Misplaced Pages

talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:45, 28 October 2011 editSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,746 edits →RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence: closing as successful← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:41, 9 January 2025 edit undoHorse Eye's Back (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,846 edits →Self-published claims about other living persons 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Not a forum|"verifiability" as a concept}}
{{metatalk}}
{{Policy talk}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} {{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{Core content policy talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 52 |counter = 83
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject Policy and Guidelines}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=5|index=/Archive index|
<center><br/>'''Archives by topic'''<br />
]
]</center>​
}} }}
{{tmbox {{tmbox
| type = content | type = content
| text = If you want to discuss the concept of "Verifiability, not truth" or wish to modify the first sentence of the policy,</strong> you may prefer to read and use the sub-talk page <strong>]</strong>, which contains detailed discussion on those topics (and has access to many archives of previous discussions.) | text = To discuss changing the lead, please first read the ] and ].
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=40|index=/Archive index|1=
{{plainlist|class=center|1=
*'''Archives by topic'''
*]
*]
*]}}
}} }}


== Reliability of sources ==
== RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence ==
{{discussion top|1=The discussion below shows a clear majority in favor of the new wording, as hammered out at length on the subpages. As it's a contentious subject, we're not likely to get an overwhelming consensus -- but that's not an argument for not moving forward. I don't find either the supports or opposes to use more-compelling arguments -- they're about balanced. Some of the opposes state that they approve of the basic idea behind the proposal, but think it's too wordy. Given the majority support and the oppose arguments that like the idea of removing "not truth" from the lead, I think we can accept the new wording and move forward from there.}}
A proposal to:
# change the opening paragraph to remove the phrase "verifiability, not truth"
# insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth (including the phrase "verifiability, not truth"). 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is in two parts...
*1) change the opening paragraph:
{| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:10px"
|
*'''From:''' The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been ], not whether editors think it is true.
*'''To:''' &nbsp; &nbsp; The initial threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability'''—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been ]. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a ''guarantee'' of inclusion. Misplaced Pages has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).
|}
The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.
*2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:
{| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:10px"
|==Assertions of truth and untruth==
An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, '''do not add it'''. In this context, Misplaced Pages requires '''"]"'''.

Assertions of untruth (i.e., an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: ], below). If the dubious information ''is'' supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a ] (and especially the sub-concept of ]). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.
|}

===Rationale===
{| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:10px"
|
====Introduction====
The first sentence of the policy currently reads: "''The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."'' There are concerns about this sentence, and particularly about the two words "not truth". In RfCs held in and , about 50% of editors responding supported change and about 50% opposed. After further discussion, with neither viewpoint gaining a solid ], a working group formed to examine the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. The working group's deliberations can be found primarily at ] and its project page ]; although a few threads continued at ].

Out of this working group has emerged the proposal above. It is seen as a compromise - one that addresses the core concerns of both sides. The proposal keeps the "verifiability,not truth" phrase in the policy, but moves it to its own section and clarifies it. It is hoped that both those who are content with the current wording and those who advocate change, to whatever degree, will support this measure as a compromise.

====Main rationale presentation====
*'''Background''': The concept that truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages was added for a specific reason&nbsp;- to support ] in saying that material should not be included unless there is a source that directly supports it. At that time, we had a persistent problem with editors wishing to add '''''un'''verifiable'' material purely because "it's true" (a rationale commonly used by editors trying to "prove" their pet fringe theory). However, as WP:V has changed over time, the sentence has been moved earlier and earlier in the policy, and it has lost some of its original context. It has taken on meanings that were never part of its original intent.
*'''Concern''': The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that ''any'' material that appears in a source ''must'' be included...simply because it is verifiable. This misinterpretation is in conflict with several ''other'' policy and guideline statements (especially the ] section of ]), but examples of this misinterpretation happening in practice have been provided.
**'''How the proposal resolves this concern''': The proposal adds an explanation that "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion", and it notes that other policies and guidelines can affect inclusion.
*'''Concern''': The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is '''un'''true (i.e., that the source may contain an error). Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true. That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable.
*'''Counter concern''': This was never the intent. We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information. A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement. We also have to make judgment calls about the ''relative'' reliability of one source when compared to others. As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys." We do want the information we present in Misplaced Pages to be accurate, as far as possible. Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them). Sometimes we ''should'' discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources.
**'''How the proposal resolves these concerns:''' The proposed language acknowledges that inclusion of potentially untrue information depends on context. We cannot make a firm one-size-fits-all rule on this. The proposal points out that the question of ''whether'' to include controversial and potentially untrue material is a complex one, that involves applying editorial judgment. It points the reader to other policies and guidelines that may help.
*'''Concern''': Introducing the concept of "truth" ''in the lede'' is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. The lede should focus purely on explaining what Misplaced Pages means by Verifiability without introducing secondary concepts. To the extent that it is relevant for the policy to discuss the issue of truth/untruth, this belongs in the body of the policy.
**'''How the proposal resolves the concern''': The issue of truth is moved out of the lede and into its own separate section.


I've noticed that many right-wing sources on this site are considered unreliable; my question is: why? I'm politically neutral and, considering that the politics of Italy and the United States are different, I have asked myself this question. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Conclusions''': The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained.
|}
'''Notice''': A change was made to two sentences of the ''Introduction'' to the ''Rationale'' on the first day of the RfC. This change is documented . Also note that there were three intermediate versions of these two sentences on the first day of the RfC.


:That's not a question with a simple answer, but whether a source is perceived as right wing or left wing shouldn't be a consideration in questions of reliability. If you look into discussions about sources the issue are rarely ideological. Instead the cause is that media organisation have diverged since the days of print media, and that divergence has impacted media on different parts of the political spectrum differently. That change in the real world has then had an impact on Misplaced Pages. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
===Comments===
====Support====
#I obviously '''support''' this proposal... I was, after all, its primary author. The rational that is presented with the proposal explains most of my thinking on it. Not only is it a good (and, more importantly, a ''workable'') compromise between the various positions... I think it actually improves the policy by making what I have always understood the intent of the current language clearer. ] (]) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is a compromise crafted over many months to resolve an ongoing, otherwise unresolvable debate that has gone on intensely for almost a year. It retains all of the intended meanings from the original AND reduces the unintended meanings and effects. I hope and request that folks from both sides of the debate....including those those advocating more or less change...support it as such.<font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:This proposal deals with the largest, most discussed issue. It does not preclude tweaks in other areas can then be discussed later. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::Support is per the reasons given during the long process and didn't want to attempt to try to repeat here. I'm sure others kept it short for the same reason. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as a reasonable compromise and a well thought out approach to address a wide variety of concerns. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - HOWEVER, I think the initial paragraph needs to remove the word 'material' and replace it with 'information' (or similar). The use of the word 'material' can lead a person to think that we only accept words that are verbatim from other sources, which is actually against policy, yet it is FAR too common in Misplaced Pages. I've been involved in too many debates where people argue that "no, the source said 'rough' not 'coarse'" and people spend endless hours debating whether changing a word constitutes original research. But during this RFC, we're supposed to be focused on the "truth" part of the intro, so I guess despite my misgivings, I'll say 'SUPPORT'. -- ] (]) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - This version addresses many of the problems presented though I agree with the ''information'' rather than ''material'' reword.--] (]) 03:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''&nbsp; Balances many tradeoffs, not all of which I agree with, but overall a huge step forward.&nbsp; ] (]) 05:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''', there is still much that I would change (including "material" to "information"), but this is undoubtedly an improvement.--] (]) 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as a major step forward for this policy. This proposal will reduce the potential for inexperienced or tendentious editors to misinterpret or pretend to misinterpret what it says.—] <small>]/]</small> 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ] ] 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I had no problems with the current version either, but this is a compromise I can accept. Additional changes (material vs information, threshold vs. fundamental requirement, ...) should be discussed afterwards (but, assuming that this rfC gets support, should stay away from the whole "truth" thing for a long time). ] (]) 08:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the current wording is simply misinterpreted too often and this is an important step forward. '''Yoenit''' (]) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' <font color="#082567">]</font> <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup> <sub><font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' part 2. I particularly like the part on "Assertions of untruth". The new sentences in part 1 read like a ], but the intent can be understood. --] (]) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I've sometimes found myself asserting that although ] prohibits us from adding unverifiable information, it does not compel us to add information that is verifiable but untrue. This codifies the need for editorial discretion in those instances. I also prefer "information" over "material". ]<sup>(]•])</sup> 11:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#Verifiability and truth should go hand-in-hand. In the rare cases that they do not, we should not be actively encouraging people to post untrue information. I therefore support most of the rewording. —]— 12:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#* However I '''oppose''' the bracketed bit as unnecessary. —]— 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Even though I understood what was meant by "verifiability not truth", it was clear just glancing at past discussions that editors were misreading and/or wikilawyering that counter to the policy's intent. Clarification is always a good thing. --] (]) 12:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The '''hard''' thing is to verify that the viw is ''significant.'' ''This'' is what I think we need to work on! ] | ] 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Was tempted to oppose because it retains the Toxic Triad (albeit farther down the page). But it's a start, and in fact quite a good start. It addresses head-on the old "it's been printed in a newspaper so it's gotta go in" argument that we hear so often. ] (]) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Not perfect, but it is a change in the right direction. ] (]) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' as a good compromise, with the hope that it can be tweaked over time (without giving preeminence back to the too often misused and misapplied 'Toxic Triad' that Boris mentions). ] (]) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - The "verifiability not truth" mantra has always been the single most idiotic thing about Misplaced Pages. One of the PILLARS of Misplaced Pages should be VERACITY — and here we have a very explicit, up front, unambiguous declaration that PUBLISHED FALSEHOOD is perfectly fine. The threshold should be VERIFIABILITY and VERACITY. Period. ] (]) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false but something else." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The '''hard''' thing is to verify that the view is ''significant.'' ''This'' is what I think we need to work on! If we really took the time to make sure that we were accurately representing sources in context (which belongs with "cite sources") ''and that we are verifying that the views included are '''all''' of the significant views'', the quality of many articles will increase tremendously. But bring in truth and NPOV goes out the window. People holding equally significant but contradictory views may think they are equally true and the other's false!] | ] 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::If I may comment: Intended meaning: Verifiability rules as a requirement for inclusion. Truth or claimed truth is not a substitute. But potential inaccuracy of a statement should not be excluded as a ''consideration'' when editors are discussing possibly leaving something out. (Recognizing that in some particular situations, wp:npov trumps the discussion and dictates that it stay in.) Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::I admire your desire to support compromise. I would support Blueboar's proposal if it were modified. If you are using "accuracy" simply as a synonym for "truth" I fear we just disagree. If you mean that we must ensure that we are accurately representing the views we include, and that we are accurate in our claims that some views are significant and others fringe, I would agree with you, entirely (e.g., it is accurate to say that Darwin's theory of evolution is a significant view, and it is accurate to say that Darwin's view was that evolution occurred through natural selection). But if you mean that we must judge whether an established, significant view is or is not accurate (e.g. "is the theory of evolution by natural selection accurate" or "is the theory of relativity accurate"), then I think you are simply contradicting NPOV - and perhaps misrepresenting how science progresses. ] | ] 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - A revision like this has been needed for a long time; this will end a whole lot of senseless talk page wikilawyering. --] 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#* P.s. I'm not thrilled about the parenthetical statement at the end - it doesn't seem to make any sense, and I'm not certain what it is intended for. That should be removed. --] 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - Sounds reasonable. --] (]) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' seems like an improvement. -- ] (]) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Tepid support'''. I'm supporting because I think that the clearer explanation of "not truth" is a net plus. I also think that Blueboar deserves enthusiastic applause for devising such thoughtful wording for the sentence in which it appears, and for working productively with the diversity of editor opinions that went into the drafting. I am also taking to heart the suggestion that editors adopt a spirit of compromise. However, my support is only tepid, and I actually agree with a lot of the comments that I read in the oppose section. I see no good reason to move the discussion of truth out of the lead, and I worry that it has been buried in tl;dr. I also think that the proposal has been weighed down with additional changes that go beyond the central issue of truth. I believe this policy has long served Misplaced Pages very well in its present form, but that this proposal is, net, a very small improvement. --] (]) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Mainly because of the inclusion of "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion." in the lede, though I think the whole thing is beneficial. — ] (]) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support in principle''' What we have needs to be changed, and the three things that need to be made clear are the three things presented in the proposal; however, the proposed text is far too verbose—a little more work and we'll be there. ] (]) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:This addresses just the main topic of concern/debate. Other items can then be tweaked after that. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::Yes, the verbosity was my main concern also, and that can be improved over time. ] (]) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Qualified support''' The addition to the lede has the correct intent but is too wordy; it needs to be tightened up considerably. The additional section still fails to address the issue of simple factual error in sources, and, with ], still encourages the creation of fake controversies by discouraging the rejection of manifest factual errors in otherwise "reliable" (that is, conforming the Wikip's formal standards) sources. ] (]) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Although I agreed with the philosophy behind the original wording, its actual expression caused far too much difficulty. This proposal is an improvement. I shall not suggest any changes to the proposed wording and I suggest other "supporters" do not do either. Refinements can be made after any implementation is done. ] (]) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Weak Support.''' The examples show that something about the current formulation of this policy is problematic. It's like the burden is always on those arguing for the removal of well-cited material to prove that it is irrelevant, unreliable, or otherwise inappropriate. However, it is not at all clear where this ''well-cited is holy'' attitude is coming from; in particular, I do not see how one can be so sure that "not truth" is to blame. Still, I largely agree with ], this is a net plus, and my view is clearly closer to those wishing to remove "not truth" than to those who deny the problem altogether. ] (]) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' per Blueboar. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While "verifiability, not truth" is a great slogan, it's confusing enough that more explanation is warranted. I appreciate the further explanation of truth wrt verifiability and, in the strange circumstance that someone in a dispute actually read policy, would help. Just lop off the parenthetical statement at the end of the first change. <small>On a different note, I'm seriously annoyed that this was set up as a vote by the proposer. When did we leave behind that other great slogan, "Voting is Evil"? 2009?</small>] (]) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:<small>I don't think that is fair. Blueboar is not so much that author as he is a de facto manager of a very long and comlicated process involving many people on some subpages. I think that the subpages were a serious exercise in good faith consensus building, and this poll should be seen more as a ratification or reality-check for the subpage process. --] (]) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)</small>
#::<small>Also, Blueboar just put it up as an RFC. Others added the format and structure for the feedback. Not that I disagree. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 00:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)</small>
#:::<small>Actually, Tryptofish is evil. I made the edit creating support and oppose sections, so please blame me, not Blueboar. And I think that it has proven to be a useful edit. Please note that there are hardly any "me too" type comments. Rather, editors are generally taking the time to explain their thinking. --] (]) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)</small>
#::::I, for one, was glad that Blueboar was willing to do the primary work to create the RfC, and I appreciate his role in getting this going.&nbsp; It was a decision of the working group to proceed with the RfC.&nbsp; ] (]) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the compromise. Not the most ideal solution in my view but better than the "not truth" abomination. ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' When I read paragraph 1, I was ready to jump flaming away onto the oppose side. Luckily, I kept reading and thus avoided making an idiot of myself. I think the compromise of keeping the wording but moving it out of the lead is one that will help clarify the point for new readers, while still leaving the concept available to this of us to whom the old wording makes sense. ] (]) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The existing language does more harm than good. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' As one of the party working on making the policy clearer and with less leeway for genuine misunderstanding or "creative misunderstanding", this is a very good start. We've spent a long, ''long'' (and at times tiring!) time working towards an improvement here, and finally come up with something which we all agreed could be put up for a "vote" by the wider community. This baby has been months in gestation - it's time for it to poke its head out into the world now. ] (] …]) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. We ''are'' concerned about truth - it's just that that concern is secondary to our concern about verifiability. We first make sure our statements are backed by reliable sources, and then and only then consider whether they are true. But that doesn't mean we don't consider truth at all, which ] could be mistaken to mean right now. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''support''' ''not truth'' helps those who defame wp, ''dont believe what you read in wp, anyone can edit it and it doesnt have to be true''. a clear example of wp being more concerned with the process than the result. it reminds me of a romantic scene where the troops know the are marching into certain death and continue because it is their duty. i also think it is ''stupid'' :) ] (]) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#:People defame WP because most of its editors are too lazy to take the time to go to a library and read several books in order to represent the current research on a topic. This is what academics do, and the result is not claims about "truth" but actual well-informed research. "Truth" is a metaphysical concept that people throw around when the believe in something that they do not understand, or use as a shortcut that saves them the trouble of investigating the complexity of just about anything and everything actual scholars study. '''No reform of WP''' will be effective unless we distinguish between '''two''' very different kinds of critics of WP: ''POV-pushers'' who hate WP because it includes views they think are false - this is a matter of faith (even if we are talking about secular claims), and people who recognize ''quality research''. Quality research does not depend on claiming that something is true; it does show that one has read the most recent and well-reviewed books published by academic presses, and peer-reviewed journal articles, and, just as important, explain the views found in these sources in context. I have read lots of WP articles where people cherry-pick quotes from academic sources to promote a view that many people believe is "true" but that distorts the scientific research. As long as this happens, university professors will rejct any student research based on WP. ] | ] 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The "verifiability, not truth" is catchy, but the literal interpretation is not entirely accurate. It tries to make "verifiability" and "truth" opposing concepts, when in actuality they are supportive of each other. We should never knowingly add false information to an article just because a "reliable source" is erroneous. (Indeed if the "reliable source" is erroneous on a certain statement, then the source isn't reliable on that statement, even if it is reliable otherwise.) ] ] 05:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#:Not quite. We must include all significant views, it is not for us to determine whether they are true or not (especially when "truth" is a word most scientists avoid and philosophers question). The most we can say is "it is true that this is a significant view," if this is what you mean about mutually supportive. But what we are verifying is that it really is a significant view, and that we are providing an accurate account of it. This is a far cry from saying that th view is true! Do you '''truly''' believe that we are supposed to verify which of the following interpretations if quantum mechanics: The Copenhagen interpretation; Many worlds; Consistent histories; Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation; de Broglie–Bohm theory; Relational quantum mechanics; Transactional interpretation; Stochastic mechanics; Objective collapse theories; von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse; Many minds, is "true?" If one of them is true, the others must be false. Scientists acknowledge that they cannot all be correct. But you think our policy should be to report the true one? ] | ] 12:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#::Of course there are cases where there are genuinely competing views in high-quality sources about what the truth of a matter is. But that is addressed in ] policy. It's not a matter for ]. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::I agree with you that this is covered in NPOV. But my position starts with NPOV as axiomatic and asks what then follows? My point is (1) V must be consistent with NPOV, and (2) given NPOV we have to ask ourselves, what is it that we are verifying? For me, if we accept (1) the answer to (2) ''cannot'' be "the truth." If we accept (1), then what we must verify is that "x ''is'' a significant view." It may be a view of the truth (as is often the case with religion, and never the case with science). Some people who are polling "support" are motivated by a perception (accurate in my experience) that most academics do not respect WP. They are also motivated by the belief that the ''cause'' of this perception is our use of "verifiably significant as opposed to fringe views" as our criterion for inclusion, rather than "true as opposed to false." I vehemently disagree with this.
#:::I am convinced that the credibility problem with WP is cased by the fact that very few of our editors take the time to do ''enough'' research - which often times must take place in a library - to distinguish between fringe and significant views, and to be able to provide an adequate context when presenting significant views. This is a skill that any PhD must have when writing a literature review, but one does not need a PhD to have this skill (and I have always opposed making one's academic credentials or lack of them relevant to editing WP). One does however need to make an effort, and in my experience a great many editors do not. And academics can see this. Moreover, I am convinced that making "truth" a criterion for inclusion will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia either by encouraging OR or by leading to overly-simplistic coverage of complex topics. We would be much better off if we took more time to provide guidance about what kinds of research are required to verify whether a view is significant or fringe, and to be able to provide sufficient context to understand why people in good faith might have competing views (e.g. why different US Supreme Court Justices hold different views on the constitutionality of abortion, gun control, or torture. Or why equally respected scientists have mutually exclusive interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am not criticizing these articles, just using them to illustrate my point) ''This'', and not the absence of "truth" is in my experience why so many scholars are dismissive of WP. ] | ] 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::The problem here is significant and fringe are not exclusive things. Regardless of how you define it the ] is significant but because the definitions for it are all over the map it is next to impossible to tell if the entire idea is fringe.--] (]) 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::I would rather say that Jesus Myth Theory is significant in one context and not in another - just as I would say that Creationism is significant in one context but not in another. As many scientists have pointed out (Gregory Bateson most notable) context is crucial. Bruce, I think you make a valid point. I just do not think that making truth, fact, or accuracy a criterion is the solution. I think that clearer criteria for significant and fringe views, criteria that make clear the importance of context, will not only address the specific problems people here are concerned with but would moreover improve the encyclopedia in many other ways. ] | ] 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::::Several of the examples Slrubenstein mentions are cases where the truth is controversial or unknown. In many cases the fallacy of a statement in a reliable source is fairly clear cut and objective. The latest one I ran into was ] where a "reliable source" erroneously said that the (hideous) Oslo bombing in July halted all public transportation. Would it have been right to propagate that statement? (In this case the issue was resolved by finding an even more reliable source, but even if not, I would support eliminating any sentences that are in clear and objective error.) ] ] 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::::True and in the case of the Jesus Myth Theory just what the idea even is is up for grabs. For example, take this definition from Bromley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034: "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,...". Even if you ignore the whole ''story of'' issue (George Washington and the Cherry Tree is a mythical story of George Washington but doesn't mean there wasn't a George Washington) you still have the huge range of Greek and Norse mythology. Hercules was regarded by Eusebius in ''Preparation of the Gospel'' and as late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." So Bromley's definition depends how well you know Greek and Norse mythology and is only regarding story of Jesus rather than the man himself--not very helpful.--] (]) 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The proposed wording is a welcome clarification on what to do with material that is verifiable but not necessarily true. I think that it is a lot clearer on the subtleties of this issue for someone who is reading the policy for the first time. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Useful clarification. ] (]) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I have previously opposed any change on this guideline, which has served us well. But the proposed wording is simpler and clearer, and doesn't confront new users right up front with a basic rule which at first glance appears to be a logical contradiction-- or perhaps the nearest analogy might be a koan. Koans are very attractive as ways of expressing some deeper truth that is otherwise difficult to verbalize, but it's not necessary to have one here. The basic threshold is, after all, quite simply verifiability in the ordinary meaning of the word. If we can not find any information about a subject, even as a concept, we cannot write about it. Everything else is a subsequent step. We need not, for example, consider whether something would be notable if it existed, or whether a possibly insulting paragraph about an made-up person is a BLP violation. For content also: we cannot find some evidence for a quotation, we can not use it. If there's no source for a birth date, we can't give one. And so on, as the basis for WP:OR and much of WP:NOT , and many other fundamental policies and guidelines. ''']''' (]) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:But DGG this change doesn't suggest that if there is no source we can't give a birthdate - it suggests that a sourced birthdate can be removed if one editor says "I know that birthdate is incorrect because they guy used to be my neighbor".]·] 12:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::I do not think it can be read that way. --] (]) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::Several editors voting support are clearly stating that that is the way they read it.]·] 22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::I don't think so.&nbsp; ] (]) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' The proposed wording is more precise and the additional section is accurate with regards to community consensus. ''']]]''' 05:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per TransporterMan. I like how it reminds editors to get down-and-dirty in article-talkpages and discuss the verifiable sources - so they can form a consensus as to whether such-n-such is really appropriate/reliable.--] (]) 05:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While I appreciate the pithiness and power of the "verifiability, not truth" aphorism, it really doesn't belong in the beginning of the lead of this policy page, where the proper nuanced reading of it may be lost, and it is too easily open to misinterpretation. Insofar as the "not truth" part distracts from the intent of this policy page, it should be removed as described, and the addition providing context is also nice. --]''''']''''' 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I think the link to the essay "verifiability, not truth", even the whole sentence including it, is unneeded; but this is still a better version. Congratulations to the many editors that discussed this (I've read once in a while over the months) and then brought it to a RfC. I am learning from you, thanks. - ] (]) 08:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This wording is better. I am amongst those who feel that a ''further'' improvement could be achieved by tweaking the first two words, "The initial...". '''Initial''' implies a ''chronological'' set of steps in editing Misplaced Pages which do not exist, and the use of "The" instead of "A" makes it sounds like it is even a strict one. During discussion of this draft many people clearly preferred something like "A ''fundamental'' threshold..." and I do not believe that consensus has been tested upon this point yet.--] (]) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''.] (]) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The current version is very confusing and is Wiki-jargon rather than real English. The proposed version is still far from perfect, but it is better. ] (]) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:Can you explain what, specifically, you find confusing? ] | ] 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - a beneficial clarification. ] (]) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#I '''support''' the proposal (1) as obviously desirable, and in line with other policies, ] for instance. Not everything that is written about a topic deserves equal coverage in Misplaced Pages; some sources may deserve no coverage at all in a specific context. I have reservations that proposal (2) is adding anything of value, see my comments in the "neutral" section on this one. ] (]) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:I do not understand how eliminating the "not truth" is in line with NPOV. Can you explain? ] | ] 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#::Um... the proposal does ''not'' eliminate the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... it ''moves'' it, and explains it. ] (]) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::: Given that there are only two choices to vote on here, I chose the ]. My own favorite formulation would be:
#::::"A necessary condition for the inclusion of a piece of information in a Misplaced Pages article is '''verifiability'''—whether the information has been published by a ]. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Truth is approximated in Misplaced Pages articles by following the ], which requires that various bits of information from diverse sources be represented in proportion to their ]."
#:::: Aye, ] (]) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::I share the anxiety many people below express, about a major change in policy. But below, Have mörser, will travel suggests that a better slogan would be "NPOV, not truth." I like this. What's more, I think this is a very constructive point, and it is a shame it is burried as a comment to someone else's comment.
#::::::I second "NPOV, not truth" as a very constructive point. I think it deals with a lot of issues that people have with our current "verifiability, not truth" slogan. ] (]) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::That Blueboar's proposal has so much support tells me that there is a serious need to clarify our policies (and as I said before it also acknowledges the hard work Blueboar put into the proposal). But there is still considerable opposition and we are far from any consensus for such a change. Yet, ''some '''very positive''' things have come out of this discussion''. One is Have mörser, will travel's suggestion that "NPOV, not truth" is the better formulation of the slogan. Elsewhere, Unscintillating suggests that it is our "Reliable Sources" policy that really needs work. I think that if any changes to V were made in conjunction with these other suggestions, it might be possible to move closer to a consensus. ] | ] 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::::In pretty much every case we have talked about here, it's really the formal reliability of a source that has produced the problem. When editors have judged that the actual reliability of a statement was too low to justify including it, there have been objections that the type of material being cited was intrinsically reliable, and that therefore the editor could not object to its inclusion. That's the problem with "not truth": it is being interpreted to mean that editors cannot exercise judgement, because judgement implies interpretation, and that this interpretation is ''ipso facto'' OR and thus forbidden, and that therefore the truth of a tatement isn't germane in any way even when it is obviously wrong. That's quite different from what I believe was originally intended: that you can't just add material you think is true; you also need a good, referenced source for it.
#::::::we're getting captured by the obsession with keeping OR out of articles, but the side effect has become essentially a lot of campaigns to keep false or misleading information in articles. The issue is becoming exhausting because those of us who want to produce an accurate encyclopedia and fix these errors have to spend inordinate effort to make what ought to be trivial corrections. I think there is a way to fix this without giving away our ability to reject genuinely novel material. ] (]) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::::The misleading information situation has a sort of a poster child in the ] article. That article has many problems nearly all stemming on how Price's work is being used today rather than anything he himself did or wrote. So totally RS direct quote by Price from JAMA and a 1939 medical book division which would help address many of the POV issue of the article have been kept out under a misunderstanding of what OR even means.--] (]) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#--] (]) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#A reasonable way to deal with incorrect statements in otherwise reliable sources; reflects current practice. ] (]) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' A useful and beneficial clarification. ] (]) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Concur''' with the above. ] (]) 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' My comments on the proposal have appeared elsewhere on this page. To address the concerns of those opposed to the proposal: I believe that the current WP:V (toxic trio: ''Verifiability, not truth'') (1) enables cheap shots to be made at the quality of Misplaced Pages's editors and processes, (2) confuses new users. It is necessary. I foresee nothing substantial changing in how we edit, resolve disputes, etc. as a consequence of this change. It does no harm. ] (]) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' There's nothing inherently wrong with losing punchiness for clarity on the subtler points. We shouldn't sacrifice meaning in order to get a slogan. ](]) 12:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good compromise. ] (]) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' So long as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, I agree with Blueboar's proposal. ] (]) 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I've always thought that line could be misunderstood, but never had the time or inclination to do the research to craft a well-researched proposal. Kudos to the work put in by the proposer here. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I've always struggled with this line, we can include falsehoods as long as there is a verifiable source is how I have read it. ] (]) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - The proposed text is a clearer version of what the original text is ''trying'' to say. The original text may have some sentimental value, but the wording we use in policies needs to be worded for newcomers to WP ... and what they need is of clear, plain guidance. The proposal makes clear that which is only implied in the original. --] (]) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 09:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - This new wording makes the policy easier to understand and refrains from making verifiability and truth seem like opposites. ] (]) 20:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I have not been following this discussion recently, but this proposal seems good to me. I think "verifiability, not truth" should still have a prominent place, but I also think the notion of "truth" could be misinterpreted, since it means different things to different people. So I'm impressed with the compromise this proposal offers. ] (]) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' "Verifiability not truth" is easily misunderstood. Moving it later in the policy helps to give it the necessary context to be understandable by a new user.--] (]) 14:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think the current version is fine. But this version is clearer, and therefore better. ] (]) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


