Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:30, 29 April 2006

• ]

• Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/archive1
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/archive2

What's the point?

This project page tells in big bold letters:

• We report what reliable publications publish. We do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong. See Misplaced Pages:No original research.

Now, consider this. Suppose someone puts into the Ernest Shackleton article a claim that he came within 156 km of the South Pole.

No source was added for this, when this was actually put into Misplaced Pages. But I can easily provide 100 reliable sources for this "fact", including Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, other printed books, web sites from educational institutions, etc.

Consequently, you try to tell us that we cannot "investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate" this? That's just bullshit, plain and simple.

I could, of course, also easily provide 100 reliable sources for the fact that Ernest Shackleton's closest approach to the South Pole was 180 km. Some of them would even be the same sources which also provide the 156 km figure, in other parts of the same reference work.

It is also easy to see where the error comes in. It is a simple matter of misconverting a value of "97 miles", because the miles were not properly identified. Yet the fools writing this page and WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR write these pages as if it would be impermissible "original research" to take that closest approach expressed in latitude, in the very same sentence in this article, as 88°23' south, figure out that this is 97 minutes of arc from the South Pole, and that a nautical mile is roughly a minute of arc, and from that simple investigation, then proceed evaluate this particular statement of fact that he came within 156 km of the pole as being totally unreliable, even though it can easily be verified from reliable publications (such as several in this Google search ) Gene Nygaard 08:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else posited the theory for that mistake? Baldly, I suppose I mean can you source that, and if so, you can add it. Which you probably know already. Personally, I'd do it all in a footnote, mention the two distances in the article, and then place what you say about the mistaken conversion in a footnote which also cites a couple of texts where the different numbers are stated, and also drop a note to that effect on the talk page. Don't know if that helps? Steve block The wikipedian meme 10:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong answer. Not even addressing the right question.

According to this guideline, we are not even supposed to "attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong". What you propose, of course, would be doing just that.

That's the issue here—the wording of this guideline. Fortunately, there are enough Misplaced Pages editors with enough common sense not to go by that so that I don't ever anticipate any real problems with the article itself. Gene Nygaard 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But there's no issue with the guideline; what you're suggesting is forbidden by WP:NOR policy, and for good reason. As I point out below as well, Misplaced Pages has no way of evaluating whether or not your argument is correct, reasonable, plausible, etc. As soon as we allow this, the floodgates open up for every crackpot on the web to use Misplaced Pages to "prove" that the truth (on what ever matter obsesses them) is quite different from what all published sources say on the matter. If some published sources say 156km, and others say 180km, then we simply report both. Period. If the difference is important, then some reliable source will have recognized it and commented on it. And Misplaced Pages editors do not count as reliable sources. What you describe as "common sense" is usually actually an unfamiliarity with policy, combined with an unfamiliarity with or disinterest in the subject matter. Jayjg 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First, are you so sure that a third-party source explaining the likely error can't actually be found?

Second, if not, what's the problem with putting in a footnote saying "Some sources say 180 km, some say 156, some say 97 miles. 97 nautical miles = 180 km. 97 statute miles = 156 km. The closest approach was 88°23' which is 97 minutes of latitude = 97 nautical miles from the pole." Those last sentence is pointing in a certain direction but it is hardly original research. Then let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matter in the least if I could find a third-party source explaining the likely error. According to the rules, I cannot investigate and I cannot ... attempt to evaluate if they are right or wrong. Gene Nygaard 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Because Misplaced Pages has no way of evaluating whether or not your argument is correct, reasonable, plausible, etc. As soon as we allow this, the floodgates open up for every crackpot on the web to use Misplaced Pages to "prove" that the truth is quite different from what all published sources say on the matter. Jayjg 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much what the people above have said; you quote the various sources. You don't investigate and come up with your own novel theories regarding the different numbers, as that is original research. If it's important, sooner or later someone will publish this theory in a reputable source (if it has not been done already). Jayjg 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your statement here contradicts your later one just above it. What possible difference could itr make, even if someone did publish that theory? We still cannot use it to investigate or to try to evaluate the truth of the published sources we already have. I suppose we could then clutter up the article some more, by publishing a theory to explain something for which nobody in the whole wide world argues to the contrary? Gene Nygaard 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. If a theory is published in a reliable source, it can be included where relevant. As for strawman arguments, they don't add much to the discussion. Jayjg 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is, of course, prohibited investigation into the truth of the matter to even look for such a source which explains the error. Gene Nygaard 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense again. Finding reliable sources relevant to a subject and quoting them is what editors should do. Please take this discussion seriously. Jayjg 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about you taking it seriously. What is it that you don't understand about We do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong? Gene Nygaard 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? We present the information that reliable sources provide. We don't do our own research into whether or not we think the information the reliable sources provide is true or false. You seem to be making something of this, but I'm not sure what. Jayjg 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The see also at the end is only supplemental to the stated rule.

The stated rule says nothing whatsoever about "my own research".

It says we do not investigate, we do not evaluate the truth of the statement. Period. No limitation only to "by our own research". Gene Nygaard 03:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to keep forgetting that these guidelines and policies work together, not in isolation, and that your definition of "investigate" is a unique strawman one that has nothing to do with policy. Moreover, you obviously can't mean what you're claiming now, since your proposed examples all involved adding pure original research regarding Shackleton etc. Regardless, you're not making sense any more, but are determined to have the last word anyway, so I yield the last comment to you. Have at it. Jayjg 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No matter how they "work together", when an explicit rule is stated in one of them—AND BOLDFACED ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE, JUST SO WE KNOW IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT—it would thus work the same in conjunction with the rest of it.

