the proposed use case is. There's discussion above of Exxon and other cases, but I'm still unclear of what is wanted to go in the article, which is where the rubber meets the road. Please post a clear example: Person/company X was criticized this way, they responded this way, and we (maybe) can't use that response under current wording but could under new wording. Give examples of envisioned article text and links to the sources. The reason I'm asking for such specifics is that I have a feeling the response can, in fact, be used under currently policy, if it's properly interpreted, so I need something specific to talk about. E Eng 03:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"unduly"in bullet point #1 of WP:ABOUTSELF restricts the amount of content that can be included from self-published sources that are used in this way.
Instead of altering this policy, I think a better solution would be to link the word I think an expansion of
WP:DUE would be the best way to address this. The quantity of content permitted under
WP:ABOUTSELF is a due weight concern, and if the current text of
WP:DUE leads to the exclusion of self-published rebuttals that should be included in articles, then a proposal to amend
WP:DUE should be submitted to
WT:NPOV. —
Newslinger
talk 03:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Changed suggestion to reflect point made by
Ryk72 below. —
Newslinger
talk 06:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)"unduly"
to
WP:DUE.
"unduly"in bullet point #1 as a reference to undue weight.
proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I say that because it is used here as an adjective modifying "self-serving", and WP:DUE makes no sense in that context. WP:ABOUTSELF is an explicit, limited, exception to WP:PROPORTION & WP:DUE. - Ryk72 talk 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."I can't find a similar rule for entities who are not considered public figures, so this could use some clarification at WT:NPOV. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't given up on this but I've been busy off line. Springee ( talk) 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in this discussion at VPPRO about deprecated sources. -- Izno ( talk) 21:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The policy says that mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. How can we determine if some newspaper is mainstream? Should we explain the mainstreamness criteria?
Second question: are all newspapers by default considered mainstream unless the opposite is demonstrated, or vise versa: those editors who add a newspaper article are expected to provide a proof that they are mainstream?
Do policy or guidelines say anything about that, and if not, maybe we should explain that?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
- University-level textbooks
- Books published by respected publishing houses
- Magazines
- Journals
- Mainstream newspapers
Seems like re-inventing WP:NEWSORG – and doing a bad job at it. I'm not averse to finding a short summary of the essentials of that guidance and putting it in the policy, but starting with a new set of ideas ("newspaper of record" and whatnot) that doesn't even connect to the current operational guidance on the matter seems to be going nowhere. "high-quality mainstream publications" are sanctioned as reliable sources by the current WP:V policy (*and* by the current WP:RS guideline, see introductory paragraph of its WP:SOURCETYPES section). What more do we need to say about newspapers in the policy? I've not seen anything come up in the current discussion that would even be marginally better than, nor even nearly as good as what already is in WP:NEWSORG. "Mainstream" is at best, to all extents and purposes, unrelated to the quality of a source, it doesn't define, as in not at all, whether a source is reliable. In the guidance (policy *and* guideline), mainstream is only used to differentiate from "academic", pointing to the fact that Wikipedia is not exclusively built on academic sources. Being "non-academic" is not a synonym for "reliable": the reliability depends on the quality of the mainstream source, and that quality is defined, in detail, at WP:SOURCETYPES. The short definition is in the first two paragraphs of the WP:SOURCE part of WP:V. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I see no further comments or objections, so O remove the RfC box. Let's hope the amended version of the policy will stay.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, WP:NEWSORG is correct (and importantly so) that only some material in newspapers is reliable or secondary. Editorials, op-eds, columns, humor pieces, most forms of review, most forms of interview, and of course the advertising(!) are all primary-source material. So is "news" that's just a regurgitation of a press release, or regurgitation of eye-witness testimony or other primary sources, without any significant WP:AEIS on the part of the writers/editors. And some investigative journalism can be primary, at least in part, e.g. when it's one of those "Here's my grueling odyssey of how I dug up the dirt on this company over the course of two years, and here's my pointed conclusions based on what I found and how much they dodged" kind of heavily first-person-perspective piece (more common in magazines). Some material can be tertiary, such as sidebar tables of stats cobbled together from official sources.
I agree that this policy should not delegate anything to essays, nor to guidelines, or even other policies, except where the material better fits in the other policy, or the material is non-essential detail/explication that's better in a guideline. Essays (including how-to/information page essays) are off the table.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
"Journals, magazines and newspapers that have a broad circulation and demonstrated a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness".
The type X, Y, Z sources are reliable; other sources may be also reliable, but the decision about their reliability should be made on a case-by-case basis as described in details in guidelines AAAA".-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Other reliable sources include:we say
Preferred non-academic reliable sources include:(with your above text for newspapers/journals/magazines) and then after the list
Other sources may be used on a case-by-case basis if they are determined to be reliable sources by consensus.But the gist is there. We do not want to imply the list given is the only extend of allowed sourcing. -- Masem ( t) 17:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
an article published in a high rank peer-reviewed journal is allowed without reservations, whereas some other sources may also be allowed if some criteria (follow the link to see details) are metthat would be a good policy.
It says When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
And then provides a qualifier about outdated sources. I think you may be misreading it.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
... usually ..., but not "always and comprehensively" – the former is what is in that sentence of the
MVBW's "it would be a perfectly valid RS to source views by Darwin." is a typical example of primary source usage. And, to avoid possible misinterpretations, let me reiterate that "old" does not necessarily means "outdated". I doubt Euclides Elements is an outdated source, whereas all XX century books that say the Great Fermat theorem had not been proven yet is outdated.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Make it really simple: Wikipedia is not a news aggregation website. As such newspapers and similar publications are inappropriate as sources. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
And Paul, WRT if some piece of news was published in 1950, and that fact was left unnoticed by historians, then it is probably poorly checked or unreliable news, and it hardly deserves inclusion.
I agree with you entirely. I just don't think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a piece of news published in 2019.
Simonm223 (
talk) 18:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems the discussion has become so convoluted that it would be difficult for new participants to joinn it. Let's summarize our arguments. We have a current version, an interim text, and Francis Schonken's version. Let's summarise pro et contra. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.
This version is a blanket approval of "Mainstream newspapers", all "Journals" and "Magazines", which contradicts to guidelines, thereby making them useless. In addition, "Mainstream" is vague and misleading.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in high-quality mainstream publications. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. Further details on how and when such sources can be used as reliable sources are explained in guidance such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.
the burden to demonstrate reliability of the source lies with the editor who adds or restores material.I understand that that seems obvious, but many disputes are caused by the fact that people expect to get a consensus for removal some source, not for keeping it.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
You are talking about disputes among good faith users.No, I don't think I am -- peer-reviewed sources make an off-handed comment peripheral to their main point and completely outside the area of expertise of the peers who review them, and Wikipedia editors who appear to be primarily interested in promoting a particular ideology regardless of what specialist sources say want to add them "no matter what". Whether such editors are engaged in undisclosed paid editing or are just trolling me and the other Wikipedians involved, I don't think either could be called "good faith". People who are just ignorant and think "Newspaper=Reliable" would probably give up after it was pointed out to them that specialist sources disagree. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
References
The text below is an attempt to summarize the above discussion, as well as related discussions at the ARCA page ("Antisemitism in Poland, and Antisemitism in Poland II, see the permalink) and MILHIST), which forced me to reconsider my original point of view. In addition, I found some other problems with this section of the policy, and with NEWSORG.