::{{Ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} the thing that seems strange to me is that extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong), while extreme right-wing sources are.<br />I repeat: I don't know the political situation in the United States in detail. In Italy we have a right-wing government; it's a government that many Italians support, because Italy is quite conservative, which for the Italian context is a very good thing; for the US context, however, it seems not, since the American right has, for example, denied climate change, which unfortunately exists.
====Oppose====
#'''Oppose''' per my statement above. I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable ''views''. It is not the wikipedia editors job to evaluate whether claims published in otherwise reliable sources are true. That is the job of researchers and scientists who make science progress by critiquing the claims of other researchers - that is not what we do in wikipedia. If an editor finds that a claim in an otherwise reliable source conflicts with his view of reality then what she needs to do is publish a research article about the topic, not bring wikipedia in line with their own view of reality. Certain editors are already arguing here that certain kinds of OR is ok and that this policy should back that notion. In my view this argument is 100 times more damaging to wikipedia than the odd pov pusher citing WP:NOTTRUTH in order to include a fringe view. We would be turning wikipedia into a publisher of original thought. Here is the citation I go by in my relation to truth here on the encyclopedia "''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.''" Jim Wales. ]·] 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ]·] 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I highly commend Blueboar in particular for this well-reasoned proposal, but I feel that the current wording is fine and widely understood by the majority of editors: especially if they read beyond that sentence. I still think the only change that might help clarify the strength and meaning of that first phrase might be to put "truth" in quotes, but that was shot down. ] ] 03:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Opposes:'''.
#:'''adding "initial"'''. Verifiability is the starting point of inclusion - it is the threshold. After the starting point we have other process that material may encounter in order to remain on Misplaced Pages, but they are not thresholds, because the starting point of verifiability has been passed. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability" is a simple, clear statement that loses effectiveness when qualified with the tautological "initial". Verifiability is basic. It is the essential and major inclusion criteria. It all starts from that point. We need to drum home that unverifiable material should not be added. People can quibble about the value of the material later - but let's let people know that inclusion or formatting or editing discussions shouldn't even take place without the threshold of verifiability being passed.
#::We're looking at the possibility of more tweaks to follow - for example replacing "threshold" (which implies that once you've crossed it, you're in) with something like "A fundamental requirement" (which clearly leaves room for other requirements, but is absolutely ... well, ''fundamental''. Bear with us - these extra things are on our agenda.] (] …]) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
#:'''adding "not a guarantee of inclusion" / "other policies and guidelines"'''. The essence of this policy is that material must be attributable - discussions about how the material is handled, edited, formatted, questioned, etc, do not belong here and simply cloud the issue. It is inappropriate to try to cram the whole of Misplaced Pages into one policy. This policy page is about verifiability, not notability, which is a different page. Awareness that material may be subject to further scrutiny is covered by the elegant "threshold".
#:'''removing "not truth"'''. The phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" is simple, elegant, and powerful. As far as we are concerned, it doesn't matter that your local band exists, and that you are staring right at them: if there is no means to verify their existence, we don't have them on Misplaced Pages. While I agree that a section expanding on "truth" is worthwhile (and I support that section), removing "not truth" from the opening sentence removes a simple clarification, and removes a powerful phrase. We can change "truth" to "existence" or any other such synonym, if people are uncomfortable with the word "truth", but that distinction needs to be there, and it needs to be in the first sentence. We define things by what they are not as well as by what they are. We need to make clear that truth/existence by itself is not verifiability. ''']''' ''']''' 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::I believe that the new proposal "agrees" with and furthers all of the principles which you just described. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per ]. ] (]) 10:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::This proposal is trying to force this policy to do the job of ] (and a bunch of other policies and guidelines). The supporters seem to be under the impression that this is the be all and end all of content policy. ] (]) 12:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Maunus: "I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable ''views''" Moreover I object to the wording of the first paragraph - what we are verifying is not that there is material documentation, we are verifying that it is a "significant view." Reliable sources (which are typically some kind of publication) are a ''means'' for documenting that it is a significant view, but what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. '''Note''' I appreciate the hard work Blueboar did and I think that these objections can be resolved with some relatively minor rewording of the text Blueboar wrote. If we can modify the text in lines with these objections - which I think affect just a few sentences - I would support it. ] | ] 11:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:Slrubenstein, you are confusing a Neutral Point of View (], ]) with Verifiability. These are not the same thing. -- ] (]) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::No, they are not the same thing. But V derives from NPOV and they are linked, which by the way is true for NOR as well. I think you are confusing V with Cite Sources. ''These'' are '''not''' the same. I stand by what I wrote. It expresses the principal that has guided my editing since we first agreed on a V policy. ] | ] 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:First line of ]: '''An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.'''
#:It's a sad state of affairs when apparently many editors seem to think that an encyclopedia is nothing more than a collection of opinions, biographies, views on historic events, politics and popular fiction.
#:While I can understand the need for rules focussing on the areas where most problems arise, when "truth" becomes a dirty word for many editors, maybe some change is in order. I was going to comment on the absurdity of "verifiability, not truth" when applied to articles about mathematics, but I'll save that for another time. ] (]) 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#::This is sophistry. First of all, the line you quote does not mention truth. No real scientist claims that they know the truth or teach the truth. Second, everyone knows that if they want to read a great encyclopedia written the conventional way, by actual experts on the topics, they would be better off reading ''Encyclopedia Britannica''. When WP was created, the idea was clearly not to emulate EB but to try a whole new model. As a "wiki"pedia there is no requirement and thus no guarantee that the editors be experts. ] was the framework that would not only enable editors with conflicting beliefs to work together, but the ''principle'' that would distinguish WP from other encyclopedias. And that principle is neutrality, not truth. NPOV demands that we include all significant points of view. period. Even if we think one view is false, we include it if it is significant. Even if one view says another view is false, we include the other view if it is significant. This is how we achieve neutrality. And if we keep our NPOV policy, then we ''cannot'' take it upon ourselves to verify that the view is the truth, and most of us are not qualified even to judge one view as better than another anyway. The only "truth" we ''can'' verify is that "it is true that someone holds this view." This is what we are verifying, not that a view is true, but that the view is significant and accurately represented. If you do not ''like'' this you should have sought a job at EB rather than volunteer here. And if you want to ''change'' this, then we have to get rid of NPOV too. We would have to change it from "neutral point of view" to "truth point of view." ] | ] 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::Seems I was wrong, thinking you and the others were defending "Verifiability, not truth" because it was useful in keeping the wackos and fringe theories out and trying to make WP a trustworthy source. Looking at your user page, I realise you want the opposite, every opinion that is notable should be represented, because you believe in "great truths". And that's why you say "no real scientist" claims they know the truth or teach the truth, yet in the next sentence you acknowledge that "actual experts" would use such judgement to decide the content of an encyclopaedia! Since I don't think works of fiction and arts express some great truth, you see me as an idiot (<small>"I think of those people who would answer "no" to my question whenever I read this passage from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum: Idiot... How could you fail to kneel down before this altar of certitude?"</small>)who doesn't understand a thing (<small>"If the person answers no, I know that they understand nothing."</small>), so there's no use in talking to you any further. I just hope you stay away from science topics, especially maths, if you think formal proofs are based on opinions, and the truth or falsity of conjectures can never be determined. ] ] 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::I certainly am defending "Verifiability, not truth" in order to make WP a better source of knowledge. Moreover, one reason I think we should keep some kind of "not truth" formula is precisely because I think the real solution lies in clarifying and elaborating on what we mean by verifiability, the criteria for reliable sources (which must include other criterion besides publication or even publication in a respected venue) - better guidance concerning fringe views is precisely one of the ways I think we can do this. Yes, I do believe in "the truth." But for reasons that Jimbo and Larry laid out a long time ago, and that are still central to our NPOV policy, I do not believe that my own view of the truth should ever influence my editing. If you think that is the meaning of my user page. I will not discuss my user page here as it is not the appropriate venue but if you actually cared about what I think you can ask on my talk page. Suffice to make three key points: first, I never called you an idiot and that you feel a need to put words into my mouth says more about you than about me. Second, you clearly do not understand the quote from Eco &mdash; the capacity for so many WP editors to believe that they understand what a quote means when taken out of context is in my view one of the major problems with Misplaced Pages (eliminating "not truth" will not address this problem and I think it will actually make the problem worse). Third, I never said formal proofs are based on opinions, although I do know that they are based on axioms and I appreciate the implications of that fact. Would I ever argue against including in an article a statement ''like'' "Mathematicians agree that Euclidean geometry provides a proof for the Pythagorean theorum, or a proof that the sum of angles a, b, and c of a triangle is 180 degrees? No. But &ndash; and this is the key point &ndash; "verifiability, not truth" in no way can support removing such a statement from our article, and, indeed, our policies in their present form help us write great articles that include just such statements. So I do not think your comment is rational (and no, I am not calling you an idiot), and it certainly is not constructive. ] | ] 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' – to me, the proposed version seems more cumbersome than the current version, and it seems like we're trying to make this more complicated than it should be. –] 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose per Slrubenstein, Maunus, MuZemike. Obfuscates rather than clarifies, and places undue prominence on whether sourcing exists, not what is verified by that sourcing, if you follow. I would support a modified version of the <s>1st paragraph<s> <u>second suggested edit</u>, but strongly oppose the change to the <s>nutshell verbiage</s> <u>opening paragraph</u>, which has lasted for many years for excellent reasons - because it is clear and concise. I see no reason to change it so that it is neither clear nor concise. . ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:Question for KillerChihuahua... the proposal does not call for ''any'' changes to the nutshell... but perhaps you were referring to something else... could you clarify your comment? ] (]) 15:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::This is what happens when I'm editing in three windows while on the phone. Apologies, I have corrected my statement. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::Thanks... your views are much clearer now. ] (]) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::They would have made sense before, if I'd actually typed what I was thinking. Sometimes I have a brain=keyboard disconnect. Thanks for asking for clarifying so politely. :-/ ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', and indeed '''absolutely, utterly oppose'''. Avoiding the statement that "Misplaced Pages is not about truth" will open the door to untold of headaches and debates on many, many pages. My real concern is that the Misplaced Pages community is by and large unaware of a scary phenomenon that is creeping up on us: "we may soon run short of editors who are generally familiar with the policies". In most systems, there are usually ''underlying processes'' that drive the system and Misplaced Pages is no exception. Some time ago I came across a paper based on a thesis by a student about Misplaced Pages and he had done some studies that made sense. As I recently searched again, I only found a summary of the thesis , but his main argument, supported by various graphs was that as the number of Wikipages and Wikiusers increase, reality will catch up with us, and he predicted that there will be:
#:::''an untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, as time passes by. This trend may eventually cause that these authors will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month, thus starting a decreasing trend in the number of monthly revisions, and an overall recession of the content creation and reviewing process in Misplaced Pages''.
#::So as more and more IPs require comments, the level of effort to support them may become a burden. If those IPs feel that "'''they know what truth is'''" and try to do good by setting the record straight in Misplaced Pages, the effort to explain things to them will be tremendous.
#::It is essential that the millions of new IPs coming in be told '''upfront''' that what they consider to be "truth" will probably differ from what someone 3 blocks away from them considers "truth", let alone someone three continents away. It is essential that the idea that "''your truth may be different from the next guy's concept of truth''" be stated upfront to save us the effort of repeating t again and again to new IPs. I personally feel like a broken record player repeating it again and again.
#::And I would go further and point out to the new readers/editors that in some fields "there is no truth". Period. A suitable case is ] where truth is all but elusive. Nobel laureate A says X and Nobel laureate B says Y and usually X and Y are not equal: there really is no "concept of truth" in monetary economics, just ideas and references. And Misplaced Pages can not even begin to pretend there is truth therein. This must be explained to the new editors upfront.
#::We must remind users upfront that Misplaced Pages is not about truth but verifiability, to save the explanation efforts again and again. That effort is really needed elsewhere: improving content.
#::I would, however, also keep something like the 2nd paragraph to repeat the same.] (]) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' does more harm than good. There is wikilawyering where people use sources to push known untruths. But a much more prevalent problem is editors bickering back and forth about what they know to be true, and never checking what a reliable authority would say on the matter. You're focusing on the small problem to the detriment of the bigger problem. ''You saw the dam leaking, so you decided to tear it out and replace it with a towel.'' If there's a problem with the occasional wikilawyer, put an explanation in the body of the policy. Don't obfuscate the intro to the policy which has worked well for years. ] (]) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Adds more verbiage contrary to ]. The policy should be simplified, not bloated. ] (]) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#The creepier our policies, the harder it is to edit. The proposed changes do not make it any easier for any inexperienced user to edit, and only add verbiage to be parsed by axe-grinders. No. -- <b>]&nbsp;]</b> 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The possible benefit of this particular addition is definitely outweighed by the negative effect of the ] it introduces. Shorter is better. —] (]) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' the new section "Assertions of truth and untruth". Too much emphasis on the term ''truth'' that would be better referred to as ''majority'' or ''minority'' viewpoints. No need to open up a remote possibility it will be misinterpreted to squash multiply-sourced, minority viewpoints on the grounds that it is not true. ] already does a wonderful job with only one instance of the word ''truth''. I am OK with proposal in the first part for changes to the opening paragraph. Willing to reconsider opposition if ''truth'' is removed or de-emphasized.—] (]) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' as unnecessary. The best proposal I've seen was to link "verifiability, not truth" to the essay that explained the topic quite adequately. ] (]) 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I concede that the "not truth" maxim can be taken the wrong way. So can anything if one does not want to take the point, but the point here is clear enough. My real objection is that the proposed new section is a ]y digression to wade through before getting to the nuts and bolts of sections on when a citation is required and what sources are reliable. To the extent that issues in the proposed new section need to be raised at all, they would belong in the "other principles" section at the end of the page. ~ ] (]) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I think the new wording is less clear and actually moves us in the wrong direction with this policy. This is not the place to say that we don't include everything in every article. And I really prefer the idea that just because you ''think'' it isn't the truth you still need to source it. I think the current wording does that better. ] (]) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The discussion below (at my previous ''neutral'' comment) makes it clear that this would be a major change in policy, wherein a statement could be challenged or removed not because it was inadequately sourced, and not because any reliable source contradicts it, but simply because an editor claims it to be "untrue". This is a complete reversal of the way our policy has worked for many years. I'm shocked that we would trust some Wikipedian's assertion of "truth" as a reason to censor or exclude sourced content, and more shocked that so many Wikipedians would approved of such a change. The Italian Misplaced Pages recently ] rather than submit to a proposed law that would mandate removal of material based on an unsupported claim that a statement is detrimental to someone's image. But when it comes to the English Misplaced Pages, do we really want an unsupported claim of inaccuracy to be a reason for removal, as S Marshall clearly supports below? &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:I did not say that an ''unsupported'' claim of inaccuracy is a reason for removal, and that is not my view.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#::There's no change proposed to the ''policy'', just the ''wording''! ] (] …]) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' I think you are right Quadel. I think the great danger to Misplaced Pages’ usefulness is unfaithfulness to reliable sources because we know the truth. This leads to two blights on the project unsourced statements in articles, and misrepresentation (and ignoring) of sources in articles. At least where an untrue statement is sourced, the reader has the tools to review reliability for themselves. Sourcing requires uncommon effort; anything that denigrates that effort should be rejected. “Verifiability, not truth” is a strong reminder that Wikipedians, for all their ego, still need humility. We are not tellers of truth; we are faithful recorders of what others "out there" have studied -- we merely claim to understand it enough, so that we have recorded their (those out there) truth faithfully.
#:Verifiability is the ability to verify -- in the current policy, the ability to verify that a reliable source has said something. Truth is not the ability to verify, it has no ability in it - it's an assertion, an ipsa dixit. In the scheme of what editors are doing, it makes sense that we first require them to come to agreement that a reliable source has said something, and agree what that something is (no misrepresentation or mistake because, we know the truth). This is the humility required of us -- we must first take the source on its own terms, even when (especially when) we agree or disagree with it because we know the truth, because in most (all) cases we don't in fact know the truth, and we should in any case assume we and our readers do not, when first approaching the source. Moreover, in practice, and by the dictates of this policy, one editor cannot convince another editor that they have the truth (don't tell me the truth, that's irrelevant, convince me with reliable sources). Only then can editors proceed to agree on correct representation of the source, relevance to the topic, POV and other considerations for putting it in or leaving it out of an article. Unfortunately, the present proposal does not promote these values, it is increased license for editors to promote and propagate unfaithfulness (as if such license were needed) to reporting on reliable sources. ] (]) 15:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:: "We are not tellers of truth"; true, Misplaced Pages articles are tellers of ], which is a reasonable approximation most of the time, and probably the only practical one for a tertiary source. A more appropriate mantra would be «NPOV, not "truth"». Plenty of WP:V-verifiable information is consciously ''excluded'' from Misplaced Pages based on ''editorial judgement'' guided by ], ], ], etc. So, while the humble Wikipedians may not actually decide what is true, they often decide what is untrue, or perhaps more accurately, Wikipedians routinely decide what information is far from the truth. ] (]) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::"'We are not tellers of truth"; true'" Yes, right. As for the rest, you misstate Misplaced Pages policy; WP:V requires RS; and WP:NPOV is not to be read in isolation from WP:V -- "Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies '''jointly''' determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles {{unsigned|Alanscottwalker}}
#:::: Which of my statements misstate Misplaced Pages policies? "'''jointly''' determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles" implies that verifiabilty alone may not be enough for inclusion. Which is what I said. Are you saying that excluding sources is not permitted by the ] or by the ] policy? I very much doubt that. ] (]) 23:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::Where you fail to faithfully summarize policy is in suggesting that WP:NPOV operates without WP:V. WP:V also excludes things from being in articles. All the core policies both include and exclude. Wikpedia articles don't only "tell" WP:NPOV, they also tell WP:Verifiable (as well as, the other policies) ] (]) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose. "traditional" working "verifiability, not truth" concisely says what is required. --] (]) 21:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Current wording is pithy and iconic. The proposed wording is longer, less clear, and hides a significant policy change. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::Curious what ''significant policy change'' you think the editors of this proposal are trying to ''hide'' in change? how do you believe this policy change will be misapplied? ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::There's no change to the ''policy'', just to the ''wording''! ] (] …]) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::Please do stop commenting on the "oppose" threads with identical messages, Pesky. It's... annoying in a very pesky way. ] ] 07:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. We only trust experts to do research, we trust editors to summarize what the experts have published. By "we" I mean the editors, so we could safely assume that many editors can be trusted to understand the opinions of the experts. If an expert makes a mistake, how does it come that one has to rely upon original research instead of finding another expert who points out the mistake of the former expert? My understanding is that according to Popper scientists constantly work to reject (falsify) the work of other scientists. So it is very improbable that the bulk of experts who read scientific papers for a living cannot see a gross mistake and a Misplaced Pages editor is needed to cry "The king is naked!" Perhaps this is a bit too exaggerated, but I guess you see what I mean.<br><br>An example: in string theory there is simply no fact yet discovered, so we cannot say that even a jot of string theory is proven true. As S. James Gates, Jr. said, "string theory is applied mathematics, it isn't physics yet." And we generally assume that physics is the most reliable of all empirical sciences. So there are clearly areas in physics wherein there lies not a single truth, but they are filled with opinions expressed by scientists. All such opinions could be deleted from Misplaced Pages "because they aren't true". This would mean proposing the whole string theory article for deletion. Obviously, these opinions aren't true, but this does not mean that they aren't informative. Above I have simply bracketed the idea that one cannot prove truth, but one can only prove falsity (according to Popper). The idea is that scientists have to prove the falsity of string theory, this is not the task of Misplaced Pages. Experts have to agree upon what counts as falsified in a discipline, and we render their views.<br><br>By adopting the idea that truth matters, we open largely the doors for relativity theory denialists, see . There is a whole society of fringe theorists who claim to have proven Einstein wrong, using plain mathematical calculations (often limited to the math one learned in high-school). The same way, all sociology articles could be deleted, since no sociological theory is consensually accepted as the true one by sociologists. And psychology consists of many competing schools of thought, so one could erase psychology articles, too, since there is no school consensually accepted as the true one. ] (]) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I think it's better off the way it is; since it 'gets to the point', readers don't have to read the whole page just to find the core principle of the policy. ] (]) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The sort of editor who needs to be sent to this page really needs the "not truth" to be in the first sentence and in bold. That's because the concept is so very counterintuitive. I know, because I was one of those editors. I was send here after one of my first IP edits and I really needed to be hit over the head with`'''verifiability, not truth'''. --] (]) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
#:Even though I am mildly supporting the proposal, I agree with that, a lot. Assuming the proposal is adopted, I think that it's very important that the new section be easily linked and easily seen. --] (]) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' on the whole. I would, on balance, support adding something very like the new paragraph ''without'' removing '''not truth''' from the lead. Let's see how that looks and works for a few months and then see whewther we only need to say "V not T" once. (I say "very like" because, for example, some errors in reliable sources - such as the wrong year - can be so obvious that correcting them and adding a footnote will be sufficient, rather than cluttering the talk page. A good idea, but this is too hasty an implementation. ] <small>]</small> 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
#Oh, Lord, how I '''oppose''' this idea! The present lead is perfectly understandable, and much shorter, too. Thank you. Sincerely, ] (]) 06:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It's not broke, don't fix it. This policy is already long enough without having to ]. If someone wants to type this up in a user essay, that's fine, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the policy. ] (]) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' I do not think the proposed change is an improvement. ] (]) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Cannot really see why this is causing a fuss. There are plenty of statements that are true but not reliably sourced, and just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it has to be in Misplaced Pages if it fails other guidelines.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' This has always been a badly expressed statement, mainly because there is not a genuine consensus about the policy. My view is that Misplaced Pages aims for accuracy by means of verifiability, in that statements which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need to point to evidence for their accuracy; in such circumstances the simple truth of a statement is not enough. Other think that nothing which is not cited is acceptable and (at the extreme end) most things which are can be. The proposed wording moves too far in the wrong direction for me and looks designed to merge this policy with RS.--] (]) 13:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
# The current form is shorter and easier to understand. ] (]) 04:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I like the idea of refactoring the sentence to deter disingenuity, but I don't like the wordiness (and) (so) (many) (clauses) (in) (brackets) of the above proposal. I would have it simply say "For inclusion in Misplaced Pages, all information must be verifiable." I don't think it needs to even go into how truth is also required, or how verifiability not truth is key; it just leads the policy into unecessary tangents and repeated clarifications. ]&amp;] 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I believe the proposed change is a step ''towards'' your main points, albeit with compromise type wording. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