If that isn't what was intended, then it isn't what should be said. Gene Nygaard 03:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't investigate or evaluate whether they are wrong by utilizing your own original research. This means you can't cite yourself as a source for claims you write in the articles. Your personal interview with the spirit of Princess Diana may be perfectly legit, but we aren't in a position to determine that, so we require reputable, reliable, and verifiable sources. If you want to include sources that are verifiable, then you can do so. Just remember that articles are developed through consensus and if specific points of view are determined to be so minor or held by so few people that they are insignifican, then they can be excluded from the article. There is no way to make hard and fast rules that document every possible thing that can and should be done in an encyclopedia. If we could do that then the encyclopedia would literally write itself. If you are coming here hoping that we can fully explain away every possible interpretation of every word in all the policies and guidelines, then you will find yourself disappointed. The short answer: you are free to make edits that are verifiable, even if those edits have a point of view different from others already in the article. If there are indeed multiple points of view, then try to make sure you maintain a neutral point of view with your edits and explain that various people have different points of view and provide sources that document all sides of the significant points-of-view. Vivaldi (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If the agreement is that this guideline doesn't mean what it says, then it's not that damn hard to start trying to fix it.

It sure took you and Jayjg an inordinately long time to get around to admitting even that much. Gene Nygaard 10:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Jayjg, you seem to be making some interpretation based on what you expect to see here, rather than reading what is actually written.

Furthermore, there are not multiple points of view involved here. Gene Nygaard 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read what is written and I feel that you have some sort of misunderstanding about what is written. The "no investigation" deal means that your own original research shouldn't be used. You are of course allowed to edit the articles and add information that meets the policy of verifiability. And again, if you are expecting the guidelines and policies or conventions or style guides to directly lead to text on a page, then you have the wrong idea here. We use a process called consensus building to create the articles, so we have a group idea about what it means when it says "no investigations" -- and that idea clearly seems to be in conflict with what you think it means. If you are going to insist on absolute policies that specifically mention which words are going to be allowed in Misplaced Pages and in which order they will be allowed, then I'm afraid you will be forever unsatisfied with your stay here. Vivaldi (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read what you've written here, but little of it makes sense, and what does make sense contradicts the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg 02:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A point of information to substantiate Gene Nygaard's statement: The 8th edition Oxford Concise Dictionary defines research as:" the systematic investigation into and study of materials, sources, etc., in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions. b. an endeavour to discover new or collate old facts etc. by the scientific study of a subject or by a course of critical investigation." It defines evaluate as: "assess, appraise." Evaluation then, is not a violation of any wikipedia policy. As long as one does not systematically investigate, conduct a scientific study, or a course of critical investigation, there is no original research. Misplaced Pages editors can even analyse: "examine in detail the constitution or structure of." I hope this helps. --Fahrenheit451 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't help, because the "evaluation" you describe is, of course original research, which is forbidden by policy. Jayjg 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, evaluation is different from research. We need to operate on the english language here, and Jayjg can call arbitrarily anything research he wants to by working without definitions. Misplaced Pages editors have every right to evaluate, but not present original research. --Fahrenheit451 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No matter what you do, you are always doing some interpretation of what your sources say. Gene Nygaard 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps; nevertheless WP:NOR states that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." What you've done above obviously qualifies. Jayjg 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a fer-instance. I have an unreliable source making this claim; let's just assume for the sake of argument that it were a reliable one:

• "I have now found my taped copy of the original cylinder recording and it starts off with Sir Ernest stating "We reached the point of within 97 geographical miles of the South Pole. The only thing that stopped us from reaching the actual pole, was the lack of 50 pounds of food............".

In order to use that, you need to determine what Shackleton meant when he said "geographical mile".

So, how do you determine whether or not this is something different from a statute mile?

I suppose you could look for a source explaining what a geographical mile is, including that article here on Misplaced Pages. But, in doing so you discover that "geographical mile" is an ambiguous term with several different meanings:

• a nautical mile, in any of its various meanings over time, roughly equal to one minute of arc on the Earth's surface

• a particular nautical mile based on the circumference of the Earth at the Equator. Because of the shape of the Earth, this is longer than any of the other nautical miles, which are normally based on some midrange value for the circumference as you go along a meridian through the poles.

• a unit equal to four minutes of arc based on the circumference of the Earth at the Equator.

So do we just forget about it? Useless information? A bunch of people here have been claiming that it would be prohibited "original research" to try to determie which of those definitions jibes with the undisputed, published latitude figures. Gene Nygaard 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand what your convoluted example is about, but it's hardly likely it's relevant in any event. Quote reliable sources, not your own made up theories. That's simple. Jayjg 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, it doen't surprise me in the least that you cannot understand a straightforward issue like that.

So let' just flesh it out a bit. Assume that there is already a referenced statement that the closest approach was "97 nautical miles".

Should I now add a footnote that Shackleton himself says it isn't that, but rather "97 geographical miles", because I also left my brains behind at the door when I came in, so I am no loger able to determine if they are the same thing and need to leave it up to the reader?

BTW, it is no longer limited to unreliable sources. Those words are available straight from the horse's mouth. Shackleton's recorded speech is available online in mp3 and wav format at the Cylinder Preservation and Digitization Project of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Gene Nygaard 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Jayjg wrote was clear. If you have reputable and reliable sources that are verifiable, then you may add claims to the articles using those sources. Keep in mind, there is lots of information that is verifiable that doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, which is why we have what Misplaced Pages is not and other similar guidelines and policies. In the end, no matter how much you dig around in the guidelines and policies for direction, you are going to end up in the same place. You will need to build consensus for your point of view if you want your controversial edits to remain in place. There are means you can use to help you in this process. You can use RfCs, mediation processes, communication on IRC, visits to the Village Pump or what have you. But if you think that editors will allow you to use your own convoluted interpretations of the policies and guidelines to produce an effect that is clearly against the spirit of those same policies and guidelines, then again, I'm afraid you have found the wrong place for editing. Vivaldi (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What a bizzarre, totally irrelevant ramble! Somebody ought to make up an award for gems like this. Gene Nygaard 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Investigate vs original research

A recent edit added the heghlighted distinction: We do not by our own original research investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong. See Misplaced Pages:No original research.