All opinia about usage of newspapers/journals/magazines can be subdivided on two camps; below I conditionally call them "rigorists" and "liberals". Rigorist views can be summarized as follows: "Newspapers and similar sources are by default not reliable sources, but can be used according to the rules described in WP:NEWSORG." In contrast, liberals believe that any newspaper article is a reliable source unless that newspaper is not broadly discredited. Below, I present my analysis of strenghts and weaknesses of each approach, and propose a solution.
The advantrage of a rigorist approach is obvious: Wikipedia stops being a collection of various rumors, poorly checked facts and questionable opinia that, alas, can be found in virtually any newspaper. However, there is one importrant negative consequence: the scope of Wikipedia will become significantky more narrow if this approach will be implemented. Let me give just one example. Piotrus asked me to take a look at the source usage in the Michler's Palace article, and majority of sources appeared to be newspaper articles, more concretely, editorial or op-ed materials. If we follow the "rigorist" approach, we must concede all these sources are used inappropriately: per WP:NEWSORG, they are not reliable sources for facts, just for author's opinion. Therefore, the first paragraph of the article should be rewritten as:
According to Wojciech Rodak and Paweł Czechowski,it is best known for an eponymous wartime song, Pałacyk Michla, which was written by poet and insurgent Józef Szczepański. [1] [2]
Obviously, addition of explicit attribution to every piece of text written based on newspaper articles (actually, the second source is a popular Polish history portal, which, probably, makes it as reliable as an average newspaper) makes the whole text look ridiculously. Meanwhile, I doubt the facts about this building look not trustworthy, and that we need better sources to support the first paragraph.
The strengths and weaknesses of a "liberal" approach are complementary to those of the "rigorist" one: it allows writing articles about a wide range of subjects easily. However, it may lead to a dramatic decrease of the quality of Wikipedia articles. Thus, the policy does not prevent some school student to introduce a questionable statement from some local newspaper into the article about Black holes, and, if that will be supported by a group of poorly educated users, it will be hard to remove it per our policy.
The solution to this problem may be in more explicit linking WP:SOURCES with WP:REDFLAG. The latter says: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", however, WP:SOURCES provides no explanation of what does "high-quality source" mean. That section outlines the criteria for a reliable source, but it does not introduce the term "high(er)-quality and "low(er)-quality reliable source". That creates a false impression that as soon as some source is considered reliable, it is reliable without any reservations, which is obviously not the case.
Indeed, for many non-controversial and low importance topics, even ordinary newspapers, journals and magazines can be considered as "reliable but low-quality sources", and it should be quite OK to use them, because, otherwise, the articles like Radomsko or Eger would be virtually impossible to write. However, this approiach would be totally unacceptable for the article that are either of high importance or are dealing with controversial and/or sensitive subjects. How to discriminate these two cases? IMO, REDFLAG provides an answer, and as soon as some edit/source has been contested, that should immediately raise a REDFLAG, so all low-quality reliable sources sould be removed, until their re-introduction is clearlyt supported by consensus.
In connection to that, I propose to modify the WP:SOURCES section, and to explain that
In my opinion, this approach would allow us to reconcile the "rigorist" and "liberal" approaches and to avoid many content disputes.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
off-topic
|
---|
I find it quite strange, that some sources are deprecated on the ground that they are under control (in most such cases under control of a government) and others not, although they actually are under the control (in most such cases under control of few economical interests). I think of the situation in the country of my origin (Greece), where actually two persons control almost all the media. This is the case with most (if not all) of the media of the world (at least for every separate country). So, maybe there is a solution avoiding this discussion (I mean the discussion about which news media is trustworthy and which not), namely sticking by the facts. Example: (suppose) In some newspapers (under control or not is irrelevant) you may read, that a person shot with a gun at the heart of another person expressively wanting to kill this person and the second person died because of the shot. Suppose that there are no Media that contradict this incident. Suppose once more that no media calls it a murder. Is it because of this no murder? Of course not. So, if we don't mention it as a murder, only because no media mention it like this, we are quite away from our aims. Not writing (in the title) that it is a murder, reminds me of the situation with Galileo Galilei: just because the church didn't want to accept it (and write it somewhere), doesn't mean that the earth doesn't go around the sun. So here is my concrete proposal with the use of another example of an actual dispute in Wiki. We can always create a tablet (see example) which contains facts that may be disputed or not in a main article or somewhere else and we can make decisions according to this tablet. We should totally avoid opinions or show opinions in a table that has both sides (like the spanish wikipedia tried to do in the same example). Staying though only by the sayings of media (which may be for some people reliable and some other not, and this from all sides) is not objective and doesn't have to do with "Verifiability" in the means of wiki. Staying only by the writings is what religions do... Do we really want to do this too? In the German wiki I read: A neutral point of view tries to present a theme in such a way, that both people against and for it can accept it. Not everyone should accept it, this happens only very rarely. One reason is, that there are ideologies (and people), that can only accept their one point of view. For this reason we should concentrate on the presentation of the theme in such a way, that every rational thinking person would tolerate it. I have no idea who wrote this, but I find it genial. The only rational way I can think of (and I hope that I'm not irrational in this) is to stay by the facts and use the common definitions of the notions. So, if we see in the facts (bringing back my example), that a murder is described, we should call it a murder, even if no media calls it like this. Media are unfortunately not always rational and they do represent different interests (economical, ideological or what so ever). I still must say (unfortunately): Even the solution, that I'm proposing here is not adequate, in a world that becomes more and more affected by fake news. On the other hand, it is a step to being more objective, in a world where maybe no media are not under control. |
This proposal has to do of course only with issues that happening right now or happened recently or more generally with issues that are disputed. thanks Yomomo ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If a secondary source confirms or reproduces a claim made in a primary source (e.g. a social media post), should we include both sources in a citation or just the secondary source? Thanks. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:TERF#RfC - Draft paper needs more input from uninvolved editors who are have experience with sourcing issues. Most of the responses so far are from users who have already been involved with the article, myself included. Thank you, -Crossroads- ( talk) 03:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I explained my proposed change at WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Improving_precision_of_definition_of_WP:BLPSELFPUB_and_WP:ABOUTSELF. Please dicsuss there. Xenagoras ( talk) 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are infoboxes, and the need that the information they convey also be verifiable, not covered in this WP guideline? 2601:246:C700:19D:1C66:B776:33B0:EE87 ( talk) 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems I am starting to understand the core of the problem, and it seems that it is a part of a bigger problem: the proposed format of the solution is incorrect.