::Returning to the main topic: the thing that seems strange to me is that extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong), while extreme right-wing sources are. ] (]) 14:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
====Neutral====
:::{{tq|extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong)}} yes you <s>age</s> +are+ wrong. Take for example in British news media The Canary and Skwarkbox are both considered unreliable, and are on the far left of politics. Also to be clear sources aren't banned so much as actively discouraged if the consensus is that they are unreliable.
* <s>Neutral</s> (Switched to oppose, above.) I agree with some of this. I agree that verifiability is an "initial threshold for inclusion" (while sometimes verifiable information may not meet other thresholds). I agree that verification is not a guarantee for inclusion (though that fact is mentioned elsewhere, so I'm neutral about its inclusion here). My concern is that the proposed wording intends to ''de-emphasize'' the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion -- but it could effectively ''remove'' that criterion by basing it only on an essay that will no longer be accurate. See my question below. I might switch my comment to "support" if my concerns are adequately resolved, or to "oppose" if they are not. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Whether governments or voters are of a particular part of the political spectrum is also not a consideration in judging the reliability of sources. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:I can't speak for others, but as the primary author of the proposal, I can assure you that my intent ''isn't'' to "de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for ''inclusion''" (I firmly agree that it is not), my intent is to address the opposite side of the coin: whether '''un'''truth is an acceptable criterion for ''exclusion''.
::::{{Ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} thank you very much for this detailed and very useful explanation. ] (]) 14:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:These are two sides of the same coin... The "unverifiable truth" side of the coin has a black and white answer... if the material isn't verifiable, we shouldn't include it, no matter how true it may be. But there isn't a clear black and white answer to the "verifiable untruth" side of the coin... sometimes we should exclude verifiable material that is untrue, and sometimes we shouldn't. It's a case by case determination... and the determination is (in most cases) based primarily on policy concepts ''other'' than verifiability. The problem is that the current policy doesn't mention this. It ''only'' discusses one side of the coin. The point of the proposal is to address both. It may not do a perfect job of doing so, but at least we try to address it. Does this resolve your concerns? ] (]) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::The primary reason media sources get Deprecated (which is not quite a “ban”), is that they have repeatedly been shown to not fact check (or, in some cases, shown to completely invent “facts” which they report).
::I apologize if I misrepresented your intentions. I want to be clear here... it sounds like you're saying that there are times that verifiable statements might still need to be deleted based on the claim that they are '''untrue''', and that this wording change is designed to facilitate that. Am I correct in that? &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::As to why right leaning sources seem to be more likely to be deprecated than left leaning ones… this is due to the fact that right wing sources tend to get more ''scrutiny''. It’s no secret that Misplaced Pages attracts academics, who tend to be a somewhat left leaning group. They ''notice'' (and complain) when right-wing sources don’t fact check… and they tend to be a bit more forgiving when left-wing sources do the same.
:::Yes, that's clearly the case. An example that the working group came up with, in discussion, was the statement that "Pluto is a planet". That statement is verifiable and I can prove it by reference to otherwise-reliable sources, but it's also been false since 2006 when the definition of "planet" changed. The proposed wording allows for that kind of situation, and more controversial ones too.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::That being said, we ''have'' deprecated a few left-wing sources when enough evidence has been presented to show they are not properly fact checking. It’s difficult, but possible. ] (]) 15:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't believe the truth of that statement matters, in terms of whether it should be included. It's a matter of the weight of the sources. Certainly statements should be challenged if more recent sources contradict it, if corrections are issued, etc., but not merely based on a claim of ''untruth''. To make a simplistic example, if I claim "Cromulent widgets tend to be blue", and I provide a reliable source, and Joe Blow claims the statement is ''untrue'' (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear. The proposed wording, while having some advantages, seems to open the door to the possibility that Joe's claim of ''untruth'' has weight. If so, I can't support it. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::{{Ping|Blueboar}} Recognizing and admitting this problem is certainly a big step forward, but '''actions are more important than words'''; I would like neutrality not to be compromised in the encyclopedia. ] (]) 20:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Re Quadell's comment, "Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear." - Not really. The current wording discusses what is <u>necessary</u> for inclusion, not what is <u>sufficient</u> for inclusion. In other words, the current wording doesn't say whether or not something can be excluded based on a claim like Joe Blow's. The present wording only says that something can't be included based only on a claim by Joe Blow that it is true. Both the current wording and the proposed wording are neutral on the issue of excluding material from a reliable source because someone claims it is not true. The current wording says nothing about it, and the proposal says it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, with reference to other policies. --] (]) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::With respect, Blueboar’s comment is not an admission of any problem, it’s an example of the long debunked myth of the liberal media, which Blueboar evidently believes is true. Virtually every aspect of their comment is untrue, IMO. For example, the vast majority of US sources are center to center right, not "left", and the leading opposition party in the US (D) takes policy positions that are considered center to center right in the rest of the world. What I’ve found most interesting about this is to look closely at the history of CNN and MSNBC, two of the so-called "leftist" bugbears attacked by the right as communists. As it turns out, both networks take center to center right positions on most issues and are run by pro-corporate, pro-big business leaders. The idea that reality has a liberal bias began in the early 1970s as a right-wing libertarian call to arms, which has created an alternate reality where right is center and center is left. This was intentional. It began as a way to limit government regulation and undermine democracy. This is a good example of what happens when people lose touch with things like facts and become a ] society. And this is the true reason right wing sources tend to be highly deprecated. They don’t believe in things like facts. And when facts no longer matter, democracy ceases to function. Apologies if this offends anyone. ] (]) 01:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The ''proposed'' wording, on the other hand, ''does'' address this somewhat... it says to discuss the issue on the talk page with reference to ''other'' polices and guidelines. Yes, it ''is'' passing the buck to those other policies and guidelines, but at least it is more than is in the current version. ] (]) 01:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Responding to Quadell, I submit that there are three flaws in what I believe is implied your "Joe Blow" statement. One is implying that Joe Blow could unilaterally remove the statement over objections based just on his claim of falsehood. Nothing new or old supports this. Second is is that a simple "I say it's false" unsupported claim of falsehood is a sort of straw-man rarity....inevitably such a claim includes something to support its veracity. The third is overlooking the more realistic option which is simply that Joe Blow's statement of falsehood is allowed to enter into the conversation (doubtless gauged based on what Joe includes to support his assertion) that the editors are having about potential exclusion of material. Currently a common mis-read is often used to completely exclude that from the conversation. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::It's up to you whether you can support it, but I want to say that I completely disagree with you. Jimbo expressed my view very well when he said: ''"We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what sources say. We want to only write true things in Misplaced Pages, and we want to verify them."'' My position is that wikipedians are educators, and there's something sinister about an educator who doesn't care about the truth. We absolutely can, do, and must, make judgments about what's true. Oh, sure, we can put it in terms like "weight of the sources" and try to judge which source is "most reliable", but in fact what we mean when we say that a source is "reliable" or "deserves weight" is that that source is "likely to be true". Thus we put a semantic layer in between article content and truth. But when our judgment about what to include depends on which source is the most likely to be accurate, then the difference between that and making judgments about "truth" is semantics and nothing but. And my position is that we should be intolerant of those who wish to introduce lies into encyclopaedia articles.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I disagree. When we say that a source is reliable and has weight we do not make a judgement about its presumed veracity, but about the degree to which it represents current consensus in the relevant field. I must say that I am surprised at Mr. Wales in my view rather naive understanding of what truth is. To make judgments about what is true is the job of specialist researchers - not wikipedian editors. It is implicit in the word "editor" that we make editorial decisions - of what to include and what not. But editors do not overrule professional researchers conclusions even if they disagree with them, they leave that to the scientific community. You are trying to give wikipedia a function of knowledge creation in addition to its role of knowledge transmission. That could be fine given that that is what a majority of wikipedians feel it should do, but it is not what I signed up for. ]·] 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, where there's a controversy in any field, Misplaced Pages prefers the mainstream academic consensus. It's right that we do that. We present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative ("Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor...", quoted from ]) and the alternative views as reported speech ("Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates (sic) lack of common ancestry", quoted from ]). From my point of view, the reason to use reported speech is because the addition of "some advocates believe" turns what would be a false statement in the simple indicative ("The major differences... indicate lack of common ancestry") into a true one. And from my point of view, the reason to present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative is because we default to believing that the mainstream academic consensus is the correct view. But if you take away the value judgments about "truth" from this process, then actually there's no reason to treat the mainstream academic consensus about evolution any differently from baraminology, so either both belong as reported speech, or else both belong in the simple indicative (presumably the latter, since if we don't care about truth, the simpler construction is to be preferred).<p>This is why I believe the ]? view is logically inconsistent and fails to document good practice as well as a truth-based view.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::The idea that "verifiability" does ''not'' include a brief review of whether something cited by a source is accurate or not, is and always has been an erroneous POV. Verifiability implies much more than confirming that a statement can be ''found'' in a reliable source. It also implies that such a statement can be evaluated based upon other, corresponding criteria, such as the authority of the author, the reliability of the publisher, and the relevancy and currency of the statement. In the Pluto example, such a statement ''fails'' the currency criteria. We can verify it, but it is no longer current, and this means, it is no longer ''accurate''. This is very simple to understand, so I am unable to grasp its opposition. ] (]) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}But it is quite easy to see how editors come to the conclusion that Verifiability is ''nothing more'' than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. ] (ie What counts as a reliable source) covers the authority of the author and reliability of the publisher issues but makes '''no''' comment regarding accuracy.--] (]) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


::] - Outside of politics the banning also happens. I think it is just the mechanics or effect of ]. For the UK it seems more an elitism thing than a political leaning -- for example it seems most British press by volume is excluded as low class. RSP seems to interpret 'reliable' to mean 'respected' or 'truth' to that WP editor, excluding consideration of 'available' or 'accurate' from 'verifiability'. (You can elsewhere see discussions on a paywalled source or remote paper being preferred despite readers generally not having access to such or ]) The terms RSP uses are "Blacklisted" meaning mechanically edits including that site are blocked, or "Deprecated" meaning the guidance includes "generally prohibited" by automatic warning of such an editor and removal of such edits by third parties, or "Generally unreliable" meaning outside "exceptional circumstances" not to be used with removal by third parties and pings in TALK. If you want to see what discussions on what to ban are like, they are mixed in at ]. Cheers ] (]) 04:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
#'''Abstain'''.<small> (Moved from '''Oppose''' until final opinion is formed.)</small> '''Verifiability, not truth''' may be a slap in the face when reading it the first time – it certainly was to me because it gave me the impression that the Misplaced Pages community does not care about the (objective) truth but only about verifiability. But you quickly start to understand the rationale behind this, and the meme becomes a powerful and appealing one. While I understand that '''not truth''' provides futile grounds for wikilawyering and a more clarifying version is therefore welcome, I am missing what our current meme delivers so clearly, that "truth" by itself is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion. I am willing to support a version that addresses the issue about truth in its lead paragraph, but not this one. ] (]) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
#::I think there is a trade-off between the current wording and the proposal. The current slogan is powerful in that it makes newcomers immediately clear that "truth" by itself is not a criterion for inclusion. The proposed wording attempts to address the concern that editors purposefully add false information that is presented in a reliable source. The end result for both wordings is the same: whether to include some material is a matter of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Maybe it is the latter part that should be clarified. In the end, it seems all a question of which version is more likely to be misinterpreted. ] (]) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#I don't really have an opinion on proposal (2) because the definition of verifiability found in this policy is rather confusing. "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has been published by a reliable source." Is a piece publicly displayed in a museum something "published by a reliable source", for instance? What if it's on public display only for a limited time? Can we write in an article that a piece is found in said museum while the public display condition holds true, but we'd have to delete it thereafter? Also, a I think a policy should not link to an essay inline in its text. Perhaps ] should be linked only in the "See also" section. I think that simply adding WP:DUE as an example in the first sentence "(especially whether specific material is included in a specific article, '''e.g. ]''')." would be a less verbose way to mention a concern that is not central to this policy. Proposed addition is in bold here, but I don't suggest actually using bold in the policy text. ] (]) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#: Generally, things made available to the "public" have been "published". The words are very closely related. You might find it helpful to read ]. On the specific example, the answer is yes for most circumstances: signs or items that are displayed in a museum (or street corner) are published. The items on display are primary sources, so you have to be ]. However, if the exhibit is closed later, then they are no longer accessible and thus ineligible (exactly like a book is no longer eligible if every known copy is later destroyed). ] (]) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
#::As someone training in the museum profession I should point out that in general museum exhibits have source material for what information they provide so a museum exhibit is NOT going to be your only source for information. If the information is so obscure that the source the museum used cannot be found then you have to ask if it meets ]. For example I would love to have an article here on Doane R. Hoag's "Random Time Machine" articles that ran in several papers for nearly a decade starting in the 1970s but other than the paper it appeared in there is nothing on it and so because it fails ] we don't have an article on it and likely never will.--] (]) 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::Verifiability applies to far more than "shall we have an article entirely about this subject" (=notability). You could use a museum exhibit to support, say, a single sentence in an article about fossils or history if you wanted. It might not be the best possible source, but it's probably adequate, and you must ], even if better sources might exist. ] (]) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I agree with the sentiment of this change, but I don't think it will work. The '''verifiability, not truth''' mantra will continue, as it is effectively true. ] (]) 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
#:The mantra is not true, it's verifiable... (sorry I couldn't resist). ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
#::Mark, the purpose of the proposal was never to discontinue the mantra... but to explain it better, so that people understand what it means and use it appropriately (and not use it inappropriately). ] (]) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


:::{{Ping|Markbassett}} I'm not convinced that this isn't political. What's the percentage between left-wing and right-wing sources that can be used? Perhaps an 80/20? ] (]) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
====Questions====
::::I'm saying that banning sources via blacklisting and deprecated designations seems basically an elitism act, and that it exists in all venues or topics - so it's in effect at articles for sports or music or basically anything. I'm not talking politics, or whether some parties might exploit it for financial or personal reasons -- I'm saying it simply is always a direct issue to the policies for V and WEIGHT. You cannot have WEIGHT properly measured if you exclude considering any significant circulation because editors think those are labelled as lesser venues, and if you are selecting paywalled or tiny elite items as the one to cite, then it's preferring the not accessible ones which is contrary to it being V verifiable. Cheers ] (]) 22:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
=====Linked essay bases itself on the current wording=====
:::::{{Ping|Markbassett}} very interesting discussion. So is Misplaced Pages making a mistake in rejecting certain sources or is it doing so in good faith? In my opinion the second option is correct, but I would like to read yours. ] (]) 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
* The proposed wording for this policy links to the essay ] in order to explain that truth is not enough for inclusion (a clearly important concept). But that essay bases itself on the current wording here; it's initial sentence is "Misplaced Pages's core sourcing policy, ], defines the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages as '''verifiability, not truth.'''" How will this discrepancy be resolved? &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Well I tend to view RSP usage here as problematic, but my wider view is Misplaced Pages content is from editors that are just people - good people and bad people, informed one way among many, obsessive or ditzy, with good days and bad days, days they have time to be careful and days that are rushed. You can look over RS debates and RSP debates or just filter recent changes to the ones possibly vandalism and judge for yourself.
**Well, clearly, by editing the essay. We need to see what the consensus wording for the policy will be before we can fix the essay, though.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::For RSP in particular, I was not a fan of the idea back when it started and events have not improved my views of it and the way mechanics of it work. It supposedly was meant to capture the RS conclusions from earlier "Perennial" RS questions, so it could help the RS consideration. But folks just propose and argue from whatever stance for banning - there is not necessarily prior RS considerations or policy criteria in play. And instead of informing a RS consideration it seems mainly a blanket forever judgement - or at least I have not seen any reversals up or down. My revision of your 80/20 question back to you would be more along the lines of if WP bans 80% of the UK press, then is it a 20% valid portrayal of views ? Cheers ] (]) 23:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*** Does it make sense to propose a change to a policy's wording that would both link to an essay and make that essay inaccurate at the same time? &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::{{Ping|Markbassett}} is it possible to have an accurate statistic of how many left-wing and right-wing sources are deprecated? ] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
****Yes, it makes perfect sense. Essays are not rules... however, one of the main purposes of essays is to explain the thinking and intent ''behind'' the rules. The essay in question is a very ''good'' explanation of the the thinking and intent behind the phrase: "Verifiability, not truth". Linking to it will help readers gain an deeper understanding of what we mean by that phrase. Now, we will need to amended the essay slightly if this proposal is passed, but that does not mean we should not link to the essay at all. ] (]) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I think one can only get a statistic of the simple sort and count by their status like 20 banned, 44 deprecated, 133 generally unreliable, 100 no consensus, 119 generally reliable. Anything else would need a chosen filtering and categorizing. But I think RSP counts is less a concern than percentage of external, or individual articles being totally dependent on limited source.
*****Although this isn't exactly responding to Quadell's question, I'd like to suggest that, assuming the proposal passes, we have a shortcut that goes directly to the new section about truth. Currently, ] directs to the top of ]. I'd very much like to see it target, instead, the proposed new section. --] (]) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The first concern is more how large a percentage of the total ] of coverage for a POV is being excluded by RSP, because it seems the largest or most known sources are the ones to get excluded, so a simple count such as '5' banned needs the context of is that 5 of only 6 or is it 5 of 100, and does the 5 constitute 95% of the WEIGHT or what ? For example again, almost all of major circulation are banned, and the banning for reason for banning for being 'sensationalist' or 'just sports' then means not having the best available data or best known portrayals on topics that were UK scandals or UK sports events.
******Unless I'm missing something, the proposed wording does not link to that essay. The rationale does, but it is not a part of the proposed change. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The second concern is that at some articles the cites are too limited by selections which perhaps excludes what the most common view is outside of WP, or at least will not show all the common views so be a failure of NPOV. Again, this is all categories -- for example one cannot have a music article that only shows the academic views and think that reflects the world opinions and complete story. Cheers ] (]) 21:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{Ping|Markbassett}} ] shouldn't have been created, perhaps Misplaced Pages is unnecessarily self-complicating. ] (]) 22:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think it's possible to get such a count, because you'd have to first agree on where to draw the line between left and right. For example, ] is most commonly described as centrist, but some editors think it's leftist. ] seems to be considered center-left, except that there are complaints that it's right-wing on trans issues. ] (]) 00:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I haven’t heard the NYT described as center left in polite company. I think that’s a talking point on the right. If you followed the last presidential election, it appeared that the NYT was rooting for Trump on the regular and frequently pushes center to center right policy proposals. I think there’s this misunderstanding about the NYT that has persisted for decades, that because they cover a wide variety of topics that somehow makes them leftist. It doesn’t. If you recall, the NYT has been the subject of critiques from the left in the US since at least WWII, when they pretended Hitler wasn’t a problem and the Holocaust wasn’t newsworthy. Many controversies surrounding their conservative to right wing coverage in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, the NYT was frequently referred to by the left as '']''. In the 2000s, they were taken down a notch for supporting and promoting the Iraq War and for government stenography, failing to investigate the false claims of WMD. During the Trump, post-truth era, the NYT was described as giving Trump a free pass while also attacking Democrats who might have paid a parking ticket late, etc. One of the NYT’s lead reporters has been repeatedly accused of engaging in access journalism, replacing critical analysis with softball questions and empty analysis. I could go on. ] (]) 02:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::When I've seen people (usually inexperienced editors) complain about the New York Times (]), it's almost always because they think it's liberal/leftist. ] (]) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Should there be a statement that accessible sources are nevertheless preferred? ==
===== The case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement =====
*How do you propose to resolve the case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement? I remember a case where a statement was made about Misplaced Pages by a reliable secondary source that was directly contradicted by the primary source of the page histories. (I'd give more details, but I don't feel like digging through archives until I remember). Easily verifiable, but in contradiction to the way we're supposed to be working here. I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things.--] 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Because I think there ought to be one. The present policy defends less accessible sources entirely but there ought to be a balance. If there is a more accessible source and a less accessible source for a given bit of information, and it's not desirable to cite both, the more accessible source should be preferred. If a piece of information with a citation from an inaccessible source is contradicted by a more accessible, equally reliable source, there should be a preference towards the verified piece of information unless the first source can be located. If I own the latest edition of a book on a topic and the text in question is the same as an older edition that is on archive.org, I should cite the older edition because editors can go look at the book themselves more easily. Doing otherwise might not be a problem in itself but might lead to issues down the line. ] (]) 08:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:If a source is demonstrably wrong it is ipso facto not a "reliable source" - that is explained in ]. I really wish people would stop trying to force this policy to do the work of a different policy. ] (]) 15:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Where in RS is there any guidelines on that? I think RS does a very good job in explaining who to judge a book by its covers, and that's what is needed most of the time, but nowhere in Misplaced Pages, even not in this proposal, is there particularly helpful advice on what to do when a secondary source is contradicted by primary or raw data sources. ] (]) 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes actually have a clear policy on that: What we need to do if we find that a peer reviewed publication is contradicted by primary sources is that we write an article about our interpretation of the sources arguing that previous interpretations are wrong and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.]·] 16:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::And how is checking a primary source to see if it aligns with a secondary sources description of it not Original Research? Are we not in effect saying that our skills as researchers trump the ones of peer reviewed professionals. ]·] 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::I think the problem everyone here is grappling with is the misuse of reliable sources. The simple fact that something is published in a book or journal article is not always sufficient to establish that this is an ''appropriate'' source or that the view it expresses is ''significant''. I think everyone would agree about this. But whatever our solution is, it cannot be one that promotes original research, I agree fully with Maunus. I think the problem is that people have turned publication, which was a ''minimum'' criterion for verifiability, into the ''maximum'' criterion. The problem is that we need more information to know whether the source is appropriate or the view is significant. This requires more research, but not ''original research'' as Maunus describes. It means reading enough secondary sources to understand what exactly makes any given book or article important and to whom, perhaps. ] | ] 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: We are not talking about conflicting views expressed in secondary sources. Sarek's question is about when a reliable source is contradicted by a primary or raw data source. To simplify the example, assume The New York Times, and a bunch of outlets repeating it, state that Jimbo Wales edited the entry of president Obama to say Obama is a really nasty piece of work, and you check the contribution logs and see this edit was made by an impostor, such as ]. What would you do? Wait until New York Times retract their statement? No other views are published in secondary sources, so it is up to you to decide whether you want to repeat untrue information. What kind of research, based on secondary sources, would help us here? What kind of NPOV considerations? ] (]) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::We have an editorial discussion and decide whether the statement in the Times is significant enough to be notable- If we decide that it is then we write "On february 10th the New York times published a piece accusing Jimbo Wales of dissing Obama". And we do it because that is a fact. When Wales then decides to retort via the press then we include his statement as well. Any other approach would be Original Research. (you could for example write your finding in a letter to the editorial staff of the times - thus making them retract the statement)]·] 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Okay, that is a pretty good answer, although perhaps my example was too harmless and does not adequately reflect the situation that Sarek was referring to. Still, I would not say any other approach is original research: there is no attempt to include something in the article, and one should try to avoid repeating libelous information, even attributed, until of course the situation reaches such degree of notability that it can't be avoided, but instead Misplaced Pages is one of the first places that reports, and escalates, such controversies. ] (]) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I would argue that we handle it this way. The Misplaced Pages log is a primary source, but in this hypothetical case its reliability trumps the reliability of the secondary source The New York Times. We should always use the best and most reliable source when we try to verify something, and if that source refutes the allegation that Jimbo Wales vandalized the Barack Obama article, then that is the version we should go by. The next questions are "Is the NYT allegation notable?" and "Is it notable that someone impersonated Jimbo Wales?". If the answer to these questions is "no", then I would probably exclude that content altogether. ] ] 19:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::The proposal attempts to deal with all of this in two ways... first, by noting that Verifiability is a requirement for, but not a guarantee of inclusion... and by noting that we should look to ''other'' polices and guidelines to make the determination as to ''whether'' to include a specific bit of verifiable information. ] (]) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::But the policy needs to state specifically that untruth is not in itself a valid reason for exclusion, we can include untrue statements ''if'' they are notable ''and'' attributed to their specific source, ''and'' weighted with any contradictory statements according to significance. For example we can include in the article about Monical Lewinsky that "President Clinton stated I did not have sex with that woman", and no one can remove that statement because it is a lie - because it is vrifiable fact that he made the statement.]·] 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's a true statement. President Clinton did state "I did not have sex with that woman". Therefore the policy supports its inclusion.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Exactly. It is also true to write "the national inquirer wrote that Leonardo di Caprio has been analprobed by aliens". The reason we don't include that is not that it is untrue, but that it is insignificant. For that reason the question of "truth" is not relevant - only the question of verifiability and attribution. User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. Similarly we don't remove Clinton's statement because an editor happens to have a photo of a sexual act betwen Clinton and Lewinsky, falsifying Clinton's statement. ]·] 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This kind of example got discussed to death by the working group over a period of about eight months. The situation is that if an editor writes, "Clinton stated, 'I did not have sex with that woman'," then the statement is true; but if an editor writes, "Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky" then that statement is very arguably false and certainly needs to be refactored. Even though it's sourced to the President of the United States himself. The proposed policy wording clarifies how to deal with such situations.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I don't think it does. On the contrary it suggests that wikipedians can remove statements that they "know" to be untrue regardless of whether there are any reliable sources supporting that conclusion. This undermines both WP:V and WP:NOR.]·] 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::SarekOfVulcan, the case you are talking about is now part of the ] page and is where Peter Knight's direct statement "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909" could be proven wrong as the phrase "conspiracy theory" could be shown to have appeared ''before'' 1909 with the earliest RS ''The Journal of mental science'' (1871)--] (]) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