I would argue that it is unecessary. First, it reads quite akwardly, and second, there is a link to WP:NOR ate end of sentence. Maybe it can be tweaked for emphasis. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's unnecessary and looks a bit awkward. The link at the end of the sentence is explanation enough. SlimVirgin 12:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A light-face link can only be supplemental to the black-letter stated rule. It does limit that rule in any way whatsoever.

If someone is going to quote this quideline, they are going to quote what is written in black letters. To do so is false and misleading, and contrary to the so-far unanimous agreement on this talk page that it is more accurate with the added qualification. Gene Nygaard 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Jossi, that addition is not highlighted in distinction from the rest of the sentence in which it appears. You are being disingenuous by not highlighting the whole sentence. Gene Nygaard 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Am a correct in that you were also merely sloppy in bolding the See Misplaced Pages:No original research part? That is neither a part of my recent addition nor highlighted on the project page, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case because the three apostrophe's which cause it are unmatched, so it is only closed by the end of the paragraph. Gene Nygaard 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And no, it doesn't really matter all that much whether the link is highlighted on the project page or not. It is still unspecific background information, something which does not narrow or restrict the plain language of the stated rule in any way. Gene Nygaard 13:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It would probably be instructive for all of you to read through the section I start above, keeping in mind that my comments are based on what was actually written in this rule, and the comments of Jayjg, Vivaldi, Steve block, and Dpbsmith all appear to be (and in the first two cases are admitted to be) based on how they imagined it to be written, as if it already included the part which I have now added. Gene Nygaard 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from revising history; no-one has "admitted" that their comments are based on how they "imagine" the "rule" to be written, and my comments certainly were not made on that basis, though yours were certainly based on some imaginative interpretations of what is stated in that sentence. If your statements continue to display this level of intellectual and factual dishonesty, then there will be no point in my responding to any of them, and I will instead merely edit as I see fit. Jayjg 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not revising history; we can read what you wrote above, too.

• Jayjg:"You don't investigate and come up with your own novel theories regarding the different numbers, as that is original research. If it's important, sooner or later someone will publish this theory in a reputable source (if it has not been done already).

Not only do you say it is limited to "original research", but in the actual wording then, whether or not someone else published it is totally irrelevant to the probhibition of inventigation and evaluation of the truth.

And this series:

• Jayjg:We don't do our own research into whether or not we think the information the reliable sources provide is true or false.

• GN:It says we do not investigate, we do not evaluate the truth of the statement. Period. No limitation only to "by our own research".

• Jayjg:You seem to keep forgetting that these guidelines and policies work together, not in isolation, and that your definition of "investigate" is a unique strawman one that has nothing to do with policy.

Of course, as Vivaldi pointed out below, this rule is not "policy". Gene Nygaard 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be instructive for all of you to read through the section I start above, keeping in mind that my comments are based on what was actually written in this rule, and the comments of Jayjg, Vivaldi, Steve block, and Dpbsmith all appear to be (and in the first two cases are admitted to be) based on how they imagined it to be written, as if it already included the part which I have now added. Gene Nygaard First of all, this isn't a "rule". It is a guideline. Secondly, if you continue to use your imaginative and convoluted interpretation of this one specific sentence in a guideline to justify actions which clearly are against the consensus viewpoint and against the spirit of this guideline and all the other policies and guidelines and conventions of Misplaced Pages -- you will find that your editing time here will be unproductive. I do not "imagine" this to be a "rule", nor do I "imagine" that this guideline is written in any manner than what it is. I, and many other editors, don't have the difficult problems you seem to have in understanding what this sentence means to editors. Vivaldi (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Rule" is the more general term, one without the specific Wikijargon meanings of "guideline" and "policy".

You act as if we cannot read what you wrote above:

Written in response to my stating of the rule as written:

• "You don't investigate or evaluate whether they are wrong by utilizing your own original research. This means you can't cite yourself as a source for claims you write in the articles."

Written in response to my pointing out that "Like Jayjg, you seem to be making some interpretation based on what you expect to see here, rather than reading what is actually written".

• The "no investigation" deal means that your own original research shouldn't be used."

Gene Nygaard 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gene- Like you've been instructed before, this one particular sentence does not exist in a vacuum. We have lots of other guidelines and policies that are contructed all over the place to help you put this particular guideline in its proper context. You are insisting on dissecting out a particular sentence and interpreting it in the strictist sense possible, when it is obvious to nearly every other editor here that the strictist sense is not the correct one. You must view this sentence in the context of other guidelines and policies. In particular, you have been guided towards No Original Research. I agree with you that one possible interpretation of this sentence is that nobody may ever do any fact checking, but I believe that strict interpretation is clearly not correct given my understanding of Misplaced Pages and the full context of all the guidelines, policies, conventions, styles, etc... Vivaldi (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, if you agree that "nobody may ever do any fact checking" is a possible interpretation, why not change to wording to rule this interpretation out, and make this sentence more consistent with the rest of the policy? My suggestion is:

• change "we do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong"
• to "articles should not investigate, or in any other way evaluate, whether a source is right or wrong."

This makes clear that the problem is putting OR in articles. The problem is not (as in Gene's example) doing some calculations to check the credibility of a source.Ragout 03:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, any unsolicited private instruction I may have received is irrelevant. It doesn't change the plain English of the actual wording.

There's probably a word for it, though it doesn't come to mind right now. This is like the print equivalent of a soundbite.

That's what other people are going to get thrown at them—what appears to be a concise summary of the section. Though it does rather baffle me why the summary of this section doesn't have something to do with using multiple sources instead.