The core idea of WP:V, as I see it should be: "everything what Wikipedia says can be verified by a reader, who can go by a reference, read the source, and to verify if the source X really says "Y"". (Disclamer. The above description is not a summary of the current version of WP:V, it is a summary of my vision of the policy). In connection to that, the major criterion of a reliable source is its stability: it should not be, for example, a blog, which can be deleted or modified by an owner at any moment. In that sense, RS is any material that, once published, can be, potentially, available to everyone, and cannot be altered of removed from a public access. That should be a core of WP:V.
However, WP:V moves further, and it introduces some categories of sources that are considered reliable and sources that are not reliable. It implicitly introduces the term "quality of sources" (although that term is never explained), and the term "mainstream sources". I see two problems with that.
I propose to abandon the flawed (in my opinion) strategy, which consists in an attempt to allow/prohibit some category of sources based on purely formal criteria. I also propose to fix a problem with an obvious conflict between the policy and guidelines, which de facto cancels many good ideas described in guidelines.
Since this post was partially inspired by the Holocaust topic, let me give an example of how can the dispute between
Buidhe and
SarahSV be resolved within a paradigm proposed by me. To the best of my understanding, Buidhe says "Non-English sources are good, let's use them", whereas SarahSV says "Non-English sources are hardly better, and everything important about the Holocaust that deserves attention has already been translated to English, so there is no need to use non-English sources". (I apologize in advance if I summarized your view incorrectly, but the point is not to make a precise summary, but to show a difference in opinia). Meanwhile, if we abandon a strategy that is based of formal categories of sources, we can say: "Best possible sources should be used. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are preferable. For each category of sources, their quality should be determined before they are used in Wikipedia. The burden of proof that some source meets our quality standards rests with those who adds it. Our guidelines provide detailed description of the procedure of quality determination
. Period".
That would resolve the NOENG issue quite easily: NOENG are quite acceptable, but, keeping in mind that it is much more difficult to determine its quality, some specific criteria must be applied to them, and these criteria should be described in relevant guidelines.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Prior noticeboard discussions have repeatedly rejected efforts to strengthen the guideline: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". But what exactly does "preferred" mean? Especially, I want to know if and when it is acceptable to use non-English sources when there are equally reliable English ones available, such as the following cases:
I hope this can be clarified because I frequently cite non-English sources. My opinion is that it should be allowed in all the above cases; arguably, a free access non-English source is easier to verify than an out-of-print English book. b uidh e 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are several reason behind NOENG.
In my opinion, that does not mean non-English sources should be completely banned. They are quite acceptable for non-controversial and/or low importance subjects. But as soon as some user expressed a legitimate concern about such a source, it should be replaced with similar English source or removed altogether. Let me give an example to demonstrate my thought. Let's take an extreme case, Arab-Israel topic. Would it be acceptable to use an Palestinian newspaper as a source about a small Arab town to describe some non-controversial facts of its history? I don't see who we cannot do it. However, imagine the Gaza Strip article written based on mostly Arab or Hebrew sources? Clearly, it would have opened a can of worms, so it is always better to use sources that (i) can be independently verified by a larger number of Wikipedians, and (ii) are less connected to this sensitive topic.
That is why, and to avoid future discussions about blanket allowance/banning of some category of sources (I frequently see this type discussion on this and related talk page), I propose to return to a discussion of my version of WP:SOURCES (see above), which stipulates that all sources, except articles in peer-reviewed journals and university books, should be treated as conditionally reliable, and their reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis as explained in relevant guidelines and in WP:REDFLAG.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Re. "You de facto propose to abstain from estimating relative reliability of these sources" – no, I don't: please go elsewhere if that is the level you want to have this discussion: I'm no game for this kind of nonsense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"equal reliability" is part of the premise", and that is a problem, because the word "equal" in your phrase implies some non-binary criterion of reliability. However, WP:SOURCES sets a binary criterion ("reliable - non reliable"), so, following WP:SOURCES's letter, an English book published by OUP is of an equal quality as a Ukrainian book published by Києво-Могилян. акад., which immediately moves the dispute about a conflict between these two sources to the NPOV area. Meanwhile, WP:V could do its job better by explicitly explaining that "reliability" is a non-binary term that must be understood in a proper context: some sources are more reliable that others, and some reliable sources are acceptable in some context and unacceptable in another. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
you are right, the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"". English is not my mother tongue, so a possibility cannot be ruled out that this sentence is not completely grammatically correct. Nevertheless, the words "although you are right, lorem ipsum dolor" usually mean: "what you say is correct, but lorem ipsum dolor". In other words I never said, and never wanted to say that the words "the problem is that WP:V does not explain the term "source quality"" belong to you: that was my own thought, and I never ascribed it to you. Therefore, it looks like you owe me apology for misinterpreting my words. However, I am not insisting on that because it could be quite possible that I was just not clear enough. In future, I will try to be more careful in citing your thought.
The thing is that I have quite some experience with articles using multi-language sources: that experience may (or may not) be helpful to address the issues raised here. Problem is that talking about such experience is futile when all of it is translated, by a single contributor to the discussion, in a single-purpose vision that excludes all other approaches outside the prejudiced one. For now, I'd just oppose rewriting the policy to suit the needs of a limited set of articles, if that would mess up sound verifiability in other sets of articles. Maybe in Holocaust-related articles English-language sources may, in a practical way, generally be superior to those in other languages (except German). I can't judge that. In the area in which I'm most active, foreign-language sources are often more reliable than English-language derivatives. So, I'd reject any attempt to have, at policy level, a principle inscribed that language, in general, is an indicator of the quality of a source. If anything needs to be said about language and reliability of a source it should be (1) nuanced, and (2) in subsidiary guidance, not in policy-level guidance. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The page linked above is currently an essay, but by looking at it, I feel that it may be an option to discuss as part of this thread. Would there be an interest in exploring if it's feasible for WP:HISTRS being adopted in the Holocaust topic area as a guideline? That would require an RFC of course, but want to float the idea here, to begin with. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Not so long ago I wrote the BWV Anh. 167 article. Here are some sources that write about that composition:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |volume=
(
help) Containing:..., of which Bach ... wrote out the whole of the first twelve pages ...
Scribe (in detail): H. W. Ludewig (...); from p. 13 (middle): J. S. Bach
Notes: ... Schreiber: bis p. 13 (Mitte): H. W. Ludewig (...); der Rest ist von J. S. Bachs Hand (mittel/spät).
..., welche Bach ausschließlich der ersten zwölf seiten, ..., ... abgeschrieben hat.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Containing:... 1–13 paginirt, so weit der Copist geschrieben hat; von Seite 13 der zehnten Linie an, also noch 14 Linien von der Seite bis zum Ende hat Bach Alles selbst geschrieben: Seite 13 die grössere untere Hälfte, Seite 14–39.
Schreiber, detailliert: H. W. Ludewig (...); ab S. 13 (Mitte): J. S. Bach
Bemerkungen: ... Schreiber: bis p. 13 (Mitte): H. W. Ludewig (...); der Rest ist von J. S. Bachs Hand (mittel/spät).
Notes: ... Scribe: up to p. 13 (middle): H. W. Ludewig (...); the rest is in J. S. Bach's (middle to late) handwriting.