:When Misplaced Pages was young the better sources were almost exclusively off-line. While it is true that more reliable sources are now available on-line (almost all scholarly journals and many books), I would say that more than 95% percent of what is available on-line is still not usable as sources in Misplaced Pages. Most of the best sources on-line are still those that have been published on paper before or simultaneously with the on-line version. Unfortunately, many of the on-line sources are behind paywalls, but that does not mean that we should accept poor sources simply because they are free. The WikipediaLibrary has helped with that, providing access to paywall protected sources to editors who meet the requirements. Indeed, it has allowed me to drop my private subscription to JSTOR. We should always strive to use the best reliable sources to support content in articles. I would say that more of the highest quality sourcing is available on-line now than was the case 15 to 20 years ago, and so there is even less reason today to ease our sourcing standards than there was then. ] 16:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
] is intended to be a response to this type of discussion.&nbsp; This essay currently says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."&nbsp; And {{quote|* Levels of exclusion regarding potentially inaccurate material<br>
::: The nightmare case is editors misrepresenting sources, and doing it with obscure sources that are hard to check. I expect you can think of the particular editor I have in mind (I'll name them if requested but I don't know that it adds much). I don't have a real solution to this; such an editor would not really be stopped by a statement that high-availability sources are preferred. But it's something to keep in mind. --] (]) 00:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
* We don't use Misplaced Pages's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution.<br>
:In many cases it is a good idea to cite an off-line or subscription source with lots of detail, or especially authoritative, also citing one accessible online, perhaps with less detail or authority. Remembering also that google books previews are only available in different countries or times entirely as the publisher chooses. ] (]) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
* We mention the anomaly in a footnote.<br>
::I'm also seeing publishers or authors putting fairly recent but out-of-print books on-line for free, or as a free e-book. Not very common, yet, but I hope it is a growing trend. ] 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
* The potentially inaccurate material has so little prominence (]), that we don't mention it at all.}}
] (]) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:This policy with which I was not familiar should be integrated much more prominently in the proposed text of WP:V then.]·] 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::This essay is purposed as a guideline to be linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV.&nbsp; It is new and needs more eyes.&nbsp; ] (]) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Elevating this would go a long way towards alleviating the problems that are driving this discussion. ] (]) 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
** Reply to the original question: there is a statement in ]: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." ] (]) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
*** We need to stop using "secondary source" to mean "good source". Secondary sources can be truly lousy: biased, inaccurate, incomplete, non-independent, and more. If the primary source is more likely to be correct than the secondary source, then we should go with the ''better'' source. A secondary source might tell you whether a given piece of information is important (DUE), but it is not automatically the best possible source. For example, if you're quoting a line from a poem, it's often better to cite the original publication, not the (possibly mistaken) second-hand reproduction in someone else's book. We all know how the ] works, and anyone who doesn't recognize the problems that secondary sources have with quotations should be sentenced to cleaning up errors at ] until he or she becomes achieves enlightenment. ] (]) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
****I fully agree especially when "secondary source" = "good source" is used to curb stomp NPOV issues such as those seen in the ] --] (]) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)article.


:All else being equal, where there are multiple high-quality reliable sources available for a claim, we can lean towards more accessible sources. But often all else is not equal. For example, citing an older source over a newer one can give the impression that the claim may be dated and no longer reflective of the literature. And where equally reliable sources disagree, we definitely shouldn't disregard one perspective based solely on how accessible it is. ] (]) 00:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
===Need explicit wording===
1. The casual reader needs some help to make the distinction between two definitions of ''verifiability'':
:* ''common:'' The ability to determine if a claim corresponds to truth.
:* ''Misplaced Pages's:'' The ability to determine if a summary of a claim corresponds to its appearance in a published reliable source. ] (]) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. I would also like to see ''an explicit denial'' that as a collaboration we are ''indifferent to truth''. My own contribution along these lines is here: ] ] (]) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:On point #2 - I agree that such a statement would be beneficial... but I don't think WP:V is the right place to put it. ] (]) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
::Both points are common misunderstandings of WP:V. ''We're not indifferent...'' appears in the essay. If I see the accusation that Misplaced Pages editors are indifferent to the truth on- or off- Wiki again, I will bring it up on the talk page. ] (]) 13:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


== editing the text of WP:SPS ==
:::I fully agree that the WIkipedia meaning of verifiability is different from wha tis at least one very common understanding and we should make this clearer. I also acknowledge that the definition of the Misplaced Pages use of the term is wording that the V policy has had since the page was created. I am sorry I didn't argue against it at the time, but I think that this wording has caused us a heap of trouble. It is not wrong, but it skips a step and insodoing turns reliable sources into ends when they are means to an end. I think the missing step is: we are verifying that the claim that we represent is a "significant view" meaning that the claim is not one of our own invention but rather one that is universally held, widely held, held by a majority, held by a notable minority. "Reliable sources" are the ''means'' by which we verify this. But what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Without making this clear, to things often happen: (1) many editors misuse sources, using hat may in some context be a reliabl source inappropriately and (2) observers of WP conclude that we include anything that has been published on the web. What we are verifying is that it is a significant view giving due weight to its significance. It is only in relation to this principle that a source can be deemed reliable and be used effectively. ] | ] 11:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


The text of WP:SPS currently says (1) {{tq|Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources}}, and (2) {{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}
::::I think that most would consider this to be pretty overwhelming, far beyond beyond a consensus already. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sentence (1) does not exist in the corresponding ] text. Moreover, it implies that expert SPS cannot themselves be independent reliable sources, and it's not clear to me that the claim about probability is true. I propose deleting this sentence, or at least the portion of it that comes after the colon.
Sentence (2) is a bit inconsistent with the corresponding text of ], which now includes the following exception: {{tq|It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example.}} ] has similar exceptions in various places on that page; I'm not sure about other subject-specific notability guidelines for people. Should a corresponding sentence be added to WP:SPS? (FWIW, since editors disagree about what SPS does/doesn't encompass, I will likely start an RfC about that after the closure of the RfC on grey literature mentioned above. We could wait til that's over, as it may have broader implications for the wording of WP:SPS.) ] (]) 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


:In regard to BLP, it seems like "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example" is not saying that it is ok to use an SPS on a BLP, just that this does not count as an SPS. If that is the case does it provide a counter example to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"? - ] (]) 23:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
===Time to close? ===
::No, the recent clarification at ] is saying that your employer is not a "third-party" to you. A press release is always self-published. A press release or a social media post saying "Bob's Big Business, Inc. is delighted to announce that they have hired Sam Sales as the new Vice President of Global Sales" is:
::* non-independent (of the business; of the new VP of sales),
::* self-published (written by the business, published by the business),
::* primary (very close to the event, based on no prior publications),
::* reliable (for sentences such as "Sam Sales was hired as Vice President of Global Sales in 2024"), and
::* acceptable under BLPSPS.
::] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], people have varied views on what is/isn't self-published (see the ''SPS definition'' discussion above). AFAICT, everyone agrees that (a) things like personal blogs, wikis, and social media are SPS and (b) things like traditional newspapers and book publishers are not self-published, but people disagree about (c) whether <small></small> publications from advocacy organizations, universities, companies, think tanks, museums, learned societies, governments, etc. are SPS. The community needs to come to some consensus about (c), and that's why I'm thinking of creating an RfC about it. Depending on one's view about what is/isn't self-published, the BLPSPS sentence might mean that those publications are not self-published (and so don't fall under BLPSPS) or that they're self-published but are exempt from BLPSPS. ] (]) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No, "a press release is always self-published" is only true if the press release is published by a natural person, not an organization. It is, however, a primary source. ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You made the argument above that a natural person (e.g., me) can self-publish something, but that when an organization (e.g., "WhatamIdoing, Inc.") does exactly the same thing, it's magically not self-published. I'm still not buying it. ] (]) 07:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:], rather than trying to keep everything perfectly in sync across multiple pages, maybe we should point to BLPSPS. That might involve adding works like "Per WP:BLPSPS," but would not necessarily involve removing any existing text.
:About your (1): ''"Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources"''.
:The change I'd suggest here is to change "published it in independent, reliable sources" to "published it in a non-self-published reliable source". The non-self-published part is the part that matters. That source will be independent 99% of the time, but it's technically not the problem we're talking about here.
:About your (2): ''"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."''
:What we're trying to say is that even if the author is amazing, and even if the author has written a dozen non-self-published books on this exact subject, it's still 100% not okay to use their self-published works for BLPSPS purposes.
:Imagine, e.g., that Gene Genealogist has written hundreds of articles and several books on genealogy. Gene has even written a whole book (], 2021, good reviews, decent sales) specifically on the subject of birthdates and is considered an expert in the field. Gene self-publishes this on social media: "Here's a fun fact: Paul Politician, Joe Film, and I all share exactly the same birthday. We were all born on the 32nd of Octember in 1960, making us all Baby Boomers. We are all 64 years old right now."
:Using the list above, this post is:
:* non-independent of self, but independent of the others,
:* self-published,
:* primary,
:* reliable, and
:* acceptable only for statements about Gene's own birthday/age/generation. It is unacceptable for statements about Paul or Joe.
:The problem isn't that Gene isn't independent or reliable. The problem is that there was nobody to stop Gene if publishing this were a bad idea for some reason. And rather than say "Oh, it's never a bad idea" or "Do this only if it's a good idea" – and then have fights over whether this is a good or bad idea, then editors voluntarily placed a blanket restriction on ourselves: Don't use even independent expert SPS sources about other people. ] (]) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Re: (1), why do you believe that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source" is true? How would one even go about testing that?
::Re: (2), you quoted a different sentence, one that I'm not questioning. I understand the BLPSPS condition. I also understand that there's significant disagreement about what is/isn't considered self-published. But my question was whether something like {{tq|It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example}}, which is currently in the text of WP:BLPSPS, should be added to the text of WP:SPS. Instead of your Gene Genealogist example, it's instead something like Notable Academic got a Notable Award from Learned Society, as published in Learned Society's newsletter. If one considers a newsletter to be self-published (and you do, though some others might not), then that sentence is saying that it's still OK to cite the newsletter for text on the academic's BLP re: the academic having gotten the award. And the BLPSPS text makes that clear, but the SPS text doesn't. ] (]) 01:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(1) I don't think it's universally true, because "the information in question" could be basic information about the subject (e.g., all biographies should identify when and where the person lived; all articles about books should say what the book was about; all articles about species should say what kind of an organism it is), and sometimes part of that information might not be available anywhere else (e.g., a birthdate or birthplace; the author's explanation of what the book is "really" about; a scientific monograph from previous centuries).
:::However, outside of such basic information, if it isn't available in a non-self-published reliable source, it's unlikely to be ] for inclusion. Remember that this is an information statement rather than a rule (i.e., it does not tell you what to do), and it is not absolute, since it says this is only {{xt|"probably"}} the case.
:::(2) My suggestion is that we solve the mismatch by having a single copy of the full BLP rules at BLPSPS (=''not here'') and that we indicate that WP:V does not have a complete copy of the full BLP rules. The alternative is that we have duplicated text, which will inevitably diverge over time. The available choices are:
:::* a single "official" text, and everything else points to it, or
:::* the maintenance hassle of resolving contradictions that arise between multiple copies.
:::The first approach is recommended in ] ("minimize redundancy"), but if you prefer ongoing maintenance hassles and the periodic need to de-conflict policies, then we could do that. ] (]) 07:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I forgot to address your Learned Society example before I posted this. It's the same as the employer press release:
::::The Learned Society publishes a newsletter. The things we call newsletters are usually self-published, because they are usually being written and published by the organization; however, in some cases, the organization only sponsors the publication, and the publication's staff has editorial independence similar to a magazine (e.g., ]). For simplicity, I'm going to ] that this is a self-published newsletter.
::::One of their self-published newsletters says that Prof. Notable Academic got a Notable Award from the Learned Society. This newsletter item is:
::::* non-independent (of Learned Society; of Notable Award; of Prof. Notable Academic ),
::::* self-published (written by the org, published by the org),
::::* primary (very close to the event, based on no prior publications),
::::* reliable (for sentences such as "Learned Society awarded the Notable Award to Notable Academic in 2024"), and
::::* acceptable under BLPSPS.
::::] (]) 07:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Re: (1), I still don't understand where you're getting the data from that allow you to conclude that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source." To me, it seems like a case where some editors believe this but don't have data to back it up and where it's unclear how one could gather such data. (Arguably, the vast majority of RS information isn't DUE, but that's a different issue, and is the case regardless of whether the source is SPS or non-SPS.)
:::::Re: (2), your comment reminded me that there has been a ] about the parallel texts in WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:BLPSELFBUB. The people involved in that conversation decided that the best solution was "Remove the SELFSOURCE material in RS ; retarget that shortcut to ABOUTSELF's location in V, and "advertise" the shortcut at that place instead; in RS , summarize ABOUTSELF in a sentence and cross-reference it, without an unnecessary and potentially confusing devoted section."
:::::Re: the Learned Society example, the only reason that it's acceptable under BLPSPS is because the exception is specified. It would not be acceptable under the current text of SPS. ] (]) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::For (1), this is not a statement about collected data. This is a statement about editors' collective experience.
::::::For (1), there are two classes of information that are suitable for inclusion. Those two kinds are:
::::::# Basic information about a subject, which belongs in an encyclopedia article because of the requirements of the genre. This includes, for example, writing boring information like "'''George IV''' (George Augustus Frederick; 12 August 1762 – 26 June 1830) was ] and ] from 29 January 1820 until his death in 1830" instead of jumping straight into the subjectively attention-catching content, e.g., "King '''George IV''', nicknamed '''Prinny''', was known for being obese, profligate, prodigal, and promiscuous."
::::::# Non-basic information about a subject, which belongs in an encyclopedia article ''because'' it is in desirable sources.
::::::For the second category, the existence of suitable sources is definitional.
::::::For the first category, the "probable" existence of suitable sources is the collective experience of editors. You might not be able to find every common detail (e.g., a complete birthdate may be unknown, or it may only be available in a self-published source) but if the subject actually qualifies for a ], you will be able to find enough non-self-published sources to meet the requirements of the encyclopedic genre, e.g., to place the subject in the encyclopedic context of time and place.
::::::In re the Learned Society example, it was accept''ed'' in many thousands of articles before the exception was specified. The exception was written down to make the written rules more accurately reflect the community's actual practices. Per ], {{xt|the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected}}. The accepted practice was set by the community for more than a decade. Recently, we updated the written rules to document the already-existing community consensus that an employer is not a True™ third-party from its employees (for the purposes of this policy) and that an award giver is not a True™ third-party from its awardees (for the purposes of this policy) and that therefore self-published statements from these sources are not excluded by BLPSPS.
::::::Perhaps this is the fundamental misconception. The written rules ''follow'' the community practice. The written rules ''document'' the community practice. The written rules are not supreme. The community is supreme. ] (]) 18:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for having pointed out WP:NOTLAW. As much as I try to be familiar with (and abide by) the PAGs, I don't know that I've read all of them in their entirety, and I don't remember all that I've read.
:::::::Re: (1), I'd say that editors' experiences are a form of data, but it's unclear to me how the community determines what the collective experience is. There are ways to determine the consensus of a small number of editors (e.g., in an RfC), where those editors may make arguments based on what they believe about the behavior of editors not involved in the RfC, but that's still a tiny fraction of editors. I don't know how anyone could confirm in any reasonable timeframe that "In re the Learned Society example, it was accepted in many thousands of articles before the exception was specified." (You can't confirm it with any kind of straightforward search; instead, you'd have to individually look at the sources for that kind of info on many thousands of articles, and you also have no way of knowing how many editors left that kind of info out of yet other articles because they thought that the employer, awarder, ..., wasn't an acceptable source.)
:::::::It seems to me that in discussions, there's sometimes a tension between what PAGs say and what collective experience might be ("might" because I'm not sure how to determine "is"); that arose in the discussion about whether learned societies that are highly regarded within an academic field are wiki-notable, and is in play in the dispute about what is/isn't an SPS.
:::::::Re: your 1. and 2., I'd interpreted "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source" as addressing both. And I've probably worked more on academic BLPs than other BLPs, which likely affects how I view all of this. ] (]) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Widely advertised discussions, including but not limited to RFCs, are assumed to represent the view of the whole community unless and until disproven, or at least seriously challenged.
::::::::Every decision is made by a tiny percentage of editors. Even if we had a thousand editors respond to a question, which almost never happens, that's still only 0.12% of last year's registered editors. But it's enough; ] of editors to make the right decision. If the first decision is wrong, we'll discover that over time and adjust.
::::::::In many cases, editors are learning by watching. They see that he cited the Oscars website, and didn't get reverted; she cited the Emmys website and didn't get reverted; they cited the Nobel website and didn't get reverted; and then rationally conclude that award websites must be okay. They will also see the Oscars website sometimes get replaced by a book, the Emmys website sometimes get replaced by a music magazine, and the Nobel website sometimes get replaced by a newspaper article. This means that when a single experienced editor shows up for a discussion, they're describing what they have seen get accepted (or rejected) by dozens or hundreds of editors across many articles.
::::::::Academic BLPs are challenging, because the accepted criteria give little consideration to ] in the first place. I would expect it to be difficult to much past the stub stage for many academic BLPs without veering into OR territory. ] (]) 21:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::], thank you for your responses. You are helpful and extremely patient with all of my questions. ] (]) 19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Proposal to adjust policy on self-published sources ==
Time to close? It received a large number of responses, the results look pretty overwhelming. New responses have trailed off, quantities for the last few days have been:


Hi folks, I just wanted to discuss ] as I think it needs to be tweaked.
*October 23 2
*October 24 1
*October 25 0
*October 26 0
*October 27 1
*October 28 (today) 1


'''The proposed change'''
Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose that the current wording: {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} be changed to:{{quote|Self-published sources may be considered reliable when they are either:
:I think that's very reasonable. Normally, RfCs have to run a minimum of two weeks, and this is well beyond that. You could, perhaps, put a neutrally worded request at ] for a previously uninvolved administrator to do the closure. --] (]) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
*Produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
::I'll do that <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
*When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication.
:::I did that. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
*When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable.}}


'''Why make this change?'''
I agree that it is time to close or to announce an immanent close. But I do not consider the results to be decisive. When changing policy we need to reach a consensus. That more than a third of the people who commented are opposed or neutral shows that we are quite far from a consensus.
Currently we allow a wide range of sources without decent review standards. I'd be surprised if we've not all come across books containing claims that make us wonder if an editor ever held the book, seen podcasts given as sources, etc. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be highly suspicious of self-published sources, that I do not question, but there are other ways of determining a book's reliability than just checking if it was published by a third party.


As the policy currently stands, it does not matter how reliable a self-published book is. This is an issue as not only is this standard far above what we expect from other forms of media, it ignores the reality that book-editors often don't fact-check, and (most importantly) it limits us from using potential sources that can be demonstrated to be otherwise very reliable (even more reliable than other books published by a third-party, as I hope to demonstrate).
Many of the comments, pro and con, provide important and constructive feedback, which is a principal aim of an RfC. The question is, how to draw on the critical comments in order to craft a proposal that will generate a consensus? Answering this question may take some time, but that is something we have plenty of. I certainly think that this consensus is achievable. ] | ] 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:From the policy ] in the lead of the section ,
::"Consensus is not necessarily ]. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes."
:--] (]) 15:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::IMHO, the results are pretty overwhelming, and for the specific proposal. Far above and beyond the norm for a consensus. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


'''Why would this policy change lead to an improvement in Misplaced Pages?'''
::::Yes, and I would point out that the RFC was about specific wording proposed after literally months of long discussion in the attempt to find common ground. I sincerely doubt we will get unanimity on any wording, and as evidence of that I point to the fact that there are two camps of opposes in the RFC who fundamentally disagree as to why it is important to oppose the suggested wording. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I raise this is as I've been working on ] and I've found that two of the recent biographies,{{efn| Susanna de Vries's "Desert Queen: The many lives and loves of Daisy Bates" (2008) and Bob Reece's "Daisy Bates: Grand dame of the desert"}} often disagree with one another on very simple facts about Daisy Bates's life. My suspicion is that they both read autobiographical work written by Bates ("The passing of the Aborigines{{sic}}" (1936)), as well as a biography by Elizabeth Salter (titled "Daisy Bates: Queen of the Never Never" (1972)), and that they didn't do their due diligence in checking other primary sources. I'll give some examples in the collapsible table below:
:::::Absolutely agree with Bob K31416, North8000 and Nuujinn. There's been more than eight months of discussion followed by a long, long RFC that have attracted a lot of interest and a lot of contributions. I'm looking for a decision now—not a compromise, not the start of a new kind of talking shop, but a relatively final outcome so we can finally make progress and move on.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
{{Collapse|2=Fact checking claims of de Vries and Reece
| 1=Some examples below:
*Bob Reece claims on page 37 that Bates camped at Ma'amba reserve in 1901 and was invited to meet a duke and duchess in that same year because she organised a corroboree to welcome them on their arrival in Perth. When I was trying to understand the situation and the reason for the conflicting account I found a journal article and a government report which contradicts Reece; they describe that what was organised in 1901 was not a corroborree and that it was not organised by Bates.{{rp|9}}{{rp|57}} According Elizabeth Salter, Lomas and de Vries, Bates only went to Ma'amba after being hired by the government in 1904, this is backed up by correspondence we have between Bates and government officials (which is quoted by Lomas in his book). You only get the date of 1901 if you take Bates at her word in her autobiographical work.
*It appears that neither de Vries nor Reece actually read many of Bates's first articles. For example:
**They both disagree on what one of Daisy's first papers (published in Western Australia's journal of agriculture), "From Port Hedland to Carnarvon by Buggy" (1901), was about. de Vries thinks that it "covered her observations of the Indigenous people she had encountered" but this is plainly false if you read the journal article (as I have, at the ]). Reece says that it was more a travel account.
*Both de Vries and Reece state that Bates started her enthographic work shortly after arriving in Perth, but there's no evidence of this. They both just trust Bates on this, but if you actually read her papers you see that they have nothing to do with anthropology. Again, Lomas was the only one (of the three) to actually read the original papers himself and point this out.
}}
To summarise the reliability of de Vries and Reece, who are both published by a third party and have gone through some kind of review process:
*They both are often lacking in giving citations, this makes their reliability hard to judge.
*They both contain the errors that could have been avoided if they (or an editor) had read other primary sources.
This is not to say that they should not be used; I note all of this to contrast them with Lomas's book, which is self-published.