I didn't realize when I started this, but the bold highlighting of one sentence to make it really stand out from the rest of the paragraph was something that had only been added by SlimVirgin a few days earlier. Gene Nygaard 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)typo fixed 10:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also chose to refer to it as a "rule" in this case to make it clearer that I was talking about one particular piece of advice found on the page. In Wikijargon usage, "guideline" is often used for the page as a whole, as in "WP:RS is a guideline". Gene Nygaard 17:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's important to disinguish Original Research from editorial oversight. It is not "original research" to not include inofrmation that is deemed unfit. That is an editorial decision. For example, the Flat Earth Societies scientific description of the Global Positioning System, while may be sourced to the hilt with their experts, it is editorial judgement that assesses those claims, not Original Research. Misplaced Pages is not just a collection of links and views of whomever has an opinion.

Gene, perhaps you should create a special sub-page of this talk page where you can publish your own interesting thoughts and unique theories regarding policies at length, and leave some room on the actual Talk: page for the rest of us to get on with working on the guideline. If you click on Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Gene Nygaard's ideas you can get started. Just a thought. Jayjg 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what the issue is here, except that the change is not an improvement. SlimVirgin 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is what everyone here has been saying the existing rule actually is. Including you. And the redundancy problem you complained about has been taken care of. Gene Nygaard 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between the two versions? I can see a difference in the writing quality (one is good, one is awkward), but otherwise I can't see one. SlimVirgin 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gene's version is still redundant, as it mentions the NOR policy two sentences in a row, and is also non-encyclopedic "it is not the job of Wikipedians etc." Those would be other differences. Jayjg 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, that redundancy is easy to fix. Take it out of the unbolded portion as well; it adds nothing to the meaning there. Leave it in the bolded portion, where it clarifies the meaning, in accordance with what everybody has been saying here on the talk page. Gene Nygaard 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was easy to fix, and I fixed it. It's now concise, well-written, and unambiguous. Problem solved. Jayjg 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't fixed.

1. It suffers from the same problem as the version from before I raised the issue of not identifying the "investigation" and "attempts to evaluate" applying when they are done "by our own original research".

• The link to WP:NOR in your version is just a preamble, rather than a postscript, and does nothing more to limit the application of the rule stated in the main clause than it did before.

2. The term "In accordance with" is at best misplaced, and at worst grossly misleading. Gene Nygaard 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gene. We've finished with that section and moved on. If you have more musings, please remember to use Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Gene Nygaard's ideas. Thanks. Jayjg 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But I see you've gone ahead and already filled it with the things you can understand! Gene Nygaard 02:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you agree with them or not, recent edits by Rjensen, Ragout, and Tbeatty have highlighted additional problems with the wording of this particular rule.

If it weren't for whole hordes of editors constantly investigating, testing, and evaluating most everything written on Misplaced Pages, Wikidpedia wouldn't be worth a minute of my time nor anyone else's.

WP:RS deals with the use of reliable sources for what is published in the articles. It is beyond the scope of authority of this guideline to prescribe what happens outside of that.

Furthermore, I'd suggest that if a Jayjg/User:SlimVirgin version of this rule is to remain, then we need a glossary on this project page to explain the unique meanings used here for terms such as:

• Investigate (see especially User:Vivaldi explanations in this section and in #What's the point)
• Evaluate
• In accordance with
• See

There are probably others which could be added to this list. Gene Nygaard 13:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another problem:

WP:NOR stands on its own two feet. It is not the role of WP:RS to try to paraphrase and restate it.

One of the problems, of course, is that any such paraphrase will be based on a "snapshot" of that page.

Since original research can never be a "reliable source", there really isn't a whole lot more that needs to be said about it here. Gene Nygaard 14:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Gene, you're on the wrong page. Remember, please use Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Gene Nygaard's ideas. Jayjg 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am using that. It is a special page for every on-topic response from Jayjg . Gene Nygaard 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything in WP:NOR amounting to "we do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong". I'm very pleased too! The issue is what may properly be entered into Misplaced Pages. On the basis of what one believes is factual, one may make verifiable (and preferably verified) edits, supported by reputable sources. There is no requirement to ignore the real world, the requirement is to describe the world with reference to reputable sources without reporting one's own conclusions from these sources. I am sorry Gene Nygaard has met with such a negative response from some editors. Perhaps his strong and vivid example regarding Shackleton has diverted attention from the change he attempted to this guideline. Thincat 11:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There do seem to be an inordinate amount of people hanging around here who can't see the forest for the trees, aren't there? And that's even after I pointed out to Steve block right away that he had missed the point entirely—that the issue here was precisely that, the wording of this rule. Gene Nygaard 12:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The point Thincat makes is also precisely why I suggested that we have a glossary and that it include the Jayjg/SlimVirgin meaning of In accordance with, and also why I pointed out that it is not the role of WP:RS to paraphrase and restate WP:NOR. Gene Nygaard 12:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental problems with "Check multiple independent sources"

The problems with this section of the problem go far beyond those discussed in a couple of the talk page sections above.

The first two paragraphs deal with various faults in perception and memory, a couple of the things which can cause variations in what you find even in "reliable sources".

The third paragraph says that "if multiple independent sources agree" (note that it doesn't say all) and they are either not biased or their biases balance, "then you may have a reliable account".

But the rest of this section, and the rest of WP:RS in general, seems to be devoted to the proposition that a "reliable account" is not the goal, is not even a legitimate goal, and is in fact irrelevant. What we are striving for is a "verifiable" account from "reliable sources".

The second fundamental problem is that while the third paragraph does at least provide some guidance when multiple sources agree, nowhere are we given any advice about what to do when we run across those inevitable variations in verifiable accounts from reliable sources, the very thing we are warned so strongly about in the first two paragraphs of this section.