..., which Bach copied, apart from the first twelve pages, ...
... pages numbered 1 to 13, as far as written by the copyist; Bach has written everything from the tenth line of page 13, which is another 14 lines on that page, until the end: [that is] the larger lower half of page 13, [and] pages 14 to 39.
If only plain English published sources would be used, that is #2 and #3, then 50% of the sources write that Bach wrote the first 12 pages of the manuscript and 50% of the sources say he wrote nothing before the middle of the 13th page, in terms of the WP:BALANCE policy. Then one would have to write, in the BWV Anh. 167 article, something like:
According to the Bach Digital website, Bach wrote everything after the middle of the 13th page of the P 659 manuscript, while according to Philipp Spitta Bach only wrote the first 12 pages of that manuscript.
Instead, the BWV Anh. 167 article has ( Kyrie–Gloria Mass for double choir, BWV Anh. 167#Bach's manuscript):
The first part of that manuscript was written by one of Bach's scribes, ..., while Bach himself completed the handwritten score ...
The reason is clear: according to WP:RSUE, other-language sources can only be suppressed if the English-language source (or: sources) is/are "... of equal quality and relevance". Since that is not the case, while one of the English translations does not match its German original, no source can be missed. Then the picture becomes completely different: the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation becomes, on this point, a negligible minority vision (in WP:WEIGHT terms), in fact a simple error – the overwhelming majority of relevant reliable sources say it differently. The primary source (#1) is available, and if one has seen a few Bach manuscripts even that confirms, without that being useable directly in Wikipedia, that all secondary sources except the Bell & Fuller Maitland translation have it right. That is saying nothing about the general quality of that translation: anyone can make an error.
So, no for the wording proposed above, containing "... usage of non-English sources is more risky ..." (etc): in the given example using the published English translation is "more risky" – no such dismissive thing can be said about foreign-language sources at policy level. There is no "quick and dirty" way to get rid (or even subtly undermine the value) of foreign-language sources in this way, and certainly not at policy level. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "risky", Francis Schonken, I was probably not clear enough. Under "risky" I meant the following: imagine a similar situation with, e.g. Sibelius, when one Finnish user is advocating some edit based on a Finnish source about that composer. That user provides evidences of the same kind as you did above. All other user feel uncomfortable, because the proposed edits contradict to what English sources say. It may be quite possible that Finnish sources are more reliable about a Finnish composer, but a possibility cannot be ruled out that that Finnish user just incorrectly uses them, or even took some sources that are considered fringe by Finns themselves. Can we check that independently? theoretically, yes, but in reality it is very hard to do. I believe now you understand what I wanted to say: as soon as it has been demonstrated that some foreign source is a high quality source, it is quite ok to use it, but the procedure that determine its quality should be somewhat more strict (more evidences should be presented). By the way, you provided a good example of how should it be done.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
When I started to edit the Pietro Torri article somewhat over a month ago it contained the grand total of one single source ( [21]):
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Verona: Della Scala. p. 120. ISBN 8885099734.
One of several problems with this source is what has been written above: "... sources are cited that do not exist as described": according to Google Books the publication only has 118 pages ( [22]), while the reference, as found in the Wikipedia article, cites "p. 120" of the edition..., so also "sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them" seems to apply. As a whole, the backbone of the English Wikipedia article on Torri seems to be a (partial) translation of it:Pietro Torri by someone who never saw another source for the article than a Wikipedia article in another language (which may, or may not, have had far laxer rules on sourcing than current English Wikipedia standards).
So, at that point, I could have pasted some tags in the article, like {{ Refimprove}} etc, and move on, leaving it to someone else to clear out the apparent mess (like I had done here). I tried to do better for the article on Torri (... which was going to "absorb[ed] significant volunteer time", using the words written above). One of the first things I did was to update and expand the content of the {{ cite book}} template used for the Groote reference:
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493.
But that was still dancing around the main issue regarding this source: it is virtually inaccessible, i.e. probably only found in specialist libraries (not even a summary or the shortest of quotes to be found on the internet), and in Italian, which I don't understand very much. I do think it is not a crucial distinction whether the source is inaccessible for language or for difficulty to get hold of a copy: for practical purposes I could not use the Groote source in a WP:V logic when I wanted to improve & expand the Torri article. So I "demoted" the Groote publication from reference to "Further reading" ( Pietro Torri#Further reading). There was not a single footnote referring to this publication in the article, so, as such, my decision to not use this publication as reference (while still keeping it available if someone who has access to it in the future can still pick it up and rejoin it with the sources used as reference) did not deteriorate the (at that point virtually non-existing) sourcing of the article. This is not an appreciation of the reliability of the Groote source: without having access to it a reliability discernement is not really possible (but more about that later). I found 14 useable sources ( Pietro Torri#Sources): one in Latin [sic], one in French, one in Italian, five in German, and the remaining six at least partially in English. And another inaccessible source, this one in German, which I added to the "Further reading" section. Plus several dozens of sources only mentioned in the (currently) 270 footnotes ( Pietro Torri#References). And, checking these sources, I saw several of them using the Groote publication as source (so, yes, that kind of confirms that the Groote publication would normally be a "reliable source" in Wikipedia's WP:V logic).
Again, I had no problem applying core content policies such as WP:V, and their subsidiary guidance such as WP:RS, in the form they currently are – but none of these can, of course, be applied without using sound jugdgement (Wikipedia is not written by trained monkeys using guidance that can be interpreted without exerting sound judgement): whether my judgement regarding the content of the Torri article was sound enough is of course open to further appreciation & improvement of the article (that's a basic premise of any wiki system). The point I'm trying to illustrate is that despite problems described above as "Sources are cited in a way that suggests the editor citing them may never have seen them. ... And sources are cited that do not exist as described. ... trying to find and understand those sources has absorbed significant volunteer time.", that despite problems of this nature, WP:V (and related guidance) seems to work fine when trying to address the difficulties. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
a source they maybe don't really understand with one they do understandis a pretty clear reference to this.
a single contributor to the discussion, in a single-purpose vision that excludes all other approaches outside the prejudiced oneis also quite obviously a reference to "version C" on the relevant page, the "single contributor" being me (even though Nishidani and Ryk72 were both involved as well). In the case in question, Francis was (still is?) trying to cite an unreliable English source that very obviously gets the relevant point wrong, apparently because it got its information from Wikipedia, based on the claim that English sources are inherently better than non-English ones, even when there is talk page consensus that the non-English ones are more reliable under the circumstances. The fact that the comments made on this page are fairly direct mirrors of the personal attacks he was recently called out over on ANI just makes it all the worse... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no agreement to include the changes you did. Most especially on a policy page, but on any page, please do not make changes while discussion on this issue is ongoing. If I have missed a clear, agreed-upon, community-wide consensus please provide a link. A discussion is not a consensus. Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I see that several users (including myself) expressed a justified criticism of the current version of the policy, and several others reverted proposed changes, but the only clearly articulated reason is that this change has not been properly discussed. To facilitate a discussion, let me summarize again the problems with current version. The current version, where I took liberty to restore the "under discussion" template says:
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
University-level textbooks
Books published by respected publishing houses
Magazines
Journals
Mainstream newspapers
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and
Wikipedia:Search engine test.