Coming to Brain D Lomas's "Queen of Deception" (2015):
{{Collapse|2=Indicators that Lomas is reliable
|1=Indicators of Lomas's reliability:
*Lomas's book is used as a source in Eleanor Hogan's "Into the Loneliness: The unholy alliance of Ernestine Hill and Daisy Bates". "Dr Eleanor Hogan is a 2023 National Library of Australia Fellow" and her book was published by ] at the University of New South Wales Press Ltd. This book won the "The 2019 Hazel Rowley Literary Fellowship".
*Lomas has done a lot of original research on the topic:
**He has combed through old newspapers and government records to corroborate Bates's whereabouts; Old newspapers contained the names of folks who arrived at a port, Bates also developed a level of fame where people would report on her whereabouts in letters to papers, he also went through government records for her travel expense receipts she had sent to the government for reimbursement, etc.
**Reading through a ton of archived material spread between Perth and Canberra. This includes the just mentioned receipts for travel expenses, but also personal and government correspondence (who for a while was her employer). I haven't seen indication that the other biographers went through so much archived material.
*He regularly lets the source material speak for itself by giving quotations from primary sources.
*He is quite consistent in giving citations, making it very easy to verify his claims. As a result it has been far easier to fact-check Lomas than it has been to fact check de Vries and Reece.


All of this indicates to me that Lomas is reliable.
I never used the word unanimity and I did not think anyone here would misinterpret "consensus" to mean unanimity. I do not think we should seek unanimity. But this is NOT an article. This is a policy. The threshold for change to a policy is much greater than it is for an article. And usually, changes to this page are made through consensus. the fact that we have had an RfC does not mean we abandon that pricniple. The purpose for a request for comment is ... to request comments. The poll does indicate that This issue needs attention, and it indicates that Blueboar has some good ideas. The fact that there are so many people opposed is also significant polls are not up/down votes. I agree that people disagree for different reasons. i also point out that people agree for different reasons. Collaborative editing means, working through all the ''constructive'' criticisms and suggestions to make a good proposal even better. We may never get unanimity and that certainly should not be an obstacle to change. But thoughtful criticisms can be applied to revising the proposal, just as thougtful support should never be dismissed.
}}
'''Conclusion''' To summarise: Lomas is used as a source by an award winning non-fiction biographer, has done a ton of original research that involved reading through archived material, provides quotations from primary sources, and gives consistent and reliable citations. This results in Lomas being an arguably more reliable source on the topic than both de Vries and Reece. However, according to current policy, he cannot be used as a source alongside de Vries and Reece. I argue that current policy should be amended in the given or similar form. I am ''not'' arguing that self-published sources be allowed to be used without their reliability being demonstrated.


Happy to answer any questions, clarify any statements, provide quotations, etc. if people wish.
This is a request for ''comment.'' The ''comments'' are the point; it is not just a vote. We should disregard everyone who registered support or opposition without reasons, and there may be comments that are empty of meaning, or unthoughtful or unconstructive. Whatever is left is what a request for comment is supposed to generate: thoughtful comments. I see no reason why Blueboar's proposal cannot be imporved upon, and I think many of the comments suggest ways that it can be improved. That is what an RfC is for. It is a stage in the development of a consensus through collaborative editing, in which specific comments are solicited as a way to have very focused feedback. Well, we got those comments. Whether they are in support or opposition is not the point, what matters is that they are thoughtful and constructive. ''That'' is what makes an RfC a success.


{{Collapse|2= Criticism of Lomas and response to potential questions|1=
I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon (even if it is used as our base/starting point &mdash; please do not misrepresent my comment to mean we should abandon it). The question is, did the RfC produce comments that could help us improve it? I think it did. ] | ] 15:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
A failing of Lomas fails is a lack of polish in terms of his grammar, typos and some of his citations' page numbers being off by a couple pages (which, while sloppy, is again better than the other biographers). This is where most an editor's attention would have gone to, and have been most useful.


{{tq|Why not use the other published secondary sources?}} They are being used, but in the interest of using as many reliable sources as possible, and giving a balanced article that avoids giving undue weight to misinformation, Lomas's book should not be barred from being used as a reliable source.
:RFC's are more than just comments, they are also are THE venue for decisions and gauging a consensus. And this one is on a specific proposal. "Further improvement possible" is something for after the change, not a rationale for blocking it. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


{{tq|Why is it self-published?}} If I had to guess I'd say that it is because he is retired and didn't want to go through the headache that is publishing. If you have experience with this you know that it can be difficult. This is only conjecture though.
:] said: "I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon..." - Actually about 1/3 of the participants in the discussion believe the best way to improve it is to drop it. ] (]) 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
}}
{{notelist}} ] (]) 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:@] to clarify, Lomas has never had any work published elsewhere?--] (] &#124; ]) 12:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*''Clears throat''. The opening post of this sub-thread asked whether it was time to close the RfC and how to do so. It wasn't a request for editors who already participated, either supporting or opposing, to try to tell the closing administrator what the decision should be. --] (]) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I'm aware, no. The author never states it explicitly but my judgment is that it was a retirement project. However, he does also speak French (and maybe dutch?) so he could have published somewhere that I haven't found.
{{discussion bottom}}
::] (]) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* I haven't heard the other side of this argument (if there is one other than ]) but, so far, I find FropFrop's presentation well-written and convincing. - ] (]) 16:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:* I'm a bit confused by "When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable." If the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable, then why wouldn't you instead use the sources that reliably verify the information? ] (]) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Page number specification ==
:*:In practice, that line amounts to "whenever we want to". ] (]) 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::I think that we're capable of taking due diligence when it comes to these things, but would a narrower wording help? Perhaps changing that line to "When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. This is to be done by the editor/s providing quotations and the source's citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its reliability." or something to that effect? ] (]) 01:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:::Sources aren't required to include citations, and most of them don't. If the source does have (good) citations, then why not find, read, and cite those sources instead? ] (]) 03:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::::I could do that, but then I'd be relying on primary material (which I want to avoid) and it would require a lot more work on my part. A lot of this archived material only has physical copies available. I've verified some of it, particularly at the beginning when I was judging how reliable Lomas was but this was quite time consuming.
:*::::] (]) 01:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:I could do that, but then I'd be relying on primary material (which I want to avoid) and it would require a lot more work on my part. A lot of this archived material only has physical copies available. I've verified some of it, particularly at the beginning when I was judging how reliable Lomas was. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:I too think this would be a bad proposal since it would effectively open the door wide for ]. What {{u|FropFrop}} seems to argue for here (and as they are constantly arguing on ]) is essentially: "''I'' did the OR, following up those sources and so I consider this credible." But for good reasons we don't allow OR here, because such judgements are better left to the subject-matter experts at hand. Without OR, "clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable" simply means: There's another reliable source that says so. But if that's the case, then we can just cite that source and no change to SELFPUB is needed. ] (]) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::That's not OR. If a source has ] something, and an editor checks the source's footnotes just to be sure, then that's ''not'' an editor making up stuff that isn't in any published source. ] (]) 01:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:::But if the editor decided based on this check that a self-published source is reliable and should be admitted, then surely it is OR – what else could it be? It's not something that could be decided on the base of the source alone. ] (]) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::::@], the definition of OR, from the first sentence of that policy, is:
:*::::On ], ''original research'' means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no ] exists.
:*::::So:
:*::::* The word ''material'' means "stuff we put in articles". If it's not going in the article, then it's not OR.
:*::::* If a published source says ____, and editors deem that published source reliable for saying ____, then saying ____ in the Misplaced Pages article is not OR.
:*::::* Checking whether a source (self-published or otherwise) {{xt|is reliable and should be admitted}} is required of all editors, every single time they cite a source. Sometimes this is quite easy (e.g., a newspaper you know is widely cited, a book you happen to know is reputable), and sometimes it requires effort or a trip to RSN, but determining for yourself whether the source is reliable is normal, expected, and desirable behavior.
:*::::On a separate, related note, you might be interested in the old concept of ], about which the NOR policy used to say {{xt|Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.}}
:*::::Source-based research is not about determining whether a source is reliable, but it does involve determining the strengths and weaknesses of sources, and sorting out contradictions, such as why some sources give −1.592 × 10<sup>−19</sup> ] as the charge of an electron and others give −1.602 x 10<sup>−19</sup> coulomb instead (e.g., different POVs? Different time periods? Different circumstances? One of them's just wrong?). If an editor decides that the best way to settle the question is to find and read the published+reliable+primary sources that the cited source names, then that's okay. We don't ban editors from reading the sources cited by our sources. Sometimes it even helps us get article content right (e.g., by figuring out whether our source's claim about "the average" should be linked to ] or ]). ] (]) 20:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:::::Sure, but can an editor's own research promote a non-reliable (e.g. self-published by an unknown person) work into a reliable one? That's what we're discussing here, right? ] (]) 21:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::::::A source is reliable if there's a consensus among editors that it's reliable. I've told this joke many times, but here it is again:
:*::::::* Three ] are talking about their profession and the difficulty of making accurate calls in borderline cases. One says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as they are." The next feels a little professional humility is in order and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as I see them." The third thinks for a moment and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, but ''they ain't nothing until I call them''."
:*::::::This is how Misplaced Pages works: A source isn't "non-reliable" ''until editors make the call''. Editors might well decide that Lomas is reliable for a given bit of article content. They also might decide that it's not. But nobody's "promoting a non-reliable source into a reliable one", either through their own hard work to establish whether the source is one that we should rely upon or through any other means, because it's the community that ultimately makes the call, not just one editor. ] (]) 02:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:::::::Agree. All of the criteria in ] are based on characteristics commonly found in sources the community has deemed reliable, and therefore help in predicting whether a given source will be deemed reliable. Editors may differ on the details of what makes a source reliable, but the arbitor of reliability is a consensus of whatever part of the community is paying attention at the moment. And, as always, a consensus of a wider part of the community will trump a local consensus or individual opinion. ] 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:::It's also essentially impossible for other editors to verify, without repeating all the research by themselves. ] (]) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::::So? See ].
:*::::But: It doesn't matter. If one editor decides that they want to make sure that a source is really, truly, absolutely backed up by the sources that it cites, then they're allowed to do that. You can decide whether you trust them; you can decide for yourself whether you think they're lying; you can decide whether you think their evaluation is incompetent. But you can't say "You did a lot of work, but I'm unwilling/unable to replicate it, so we have to ignore that". Some people spent a lot of time learning other languages or studying advanced math or obsessing about the reputation of academic journals. I can't verify their conclusions without repeating all that work myself, but that's okay. I don't have to. They are not limited or restricted to the level of work that I choose to do. ] (]) 20:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|if there is one other than Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling}} Thank you for that! Another editor has been quite frustrating and has been citing ] and has not engaged with any of my requests or offers of broader discussion. Going so far as to remove all citations of Lomas (white not editing the content to remove information I gathered from him, saying that it'll be done later).
::] (]) 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Same here. In particular, I find the “Indicators that Lomas is reliable” convincing. &mdash; ] <small>]</small> 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], I don't think your second point ("When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication") will work.
:Imagine that someone self-publishes (e.g., posts on social media) a manifesto for some obviously wrong view (e.g., Flat Earth, tinfoil hats, coffee tastes good, whatever you want). Alice Expert cites this manifesto in a high-quality reliable source as evidence that this view exists (e.g., "These views appear to be genuinely held by some people. The 'None of This Nonsense' Manifesto, which went viral in 2023, lays out four primary reasons for believing in magical dragons, including...").
:That would be an instance of an expert who "uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication", and we still don't want editors to use the self-published manifesto directly themselves. ] (]) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Speaking of manifestos, imagine this being applied to murder/suicide notes. The UK news yesterday had a story about someone sending a scheduled social media post announcing his suicide. So: the self-published announcement got "used" as "a reliable source in a publication" (several, actually), and this would therefore make the self-published announcement 100% okay to use in articles (except that to the extent that it would violate ]). That's what we ''don't'' want. ] (]) 18:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is a very fair point.
:::To avoid such potential scenarios, what do you think of the following:
:::*When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published ''secondary'' source as a reliable source in a publication.
:::Would the addition of "secondary" and the (already included) "as a reliable source" be sufficient? Or would the latter need greater specificity?
:::] (]) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The problem I have with this proposal it that it would mean that ''a single mention'' in a reliable source would be enough to promote ''all'' of a self-published work as "reliable/useable" for us, including (and especially) the parts what ''weren't'' mentioned in the reliable source. Specifically, in this case: the only real argument (besides ]) I have read from you re Lomas's reliability is that he's cited in Eleanor Hogan, ''Into the Loneliness'' (NewSouth, 2021) which is indeed a reliable source. But in that whole book Lomas is cited just once, with ''two sentences'' sourced to him (for a full quote, see ], my comment from 09:35, 23 December 2024). Based on that his work is mentioned just this single time in her whole book on Bates I'd rather conclude that she doesn't consider him particularly credible, otherwise she would certainly have cited him more often. By contrast, de Vries and Reece are both cited more than a dozen times – clearly they are more reliable sources for her. In our article on Bates, largely rewritten by you, Lomas is cited about 35 times, and you want to keep ''all'' those references based on this single mention by Hogan. However, if we want to cite the single fact which Hogan attributes to Lomas, we can just cite her book without having to mention him at all. As for the other 35 facts you would like to cite, there's no evidence that Hogan considers ''any'' of them credible, and so I don't see how this single mention by her could be a basis for the extensive use of his book which our article currently makes (in clear violation of SELFPUB as it currently stands). ] (]) 10:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it is only once. I made this point as part of a larger argument. If this were the only point that support's Lomas's reliability, then I wouldn't make the larger argument.
:::::Perhaps then the amendment could be worded like so (taking some of the adjustments made by @]):
:::::{{quote|When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example:
:::::*If the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to.
:::::*The content falls under ABOUTSELF.
:::::*The content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
:::::*When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. Editors should provide sources' quotations and sources citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its verifiability.
:::::*When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.}}
:::::{{quote|If a self-published source meets one or more of the above examples, that does not automatically warrant its use as a reliable source; careful consideration of its reliability should still be made. Keep in mind that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source.
:::::}}
:::::] (]) 02:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Your points 1+2 essentially seem to describe or refer to ], since that already exists as an independent section, there's no reason to repeat it here. About your points 4+5 I have already explained in other comments here why I think they would be unworkable and weaken the basis of reliability at which the aim. Nothing has changed in that regard. ] (]) 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|When the source's claims can be clearly and ...}} If a self-published claims can be verified using other reliable sources, use those sources instead.
::::::{{tq|...uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication}} This is treading on the toes of ]. If a source is ''widely'' cited in other high quality sources it could be considered reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Overall, looking at the specific situation, I wonder whether ] might be a better solution. We generally try to avoid changing overall rules just to deal with a situation at a single article. Perhaps an RFC explaining the situation? Or just asking "Is Lomas' book reliable for <this exact sentence>?" ] (]) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Most of what I posted originally I took from an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. An editor has been very firm on this being a gross violation of ] and does not take ] or ] seriously. Neither have they engaged with my arguments for why Lomas should be an exception to ]. They've been editing the article to remove all citations of Lomas (white not editing the content to remove information I gathered from him, saying that it'll be done later). ] (]) 01:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It sounds like it's time for ] procedures. Maybe an RFC? I think I'd pick something small, like "Can we cite this book for this one sentence?" If you get agreement for the simplest/strongest single instance, then it will be easier to expand from there.
:::There have been several questions about self-published sources recently, including the one from ] at ] and from ] at ] and from ] at ]. The volume of questions, plus the rise of more "respectable" self-published works (this one, but also things like established fiction authors self-publishing books they like but their publisher didn't want to bother with) makes me wonder whether we need to re-think this concept entirely. ] (]) 03:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::], FWIW, I've been trying to come up with wording for an RfC on the definition of SPS (checking the consensus on what people consider self-published, and whether the current definition and examples communicate that well). I think I understand the main views (I'm in the midst of rereading the discussions to check), but so far, I haven't been able to come up with something short; maybe there's just no way to make a short RfC about what I think is important to get at, or maybe it's a problem with how I'm thinking about it. I've also been waiting to see what the closer of the grey literature RfC says, though I gather that the timeline for that is open.
::::A couple of questions that came up for me vis-a-vis your view (I feel like I'm a font of never-ending questions; feel free to ignore them):
::::* You've said that you sometimes put governments in the traditional publishers category. For example, you've called the Census Bureau a traditional publisher and wrote "little-g government(s) ... are, in some respect, traditional publishers (e.g., of laws and reports)." I'm curious what guides your view about when the government is a traditional publisher vs. when it isn't.
::::* Both you and ] have said that you think of traditional publishers in terms of the business model. Void if removed elaborated one traditional model: "an arrangement with a separate publisher is a business setup where both parties bring something (marketable content vs marketing infrastructure, connections, brand recognition etc)," where the publisher pays the author (content creator) and "If the publisher rejects the , then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher." That more or less works for books, freelance journalism, peer-reviewed journals, and probably movie documentaries. But it doesn't capture the structure of most print, electronic, radio, and TV journalism publishers, and probably not TV documentaries (assuming that you consider radio and TV journalism to fall in the traditional publisher category). How would you describe their business model(s)? And would you say that a business model is simply irrelevant to governments as traditional publishers?
::::As for FropFrop's proposal, it strikes me as more about who counts as an expert than about what counts as self-published. ] (]) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think "free to sell it to a different publisher" is a given. 3rd party publishing can still prevent the author from self-publishing or selling it on to another publisher. This is pretty much standard practice in music publishing, with all sorts of high profile cases of artists contractually unable to release their own material, while the publisher refuses to publish finished work.
:::::The thing about traditional publishing is that it encompasses more than just "making material available", but for sourcing purposes, we consider "making material available" to be all that really matters to be "published". So the distinction is sometimes unclear - its on a website either way, so what's the difference? But a publisher will invariably be responsible for matters like advertising, promotion, legal due diligence, complaints, distribution in physical media, and so on.
:::::And really, the only reason it matters is because of ].
:::::So after all this I think the real question is: what level of sourcing do we need for contentious claims about 3rd party BLPs?
:::::Much of this debate around the edges of what is or is not an SPS has that goal in mind. Being traditionally published (ie a book, newspaper, magazine or journal) is to my mind a reasonable proxy for "you can use this to make a contentious claim about a 3rd party BLP, if its due", because a publisher is on the hook for defamation as much as the author. And that is probably the extent to which I care about whether a source is SPS or not. ] (]) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for your "free to sell it to a different publisher" point, agreed, though I don't think the SPS restriction matters much for something like music, since I don't see that being used for fact or opinion content, only for content that falls under ABOUTSELF. Ditto for things like TV dramas/comedies and non-documentary movies, though I'm still unclear about whether you'd say those are published by traditional publishers. Although you and What am I doing have highlighted business models, I don't recall others doing so, so that's why I'm trying to understand how you describe traditional publisher business models. Re: the other things that a publisher is responsible for, don't they also apply to publishers that you consider non-traditional (e.g., if GLAAD publishes something defamatory, isn't it on the hook too)?
::::::I think your description of the "real question" is a significant part of the real question, but not all of it, as FropFrop's proposed change shows. (And I've encountered ] on RSN.) Also, right now, SPSs can't be used as BLP sources even if the claim is non-contentious.
::::::As best I can tell, SPSs are singled out because editors think SPSs are much less likely to be RSs. For example, the WP:SPS section appears in a larger section titled "Sources that are usually ''not reliable''," the current definition refers to the lack of an independent editor "validating the ''reliability'' of the content," and an early ArbCom conclusion (referred to by What am I doing ]) said "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of ''independent fact-checking'' ..." (That text was introduced into WP:RS in , and although there was about self-published sources at that point, there was no attempt to define self-published, and the examples were totally limited to situations where one or a few individual persons had total control over whether their own work was published.) I assume that this is why the expert source and ABOUTSELF exceptions exist: self-published content written by experts in their area of expertise is much more likely to be reliable than other SPS content, and SPSs are often reliable sources about the author (but not about others or if the content is too self-serving; for that matter, we also have to beware of non-self-published sources producing self-serving content, as might occur in their marketing material, though as best I understand, you and What am I doing always consider marketing material to be self-published).
::::::So I think the underlying issue is assessing whether a SPS is reliable for the content in question. When it comes to the SPS policy, it may be sufficient to say something like {{tq2|When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be ''unreliable'' sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example, if the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to, or the content falls under ABOUTSELF, or the content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" or falls into the situation that FropFrop introduced. Keep in mind that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source.}}However, that still means that we need to be clearer about what does/doesn't constitute self-published material. ] (]) 19:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::This all sounds good to me (with the amendments added after WhatamIdoing pointed out some potential issues).
:::::::] (]) 02:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::], if you don't mind a couple more questions ...
:::::::In the RSN discussion of SBM, you said "We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them."
:::::::* I'm guessing that in addition to "self-published," you're thinking of "author" and "publisher." Are there any other terms (besides "self-published," "author," and "publisher") you think are contested?
:::::::* For each of these terms, if you have a sense of the different meanings attributed to them, would you say what they are? (For ex., I know that you've distinguished between a publisher as "the person who publishes" vs. as "a business whose business is publishing.")
:::::::Thanks! ] (]) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So, some examples gleaned from the various debates:
::::::::* Author could mean anything from a single individual who wrote a blogpost, to the company whose unnamed employees were instructed to write content.
::::::::* Publishing could mean the trivial act of placing some content online, or a business arrangement whereby a publishing company takes responsibility for the distribution of content, along with marketing and various other concerns.
::::::::And as I mentioned in the previous debates, in English "publisher" (a publishing company) and "publisher" (a person who did the act of publishing) are the same word, and this leads to confusion. Depending on how you interpret all the above, self-published can mean anything.
::::::::By the narrowest definition of self-published, only something like a single-author blog where one identifiable person both wholly wrote and trivially placed content online is "self-published".
::::::::By a broader definition, a corporate website where company employees write content at the behest of the company and it is placed online at the sole discretion of that company, is also self-published, because the author (the company) is the publisher.
::::::::By a maximal definition, anything where there is not a traditional, commercial publishing structure, ie a book publisher, a journal, or traditional news media, is self-published.
::::::::Many of these debates get derailed by discussions about ''why we should care'', and because many of us are laser focused on "published" as meaning "I can read it online", the commercial aspects of traditional publishing arrangements seem like a total irrelevance.
::::::::So, with that aspect usually ignored, most seem to argue that we care something is self-published because we hope for some level of independent oversight, and so editors might point to "editorial oversight" as proof something is not self-published. This is the case for SBM, where a group blog set up and run by individuals who are also presently its sole editors somehow has been decided to be "not self published".
::::::::But that, to me, seems like a hack. Editorial approval is not what defines "self-published", its just one component of how we assess a source's reliability and accountability. I think this is part of the incorrect conflation of SPS with "unreliable", when SPS and RS are really parallel concerns, just as PRIMARY and SECONDARY are. Trivial approval steps between someone writing copy and another person ticking a box or pressing "approve" on a blog are not sufficient to make something not self-published. As I've given as an example previously, by this minimal definition, a celebrity social media account run by a PR agency is therefore not "self-published", which seems to be a nonsensical interpretation.
::::::::Another common issue is publishing uncontentious information (like scientist X won Y award), and so different interpretations of "self-published" emerging to get round the BLPSPS restriction.
::::::::By my reading of past discussions we care very specifically about third-party BLPs because of the interplay between a) the low threshold for anyone to put any nonsense they like online and b) the possibility of that being defamatory.
::::::::And my interpretation then is a traditional, commercial publishing arrangement is the thing that provides some level of confidence that Misplaced Pages is not going to be on the hook for defamation, where "a blog owner approved their mate's guest post before pressing submit" does not.
::::::::So if I were to propose something it would be something straightforwardly restrictive like:
::::::::* Any non-trivial, negative or otherwise opinionated claim about a 3rd party BLP must be sourced to something traditionally published (presumably with lawyers who checked this claim before going to press), ie a book, magazine, journal or newspaper.
::::::::When it comes down to it, I think this is what BLPSPS is all about, and I think if you settle it that way all the argument about what is or is not self-published ceases to be quite such a concern. ] (]) 16:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Lawyers don't normally check any claims during the publication process. A large publisher will have some on staff, and a medium-sized one will have some on call, but (a) there is no routine legal review of content and (b) even when something gets flagged to their attention by other employees, they're not actually engaged in fact checking. They're only evaluating the information that's handed to them, to determine how much risk the company will be exposed to.
:::::::::This should be obvious if you think about it. Imagine the ordinary working of an ordinary daily newspaper: The city had a meeting, and the newspaper sent a reporter to it. The reporter comes back with notes and writes an article. The editor looks it over. The editor might ask some questions or make suggestions. After any agreed-upon changes, the article appears in the next morning's paper. There is no "get approval from a lawyer" step in the editing process (unless the editor deems it necessary, and that's going to be an unusual circumstance). There's not even an independent, pre-publication fact checking step. ] (]) 01:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::FropFrop, the RFC I have in mind would be posted at ] and would say something like this (pick any sentence you think is appropriate):
:::::{{xt|Can we cite this book:}}
:::::{{xt|{{Cite book |last=Lomas |first=Brian |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Queen_of_Deception/ZAa2jgEACAAJ?hl=en |title=Queen of Deception: The True Story of Daisy Bates |date=2015-10-29 |publisher=CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform |isbn=978-1-5170-5385-7 |language=en|page=38}}}}
:::::{{xt|to support this (currently uncited) sentence in the article: "Eventually arriving in Broome, she boarded the Sultan with Father Martelli and arrived in Perth on 21 November 1902"? The relevant page says "<insert direct quotation here>" and cites a letter in the archives at Big University. This might seem like overkill, but while I was at the archives last month, I found the letter Lomas cites and verified that the letter supports Lomas' claim.}}
:::::When you are in the middle of a content dispute, changing the policy so that you can win the dispute is not usually the best approach. Settle the local dispute first. ] (]) 23:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|When you are in the middle of a content dispute, changing the policy so that you can win the dispute is not usually the best approach. Settle the local dispute first.}} That's what I tried to do prior to writing this up, as I imagined that my post here wouldn't be taken well due to it being an active dispute. However the other editor said that I should try and change policy before trying to make the argument for inclusion. Because the conversation seemed to be going nowhere, I followed through with that suggestion.
::::::Regardless, I'm happy that my post seems to be going well and has sparked some genuine conversation on the broader issue. I'll try and see the dispute through.
::::::] (]) 01:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], I don't think that we should focus on {{xt|wording for an RfC on the definition of SPS}}. Specifically, I think it's a bad idea for Misplaced Pages's definition to diverge from the ordinary definitions. I encourage you to think more about clarifying "Misplaced Pages's rules about when it's acceptable to cite self-published sources" instead of "creating a Misplaced Pages-specific definition of the word ''self-published''".
:::::For your specific questions:
:::::* I think that it is not unreasonable to consider a government agency to be a traditional publisher if its main duties revolve around publishing information. This means, e.g., that the US Census would be considered traditionally published, but an announcement from that same government agency that they're having a public meeting, or that they have job openings, would not count as traditionally published. Compare:
:::::** The book publisher ] traditionally published '']'' and self-publishes current job openings on their corporate website.
:::::** The government agency ] traditionally published ] and self-publishes current job openings on their government website.
:::::** An elementary school does not traditionally publish anything, and self-publishes current job openings on its government website.
:::::* It's true that {{xt|the structure of most print, electronic, radio, and TV journalism publishers}} does not always allow for selling rejected works to others. Journalists (and musicians, as mentioned above) are allowed to negotiate contracts that allow a publication exclusive control over whether their work gets published. In the case of ordinary journalists, they get paid the same salary whether the article runs or not. I'm not sure why this question has arisen. The inability to take a document elsewhere for publication isn't necessarily proof of anything, but it's associated with traditional publishing.
:::::] (]) 00:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your answers to my questions. Re: "I'm not sure why this question has arisen," it's because you've said things like "Being a traditional publisher is about the business model," and it seems to me that traditional publishers have more than one business model, and I'm trying to understand which business models count as traditional publishing. For ex., when it comes to the government as a traditional publisher, arguably the idea of a business model doesn't even apply.
::::::I do understand that you think it's a bad idea for Misplaced Pages's definition to diverge from the ordinary definitions. You'd already said as much earlier (e.g., "Yes, it's true that our terms sometimes diverge from ordinary words, but ''self-published'' in this policy is supposed to be the ordinary dictionary definition. It is not supposed to be some kind of wikijargon").
::::::Some problems with that approach:
::::::* Dictionaries don't all define "self-published" in the same way. Looking across a number of different dictionary definitions, I've seen two main features highlighted: (1) whether the author pays for the work's publication, and (2) whether the author uses a publisher (with variations such as "publishing company" and "established publishing house"). Some definitions highlight (1), some highlight (2), and some highlight both. Although (1) and (2) intersect, they're definitely not the same (e.g., material written by an employee is not self-published according to the first, but may be self-published according to the second). Also, some definitions refer to an "author," which may be ambiguous (e.g., by ''author'', do they only mean the specific person(s) who wrote/created something, or are they also including corporate authorship?).
::::::* A number of editors clearly don't agree with your preferred definition / don't think it represents practice.
::::::* You've said things like "most traditional publishers have ... self-published content (e.g., marketing materials, investor relations reports, advertising rate sheets)," but I don't see that carve-out in any dictionary definitions. (Maybe I've missed it.)
::::::* To the extent that WP:SPS defines self-published (in a Reference note at the bottom of the WP:V that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content"), that definition ''already'' diverges from dictionary definitions. So if your goal is to get people to use a dictionary definition, and especially to choose your preferred dictionary definitions over other dictionary definitions, you'd need an RfC to align policy with your preference.
::::::] (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I believe that there are some government agencies that sell documents they publish. The US federal government has ] on exclusivity, so the costs are usually limited to reimbursing the cost of printing and distributing, but there's nothing inherent in a government publishing office that would prevent them from using the same business model as other traditional publishers. ] (]) 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Point taken. But it seems to me that traditional publishers do not all use the same business model. One model is the one I originally quoted from Void if removed, where there are a couple of variations (the person can take their work elsewhere if a given publisher rejects it, or they sign a longer term contract giving one publisher exclusive rights to future work even if the publisher decides not to publish it). Another business model is the one used with non-freelance journalists, and if a government sells documents created by employees, perhaps that falls under the same model. I'm not sure if you'd say that those are the only two business models that a traditional publisher might use. ] (]) 14:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The business model is mainly: I publish this (book, news article, whatever) because I think people will pay me for it. ] (]) 01:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::That seems to apply to some self-published material too (e.g., some self-published books, an individual's Substack with subscribers), though it clearly doesn't apply to other SPS. ] (]) 01:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, but the theory is that authors are less likely to judge the market correctly. Everyone believes their first novel to be a masterpiece, until they've written ten more. ] (]) 07:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::"We generally try to avoid changing overall rules just to deal with a situation at a single article." This doesn't strike me as a single article issue. If it was, we'd just cite ] and be done with the discussion.
::Instead, it appears to be an example of a fundamental change in the publishing industry issue.
::Or maybe not a change. FropFrop's example shows that publishers are not the same as fact checkers, which may have been true all along. In that case Fact or Opinion's "more about who counts as an expert" is a better way to look at it. - ] (]) 15:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::To my mind, the “fact vs opinion” question has always been the key here. I have long thought that SPS material should always be presented as the author’s opinion (ie with in-text attribution). This shifts the debate from WP:V to WP:DUE. The citation reliably verifies that the author said what we say he/she said… the more important question is whether it is appropriate for us to note this author’s opinion in X specific article. ] (]) 22:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|FropFrop}}, I must admit I'm somewhat annoyed you started this discussion behind my back. It's true I had suggested you might try getting SELFPUBLISH changed, but I wasn't monitoring this page and had no idea you had actually decided to do so. Discussions shouldn't silently be forked and continued elsewhere without the involved editors being informed, so I don't think it was fair what you did here. ] (]) 09:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Now that you know about this discussion, what is your opinion regarding the substance of FropFrop's proposal? - ] (]) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::See the two comments I wrote above regarding specific details of the proposal. In a nutshell: I think the suggested changes are unworkable and would make SELFPUB considerably worse. And, thought that discussion rather belongs on ], Lomas seems to be a doubtful and considerably biased author, hence I'd say that his is just the kind of book SELFPUB is meant to protect us against – and that's how it should remain. ] (]) 19:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::SELFPUB isn't really meant to protect us from bias (and ]). It's meant to protect us from things like authors being reckless with the facts, and to focus due weight considerations on content that's newsworthy/non-self-published. ] (]) 01:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree to some degree, which is why I meant that discussion belongs on the article talk page rather than here. Still I think some overlap is likely – biased authors are more likely to distort the facts in order to get their point across, and I'm pretty sure that that sometimes happens in Lomas. Indeed {{u|FropFrop}}, in an earlier comment on ], already admitted that his bias sometimes leads him to problematic conclusions ("He does get overly critical at times (often assuming that Bates outright lied when it could have been an honest mistake)"). Academic peer review should normally help to reduce such issues, forcing authors to be more honest with themselves and their audiences; and the editorial process though which nonfiction books go with non-academic publishers should have the same effect, at least to some degree. I know very well that these processes will never work perfectly, but I see them as good "filters" that should make our work better, and hence I'm weary of self-published sources, which didn't make it through these filters. ] (]) 11:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Non-academic book publishing often encourages overblown claims, because controversy results in free publicity, and publicity improves sales.
::::::I agree that traditional publishing is a good filter for us. If we say that 50% of traditionally published books are bad for us, then I'd start with an assumption that 95% of self-published sources are bad for us. But it's also ''possible'' that sometimes, probably rarely, a self-published book will be an okay source for us. ] (]) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I agree, and there's already an exception in SELFPUB for some such works. I doubt, however, that the additional exceptions discussed here would be great at finding additional okay sources, and rather fear that they would allow slipping a lot of not-okay sources. ] (]) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::For the general case, I agree with you. For this specific case, however, it's possible that Lomas is one of the few "okay" sources instead of the many "not-okay" sources.
::::::::What I'd suggest to you is that you try to disentangle your worries about bias (How dare he call her "the queen of deception", just because she told so many lies about herself!) from your worries about reliability. What matters for that article is not whether this long-dead person told lies, or whether the recent sources called it what it was. What matters for that article is much more mundane: Is Lomas correct when saying that she arrived in Place A on Date B? ] (]) 02:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, apologies. As you suggested that I try and amend the policy I didn't think this would be an issue.
::] (]) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== New Shortcut re “ONUS” section? ==
In that verifiability depends on tracing a quote, point, or other material back to its source, and that such trace-backs are greatly facilitated by citing the specific page, section, or paragraph, the common opinion that page numbers (etc.) should be cited seems quite reasonable. Yet it seems there is no definite statement that they should be used, or even required. Should there be a definite statement that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph? _ ] (]) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