Given that no real guidance is provided, what's the purpose of having a guideline in the first place? Gene Nygaard 15:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My view of this debate

I just noticed a mention of this on the Village pump. It appears to me that Fahrenheit451 does not understand the Verifiability policy (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability), and that Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources is really a corollary guideline in support of the Verifiability policy. I applaud SlimVirgin's efforts to keep this guideline consistent with the policy.

You presumption is incorrect. I suggest you stop guessing and speculating. The issues here involve many editors and the WP:NOR as well.

The real dispute here is over the Verifiability policy. Basically, Fahrenheit451 is unable to accept that assertions made on personal Web pages are inherently unreliable and unverifiable. It sounds like he or she has never done actual historical research. Furthermore, it's not too hard to find articles stored within databases run by reputable information providers; see Misplaced Pages:How to write a great article, which I have made extensive contributions to. For an example of what a properly researched article looks like, see the heavily footnoted Lawyer article, which I completely revised a month ago.

Wrong again. Stop guessing and speculating. Start asking. I see from you user page that you are an attorney. Perhaps you should employ your questioning skills, if extant, to ascertain the facts. --Fahrenheit451 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I have the advantage of living in a U.S. state that prides itself on open access to information (there are over 40 libraries with public access within 10 miles of where I sit right now). If Fahrenheit451 is too lazy, busy, old, infirm, disabled, etc. to go out there and dig up some reliable resources (they're called books), he or she may wish to limit their participation in Misplaced Pages to activities that do not require research, like editing or uploading self-taken photographs. --Coolcaesar 20:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you like California. It so happens that Florida has a stronger public records law in our constitution, and plenty of municipal libraries in the urbanized counties. I responded to your trolling personal attack below. --Fahrenheit451 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please cool-off. Take a break if you need to. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to Fahrenheit451: Well, all your responses were conclusory statements rather than persuasive ones! That is, you merely stated my analysis is wrong, but you didn't say why. Turning back to the point, can you actually adduce any facts in support of your apparent belief that at least some personal websites are reliable sources? I have already noted here and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages the widespread availability of many reputable sources other than personal websites. --Coolcaesar 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K. A personal website that displays affidavits and depositions would be as reliable as a corporate website that did same. --Fahrenheit451 23:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A corperation has a governing body and is owned by its public. Its governing body owes their jobs to the stockholders of the corperation in one way or another, thence, a number of people, in one manner or another, have an interest in the quality the corperation posts and maintains. It is the element of responsibility that makes a personal website both powerful (can publish literally anything at all) and unreliable (one person can change their published views at any moment. Generally, a personal website will tend to be less stable, less conservative, more flambouant, more colorful and more responsive. While a personal website, funded by one person's own resources might contain the purest fantesy, a corperation website is in place to uphold an income and an image. By nature a corperation tends to be more stable and reliable than one person's fleeting opinion. Terryeo 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a violation of wikipedia policy

Coolcaesar, you do not know me and I do not appreciate your personal attacks at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#My_view_of_this_debate. In fact, I have done much library research both in school and in college. I have an extensive personal library at home. I encourage you to constructively participate in our discussion. If you cannot do that, perhaps you should take your own hostile advice and limit your "participation in Misplaced Pages to activities that do not require research, like editing or uploading self-taken photographs". --Fahrenheit451 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