I see several problems with that version.
Clearly, a literal interpretation of the above list is a source of big problems, which means it is supposed serve just as an example of what may be (under some circumstances) reliable. In other words, it is more like a soft recommendation. However, that is hardly an appropriate style for a policy. Examples of that type are more appropriate for guidelines.
Literally every item in that list is poorly defined, and that is a source of constant conflict disputes. I already cited the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case. ArbCom introduced specific sourcing restrictions to stop incessant edit war in that topic, and I am sure the problem with the above quoted segment of the policy is one of the reason for that step. I think this part of the policy should be fixed, and if there will be no rationally explained objections to that, I am ready to propose the way to fix it (actually, what Francis Schonken has done was a step in a right direction, but that version can be further improved).
One more point. Currently, the policy refers to the "Search engine test" essay. Whereas I agree with many ideas of that essay, I think it is not completely correct that the reference to an essay is included in a policy. Maybe, we should take some steps to convert that essay into guidelines first? -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 01:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Academic and peer-reviewed publications, as well as the books published by top rank universities are considered the best quality reliable sources for such fields as history, medicine, or science.
Non-academic sources may also be considered reliable, particularly if they appear in respected mainstream publications, such as books by reputable publishing houses, magazines, journals, and newspapers, including electronic media.
Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements (see WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Search engine test for further details).
Actually, I have an idea. What if we expand the policy a little bit to make more direct and clear reference to guidelines? For example, if instead to the current version we write something like that:
Editors may also use material from non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications, including:
.....
.....
- mainstream newspapers, as described in WP:NEWSORG;
.....
and do the same for each item in the list, that would resolve a situation. By doing that, we demonstrate that the policy provides just general principles, and the decision about reliability should be made on case by case basis as described in guidelines. BTW, similar idea was expressed by Blueboar below.
Regarding wikilawyering, I would love to avoid that, but in that case I am working as "devil's advocate" in attempt to eliminate a possibility of usage of possible gaps in the policy by POV pushers. I also find a situation with Antisemitism in Poland case a worrying sign. I think, by fixing the policy, we could create a situation when these sanctions could be made redundant.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Francis, you referred above to "what you propose", and the indenting made it look like a reply to me. Just noting here that I don't have a proposal. Paul, there was a long-term dispute between you and My very best wishes about Soviet gas vans and now you're both on this page. I think you've misunderstood this policy and what a policy is. We do, as a matter of fact, accept "mainstream newspapers" as RS. The policy has stated that for many years, and it reflects what actually happens on WP. Policies must be descriptive as well as prescriptive; a policy that is no longer descriptive is not a policy, no matter what it calls itself. Your dispute was caused by someone wanting to use, as you put it above, a "very obscure newspaper" for what you regarded as an important point. So there's your answer. SarahSV (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
SarahSV, you are not right. The content dispute that I used to have had already been resolved, and I am pretty satisfied with its outcome. In contrast to another participant of that dispute, I openly declared the fact that I was a party of the dispute (see above on this talk page). I am not aware of any policy, giudelines, or other rules that prevent users who were a party of a content dispute to discuss the policy. In addition, I am here primarily because I see some general problems with the policy, and I think that the ArbCom decision about Antisemitism in Poland case (a conflict I was not a party of) is an indication of problems with WP:V.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I also think that mainstream newspapers should be allowed, but it is subject to some additional limitations and restriction described in NEWSORG. It should not be a blanket approval, and I agree with Francis in that. In addition, if we allow "mainstream" newspapers, we should define (in policy or in guidelines) what does that term mean. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
SarahSV, in my opinion, even if some editor is rude, that is quite forgivable if their contribution to Wikipedia is generally positive. Therefore, I beg you to ignore personal attacks (or something that you see as a personal attack), and continue our discussion. I came to a conclusion that I should have to explain my position better, and here I am trying to explain my major ideas, which had been inspired by the Holocaust in Poland topic and a discussion that involved several editors, including Piotrus. First of all, I myself prefer to use only top quality English sources for editing, mostly peer-reviewed publications. As I already explained, my approach to source selection was described as good in this peer-reviewed publication, so I have a right to claim that I know how to find good sources, and that fact is based on what a reliable source says. However, I fully realize that my approach to source selection is not universally applicable. Indeed, Wikipedia is a very non-homogeneous collection of articles, it includes diverse topics starting from quantum mechanics, gene editing, or the Holocaust to baseball teams, recent Trump's activity, or local high schools in the middle of nowhere. Obviously, lion's share of Wikipedia articles couldn't be possible to write using the sources selected according to my approach. And I fully realize that that is absolutely ok.
What is not ok is the following. The current policy does not explicitly prohibit to use different quality sources in the same article. Formally, it is quite possible to add an article from a popular kid's magazine to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox article. Removal of such a source is a matter of editorial consensus, which makes a situation shaky. I think you yourself would object adding a claim to some Holocaust related article that Ukrainian nationalists had never been engaged in killing Jews during WWII. Meanwhile, such claims can be found in nominally scholarly peer-reviewed articles that are being published in modern Ukraine, for example, by Volodymyr Viatrovych. Obviously, for important topics and important articles, for which top quality sources are available, the level of sources should be as high as possible, and the sources should be of comparable quality. However, for less important topics, for which no good sources are available, lower quality sources can be used, unless that causes no justified objections from some editor(s).
Unfortunately, our policy does not allow us to implement that approach easily. Sometimes, enormous efforts are needed to get rid of garbage sources that are being advocated by some POV pusher. In my opinion, good faith users should be provided with better tools for comfortable editing, and our policy does not serve this goal as efficiently as it could. Thus, during a recent content dispute, one admin (a good admin, by the way) seriously proposed me to start an RfC to remove some recently added questionable source despite that fact that it was added in violation of WP:REDFLAG, and no clear support of that addition was obtained during the RSN discussion. That means even experienced admins sometimes do not interpret the policy in the way it is supposed to be interpreted according to you. That means, it must be made more clear.
If you believe I am not right, please explain me why. Otherwise, let's discuss possible ways to improve it.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 04:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I reverted your recent edit because you're part of a long-term dispute that hinges precisely on the wording you removed. Please wait for consensus to form; if it has already formed and you disagree, you can try to change it here on talk. Or if it's a key issue, open an RfC, but please first seek advice and consensus labout how to word it. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC); edited 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
In all of the years I have been on Wikipedia I have never seen an agreement that allows for a policy to be changed without consensus-BOLD does not apply here. And it is controversial to make any kind of substantive edits to aspects of an article, especially a policy page, while that aspect is under discussion. If that has changed please link to it. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This section in bold (mine) is not acceptable. If there is community wide consensus for this please link to it. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This section is the subject of a current discussion. Please feel free to join in. This doesn't mean that you may not be bold in editing this section, but that it would be a good idea to check the discussion first.