I see that the shortcut “]” has been removed from visibility as a link at the '''“Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”''' section (justification being that no one has linked to that shortcut in a long time).
:Have you looked at ]? This goes into the details of what should be included in a citation and how to format them. ] (]) 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with that… '''however''', this removal leaves the only visible shortcut for the section as “]”… a word that was recently ''edited out of the section'' and no longer is appropriate.
So… I think we should also remove the “]” shortcut, and come up with a new, more appropriate shortcut for people to use in the future. Please discuss. ] (]) 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:There has been talk, off and on for a couple of years, about moving the onus-related sentence to a different policy altogether. I'm not sure that it makes sense to worry about which shortcut points to it until that question gets settled. ] (]) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes. At best it says page numbers "should" be given for ''books''. Overall it just gives the impression of something nice if you want to go to the trouble, which many editors take as being entirely optional. In being found in the context of citation it does come across as a style issue. Whereas the few statements for greater specification generally reference ]. _ ] (]) 23:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
::I don’t really care about that final sentence. Keep it, amend it, move it, whatever… thing is, despite how much we have discussed it, it’s not actually the important part of the section. The ''important'' part is what comes before it - the reminder that there is more to “inclusion” than just Verifiability.
:::The problem with ''requiring'' page numbers is that there are situations where a statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article is supported by an entire book or an entire chapter. And I can not cite a page number if the source does not ''have'' page numbers (an audio recording, for example). We can (and do) say it is "good practice" to supply page numbers, and we encourage it where appropriate, but we can not ''require'' it in all cases. ] (]) 13:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
::And I think it would be helpful to have a shortcut that focuses on the important part of the section rather than on what is really just an afterthought. ] (]) 01:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with everything Blueboar wrote and would add that this standard is just as likely to encourge people to quote whatever they can read via google snippets rather than actually reading whole books. But there is a convention for how to address Blueboar's points: if the point made is the explicit and primary point of the whole book or journal, we cite it without any page numbers. if it is an argument made in a chapter or section of a book or article, we provide the entire page range. if it is a point made on one page we cite the page. If this is not already in the CS guidelines, it ought to be. But too often I have sen editors take quotes out of context and while citing page numbers is nice, it is at least as important to verify that the quote or page citation is being used properly which usually requires one to have read the whole work. ] | ] 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::(ec) Something else to consider... The ''Policy'' is that material should be verifi'''able''' (ie ''able'' to be verified). But we don't require that every statement be ''easily'' verified (actually, we don't even require that everything be verifi'''ed'''... just material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged"). A citation without page numbers satisfies the requirement that the material be verifi'''able'''... it is just more difficult to actually verif'''y'''.
::::::Also... Policy pages on Misplaced Pages should focus on explaining broad principles, and avoid getting into too much detail (policy creep). "Correct" citation format is not really a ''policy'' issue. It is a style issue... and style issues are best discussed on style guide pages... such as ]. ] (]) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I would also point out that for topics that go back before ISBN became standard page numbers don't really help as there is no way to set down just which version of the book you are referring too.--] (]) 19:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


The sentence "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." is still there, and out there on the coal face it is the thing that people have used the ONUS link for countless times. So I don't see why it is redundant. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
**I would be sure to use page numbers for 1) direct quotes or 2) citing to something that might be likely to be challenged by another editor. If you are citing to a more general thought supported in the book, consider citing a chapter or section. If what you are citing is the general thrust of a book, then citing the book as a whole is probably OK.--] (]) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Folks can challenge the includer to show that the material is supported by the source which then forces them to be more specific. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::It's always a judgment call: More general points need more general cites, while more specific points need more specific cites. If the book is entitled '''Sky is Blue''' by Dr. Light (i.e. the citation is to the general thrust of the book), then I don't think it's necessary to have a page number to support the assertion that "Dr. Light believes that the sky is blue." --] (]) 14:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


:I'm not a fan of stripping down the link boxes on this policy page to each list only one shortcut. ] states that link boxes {{xt|"generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects"}}, and uses the plural word ''redirects'' to indicate that multiple shortcuts should be listed in link boxes when appropriate. When there is only one shortcut listed in a link box, that shortcut will almost certainly remain the shortcut with the greatest number of pageviews due to its prominent placement. Most editors will use the shortcut displayed on the link box instead of going to ] (and checking "Hide transclusions" and "Hide lists", then resubmitting and browsing the list) to find other ones, even if the unlisted ones may be more concise or more appropriate.{{pb}}Personally, I will continue using the ] shortcut to refer to {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Questionable sources}}, and I do find it strange that the more concise shortcut is omitted in favor of only listing ], regardless of the pageview counts. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::The most common practice for section links is to have only one shortcut. We're more likely to see two at the top of the page (e.g., WP:NOR and WP:OR). ONUS gets clicked on about five times as often as VNOT, so I can understand someone wanting to choose the more common. My concern is that if the last sentence gets moved (e.g., to ]), then the shortcut should get moved with the sentence, in which case VNOT should presumably reappear here. ] (]) 04:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I generally agree with that. ONUS gets referenced quite a bit so we need to make sure that those previous references don't get lost. There is also a bit of an issue that editors may have something like "the ONUS part of WP:V" only to later have the links changed. It might be good to have some type of indication in the new location that it used to be part of WP:V just so those older discussions still continue to make sense. ] (]) 14:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::We could split the 'ONUS sentence' into a different paragraph, and then put a shortcut for WP:VNOT at the top of the section and a separate one for WP:ONUS on the new, single-sentence 'paragraph'. ] (]) 19:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would support that. The final sentence really is a separate concept from the rest of the section, so it probably should be on its own. ] (]) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have decided to be BOLD and do this… revert if necessary. ] (]) 14:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Calling something the "common practice' doesn't prohibit other practices in appropriate circumstances. I think we all agree that this section says two distinct things: (1) Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. (2) If challenged, consensus is required for inclusion. In this case it is appropriate to show two distinct links (VNOT and ONUS). - ] (]) 16:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


It conflicts with the WP:Consensus policy, doesn't really describe its original (good) intent, puts an arbitrary finger on the scale towards exclusion, and it's current wording says something that has nothing to do with wp:verifiability. We could do a lot of good, accomplish the original intent, and fix all of those problems by changing it to: "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion". Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a theme here that we cannot ''require page numbers'' because ''sometimes a general reference is appropriate''. (Or even that ''some'' sources are not paginated.) Look, I quite understand that general refererences are ''sometimes'' appropriate (though mostly for "further reading"). But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of citations within most articles do ''not'' have page numbers – '''but should''', as they refer to specific points or quotes. And all of that is condoned because ''sometimes'' a "general" reference ''might'' be appropriate?


:The subject of this topic is the content of the shortcut box. Do you mean to start a new conversation regarding the substance of the ONUS portion of the section? - ] (]) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
And most of you responded to the wrong argument. Look again: I did '''not''' suggest that we "require page numbers", let alone require them for all sources in all contexts. I asked if we should have a more definite ''statement'' -- ''perhaps'' even to requiring -- "that citations should be ''as specific as possible'', to the level of page, section, or paragraph". GrapedApe seems to understand this, but I seem to have caught the rest of while you were asleep.
::North alway reminds us of his favorite wording, whenever we discuss the section.
::Now… if he could turn it into a good '''shortcut''', I might be persuaded to give it a try. ] (]) 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:North, does the ONUS sentence conflict with any part of the Consensus policy except the ] section, which says it "does not make any new rules. If this page and the more specific policy or guideline disagree, then this one is wrong"? ] (]) 21:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Onus is the best advert for lack of consensus. ] (]) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== seeking guidance re: draft RfC on the meaning of "self-published" ==
Nor am I suggesting that "every statement" should be "easily verified". That is covered by ''this'' policy, that "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." (And reiterated at ].) Moreover, the ] of doing this "'''lies with the editor who adds or restores material'''" (emphasis in the original). If the originating editor is ''required'' to add a citation, why shouldn't s/he be required to add a ''complete'' citation, grabbing the specific page (section, etc.) while it is at hand? After all, s/he knows where it is, wheras someone attempting to verify the point would otherwise have to search the entire work. Because we condone letting editors make verfication ''harder'' we undercut our most basic principle.


I'm planning to open an RfC about the meaning of "self-published" in WP:SPS. (Here's a ], if you want to see. Feel free to comment there, though I'd rather that you not modify the draft itself.) I haven't ever created an RfC before and would like a bit of guidance:
The closest any existing statement comes to encouraging specific location (and then only for page numbers) seems to be that at ]. Which is, as Blueboar describes, in the context of citation technique and format. As the ''policy'' here regarding citation is largely "feel free to roll your own", that statement has the clout of a bird fart (as in "who noticed?").


* An RfC about whether advocacy org grey literature is always SPS was opened on 11/10. Does anyone feel strongly that I should wait until that RfC is officially closed? (A closure request was submitted on 12/2. On 12/12, an editor volunteered to close it, but so far hasn't had time. There's no telling when it will actually be closed.) I don't think the closure in that RfC has strong implications for this RfC, and at this point, I'm inclined not to wait.
Providing a ''specific'' citation (page number, section, chapter, whatever is ''appropriate'') is not just "nice", not just a basic requirement of scholarship, but fundamental to Misplaced Pages. Why are we not encouraging it?
* Should I open this here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
::_ ] (]) 21:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
* "Policy" is the primary category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an ''Under discussion'' tag to the WP:SPS section?
*We are encouraging it. ] is very clear. There is enough wiggle room for exceptions, that's all.—] <small>]/]</small> 21:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
* In terms of what text will appear at WP:RFC, I only plan to include the first sentence, as I think that gives a good enough description.
::Responding to J. Johnston. Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to alternate between saying it should be encouraged and saying it should be mandated. I think that several examples were given against mandating. I might add another one. This is where the same work is used many times on the article for material that is not challenged or controversial. A common practice is to just cite the overall work multiple times. Requiring page numbers would terminate that practice and force it into IMHO overkill scenarios for that particular situation....repeating the full reference many times (except with different page numbers) or else go to a more complex 2 level referencing system which is difficult/confusing for new editors. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
* I know that it would be better if the whole thing were shorter, but I simply haven't been able to figure out how to make it shorter. Suggestions welcome.


Other than the text of the RfC itself, is there anything else I should be thinking about in preparation? ] (]) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You have misunderstood me. I am ''not'' proposing to "mandate" anything, I am proposing to ''more strongly encourage appropriate specification''. (Perhaps you were mislead by the bolded excerpt from ]? ''That is an existing policy''!) These objections to "mandating" ("requiring") are irrelevant as that is ''not'' what I am suggesting, and I am mystified why you all keep making this invalid ] objection.