FAQ's

This article really needs to mention something about FAQ's. We need some guidance on this. For example, there is the "An Anarchist FAQ." If an editor on Misplaced Pages is one of the writers of that FAQ, and a sources is requested of him, all he has to do is add his original research to the FAQ and then come back and attempt to cite it. This has actually happened when I requested a source of someone. The FAQ is initially issued from a geocities.com website then it's circulated around, so how can it be claimed that it is a "partisan website"? What is the exact policy on this? RJII 20:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This has actually happened when I requested a source of someone. Unsupportable accusation. RJII has personal problems with the FAQ. Read the above section "Citation fraud?" for his attempts to accuse one user of doing this. Now he's asserting his accusation as truth. -- infinity0 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That website is what the policy refers to a "Personal website". As such, it cannot be used as a reference for anything other than the article An Anarchist FAQ itself. That is, if that website is notable enough to warrant an article in WP. I am not familiar with the subject, but if there are concerns of notability, you could try and ask for comments from other editors, via an WP:RFC. Now, in regard to your concern about the author of that FAQ editing the article in WP about that FAQ, please note that this is strongly discouraged by the community. See WP:AUTO ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That website is not a personal website, just because it is hosted by geocities. "An Anarchist FAQ" is a widely distributed and well-received document in the anarchist community and it would be a crime not to allow it to be used as a source. It's mirrored on many websites, such as http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ which is the most popular anarchist website on the net. -- infinity0 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But you've said elsewhere that people are allowed to add material to it, is that right? SlimVirgin 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything is checked by the editors. See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html for details. -- infinity0 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they published writers or researchers, or otherwise known? If not, I don't see how that helps. Example of the problem with personal and unsupervised websites: You added something to a Misplaced Pages article and it's challenged. The other editor asks you for a source. You look around and can't find one. So you go to this website and you add the material there. So long as it looks vaguely acceptable to the others, they won't remove it. Then you use the website as a source for your original edit on Misplaced Pages. That's exactly the kind of scenario this policy seeks to avoid. SlimVirgin 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to get some kind of a ruling on the "An Anarchist FAQ." People are going to try to cite as a secondary source over and over. It would be good if there could be some kind of decision that could be referenced. Is an RFC, like Jossi suggested, the best way to go about this? RJII 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain exactly how it works i.e. what the procedure is when people want to add something to it? SlimVirgin 03:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it seems to be an "organic document" that keeps being edited (I found at least ten different versions in multiple mirrors). Theres is some copyright info and the names of the main contributors here: . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the fluid nature of this document, and given that it is released under the GNU, one possibility would be to simply add it to Wikisource, and having an short article here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that anyone can add to it. Is that right? If so, what's the procedure? SlimVirgin 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a formal process as such. Seems that Ian McKay is the main writer. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It says this in the intro page of the FAQ: "We are sure that there are many issues that the FAQ does not address. If you think of anything we could add or feel you have a question and answer which should be included, get in contact with us. The FAQ is not our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims to be an organic, living creation. We desire to see it grow and expand with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible. If you want to get involved with the FAQ then contact us. Similarly, if others (particularly anarchists) want to distribute all or part of it then feel free. It is a resource for the movement. For this reason we have "copylefted" the FAQ (see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html for details)." And it says at the bottom of the page: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation, and/or the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation." From mirror version at Infoshop.org I don't know how this kind of GNU thing works. Does this mean anyone can modify it and put it on their own website? Or do you have to email them or what? I don't know. But, it appears that the geocities site is where it originates. Whoever is running that site can add what they want and it eventually gets distributed around. But, it says permission is granted to modify, so does that mean I can edit it and post it? I don't know. RJII 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the FAQ page on the Geocities cite: . It has a link to contact the "small collective" that works on the FAQ: From that, it looks like, you can email them and if they like what you want to put in the FAQ they'll add it to the version on that website. RJII 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, can anyone add information to this article specifically about FAQs, such as this? RJII 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the statements sourced by the An Anarchist FAQ in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article, and user:infinity0 comes along and puts them back in. What can be done about this violation of policy? Misplaced Pages information should not be corrupted by a non-credible source. RJII 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you are demanding the source be excluded from wikipedia. An Anarchist FAQ is as viable a source as a published book on anarchism. It is published, just on the net. It is constantly being updated. Please give up this charade of "unreliability"; the bottom line is, you don't like what it says. -- infinity0 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, this source is very widely distributed and well-received - see An Anarchist FAQ#Influences. The editors are the guardians of the FAQ - they check all submissions carefully and they make sure that it is of sufficient quality to add. It is no more unreliable than a published book or whatever; although the content has originated from many different people, it has been checked by people who are well-educated in the subject, and know a lot about it. -- infinity0 18:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Published" on the net doesn't count. It's self-published on a Geocities.com website by people who apparently have no academic qualifications to comment. Just like the editorial comment on Misplaced Pages wouldn't be a credible source, neither is the FAQ. We can't have a situation where some Joe Blow can put original research into Misplaced Pages, then when someone requests a source, he goes and adds his original research to the FAQ and come back and cites it. RJII 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you are needlessly attacking the authors. The document is very widely-received. You don't know their qualifications, yet you choose to imply instead that they have none. -- infinity0 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, the authors would have to be published authors in that field; otherwise, we can't use them. Do you know whether the authors are published, or in any way qualified in the field? SlimVirgin 18:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ cannot be used as a primary source to describe what anarchists think, just because the qualifications of its authors are unknown? They are anarchists, which qualifies their opinion to be anarchist opinion. With all due respect I don't think you realise the scope of this document. People have written about it in academic journals. -- infinity0 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So what if they're anarchists? That in itself doesn't qualify them as an authority on the philosophies on anarchist philosophy. For argument's sake, let's assume you're an anarchist. You go and type up an article about anarchism and post it on a website you set up. Do you really think that should be citable on Misplaced Pages? If you post it on 100 websites, does it give it any more credibility? No. Because you have no academic credentials, you haven't written in any journals, and are not a published author. You're just Joe Blow Internet Anarchist, a self-proclaimed authority on anarchist philosophy. It means nothing here. Misplaced Pages has sourcing standards. RJII 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And, even if one person was found to be academically qualified, since the FAQ says there are a variety of contributors (and apparently you can email them to get your stuff in the FAQ if the guy who runs the Geocities cite likes it) how is one to know who said what in the FAQ? RJII 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, obey the Misplaced Pages policy. RJII 18:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have email confirmation from AK Press.

zach blue <zach@akpress.org> to me More options Apr 27 (1 day ago)

Ximin,

We do not have a release date for it but the administrators of the FAQ are hard at work editing it down into a few volumes. Hopefully we'll see it in the next couple years but until then you'll have to read it online.

take care,

Zach (for AK Press)

The FAQ is going to be published by AK Press, no doubt about it. Thank you, RJII, and good night. -- infinity0 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Going to be published" is not good enough. And, "in the next couple of years"? LOL. Yeah right. RJII 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Simetrical

Please seek consensus before making sweeping changes to an established guideline. I am copying your edit below, so that it can be discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I didn't expect it would be controversial, or I wouldn't have made it without discussion. I'm rather perplexed, but I'll try to explain why I think it should be there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Current version

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Edit by Simetrical (talk · contribs)

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are mostly not acceptable as sources. Exceptions would include citing an eyewitness account to support a description of an event, citing a post made by a person to support a relevant quote from that person (for instance, an edit to a Misplaced Pages talk page by Jimbo Wales in the Misplaced Pages article to quote an opinion of his), or citing a website to provide primary-source documentation of an Internet phenomenon (e.g., a link in the O RLY article to the original owl image's posting or to a message-board post using the modified version). What is key is that all of these sources are primary evidence, and therefore inherently trustworthy; be much more cautious about citing secondary evidence from the Internet.

Comments

• I wouldn't support that, and it would contradict parts of V and NOR. We're not supposed to use primary sources unless they've been published by a reliable source e.g. court transcripts published by a court stenographer. SlimVirgin 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see what parts of WP:V or WP:NOR it would contradict (not counting the places where they refer to WP:RS). Obviously, the primary source would have to be verifiable, but where such a primary source exists, there's no reason to exclude it. Take, say, Jimmy Wales#_note-5. That cites a primary source, Wikimedia's budget. Is that not verifiable? It's quite verifiable; a link is provided, and any number of reliable sources will tell you that wikimedia.org is the official website of the Foundation.