WP:WPEDIT Policies and guidelines are supposed to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject. In general, more caution should be exercised in editing policies and guidelines than in editing articles. Minor edits to existing pages, such as formatting changes, grammatical improvement and uncontentious clarification, may be made by any editor at any time. However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general, as should proposals for new policy pages...
Taking up part of an idea of Paul Siebert, and some of my own suggestions above, I've:
[23]. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
as a rule, best quality sources. See guidelines for further details", that would be fine.
Thanks for all the procedural advice, which is, however, partially lost on me: not as if this is the first time I initiate some guidance, or contribute significantly to policy pages. I even wrote the basis of the how-to essay on "How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance". So all the lecturing on procedural issues largely diverts from the topic at hand. For instance, @ EEng: I'd really like to know how you think on whether or not it is is time to implement recent consensuses (i.e. last two years or so) on broadly barring tabloid journalism as reliable sources from Wikipedia on this policy page. And if so, how?, and if not why not? – yeah, it's really interesting to read that this is not a "must" but only a "should", but that leaves the more interesting part of the question unanswered. Same question, of course, for Littleolive oil, Visviva, Alanscottwalker, TransporterMan, North8000: you've all reverted for procedural reasons and/or commented on procedures on this talk page (so that the whole topic is now drenched in procedural comments). All that is now exceedingly clear, ie how you think on procedure, for me, and for anyone reading this section. I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines (and to a lesser extent Wikipedia talk:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance) if you want to change policies and other guidance on how Wikipedia's policies are written. This is not the place to hash that out. But let's move on regarding the topic at hand: to me it is exceedingly clear that some form of updating is recommended regarding all too easily recognising all sorts of mainstream newspapers as reliable sources in this policy. All thoughts and suggestions on that topic are welcome. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
"Mainstream newspapers may be used as reliable sources as described in WP:NEWSORG.
"Mainstream newspapers, journals and magazines may be used as reliable sources as described in WP:NEWSORG.
"Mainstream newspapers, journals and magazines may be used as reliable sourcesas described in WP:NEWSORG. Isolated publications of that type cannot be used as a source for controversial or sensational claims, per WP:REDFLAG.
The section on self-published sources could do with tightening given recent fights at, e.g., Knights of Columbus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I suggest adding the following below the list of exceptions:
This will help forestall arguments about exactly how much of an article has to be self-sourced before it's "based primarily on such sources". Self-sourcing is supposed to be a qualified exception, not a default allowing a subject to be framed primarily according to their own self-image or that of their fans. Guy ( help!) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
only for adding a non-controversial content. Otherwise, SPS should be used only to add some detail to the content obtained from independent reliable secondary sources. Content along the lines of "$SUBJECT states $OPINION (source, $SUBJECT stating $OPINION)" should be avoided, especially if they are predictable reactions to criticism."
non-controversialinformation about themselves"
non-controversialinformation about themselves. Otherwise we'll end up arguing on Talk whether marketing claims are "controversial" or not, for example. Alternatively:
@ JzG:@ Springee:@ North8000: Let me explain my point again. My major idea is that sourcing criteria cannot be absolutely uniform for such articles as, e.g, The Holocaust or Uncertainty principle and, such articles as, e.g., Cheerleading or Troy High School. Obviously, for lower importance and/or less controversial topics, sourcing criteria may be loose (of course, they are still should be minimally allowable by the policy). Otherwise, some articles could be impossible to write.
It is impossible to define in advance if some topic is controversial or important. However, that still can be done. If some users object to some text, and their objections are logical and based on good quality reliable sources, then we can speak about a controversy. In other words, a properly sourced edit is deemed non-controversial until no properly sourced objections have been presented. If some statement has been contested, and the criticism is well sourced, best available sources should be used to resolve a dispute, and, accordingly, usage of SPS should be reduced to the lowest possible level.
The advantage of that approach is obvious: we do not need to write a separate rule for every case or every type of sources. Instead, it literally says: "you guys can do whatever you want until there is no content disputes, however, in a case of a serious content dispute, sourcing criteria automatically become stricter."
That my proposal fully addresses Guy's concern, for his major idea seems not to limit SPS usage in all cases, but to limit their usage in controversial cases. However, my proposal also addresses a broad spectrum of problems, for, from my experience, lion's sgare of content disputes or edit wars develops according to a standard scenario: each party is pushing their own lousy source and rejects lousy sources that is being advocated by their opponent. In a situation when any edit war immediately makes sourcing criteria more stringent, majority of edit wars could be avoided.
@
Masem: "Business XYZ purports to be a modeling agency,(source)
" is by no means a controversial claim. Only a claim "Business XYZ is a modeling agency" is controversial. --
Paul Siebert (
talk) 17:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
only for adding a non-controversial content" discriminates between controversial (scenario #3) and non-controversial (scenario #2) cases.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@ JzG: Liberty University is a good example, let me continue with it. If my proposal is implemented, any materials taken from university's web site or university controlled newspapers are allowed, but thay can be removed if someone provides serious arguments demonstrating that that material is controversial. Thus, in this particular case, if you can support you words "pretty much everything about Liberty is inherently controversial" (I believe, you have all needed evidences), the modified policy would allow you to remove that content, and noone would be able to restore it. However, that would be done not based on some purely formal criteria, but because that SPS is controversial. Why that is important? Because materials from university's web sites are usually not inherently controversial. Thus, I doubt materials from Harvard University web site are controversial. Actually, I can imagine a situation when that could be controversial: for example, in the article about some scandalous event in Harvard. However, that is more an exception. The idea you are advocating is not good because it is based on formal criteria that are equally applicable to a wide range of sources, each of which may be of totally different quality and reliability. And that is a fundamental flaw of the policy, which makes no difference between, for example, Nature and Indian Journal of Pharmacology. According to our policy, both of them are peer-reviewed publications, but in reality, a difference in the level of publications in these two journals is greater than the difference between Harvard and Liberty universities.
However, due to unhomogeneity of Wikipedia, we have to use all types of formally reliable sources (otherwise, some articles will be impossible to write). To do that efficiently, we need a flexible mechanism that would allow us to remove some formally acceptable sources in cases similar to the one provided by you. And we will never achieve this goal by inventing additional ad hoc formal criteria. The approach should be totally different, similar to what I propose: lower quality sources (which minimally fit our RS criteria) should be allowed until some user provided serious counter-arguments. The counter arguments may be either that the source is too controversial (with proofs), or that the quality of that source is significantly lower than the quality of other sources in that concrete article. Again, as I already explain, that approach may allow us to quickly finish lion's share of all edit wars.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been threatening to talking about creating
Wikipedia:Based upon for years, and now is apparently the time. I have followed the idea behind
WP:LIKELY, under the belief that we benefit from having a shared understanding of what these common words, used across multiple policies, mean on wiki. In this case, I think we need to have a shared understanding of what it means for an article to be based upon something. For example, if most of the article's content comes from self-published sources, then it's "based upon" self-published sources. Or whatever.