:Your draft begins "This RfC is to determine whether the current definition and examples in ]..."
:::Regarding your "common practice": current policy is that if material is "common knowledge" and not likely to be challenged, then it doesn't even have to be cited in the first place. But if something is to be cited (e.g., all quotations), then it is much easier for the original author to include the page/section/etc. while it is at hand than for a subsequent editor to search for it. This "common" practice of balling up a bunch of citations into one general reference is a very ''poor'' practice, even sleazy, and ''ought'' to be terminated. Your fear of "overkill scenarios" arises from the very confusing situation here regarding citation generally, and should not excuse sloppiness. (There are ways to do page numbers easily enough, but that is a different issue, and likely an extended discussion.)
:WP:SPS does not include an actual definition, so there's no point in asking people about "the current definition...in WP:SPS". ] (]) 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::As I explain underneath, I'm using the word "definition" to refer to the quoted statement from the WP:SPS reference note. What word would you suggest I use for that — "characterization"? something else? ] (]) 21:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"Characterization" is better.
:::I've seen some editors this year opposing RFCs that ask for general principles (as yours does), instead of providing exact proposed wording. ] (]) 02:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've changed "definition" to "characterization" throughout the text, except where the former refers to dictionary definitions. FWIW, a number of editors in the BEFORE discussions used "definition" in a more general way, and dictionary definitions of "definition" do allow for that broader use.
::::I think it's premature to focus on the exact wording and that if I were to suggest specific wording, much of the discussion would get bogged down picking at that instead of focusing on the more significant issue, which is whether people agree with the current description, and if not, what ''do'' they think it means to be self-published? This might be naive of me, but I think that if we can figure out the consensus about what is/isn't self-published, then interested editors could work out the precise wording on the Talk page without needing an RfC. (Or, for that matter, maybe the consensus will be to leave it as is, though I personally will argue against that.) I could certainly add a line saying that if someone is concerned about the lack of precise wording, they should feel free to introduce a corresponding 3a/b/c with exact wording, or to propose wording just for their selection, as part of their !vote. ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've been thinking about this for several days. I have been trying to judge the odds of success, when "success" is defined as solving the real/underlying/long-term problem you have in mind.
:::::I am usually pretty good at this, but I feel like I can't make a reasonable prediction in this case. I think this is because I don't understand which problem you want to solve. To established the answer for a particular class of sources? To add an agreed-upon definition? To have the policy be right, irrespective of specific applications? (I believe this last is inherently a good thing.)
:::::I wonder if you could think about your goals in the ] model, and come up with a ] statement. This format might help: "I want to learn from the RFC so that we can ." (It might need several ''so that'' statements, e.g., "I want to learn whether the community prefers X to Y, so that I can reconcile USESPS and WP:V's odd footnote, so that we can resolve disputes about whether source type Z is self-published, so that we can apply BLPSPS more consistently across subject areas"). Or something like that. ] (]) 20:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is a bit of a tangent, but perhaps it will help you understand what I'm looking for.
::::::Advocacy organizations frequently engage in a marketing activity that they call "issuing a statement" <small>(] for this example)</small>. That is, they write and publish a press release and hope that some (independent) newspaper or magazine will decide to include their views in an article. You've seen it a thousand times: "Paul Politician said something, which was hailed as the truth by Group A and decried as scurrilous lies by Group B".
::::::Traditionally, we use these independent articles determine which groups' views are worth mentioning in Misplaced Pages articles. Our idea of "all the significant ] that have been ]" is usually weighted according to the usual desirable qualities (i.e., independent, non-self-published, secondary). If Group A issues a press release, and the media picks it up, then we tend to include it, too, according to how much attention the independent sources gave them plus our own editorial judgment of what's needed in/relevant to the article. If Group A issues a press release, and the media ignores it, then we tend to ignore it, too, unless there is some obvious necessity for including it (e.g., it's ] for ordinary encyclopedic content).
::::::However, what if the media landscape has shifted so much that information that seems important to editors is frequently being ignored?
::::::So I might say: "I want to learn whether editors consider press releases and other statements issued by organizations to be self-published, so that I can correctly classify sources, so that I can give DUE weight to these sources (i.e., less weight to self-published sources and more weight to non-self-published sources), so that I can apply the core content policies consistently across different subject areas." ] (]) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know if this will be helpful, but here goes...
:::::::I appreciate your having thought about it and your questions. First, I thought some more about the distinction you drew between definition and characterization/explanation. I'm not trying to determine a definition per se. The RfC is to learn ,
:::::::* so that (1) if people have suggestions for improving it, we hear them; or (2) we learn what the consensus view actually is, and then can shift to the work of revising the SPS (body + footnote) text to reflect this other consensus; or (3) we're faced with figuring out a productive next step, and hopefully the responses will give some hints about what that might be;
:::::::* so that the improved the text — in cases (1) or (2)— helps people have an easier time personally judging what is/isn't SPS and reduces disagreements, as the (sometimes contentious) disagreements take up people's time and energy when they could go to something more productive, and they can be frustrating, and it can also frustrate new editors to feel like they're getting mixed messages.
:::::::I've reread multiple discussions about what "self-published" does/doesn't include, and that makes me want to take on the task of trying to improve the guidance, even if I fail. But I believe that it can be improved, and I think a well-crafted RfC would be helpful. (Now, whether I've actually created one is a different question. I still have some editing to do.) I did the 5 Whys, and my last entry was: I don't know why the guidance in SPS and USINGSPS is divergent (if you agree that it is, I'd be interested to hear your take on that). It can be hard to write effective guidance (e.g., language is sometimes ambiguous, the guidance has to apply to very diverse publications). People also come to editing (including disagreements) with different experiences, knowledge, values, and goals, which influence their interpretations and choices. ] (]) 04:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think I understand your goal now, which I'd classify as a question about whether the current state is satisfactory vs if clarifying this part of our ruleset is something that the community would like to prioritize.
::::::::Towards that end, I wonder:
::::::::* Is an RFC is actually necessary, given that we have had multiple discussions about it during the last year? I kinda think we already know the answer.
::::::::* If you want an RFC on whether to fix it, maybe it should just say "Hey, we've had so many discussions about what, exactly, we mean by a self-published source. Do you think that's all good, or should we be providing more/better advice?
::::::::* If you want to skip the "Houston, do we actually have a problem?" step, then I think that one sensible approach would be to have an RFC that proposes replacing the existing text "X" with improved text "Y", and seeing whether people accept the proposal. I'm pretty sure you could write something better than what we've got.
::::::::] (]) 03:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Re: what we know, I know that people have quite divergent views about what "self-published" means, but I honestly don't know what the consensus view is. I also don't know whether the current SPS text does or doesn't reflect the consensus view. The views people presented in the discussions mostly don't strike me as corresponding to the footnote characterization, and a few people criticized it, but many others didn't address it at all; maybe some people think that their own interpretations do correspond to that text, and they're just interpreting that text differently than I am and differently from each other. I've tried to capture the 3 most common interpretations of "self-published" that arose in the discussions, and they're options in my draft RfC; keeping the current wording is another option, and the fifth is "other." Personally, I think the characterization in the footnote isn't good, and in the RfC I'll argue for changing it. I think I could write something better than the current text, but it feels like too much to present good sample text for each of the 3 main interpretations; as it is, my text presenting the options feels long. ] (]) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::* I'm not sure what the community consensus is except that its complicated.
:::::::::* complicated means eternal wikilawyering by determined parties to keep sources they don't like out.
:::::::::* At risk of ] fallacy, some of the hot-button issues with SPS (gender/sexuality/politics) have seen sufficiently determined wikilawyers use BLPSPS for ] disqualifying entire sources as supposedly SPS. Example scenarios include:
::::::::::* ] condemns a transphobe
::::::::::* ] condemns a white supremacist
::::::::::* ] labels a guy's fringe theory (and therefore the guy) as pseudoscience
:::::::::Language in ] to end wikilawyering as yes or no for at least some of these sources would save editor time. ] (]) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{smaller|Alternatively, I have questions on the absoluteness of ]... though admittedly, I have no clue what ramifications of changing ] would mean}} ] (]) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I have a long Notes section (which will be hatted, but which I hope people will at least skim), and I should include your point, as that's a context in which a lot of these disagreements arise. FWIW, I think the third bullet is an example of two distinct issues: whether the SBM article is self-published, and whether a WP statement about a fringe theory held by Person X falls under the BLP policy (because the reason we're mentioning the theory is that the person espouses that theory) or doesn't fall under the BLP policy (because the WP statement is about the theory itself, not about the person, even though the reason for mentioning the theory is that person espouses it). ] (]) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: As probably one of the "wikilawyers" involved, I'm of the opinion that whether a source is considered self-published is related to the sources purpose and organizational/editorial structure. Not if it's used by others, not if editors like it or not, not if it has the right or wrong opinions. Codifying a process on how we achieve this would go a long way to end wikilawyering on articles. --] (]) 16:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The question asks people to choose among some options: the current explanation, 3 alternatives (the ones I think came up most often in previous discussions), and "other" (where the editor elaborates). Each editor will have to determine whether any of the first four options addresses their view sufficiently, perhaps with tweaks. For the latter four options, the editor either thinks there's either already a consensus for that option or they hope to generate consensus for it. Depending on the details of purpose and structure that matter to you, you might or might not decide that one of the first four options represents your view pretty well. ] (]) 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that the first option can be omitted. People who want "none of the above" will say that.
:::::::::::::Your 2b is not making sense to me today. There is no barrier to writing your own 'About us' page. It is redundant with 2a.
:::::::::::::For 2c, reader comments are not "from" the traditional publisher.
:::::::::::::I wonder how you'd feel about prefacing this with a ]: Does the community believe that it is possible for a corporate author to self-publish? For example, are all of these self-published?
:::::::::::::* Alice writes something and posts (i.e., publishes) it on her website.
:::::::::::::* Alice and Bob work together to write something, and they post it on their website.
:::::::::::::* The communication team for Paul Politician's campaign writes something and posts it on the campaign website.
:::::::::::::* A charitable organization writes something and posts it on the charity website.
:::::::::::::* Bob's Big Business, Inc. writes something, and (after the branding team added ® symbols) the business posts it on its website.
:::::::::::::* A government agency writes something and posts it on the government website.
:::::::::::::I think my answers would be "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and it's complicated". I think the answers from ] would be "Yes, maybe, no, no, no, and no." ] (]) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::My answers would be "Yes, yes, no, no, no and no." Also, if Alice wrote a letter to the editor of a major newspaper and the newspaper has a practice of publishing all letters that are not obscene or defamatory, then Alice's letter is self-published. ] (]) 22:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'll think about dropping 1, but given that I'm trying to assess whether consensus has changed (and if not, whether the current text can be improved a bit), I'm inclined to keep it. 2 is framed as "The current explanation doesn't reflect consensus and/or is problematic in some other significant way(s)" so ''the current explanation is good'' doesn't fit in 2d. (Yes, I could change the framing for all of 2, and I'll think about that.)
::::::::::::::2b isn't redundant with 2a. 2a excludes organizational authors. I tried to make that clear by referring to "persons," and it's stated explicitly in the elaboration in the Notes section, but I guess I need to state it explicitly in 2a itself. The ''publisher itself'' materials do include organizational authors. I don't want to describe the "publisher itself" materials as "no barrier" but with an organizational author, as I'm trying to exclude things that the organization publishes about other things.
::::::::::::::I'll think about how to reword 2c.
::::::::::::::I don't understand how that "side quest" link is relevant (is that the content you meant to link to? were you trying to suggest that it's a deviation from the main focus?). I'm hesitant to add any preface to what's there, as it already feels long to me. I think everyone agrees that the first two are self-published, the third is in 2b, the other 3 are mentioned in the Notes section, though not in those words. ] (]) 23:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::A deviation from the main focus.
:::::::::::::::If we were to determine that corporate authors are to be treated the same as/different from individual humans (or very small groups of individual humans), then you could merge your 2a/2b distinction according to the outcome.
:::::::::::::::About {{xt|trying to assess whether consensus has changed}}: Does this mean:
:::::::::::::::# A decade ago, you believe that we all had an idea of what self-published meant, and you wonder whether maybe now we have a different idea of what self-published means? or
:::::::::::::::# A decade ago, we agreed to put these words in the policy, and you wonder whether maybe now we think some different words would be better?
:::::::::::::::I'd say that we have had a relatively weak agreement on what self-published means (i.e., I wrote USESPS because we kept having disputes about it), that we probably have a stronger agreement in theory now but would like even greater clarity, and that the wording in this policy is pretty bad, has been pretty bad since at least when the footnote was added, and could be improved. ] (]) 07:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent|:::::::::::::::}}Re: 2a/2b, somehow I'm still not communicating clearly. If 2a included organizational authors, then anything published by an organization would be considered self-published, as the organization can publish what it wants (even if in practice it doesn't, because it doesn't want to be sued, may judge material to be irrelevant to its mission, etc.). Whereas in 2b as I intend it, GLAAD's "about us" info would be self-published, but it's GAP info and media guidelines would not. I think what I should do is try to create a table with different kinds of publications from different kinds of authors, and show whether they would/wouldn't be classified as self-published by 2a vs. 2b vs. 2c (and I'd leave a 2d column where people who dislike 1 and 2a-c can think about how they'd classify these materials). I have no experience creating tables, but assume I'll be able to figure that out, and I'll hat the table but again suggest that people look at it to clarify what 2a-c mean. I'll have to think about whether to include 1, because I don't know that my own judgment about what the current explanation means will correspond to others' interpretations when it comes to material from non-traditional publishers, whereas with 2, I'm the one trying to make the meaning of the categories clear. I'm wondering if I should also add a column for the USINGSPS interpretation, where I might ask you to fill it in.


Re: your 1 and 2, I'm trying to get at two things. One of them is your 1 (though I'm thinking more than a decade ago, before the footnote was added in 2011), but the second doesn't correspond to your 2. The second thing that I'm trying to get at: As best I can tell, no one discussed the footnote prior to it being added; it was simply added, and no one challenged it. (I might be wrong, I only did a cursory check of that in the WT:V archives.) So I wouldn't say "we agreed to put these words in the policy." I'd instead say something like: The footnote was added and never challenged; some people may have never taken a close look at it (because it's in a footnote and they felt that they had a good enough sense of 'self-published' from the text in the body), and others thought it was consistent with consensus. I have no idea what the split is between those two groups. Because the footnote was there, new editors started using it to guide their own decisions about whether they could use a given source, and some people started using it in discussions when there's a disagreement about whether a source is/isn't SPS. Even though NOTBURO, over time it became the letter of the law regardless of whether it captured the spirit of what people meant by 'self-published' prior to it having been added. Over time, the distribution of people's interpretations of "self-published" may have shifted as new editors come and other editors leave. I'd keep "you wonder whether maybe now we think some different words would be better?", but I think "different words would be better" can mean very different things to different people. I have zero idea how many people fall in each group: (a) the group of people who agree with the overall sentiment of the footnote but might want to use different words for the characterization and/or examples to make the explanation a bit clearer, and (b) the people who don't agree with that sentiment and want to use different words for that reason (and where different people in this group may have different views about what 'self-published' really means, and therefore different views on what the new words should portray). Does that make sense?
:::As to encouraging "it": hardly. ] says nothing about ''specificity'' of citations. As to page numbers, it says that for books and journals they are "typically" or "usually" included (though I challenge that); a subsequent "should" fails to bring this descriptive factoid even to the level of a faint suggestion, let alone encouragment. And for newspapers: "Page number(s) are optional." In actual reality it is the ''inclusion'' of page numbers (etc.) which is the exception.
:::: ~ ] (]) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well, we disagree on several points. But as a point of clarification, when, on 2 occasions you say that "should" is not strong enough, that gives the impression to some (including me) of implying the typical next step up which is mandating. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::What? I am saying that ''current statements'' regarding use of page numbers, including ''a single instance of an express "should"'' buried in ] under "typically included" and "usually included", are not strong enough to encourage their use. I say that ''that'' particular "should" is not strong enough. I am amazed how you can jump from that to an "impression ... of implying ... mandating." ~ ] (]) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::My mistake then, albeit an easily-made one. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It might help clear up any misunderstanding here if you suggested a specific edit. --] (]) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Unfortunately, it is quite common for readers of our policy and guideline pages to confuse "should" with "must". "Should" is a fairly strong encouragement... "must" is a mandate. I can not think of a word that is stronger than "should", but not as absolute as "must", but perhaps someone else can... so I agree with Bob... we would need to see a proposed edit to move further on this. ] (]) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


Only tangentially related: I really was hoping that someone could give me guidance about some of my original questions. If you have suggestions re: the following, I'd be grateful:
:::::::::Hopefully that is now cleared up? Specifically, that "should" does ''not'' mean "must" (a word I actually abhor), and most certainly does not imply any element of coercion? (E.g., we might lean on people to do the right thing, there might even be social pressure, but no one is going to be knee-capped, or their work purged, if they simply omit a page number.) Perhaps there was also some confusion in the question I proposed. Note that the first instance ("Should there be a definite statement...") applies to us editors, and is in the nature of "the ''statement'' is such a good idea we <s>will be knee-capped by Jimbo ...</s> just ought to do it", while the second instance is about the appropriate use of page numbers (etc.).
* Should I open this here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
:::::::::I haven't proposed a specific edit because I think we still have general issues to sort out, and that there may be more than "a few simple edits". Assuming we are clear on "should", I am going to pop this out and list some of the possible issues. ~ ] (]) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
* "Policy" is the primary category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an Under discussion tag to the WP:SPS section?


Sorry to have been so long-winded. ] (]) 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:Easy answers first:
Having clarified that "should" does '''not''' mean "must", I would like to clarify some other points of possible confusion.
:* Either start here and plan to split it to a subpage ("WT:Verifiability/SPS") or just start on a subpage (either of this talk page or of WP:Requests for Comment/).
# "Should" means strongly desireable, but is not (e.g.) a mandate to remove non-compliant material.
:* Policy is the primary RFC category, and the rest isn't super important. I'd suggest WT:BLP, and if anyone complains, invite them to post their own, CANVAS-compliant messages, and (if you want to be more formal and organized) to record these invitations in ]. If you want a bigger response, add it to ].
# "Should" is constrained by "as appropriate". E.g.: page numbers are not appropriate for sources that do not have page numbers.
:I would suggest holding off on the advertising push until you know whether people can make sense of the question (probably 24–48 hours). If the responses seem confused or tangential, then you might not want a ton of people showing up. You might instead want to withdraw the question and try again.
# The implicit policy issue is whether citations should be as specific as possible. (Alternately: as specific as ''desireable''.)
:BTW, you can ask questions like this and get advice on your question at ] as well. ] (]) 17:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
# "Page number" is used here as the most common kind of citation specification, but is understood to include all specification of sections, paragraphs, or other sub-divisions of a work, whether numbered or not.
There are other points I will ''argue'', but the points here are for clarification. I pause to see if everyone is clear on these. ~ ] (]) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC) ::Also, if you want to create a table, try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:FactOrOpinion/Draft_SPS_RfC?veaction=edit and then Insert > Table. ] (]) 17:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I've added a table. I may add a few other examples, and I still need to learn how to add colors, as I think that will make it easier to see the differences. I decided to leave most of Option 1 blank, as I'm sometimes uncertain how to asses it (perhaps because I've heard different editors interpreting it in different ways). Maybe it's just as well to let editors decide for themselves how the current explanation would classify various materials. ] (]) 02:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::See ]. You'll have to do this in wikitext. The visual editor may not cope well with templated approaches to adding color, so I'd add color towards the end/when you don't expect more changes to the table. ] (]) 09:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. I don't know that I've ever looked at WT:RFC, and it hadn't occurred to me to ask there. I wouldn't start advertising it until I'm happy enough with it, so: not yet. It's obvious that it's not yet clear enough. ] (]) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Self-published claims about other living persons ==
*Where a statement is sourced to a particular conclusion in a work, the conclusion's position in the work must be indicated for verification purposes. This can include text searching, paragraph numbering, lines of code or law, page numbers (with an edition specified including the city of publication). Where a statement is sourced to the primary motive of an extended work, this should be cited against the introduction, thesis, conclusion with the position in the work indicated. Where a work is cited multiple times for different matters, on each occasion the place in the work needs to be indicated. Where a work is merely cited as existing at all, "Kevin published a book, "On ducks,"" only then is it legitimate to cite the work as a whole. Even then, I'd suggest citing the bibliographic page. The idea that the "vibe" of a work is contained in the work as a whole, but never made explicit by the author, and so the work as a whole should be cited is a very bad one leading to original exegeses of the meaning of the work. Authors who make claims with their whole work, usually take the pain to do so with an introduction or conclusion. ] (]) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


I am seeking clarification on the following sentence within {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published sources}} (]):
:*I'm inclined to go with Fifelfoo's level of "must": enough information must be given to allow location of the source statement(s), to the degree that the work permits this. If the work doesn't permit much localization, well, we have to live with it, but anything that suggests it is permissible to give no indication of where to find the cited information in an 800 page tome allows people to give themselves permission to include unverifiable references. ] (]) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


{{tq2|'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}
From the section ] of ], "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." --] (]) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


This sentence is corroborated by {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources}} (]), which states:
:::Yes, Fifeloo has propounded the point well: it is a bad idea (and a bad practice) to cite a source generally for some point or "vibe" that is never made explicitly. I would add as a ''very bad'' practice the "common" one suggested earliar, of leaving off specific page numbers (etc.) where there are multiple citations of a source. (If adding page numbers and such is too difficult, then one's citation technique needs revision, and I strongly urge getting weaned from named refs. But that is a discussion for elsewhere.)


{{tq2|Never use ]—including but not limited to books, ]s, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published {{strong|by the subject of the article}}.}}
:::However, I would be cautious about bandying around "must", for all the reasons we covered above. "Should" implies an obligation, as in one ''ought to'' do something, but "must" has intonations of compulsion. I would tell editors that they ''really'' ought to provide specification, lean on them heavily, even make GA status contingent on specification. But "must" gets too murky, even electrifying; "should" is (I think) sufficient, and generally preferable. - ] (]) 22:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


My understanding is that the above policy requirements prohibit self-published sources from being used for any claim about another living person {{ins|for whom the author ]}}, and that there is no exemption to allow self-published claims about other living persons even when these claims are deemed uncontroversial and self-published by a subject-matter expert. This strongly phrased rule exists to ensure that all content about {{ins|unaffiliated}} living persons undergoes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages.
::::Well said. I would add that named refs that are broken into References and Notes sections work well and are not hard to manage. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


Some editors in the discussion at {{slink|WP:RSN#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider}} seem to be in disagreement, so I am seeking clarification on whether uncontroversial self-published content from authors who meet the subject-matter expert criterion is exempt from this requirement. Thank you. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Amended to incoporate language from ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
: I would question the assertion that such content would ever be uncontroversial, if its self-published, about a living person other than the author, and can't be found in any more reliable source it is de-facto a controversial claim. ] (]) 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I still say that the solution to this sort of stuff is ''in-text attribution''. Doing this shifts the debate from: “is X reliable for saying Y” to “is it DUE to mention that X said Y”. ] (]) 20:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I thought part of the point of the policy prohibition was to say that this type of content from a self-published source is never due. – ] (]) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think its circular in a way because the answer to the question is that its basically never due anyways (theres grey area as with all things, especially when you get into someone making claims about events which they were personally involved in but which also involved other living people). ] (]) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Whether such statements are never DUE, rarely DUE, occasionally DUE, etc is a question that can and should be discussed further. My only point is that focusing on the DUEness of an SPS statement is much more ''appropriate'' than focusing on the author’s reliability. ] (]) 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think these work hand in hand. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the SPS report is uncorroborated and/or not discussed by RSs and so would not be DUE anyway. If it is corroborated/discussed, then the SPS does not need to be cited except in rare circumstances where it is itself part of the story. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Some of that discussion seems to veer into ] as well as its gossip/diary aspects, not to mention other DUE concerns. Why would it be so important to include reporting about every possible casting change or rumored cameo? Part of why we prohibit SPS on BLPs is to avoid these types of more rumor/gossip/tabloid reporting. I don't see the value is making exceptions to the rule, especially if it is going to result in these types of long, drawn-out discussions about content that is only being sourced to a single, self-published source. – ] (]) 20:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:BLPSPS and its related policies are quite clear about "never" meaning "never". I do not think a wholesale change to allow SPSs, even from experts in uncontroversial scenarios would be beneficial. Many SPSs are from self-proclaimed experts, or their readers think they are, and changing the default stance to general allowance based on editor discretion would be opening the floodgates to a lot of low reliability additions that violate the non-BLPSPS areas of BLP. If what they're talking about isn't corroborated or even discussed in RSs, then it would likely not be DUE anyway.
:If a change is made, I think the furthest it should go for now is in cases where RSs have corroborated or widely discussed the BLPSPS report itself, similar to how ] works. If the BLPSPS report is corroborated by non-SPS RSs and is itself the subject of discussion, then using it as a citation so readers can access it and with clear attribution in the text might be okay sometimes. Similarly, if the BLPSPS report is widely discussed by RSs but not corroborated, if the discussion around it in RSs becomes DUE for inclusion in and of itself, then it might be okay to cite the original report with attribution in some cases. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have posted a notice at ], since this impacts the BLP policy. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:I think the specific case that requires more discussion is how so many journalists are going independent due to the degradation of the outlet they previously worked for. They are still top-tier journalists doing journalism work, but now this policy means none of their work can be used on any person's article because it now falls under SPS. I feel like this is going to become ever more an issue as journalism continues to fragment due to the self-inflicted wounds that legacy media is doing to itself (particularly those that are being bought out by billionaires and that new ownership leading to censoring of the outlet's journalism). ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Presumably the caveats (regarding "should", "appropriate", and "page numbers" as proxy for specification in general) are clear, so I return to the implicit policy issue: '''should citation be specific?''' (Don't forget the caveat of ''appropriate''.) That is, given the ''existing'' policy that ''sources'' should be cited, does that extend into specifying the location ''within'' a source?
::I agree that the media landscape doesn't look like it did when we wrote these rules. But I'm not sure that changing the rules is a good idea, since "top-tier journalist" isn't an objective quality. ] (]) 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think we'll eventually get to a point when we would have to re-evaluate, but the amount of good, credible journalists going fully independent is still relatively low. Given the BLP issues, if it changes, it would probably be a default to exclude position, with case-by-case or use-by-use evaluation at RSN. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:This policy is pretty clear to never use self-published sources as ]. It says nothing about never using such sources at all, and there's a reason why that language has been maintained.
:As others have mentioned, this is why we use attribution for such sources and why this policy has the carveout. An independent reliable source can often be used in Wiki-voice, but for SPS both the lower reliability tier and potential legal issues of saying something about a BLP in wikivoice with poor sourcing comes into play. That's why if an SPS is considered ], it is used with attribution because it is not an independent source. They're treated essentially as being involved or close to the subject, especially in disputes. There is the option to use such sources, but it needs to be done with care.
:I can't say much about the example brought here, but it looks like it's a question of the reliability of the source and how ] their statements are rather than trying to exclude them solely due to being an SPS. ] (]) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Thanks for noting that. The phrase '']'' in ] covers all self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author ], and the language in the sentence does state to {{xt|"'''Never'''"}} use such self-published claims. The language in ] prohibits the use of all self-published claims about other living persons, with the following carveout: {{xt|"a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example"}}.{{pb}}I've amended my initial comment to clarify that I am specifically focusing on self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author has no vested interest. The discussion at {{slink|WP:RSN#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider}} fits in this category. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|the language in the sentence does state to "Never" use such self-published claims}} Not quite. The policy says never to use them as third-party sources (i.e., independent sources). That is why attribution is used when consensus determines the source is otherwise appropriate. ] (]) 06:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::In the context of my reply, {{xt|"such self-published claims"}} refers to {{xt|"all self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author ]"}}. Based on the language of ], I do not see how the use of in-text attribution would allow this prohibition to be bypassed when the self-published claims about other living persons are determined to be ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Something being a third-party source is not synonymous with not requiring attribution. If you look at ], many independent sources which are deemed generally reliable or marginally reliable still require attribution. Attribution is not a panacea for the clear pronouncement at ].
::::Since there's only really first and third party sources, the line at SPS is just a summary of the fuller policy at BLPSPS, which has a carve-out for allowing ] when it is a first party source in some cases: {{tq|It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example.}} -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::] attribution would not make the source stop being independent/third-party anyway. The rule is:
:::::* Never use Alice's self-published website to say anything about Bob, unless Bob and Alice have some substantial connection (e.g., marriage or employment).
:::::There is no exception related to adding the magic words 'According to Alice' to the sentence. ] (]) 21:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