    As for original research, that page states that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is . . . strongly encouraged." Or, in my words, documenting existing and verifiable primary sources is within Misplaced Pages's scope, is what I was getting at. What exactly do you disagree with here? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Posts in USENET, forums, message boards, etc. are not reliable sources and should not be given exceptions as proposed. "Primary evidence" implies a value judgement on the part of editors about what consists "evidence" (as it compares with an "opinion"), and if that "evidence" should be trustworthy or not. That is outside of the realm of what this project is about. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this. In certain limited cases, the identity of a website's author, message board user, etc. can be verified. (For instance, many Internet forums that serve as "official" forums of a certain company will add a special graphic, such as the company logo, next to employees' names to verify their identity.) If this is true in a given case, how is a statement by such an individual not every bit as reliably attributable to that individual as if they said it in a news interview? What, in fact, is "unreliable" about such a communication? And how can you say that editors' evaluating the trustworthiness of evidence is outside the realm of this project, on the talk page of an editor-written guideline about the trustworthiness of evidence? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Not acceptable edit. I would even vote for removing the rare exception for "experts". Experts publish their work in peer reviewed journals and we don't need their Blog entries as sources. Blogs should only be used as quote material for the editor that made the entry. i.e. Joe Blow said "blah blah blah --Tbeatty 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's all I was saying. If you can verify that X runs a blog/has a user account/whatever at a certain place, then if "Y" is written in that blog/by that user account/whatever, that should be citeable as a source to substantiate the fact that X did, in fact, say "Y". As I said: primary source, fine, secondary, bad. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I concur with the positions of SlimVirgin, Jossi, and Tbeatty as expressed above. --Coolcaesar 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• We're not supposed to use primary sources unless they've been published by a reliable source e.g. court transcripts published by a court stenographer --SV. My response: You are going overboard with this idea. If you read WP:V it says even regarding sources of dubias reliability: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them". And in general it says for self-published sources: "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material". I understand that court records are good sources of primary information, but I would also put forward that nearly anyone that has an article about them can have their website cited as a source in an article about them according to WP:V (even Stormfront.org). And for experts in the field, we can make exceptions to allow their information in. Nowhere does WP:V suggest that we are required to use only court transcripts as a reliable source. For just one example, David Touretzky has a personal web page at Carnegie-Mellon University. This has been his site for many years and a search of Carnie-Mellon's own systems show that this personal web page belongs to David Touretzky. So in the article about DST, I believe it is acceptable to use this page as a source for claims about what David has written or published or stated. And furthermore, I think that his personal website can be used in more than just his own article, but also for any article about one of his fields of expertise. (meaning he has been declared a published expert in the field by other reliable sources). I realize that we should prefer to use materials that is published in peer-reviewed journals and efforts should be made to do so, but I see nothing in the policies that indicate that personal websites cannot ever be used. It looks like exceptions can be made to me. Vivaldi (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  A "rare exceptions" caveat is already included in the wording. Those rare exceptions should be obvious to editors as well as to readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Those rare exceptions should be obvious to editors as well as to readers. -- Jossi. My response: I don't believe the "rare exceptions" reasons need to be "obvious" to editors as well as readers. The rare exceptions just need to be accepted by the consensus of editors as necessary for making a good article. I would expect that these "rare exceptions" would certainly be talked about on the talk page, but stipulating that the reasons need to be "obvious" seems like your own idea. I would suggest that non-obvious reasons could also possibly be explained and fleshed out on the talk page and those non-obvious reasons could develop a consensus after being discussed. Vivaldi (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• The edit obviously violates several policies, and reverses the meaning of a significant section of this guideline. Jayjg 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see my response to SlimVirgin above. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly line

"Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. (para) That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." How exactly would one use a personal site as a secondary source about the same person? The italicized clause is silly because it's impossible. --Davidstrauss 06:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it impossible? The sentence says: Personal websites should not be used as sources on anything or anyone apart from the owner of the website. That is, should not be used as secondary sources or third-party sources. I'm not seeing the silliness or impossibility. SlimVirgin 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Some clarification on "personal website" would still be good - I see no particular reason that, say, the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 or Operation Clambake do not count as personal websites. Which just points further towards my main point, which is that these are not claims and issues that can be dealt with via cudgels, and the handing out of cudgels is only causing problems. Phil Sandifer 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that distinguishes a personal website, or unreliable source, is that it lacks editorial oversight. Jayjg 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Then this section needs heavy revision, as there is no way that's a useful guideline. Phil Sandifer 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are assuming that an individual is not responsible enough to oversee their own writings. Perhaps you should lecture Shakespeare, Newton, Riemann, and Durant on your theories of editorial oversight. --Fahrenheit451 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm simply pointing out fact and good practice. Why is it that newspapers and book publishers actually have editors? Why are respectable journals edited and peer-reviewed? So that a second (and often third and fourth) set of eyes can have a look at the contents and, among other things, ensure that they are accurate and non-defamatory. As for your strange statement about Shakespeare etc., Shakespeare wrote fiction. Newton lived in the 17th century and Reimann in the early 19th century, long before the value of editorial overview was recognized. As for Durant, of course he had editors. Jayjg 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying mightily not to assume bad faith here, but it's getting difficult. Phil Sandifer 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with claiming bad faith when bad faith is present. --Nikitchenko 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Query about a sentence

Hi Rjensen, I moved this because I'm not sure what it's saying: "Every research discipline evaluates the quality of its publications through its academic journals and the editors whould rely on those evaluations when evaluating the quality and reliability of the secondary sources." SlimVirgin 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that the most comprehensible part of the whole paragraph. Maybe if you explained what you have difficulty understanding, it would help.