Breast cancer awareness cites more scholarly books than anything else, so it is "based upon" scholarly books.
Schizophrenia cites mostly medical journal articles, so it is "based upon" medical journal articles (and its structure is "based upon"
WP:MEDMOS's suggested order). It's really not as complicated as some people might make it out to be. If people are basically satisfied with this explanation, then please feel free to link it wherever it might be helpful.
User:JzG, I have not adopted your suggestion that an article can't be "based upon" independent sources until 90% or more of the content comes from them. This is probably a desirable goal for articles about large businesses or major politicians, but I don't think that it is practical for short articles (e.g., most notable academics). So I have proposed a simple "majority" as the bare minimum for calling something "based upon" a particular source type. If you want to propose a higher standard for articles (e.g., "nearly all of their content is taken from"), then that means RFCs at the core policies, to change the core policies.
I predict that most editors will think that this is all perfectly fine, until their favorite oxen get gored. If we're serious about basing articles upon independent sources, then that limits our ability to create articles about "neglected" subjects (such as academics). Again, the place to relax (or to raise) that requirement wouldn't be at WP:Based upon; it would be at WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. This page reflects and explains the requirements that have been in the core policies for years. It does not create any new ones. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a possibly over- bold edit to insert a sentence (and footnote) on freedom of the press; please revert and discuss here as needed. HLHJ ( talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of sources in countries with low press freedom is a very controversial topic, since it involves judging not only the source, but also the country that it is based in. Perhaps you can start by editing the independent sources supplement, since it's quite clear to me that these sources are non-independent (though not necessarily unreliable) for government-related topics. If that goes over well, consider discussing it on WT:RS, as the guideline can afford to be more specific than this policy. — Newslinger talk 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources based in countries with low press freedom may be non-independent; this applies especially to state media, and to coverage of politics and other government-related topics. Consider using these sources with in-text attribution to clearly identify the provenance of the content, especially when it is opinionated or controversial.
I've notified WT:IS of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 19:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This is out of place here. You are talking about ACTUALLY reliable sources. Wp:RS is not about actual reliability. Otherwise you would see things like "objectivity" and "knowledge in the subject area" in this policy. Or to put it less flippantly, the discussion is dancing around the gorilla in the living room which has never gotten fixed. North8000 ( talk) 20:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.That means it implicitly introduces another criterion: "high quality sources - low quality sources". These two type criteria are, by and large, independent. Thus, some articles published in top rank peer-reviewed journals are of very poor quality, whereas some blogs may be excellent in terms of fact checking and accuracy. Of course, that does not mean that we should allow usage of some SPS because it looks good. That is obvious. What is not obvious is the following:
Sometimes, some sources that meet formal criteria applied to RS are of poor quality, and they cannot be used in Wikipedia to support certain statements.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications, as well as the books published by top rank universities are considered the best quality reliable sources for such fields as history, medicine, or science.
Non-academic sources may also be considered reliable, particularly if they appear in respected mainstream publications, such as books by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and newspapers, including electronic media.
Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements (see WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Search engine test for further details).
North8000I cannot understand how your last post follows from your previous post. In your previous post, you write that actual reliability has no relation to verifiability. Yes, I agree with that. Strictly speaking, the very name of the policy implies that it deals mostly with verifiability, and "reliable source" actually means "reliably published source", so everybody can take a reference, go to a library and see that the source X really says "Y", and Wikipedia transmits this information correctly. However, if we leave actual reliability beyond the scope, then which policy is supposed to define which sources are trustworthy and which are not? I don't see how NOR or NPOV can do that. To create some additional policy dealing with actual reliability is hardly a good solution, which means WP:V should focus on both verifiability and actual reliability.
Answering Paul, the big issues are that in the core of policies:
The 3 part big fix would be:
Unfortunately, I think that due to it's processes, en.Wikipedia is no longer capable of big fixes. But we can still try. :-) Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliably published sources may be of higher or lower quality, and, depending one the context, they may or may not be used to support certain statements). I do not think the policy should be more specific, the goal is to remove what some people see as blanket approval of some types of sources. Instead, the policy should redirect a user to WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:REDFLAG, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Search engine test, which explain reliability criteria in more details. In addition to that, I propose to make a stress on WP:BURDEN, to emphasize that the user who adds some source is expected to be ready to provide evidences that that source is reliable and can be used in this particular context. Currently, the policy implies that, but it does not say that explicitly. It should be clear that the user who wants to remove some source should not prove that the source is unreliable. In contrast, if adequate evidences of reliability and relevance are not presented in response to a justified criticism, that should be a sufficient criterion for removal.
I think we 90% agree. The 10% is:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw the note at
WT:IS.
User:Newslinger, the difficulty with saying "Sources based in countries with low press freedom may be non-independent" is that you need to specify what they're non-independent of. Even the most oppressively state-controlled media outlet would still an independent source for some content. If The Official Ruritanian Press Organ, in a country that produces neither coffee nor cacao, declares that coffee is a better drink than hot chocolate, then they're still independent for that claim. Being thoroughly biased (or even, as in my example, obviously and greviously wrong ;-)
) does not make a source any less independent.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 04:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
== Saudi sourcing problems ==
I ask editors to please be wary of some sources on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects. This has been raised here before, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews, but that was 2007.
The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, [1] requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. [2] [3] People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed. [4] [2]
The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country ( Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.
The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. [5] [6]
References
- ^ Campagna, Joel. "Saudi Arabia report: Princes, Clerics, and Censors". cpj.org. Committee to Protect Journalists.
- ^ a b "The High Cost of Change: Repression Under Saudi Crown Prince Tarnishes Reforms". Human Rights Watch. 350 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10118-3299 USA. 4 November 2019.
Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location ( link)- ^ Ismail, Raihan. "How is MBS's consolidation of power affecting Saudi clerics in the opposition?". Washington Post.
- ^ Yee, Vivian (26 November 2019). "Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Crackdown on Dissent, Rights Groups Say". The New York Times.
- ^ Massoglia, Anna (2 October 2019). "Saudi Arabia ramped up multi-million foreign influence operation after Khashoggi's death". OpenSecrets News. The Center for Responsive Politics.
- ^ Thebault, Reis; Mettler, Katie (December 24, 2019). "Instagram influencers partied at a Saudi music festival — but no one mentioned human rights".
How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to New Pages Patrol) HLHJ ( talk) 19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples of Saudi government position changes
|
---|
Obviously it has an interest in portraying the Saudi government as capable, and Saudi Arabia as a thriving country in which nearly everything is going very well (and as an appealing tourist destination). I read a headline a couple says ago which said ~"Saudi Arabia excels in human rights". However, sometimes it can be more complex. For instance, until a few years ago, Saudi Arabia supported some groups of official clerics, who controlled the information ministry and the religious police. Then they ran a media campaign against them preparatory to transferring control of the ministry and stripping the religious police of most of their powers; the media were criticizing part of the government with support of a more powerful faction. Until a few years ago the Muslim Brotherhood were officially praised and members were appointed to official roles; the media followed suit. Now they are declared a terrorist organization, and condemned in the news. Relations to Qatar; once an ally to be praised, it can now be death to support them, or, sometimes, fail to oppose them actively enough. Yemen and Canada have also suffered abrupt reversals of esteem. Women driving was opposed, then supported (with the government explicitly honouring some activists in a public-opinion campaign), then it was announced that it would be permitted and and the activists who had called for it were arrested, so that activism to win concessions from the government would not be encouraged (this was in 2018; many are still in jail). Tourism was illegal in Saudi Arabia until recently, pilgrimage tours excepted; now the government is promoting it.
|
I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.
Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.
Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This revert was presented as a restoration of an old consensus version. However, as far as I understand, the reverted change was made year ago, and I am not aware of any objections. That means the reverted version can be considered a long standing consensus version too.
I am not going to revert Visviva for two reasons. First, I think, BOLD should not be applied to policy page: if a possibility of revert cannot be ruled out, it is always better to discuss the change on the talk page. The policy is something that is supposed to be stable, so the less changes, the better.
Second, what Visviva is saying is correct: the version reverted by Visviva "would justify deleting >90% of the encyclopedia". However, that is only a part of truth. The second truth is that these 90% of Wikipedia content is not the most precious part of it. In reality, it is remaining 10% (i.e. articles like World War II 30,000 views per day, Global warming 14,000 views daily, or United States 45,000 views daily), which make Wikipedia a respectable and trustworthy resource.
In other words, Loose sourcing criteria allow Wikipedia to grow rapidly, to cover a broad range of subjects, and to recruit myriads of amateur editors. However, the very same liberal sourcing rules make creation of a top quality content much more difficult, and I suspect that is a reason why many professional experts are not too enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia.
We have a dilemma:
All of that means that the policy should set floating criteria for sources. These criteria should allow us to use marginally acceptable sources (local newspapers, magazines, movies, etc) for low importance or stab articles, and to prohibit usage of questionable sources in high importance/good/featured articles, or in the articles that are based upon, for example, scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Any thoughts?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The common sense version that is used in reality (except when there is wiki-lawyering) is that when the material is more questionable or questioned, stronger and more "by the book/ideal" sourcing is required, and when the material is less questionable or questioned, weaker or less "by the book/ideal" sourcing is OK. Since 100% "by-the-book / ideal" sources are maybe about 10% of the sourcing in Wikipedia, this practice is very important, and IMO any wording that would tend to preclude it is not a good idea. North8000 ( talk) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"does not answer whether a source should be used or not"and
"does not understand context", and WP:UPSD § Common cleanup and non-problematic cases provides good advice. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Are members-only sections of websites considered WP:V? On the one hand, any member can verify the source. On the other, membership may be difficult to obtain and if only one or a handful of editors have access, how can we know for certain? Thoughts? Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If I can visit the website, sign up, pay a fee, and boom, I'm a member, that's fine. If I have to be friends with a particular person, or an employee of a particular company, or a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon, then it's not. Also factored in here would be whether there is any kind of secrecy requirement to being a member. If access to the publication requires signing an agreement not to share it outside the group, then that is clearly a private communication and not something meant to be public. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hiya I have two questions provoked by a current Good Article review in which I am the nominator. Bilorv is the reviewer and we are in amicable disagreement about these things, so I suggested asking here for feedback on two specific issues:
Firstly, the article in question ( We Are Here (collective)) is about a Dutch collective, so a fair few of the citations are in Dutch. In using a foreign language citation, I am aware that I am translating the information and I could be challenged to provide a quotation by another editor (as set out in the Citation subsection), so I have been including (in Dutch) the relevant sentences in the citation under the quote parameter. I feel that this is best practice, since it would be wrong to expect people reading English wikipedia to speak Dutch and/or to expect them to trawl through an entire article to find a reference, but in the age of machine translation it isn’t too much for anyone to translate a few sentences, and I am providing the relevant ones so they don’t have to ask. If they did ask, I would then add the same text.
To give an example of what I am talking about: The city council argues that its actions are limited by the policy of the Dutch Government.
is backed by a citation from Karman writing in Parool newspaper and I provided a quote from the article, namely “Dat tot frustratie van de burgemeester en de gemeenteraad, die allebei graag meer wilden doen, maar moesten blijven herhalen dat niet Amsterdam, maar Den Haag over het asielbeleid gaat en dat de stad geen asielzoekers mág opvangen” which shows the council was clashing with the Government in Den Haag (which thus backs up the English sentence in the article).
Bilorv is quite rightly raising concerns about copyright and so I wondered what the best practice is here. Would it best to delete the Dutch which is currently held in the references as a quote or does this serve as a useful way for others to factcheck? The relevant bit of
WP:NONENG is As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page
.
Secondly, regarding the the Quoting subsection, I am wondering how best to deal with a direct quote in the article. So to again take an example from the text:Acting mayor Jozias van Aartsen remarked that ”You must be very careful with the mayor's office and not go down the route of politicizing the mayor's role."
Having written this translation of what Aartsen said in the article text, I added the Dutch original in the quote parameter of the citation - "U moet heel voorzichtig zijn met het ambtburgemeester en niet de route op gaan om de burgemeester te politiseren."
Having done that, do I then need to add the English translation again in the citation in square brackets?
The relevant sentence of
WP:NONENG here is If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.
And I suppose also In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians
.
Bilorv suggests I do add the English translation which is in the text again in the citation, so it is then right next to the Dutch, but I feel it's unnecessary to do that. Obviously in this case, it isn’t a major problem either way since it’s no work at all to add the English quote from the article text into the citation as well, I am just again interested what people think the best practice is.
Since this is something that I have been considering with other articles, including other GA noms, I’d really appreciate some feedback to set me on the right path. Bilorv I hope I haven't misrepresented your position. Thanks for any help! Mujinga ( talk) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
When your write "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable", does "verifiable" mean that all material should be verifiable in the text (i.e. not just as external links, but with inline-citations or similar) or that a source much exist, but not given in the text? Looking forward to your answer. Tøndemageren ( talk) 14:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable sourcea paragraph up? -- Izno ( talk) 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Simon of Trent an interesting debate is going on.
I added material I thought I saw in an RS (but a google preview). When it was challenged I could no longer find it (I had also checked one or two other sources, and it may be I read it in one of those). I stated I could not verify the text I added and a third user took "Umbrage" to this and has argued that the user who challenged the text should have AGF about my claim to have seen it (in essence I said I had read it and that should have been enough to keep it). I argued that I could not find it anymore and thus could not give (for example) even a page number and (in effect) I was told that I should AGF about having seen the text and it had been verified.
Now another user has fetched up and said I do not understand verifiability.
So my question is this, is it correct to say that if I can remember seeing something that is enough and the text has been verified (I know the answer, I want someone else to say it), or am I in fact correct and I still have to be able to "prove" (verify) the text with a cite? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, so far yes I think my interpretation seems to be correct, I still have to be able to provide a citation if it is challenged, and AGF does not trump that. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)