It appears to be an attempt to clarify and explain the rest of the paragraph, which is otherwise self-contradictory, and which, as many people have have suggested on this talk page, uses words and phrases with something other than their ordinary meanings in the English language. Gene Nygaard 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify your points? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. Jayjg 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you agree with me for once. Gene Nygaard 06:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And, if it is my point you are asking about, it is simply this: SlimVirgin is the one who needs to clarify what she is saying. I am not the one being asked to explain the sentence, but if anyone is going to be able explain the sentence to SlimVirgin, it would be helpful for SlimVirgin to first explain what she is having difficulty understanding. Gene Nygaard 07:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Just as someone boldly removed vandalism, I removed an unreliable source from the Scientology article and another editor reverted my changes with personal attacks and argument that WP:RS is not a policy. Exactly how does her actions improve article quality or wikipedia community quality? --Nikitchenko 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is policy, Nikitchenko. You might want to look at that and see whether it covers your situation. SlimVirgin 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The main question here concerns the Operation Clambake site at xenu.net and Tilman Hausherr's site at snafu.de. As it happens, the question of whether xenu.net is or is not a personal website is being considered by the Arbitration Committee at this moment.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision#Xenu.net

--Tony Sidaway 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted->challengedchallenged-2006-04-29T02:20:00.000Z">

I have changed the bolded section in the intro to:

If you can provide useful information to Misplaced Pages, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be challenged by any editor.

While it is of course true that unsourced edits can be removed, this isn't a license to remove statements from articles willy nilly. Best practice depends on the context--for instance a potentially defamatory statement must always be removed first prior to discussion, but a statement that seems plausible but simply isn't adequately sourced may be commented out, removed or left in, depending on the judgement of the editor. The point being that discussion should normally be initiated. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)challenged"> challenged">

Tony, this page must be consistent with poliy, which says they may be removed, and then makes some suggestions. We can copy that section in here for clarification, but we can't make anything here inconsistent with the policy. SlimVirgin 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd object in the strongest possible way to this change. References are the foundation of the encyclopedia, and we don't need to be scratching away at them. And there seems to be some dichotomy here: That they can be removed is "of course true" but this has been removed from the page? Err, what? - brenneman 02:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Baloney. Nobody is going through and removing every unsourced claim from every article, and anybody who tried to do so would be blocked for vandalism. Phil Sandifer 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Phil, I'd have shyed away from calling Tony's statement "Baloney" but you're essentially correct: The instances where unsourced material is removed are, in almost every case, uncontroversial. There's no need to weaken the argument for removing those claims that are extra-ordinary, and "willy-nilly" deletions aren't happening. - brenneman 03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you sincerely believe that all unsourced material should be removed from articles, I invite you to replace the featured article Tea with User:Phil Sandifer/Tea, a version in which only sourced claims remain. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy (V) doesn't say all unsourced material should be removed; only that it may be, and then it expands a little on the appropriateness of various responses. SlimVirgin 03:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, User:Phil Sandifer/Tea2 then. (Not finished yet, but you get the idea.) Phil Sandifer 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Phil, tea would only be a problem if we demanded footnote citations for every fact. But requiring sources for all facts, just means the fact should be mentioned somewhere in some source somewhere in the article (e.g. general references). If there are facts in Tea, which are mentioned in none of the sources listed (I haven't read them all), then a simple fix is to provide some good general references, which I would presume are easy to find, for people familiar. Since there are many full length books on the general topic (I assume, not being a tea person), it seems likely there's probably at least one book somewhere that pretty much backs up the whole article. BTW, I noticed in this removal, labelled "Slashed all unsourced material", you axed a claim the British love of tea, led them to sell Opium to balance the trade deficit. Some may think the Brits would have sold as much Opium, as aggresively, regardless of their thirst for tea. Such an item, would be a great place for a cite. --Rob 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:V, brilliant policy that it is, refers to the sourcing of individual statements. Phil Sandifer 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Each and every individual statement must be sourced, that is true. But the source does not have to be cited adjacent to the indivudal statement. It can be sourced in the general references alone, if it's uncontested. Also, WP:V doesn't really address the form of sourcing. That's left to WP:CITE. Policy has to do with the requirement to verify, not the minor details of how. --Rob 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

V says at the top in the summary box: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." And later: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references ... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template ... If the article or information is about a living person, remove the unsourced information immediately ..." SlimVirgin 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)challenged"> challenged">

In that case, we ought, at the very least, note that challenges on sentences ought not be done unless there is sincere doubt that the statement is in error. Otherwise the verifiability policy becomes an easy way to disrupt articles you just don't like very much - a skill Aaron has been particularly adept at. Phil Sandifer 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion, is you're saying its ok to leave true material, that's not verifiable by others. I don't think that's right. Somebody could write a person is gay. You're suggesting, that can't be challenged unless I think its false. I may think somebody is gay (for many, it might look obvious tome), but I don't think it should be published by us, if not published elsewhere. I removed some allegations that certain people were prostitutes. I didn't know they weren't. But, I got a huge problem with people risking defamation, without proper backup. There's a lot of true stuff that hasn't been published anywhere, and we shouldn't be the first ones to do so. We shouldn't publish things that can be confirmed only by a phone call, or by e-mail. Even if defamation isn't an issue, verification is still needed, even for true items. --Rob 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the section here using material from V to say that editors are encouraged not to remove things immediately if they're not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful, except in the case of living persons, when unsourced material should be removed immediately if it could be regarded as constituting criticism. SlimVirgin 04:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. This goes a long way towards including the sorts of escape hatches for common sense that these policies so depserately need. Phil Sandifer 04:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil. Glad it helped. SlimVirgin 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent addition! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Query for Rjensen

Hi, I was wondering about your latest edit: "For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews, evaluations, and guide books that should be used to find the most authoritative sources."

The next question someone is going to ask us is how to find these for any given topic. I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, especially with the guide books, but I don't want to edit it in case I get it wrong. Any clarification would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin 07:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)