As one of the editors involved at the Sneider discussion, we aren't just seeking clarification on how the current wording should be interpreted but also potentially looking for an amendment. If the intention of the current wording is to prevent SPS from ever being used for claims that are even slightly related to a living person, then I think we should be adjusting that wording to be more lenient for non-controversial/exceptional claims. If the SPS has already been determined to be a reliable source (i.e. a reliable, trusted journalist who is now self-publishing their reporting, something that is becoming more-and-more common these days) and they are publishing a non-controversial claim that is deemed to be useful for an article, why should they not be used? We can make it clear that there should be attribution if we still want that level of caution. And to those who are concerned about whether such an inclusion would be DUE, surely that can be determined on a case-by-case basis through local consensus? The main problem here, in my opinion, is this policy's wording is being referenced to shut down any further discussion about how and where these sources can be used. - ] (]) 11:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I argue '''yes''', on the grounds that it is 1) a basic requirement of scholarship, and 2) fundamental to the Misplaced Pages principle of verifiability. In anticipation of some previous arguments being recycled I would further argue that supposed ''difficulty'' of adding a specification (e.g., page number) originally is of very little weight, and much outweighed by the difficulty of subsequently trying to find an alleged point. ~ ] (]) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
*A "reliable, trusted journalist who is now self-publishing their reporting" may not even qualify as an "established subject-matter expert" (which is a higher standard than just being reliable) under ]. This presents even more problems under ] because self-published means that there is no editorial oversight, and this is just too much of a risk for using on BLPs. Attribution doesn't address these concerns, as the information would still be there. The point of the policy is to set a bright line because those types of sources should never be used for BLP information. The argument that SPS should be able to be used routinely on BLPs presents too many problems compared to the potential benefit, IMO. – ] (]) 19:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm obviously talking about someone who does qualify as an established SME. I recognise that the lack of editorial oversight is why we are being cautious here, but again I think we are being overly cautious for instances where the material being sourced is not controversial or exceptional in any way. - ] (]) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think that is obvious from your comment as a "reliable, trusted journalist" is not necessarily going to be an "established subject-matter expert". I would argue often is not, and that in this particular case, Jeff Sneider does not qualify as one, for multiple reasons. Further, the discussion on RSN seems to suggest that what could be "controversial or exceptional" is also not as clearcut as your comment would suggest. Rather than have repeated discussions about when a person is a subject-matter expert for reporting on other living people, when content is really controversial or exceptional, and when all of this would be due when relying on a SPS, I think the brightline rule against using this information for BLPs makes a lot more sense. While some issues may be obvious to some editors, for other editors the issues may appear far more complex. – ] (]) 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I am talking about situations where a self-published source has already been deemed reliable. That means they are an established subject-matter expert, because that is the only time a self-published source is deemed to be reliable on Misplaced Pages per ]. I disagree with your opinion on whether Sneider is a reliable source, but that is irrelevant to this discussion and should be taken up at the existing RSN discussion. This discussion is about self-published sources that ''have'' been deemed to be reliable, regardless of who they are. I don't buy the argument that determining whether a claim is controversial or exceptional is too complex an issue for some editors to handle and therefore we cannot trust them to have that discussion. We currently trust editors to determine whether a self-published source is a subject-matter expert or not, and we trust editors to come to a consensus on whether such a source should be used for anything not related to a living person. Why can we not trust them to determine whether something related to a living person is controversial or exceptional? Because it could be hard is not a good reason to have an overzealous ban on something. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::But what has the source been deemed reliable for? A source may be deemed reliable for some content, but not for other content, per ]. Especially in BLP cases, the reliability of the source must be evaluated for the specific use proposed, and any determination of its reliability in another context should be ignored. ] 23:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Good point… while I can think of many authors I would consider subject matter experts on politics, I question how many are subject matter experts on any individual politician.
*:::::Ok… the exception might be someone who had written a non-self published biography of a specific politician… now self-publishing an update on that politician. ] (]) 00:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I don't disagree {{u|Donald Albury}}, but under the current BLPSPS wording we do not have a chance to consider whether the source is reliable in such a context because self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to living persons. - ] (]) 09:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::It's not accurate to say "self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material ''remotely related to'' living persons." They're banned from use as sources for content about persons themselves. They're not banned from use for content about something related to one or more persons but isn't about the persons themselves. There may be gray areas where you ask whether proposed content is about a person or only about something they're linked to, but there also are areas that aren't gray at all. For example, you cannot use a SPS to say "this actor was the director's first pick" (assuming the actor and/or director are living or recently deceased) but you could use a SPS to say "the movie was filmed on location" (as long as the SPS and the proposed edit meet other conditions, e.g., the SPS is a RS for this content, and the content is DUE), even though the latter is "remotely related" to many living people, including the actor and director. ] (]) 13:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm not sure if you completely missed the point of my comment or if you are intentionally being overly pedantic to try shut me down, either way this is a very frustrating response. What I meant was... under the current BLPSPS wording we do not have a chance to consider whether the source is reliable in such a context because self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to ''one or a few'' living persons. - ] (]) 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I'm certainly not trying to shut you down, and I regret that my response frustrated you, but you seem to be missing my point. You keep referring to "remotely related to," and I'm saying that that's not what the policy means. BLPSPS rules out self-published sources used for WP text that's ''about a living person themself'' (or about a few ''people themselves''). It does not rule out SPS used for content that's ''remotely related to'' one or a few living persons. In the example I gave, WP text that says "the movie was filmed on location" can be sourced to a SPS because it's not about any living person ''themself'', even though it's ''remotely related to'' some living people (e.g., it's remotely related to the director who chose to film on location). There are some gray areas in BLPSPS, but ''"remotely related to"'' isn't one of them. ] (]) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Again, you are trying to undermine my argument by pointing out something that we are not even talking about. This discussion is about situations where BLPSPS ''does'' apply under the current wording but some editors, including myself, think it should not. Explaining what BLPSPS does not apply to is a red herring. - ] (]) 19:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Then I suggest that you stop using the phrase "remotely related to," since it's inaccurate. I'm not trying to undermine discussion of the situation where BLPSPS ''does'' currently apply.
*::::::::::I asked the following below: is the proposal here to change the last sentence of WP:SPS to something like "Self-published sources are only permitted as third-party sources about living people if (a) the author meets the subject-matter expert criterion, and (b) the WP text sourced to their publication is limited to uncontroversial content"? If so, then I'd like to hear more how you'd bound "uncontroversial," providing some sense of where the boundary lies between "uncontroversial" and everything else. ] (]) 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I don't think we should be defining what "uncontroversial" means, that is going to depend on the situation. I think it would make more sense to say something like "the text sourced to their publication is not ]". - ] (]) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::There's a huge difference between "uncontroversial" and "not an exceptional claim." I'd absolutely oppose the latter as way too broad. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::As an example, "Ronald Reagan was an actor" is "uncontroversial". "Ronald Reagan was a conservative politician" is "not an exceptional claim". And IMO that latter should not come from a self-published source, about any BLP. ] (]) 23:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Both of those are claims which can be sourced from numerous high quality reliabe sources though... The examples need to be cases where the highest source in which the claim can be found is a single SPS. ] (]) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::The point of these examples was to illustrate the difference between "uncontroversial" and "not an exceptional claim". This difference is not unique to self-published sources. Editors are likely to be less concerned about statements about someone's day job than about whether the person adheres to a particular (and contested) political viewpoint. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::This seems to assume that a SPS can make either an uncontroversial or non-exceptional claim in this context and I don't think they can... Any claim in that context is both controversial and exceptional by definition. ] (]) 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I brought up an element of this at the BLP noticeboard: What about cases where a band member in an interview makes a statement about a fellow band member or recording personnel? And by this, I'm not talking about controversial statements or attributing opinions or beliefs to another individual, but basic stuff like "they played on this album" or "this guy was studying record production so he produced our demo" (I have a specific band and interview in mind with this latter example).--] (] &#124; ]) 17:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:My understanding is that activities and events which include multiple people are something of a grey area which we address on a case-by-case basis. Generally though when its to the level of talking about a single living person by name its a no though (I've seen a lot more leeway for claims of non-specific collective action). ] (]) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm referring specifically to one named individual speaking on behalf of the band about other named individuals.--] (] &#124; ]) 18:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If it's in an interview, then it wouldn't be a ] issue and it's probably fine to use with attribution (e.g. "In an interview with X, Y said that...) unless it's an exceptional claim. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] my understanding is that interviews are considered primary sources. And sometimes the interview isn't in an established RS but maybe on someone's blog or personal site but they nonetheless managed to get an interview with the band, which would definitely make the source only usable as a primary source rather than independent coverage. I would almost always attribute an interview regardless of the statement made. And I agree with some of the other editors above that even with attribution, it's still a statement about a living person.--] (] &#124; ]) 19:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sure, if it's an interview in a SPS, then it should not be used per ]. If it's in a reliable source, then it's probably fine with attribution as long as it's due, and is outside the scope of this discussion. If they're naming other members of the band or talking about the band itself, assuming it's a relatively normal-sized group, then it would invoke BLP protections. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The fact that interviews (i.e., ones that focus on the speaker) are considered primary sources is irrelevant. Sources can be secondary and self-published, just like they can be primary and non-self-published. ] (]) 21:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say that falls solidly in the grey area, especially because of the ABOUTSELF aspects. ] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] Right. That's where I'm thinking this might need to be clarified.--] (] &#124; ]) 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::] basically says it's a spectrum of how similar statements about a group are statements about an individual where a small enough group will attract BLP protections, but a larger group is less likely to, with the nature of the material (e.g. controversial/harmful vs. not, quasi-identifying vs. entirely general) also affecting that analysis. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Yeah, this is why on some band list articles, like those for Christian music artists or for National Socialist black metal, I would absolutely consider BLP protections to be in effect. I think it gets into this grey area when it's uncontentious statements about fellow band members in an interview of the band.--] (] &#124; ]) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:That doesn't inherently sound like an SPS source as an interview often isn't the stereotypical person just putting their own opinion on a blog. That's unless there's a serious question about whether the interviewee actually said what was claimed. That's more likely to be a primary non-SPS source.
:At least for the purposes of this page though? If it really is an SPS, then there's nothing inherently wrong with using it ''with attribution''. The questions instead are if there's valid concern if the statement was actually made like I just mentioned above and primarily if it's ]. ] may help inform that discussion among other things. Between treating the source as SPS/non-independent, there's a bit higher bar for scrutiny as to whether something is DUE or not. If a band member says something in an SPS, who cares, is it really relevant to an encyclopedia? That's probably the bigger question. I'd be more likely to question if information is being put in the article simply because it exists rather than being DUE (without knowing the specifics of this actual dispute). The short of it is that it should be somewhat inherent that the information would have encyclopedic relevance when used with attribution. ] (]) 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::The problem is we can't have a discussion about whether something like this is genuinely DUE if there is a blanket ban preventing it from being added. - ] (]) 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This policy explains why we don't use SPS sources as independent sources, and ''that'' is what is prohibited here. If someone is saying such sources are banned entirely, that's missing the point of this policy and not engaging with the underlying reasoning why we're so careful about SPS about living people. It's ultimately up to talk page consensus to decide if the content should be included or not. ] (]) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This is relevant to an FA review, where I as a reviewer have to help come up with that consensus, which is why I brought it up to the BLP Noticeboard (which seemed to be of a similar mix of consensus that leans toward it being a case-by-case grey area).--] (] &#124; ]) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So if I were reviewing discussion in a talk page in that situation, I probably wouldn't give much weight to someone just simply saying "can't use SPS sources" and leaving it at that as it isn't addressing the gray area. Instead, the weight would go more towards those really focusing on the spirit of related ] and saying there is/isn't ] for inclusion (which you should do even if it's a bad SPS). If there was consensus for inclusion, then just make sure there was attribution. It's ] that would rule the roost there.
:::::That's at least what I would be looking for if I was doing a FA/GA review knowing there was a piece of content that had some controversy that someone was trying to add/remove again during the review process. ] (]) 22:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::WP:BLPSPS doesn't allow self-published sources to be used for any "material about a living person" at all. If the wording of that policy was consistent with this one then we would be able to discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis to determine if inclusion with attribution is appropriate, but because of the stricter wording at BLPSPS we currently can't. - ] (]) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That would violate the policy on this page, and like I alluded to above, I'd be worried about ] if someone is insisting all such sources are prohibited rather than engaging with the why of there being guidance of SPS related to living people. Ultimately, ] is policy too, so you'd set aside the letter of the policy language and look at the ] of it. There's additional guidance because SPS have additional hurdles when they intersect with claims about living people. Like when newspapers print articles quoting people, we first navigate those issues by using attribution (and the determination that the statement was actually made by the person). We simply don't treat SPS as independent or as reliable as non-SPS sources. Everything else is up to basic ] and talk consensus. ] (]) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Is the goal to see if there's consensus for changing BLPSPS as a policy? Or is the goal only to see if there's consensus for allowing this one specific SPS (The InSneider) to be used for specific WP text about one or more living persons? I hear people making different claims here and at RSN. Either way, so far my read is that there isn't consensus for either one. ] (]) 00:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Since this talk page is about the policy as it applies to all Misplaced Pages articles, the current discussion is about the general application of ] and ]. I mentioned {{slink|WP:RSN#Jeff Sneider / The InSneider}} only to give context on why this discussion was started. Any evaluations of Sneider's self-published content should ideally be posted or at least cross-posted to the noticeboard discussion. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 01:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for clarifying. So is the proposal here to change the last sentence of WP:SPS to something like "Self-published sources are only permitted as third-party sources about living people if (a) the author meets the subject-matter expert criterion, and (b) the WP text sourced to their publication is limited to uncontroversial content"?
::::::::Although editors agree that some kinds of sources are self-published (e.g., blogs, social media) and that some kinds of sources are not self-published (e.g., newspapers, standard book publishers), there's a fair amount of disagreement about whether other kinds of sources (e.g., material from universities, governments, advocacy organizations, corporations) are or aren't self-published. (I'm working on an RfC to clarify that.) Depending on what is/isn't considered SPS, the "size" of the impact of this change will vary. To some extent, the current BLPSPS carve-out falls in this realm: if you consider the material published by most employers or groups making awards to be self-published, the carve-out takes the perspective that it's nonetheless OK to include WP text that the person works for that employer, or that the person got an award from that group, because as long as they're reputable, the employer/group is an expert RS about who they employ/give awards to, and the info should be uncontroversial. But I'd like to hear more from the people proposing this about how they bound "uncontroversial," providing some sense of where the boundary lies between controversial and uncontroversial (not just focusing on easy cases). ] (]) 03:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:In this example, a band member is not ] of a fellow band member or recording personnel with whom they have a working relationship, as all of these people are closely collaborating to create a musical work. Therefore, the prohibition in ] against self-published claims about other living persons (which is restricted to {{xt|"]"}}) does not apply to the band member's statement concerning a fellow band member or associated recording personnel.{{pb}}] is much more vague, since the described exemption is {{xt|"a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example"}}. I believe fellow band members and associated recording personnel qualify for this exemption, as they are all employed in the creation of the same musical work. The language in ] should be refined to be explicitly consistent with the language in ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 01:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|In this example, a band member is not independent of a fellow band member or recording personnel with whom they have a working relationship, as all of these people are closely collaborating to create a musical work. Therefore, }} That has nothing to do with the discussion here. The point of the policy here and elsewhere is if it is an SPS, don't treat it like a third-party source. In terms of this policy, you don't need to get into whether band members are independent or not. ] (]) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As you pointed out in an earlier comment, the language of ] states: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people"}}, with the term ''third-party sources'' linking to ]. A band member's statement about a fellow band member is not an independent ("third-party") source, so that statement would be excluded from the prohibition. I am not sure why you think this point is unrelated to the discussion, when ] is explicitly linked from ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're talking about mutually exclusive things and appearing to confound them in multiple comments, so that's why I'm spending a little time with you on this. For our purposes ''here'' on this page, it's irrelevant whether a band member's statement is third-party or not for the other reasons you mention. That is outside the scope of this discussion. All that matters here is if it is an SPS, and if so, don't treat it as third-party as well.
::::There are other reasons a source may not be a third-party, such as close involvement in a group or other aspects of ] like you mention, but that is independent of the SPS text in question. This part of the policy doesn't have anything to say about whether sources should be used or not based on independence/third-party that you are mentioning. It only talks about use if they are an SPS. ] (]) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You appear to be interpreting the language of ] ({{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people"}}) to mean that it may be permissible for an editor to use a self-published source that describes another living person as long as the editor does not treat the self-published as an ] source. That interpretation is semantically incorrect, because the language of ] does not allow an editor to bypass the prohibition by pretending that the self-published source is non-independent.
:::::Here is an example of a rule that is constructed in the same way as the language in ]: {{xt|"'''Never''' use guns as weapons against living people."}} It would be incorrect to claim that the rule allows a person to use a gun against living people as long as the person considers the gun a non-weapon. What the example rule actually does is prohibit the use of guns against living people when the guns function as weapons. Likewise, what ] actually does is prohibit the use of self-published claims about living people when the self-published claims function as ] (independent sources). —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) {{small|Clarified wording —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::The wording of WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS differ somewhat, and I think the text of the latter is the guiding text in this specific case. The latter says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published ''by the subject of the article''." If you have a self-published source written by band member X, and in that source X talks about another band member, Y, there are two interpretations: (1) that source ''can't'' be used for a statement about Y, because Y isn't the person who wrote the source, or (2) that source ''can'' be used for a statement about Y because X and Y share a vested interest, as long as the use meets the criteria in WP:BLPSELFPUB (e.g., it's not unduly self-serving). Whether the interpretation is (1) versus (2) might turn on whether the article is about X, or about Y, or about the band, or about none of those (given that BLP applies to WP text about people even if the subject of an article is not a person). BLPSPS should be reworded a bit; right now it refers to "the subject of the article," which ignores the last possibility. Maybe something should also be added to more clearly address a situation like this one, where "the subject" might be a small group of identifiable people (like a band) rather than a single person. Also, the phrase "third parties" in BLPSPS criterion 2 should be linked to WP:IS to make its intended meaning clear. ] (]) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'd caution about this degree of semantics on very plain language here. There's no need for metaphors that are apt to get off-base. The prohibition here is very clear not to use self-published sources as third-party sources, and that's very purposeful language and background in how it's written already previously described detailing why SPS don't get the same privileges as otherwise normal third-party sources.
::::::In your metaphor, it misuses context. It's not some loophole if the person considers the gun not a weapon and still fires it as you allude to. That's still using it as a weapon. If you use your version of the metaphor, that would instead be like using the SPS as a third-party source without any attribution and "pretending" it's actually third-party in one's head. That's not ok and isn't what's being discussed here, so it does feel like a bit of an unintentional strawman at this point in the context of what I've actually been addressing. ] (]) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@], I wonder if the "as" in the sentence is throwing you off. The rule is:
:::::::* If it's a self-published source, and you want to write something about a BLP in a Misplaced Pages article, then the source must be self-published by the BLP you want to write about in the Misplaced Pages article.
:::::::There is no special way to use an SPS from Alice to write about Bob so that it gets cited "as" a third-party source or "not as" third-party source. The rule is that you don't get to use SPS from Alice to write about BLPs who are not Alice (or at least BLPs closely connected to Alice). ] (]) 03:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The rule ''here'' is that you don't get to use an SPS about BLPs as a third-party source. The "as" is very deliberate in this policy's language as well as the rest of that part of the policy. You can't make a statement like, "Bob defenestrated chickens in his youth." in Misplaced Pages's voice because Alice said it in her blog. Functionally, the source becomes as if it is closely involved with the subject matter and doesn't get the benefits of a more distanced sourced. It gets functionally treated instead as ] and defaults to the more conservative ] if used.
::::::::Now that statement I quoted could be true and due weight for some part of a BLP (maybe Bob got tired of tossing chickens out the window and invented a better way to get them out of the shed), but the main caution here is that because the statement came from an SPS, there's less degree of certainty about reliability, due, etc. in a BLP context. Even ] is clear about this while adding additional information not in this policy that even being an expert, etc. is ] to the third-party aspect. Putting a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice with such a source opens Misplaced Pages up to potential legal issues, so that's why there's an even higher degree of scrutiny on SPS BLP use. IRL, newspapers deal with that by attribution and still checking that the claim is reasonable. You can use attribution saying Alice made the statement in their blog instead as others have mentioned above, though that's still subject to ], ], etc. with inclusion already being much less likely due to being an SPS as others have mentioned. There's actually a lot going on in the background of this simple line of policy when it says third-party and links to more information.
::::::::The policy says don't use SPS sources in X way, not don't use SPS at all. Yes, I'm aware a single line in BLP policy exists that doesn't exactly match what is said in these other areas of the project, and that seems to create a subset of editors having trouble with this policy here and similar guidance like this. I am concerned in terms of ] policy when someone is using that single line to say SPS cannot be used at all in BLPs and instead would say to look at the full context of what ] say related to this (and that they mostly specify what kind of use). The ] of it all though is that SPS in a BLP would be heavily scrutinized even with attribution to the point that most still won't make the cut. That's really up to individual talk page consensus to decide on a case-by-case basis for the rare times when SPS may be seriously considered for narrow use. ] (]) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think that this "as" clause was intended in the way that you are interpreting it. The intention was "Is Alice a third-party/independent source about Bob? If yes, then you can't cite Alice's self-published works about Bob."
:::::::::The "as" clause has nothing to do with "in Misplaced Pages's voice" or "ACCORDINGTO". It actually does mean do not use Alice's SPS ''at all'' about any BLP that Alice is a third-party to. ] (]) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This was the original version:
::::::::::"Self-published sources, such as blogs, must '''never''' be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see ]."
::::::::::I don't know if that's clearer to you, but according to the edit summary, it was meant to match this statement from the BLP policy, which I believe is much clearer:
::::::::::"Information found in ] books, ] or websites/] should never be used, unless written by the subject"
::::::::::So: The policy says you can't use it. It does not say "don't use it in one way, but you can use it in another way". It says ''don't use it''. ] (]) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you, {{u|Newslinger}}, that makes sense, and the principle that I was operating from. {{u|KoA}}, I'll give some examples of how I think this is relevant. At the ], I brought up how is used to support the statement that a band member only met the rest of the band two days before they went on tour. It's a statement by one of the band members, speaking on behalf of the band. The source itself might be RS, but the article is posted by the site owner/main editor. I brought up the question recently on some noticeboards/talk pages about if articles from a publication's publishers, owners, and/or editors would be considered SPS, because they presumably don't have the same editorial process that an article from another staff member would have. The answer seemed to be yes, those are a type of SPS. So, in regards to that interview, the article is essentially SPS, but the statements from LaPlante are perfectly fine to use as primary source statements about herself or the band collectively. Where it potentially violates BLPSPS is her making statements about other individual band members. I think Newslinger highlighted the important distinction here - LaPlante is not independent from the band, and neither is the other band member. She's a closely affiliated source. Wall of Sound would be independent, but statements by LaPlante herself published via Wall of Sound would still be primary. The other example I was thinking of is regarding the production of a ] by ]. The demo was produced by ] of ]. On that fact there are multiple independent non-self-published sources. Where I think it gets questionable is the sentence that Aarstad sings on one of the songs - as far as I can find, the only source for that is (in German). The source is not self-published (it's from a German youth ministry organization with multiple staff), but as the statement comes from a member of the band, it's a primary source statement. So does that violate BLPSPS? If Newslinger is correct, probably not, because Aarstad and Dæhlen are closely affiliated. But is that a correct understanding of the consensus?--] (] &#124; ]) 12:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the key thing here is that for the purposes of this page, much of this discussion on that dispute is out of scope and more suited for a general noticeboard (especially given the notice at the top of this page {{tq|This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.}}). That's what I was getting at about relevancy. Here we can comment on what SPS has to say a bit, but not really on the other areas of the content issue.
:::Like you mention, assessing ] of a source regardless of SPS or not is one thing to consider in discussions, but for here, the question is just what to do about an SPS that is being considered. So given what you just summarized, is there an SPS being considered for content, or have they pretty much been excluded for other reasons? It sounds like it might be the latter, so I just wanted to see how narrowed down it is now so there could be focus just on what this policy has to say about the situation. ] (]) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|So given what you just summarized, is there an SPS being considered for content, or have they pretty much been excluded for other reasons?}} The first example, the Courtney LaPlante interview by Wall of Sound, is cited in a featured article candidate. I brought the question to the BLP Noticeboard for clarification, and the majority opinion was that the statement is fine and useable, although {{u|FactOrOpinion}} expressed that, in their opinion, likely the source is technically outside of policy. My decision as an FA reviewer, based on that discussion, was to ignore the rules for sake of improving the article as nothing defamatory or controversial was stated by LaPlante and she's close to the subject. The second example, of Vaakevandring and Stian Aarstad singing on the demo, is used in the respective article about the demo, which I recreated awhile back and have revisted recently to clean up.--] (] &#124; ]) 13:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::], the discussion here made me realize that I wasn't really paying attention to the "third-party" element, and I was also focused too much on the letter of the policy but not on the spirit of the policy. (I'm not a totally new editor, but am still only moderately experienced, and my understanding of how all of the policies interact and what they mean changes somewhat as I reread policies in response to people's questions + the discussions that result from them, and as I consider others' views.) My current view of the LaPlante interview is that it's OK to source that WP content to that interview, as it would meet the BLPSELFPUB conditions had she written it on her blog instead of it being published in Wall of Sound (it's not unduly self-serving, the other band member is not a third-party to LaPlante, we trust the authenticity, etc.). It shouldn't matter whether we judge the interview to be self-published by the Wall of Sound owner; it's an interview response, not the interviewer making his own claims, and it would be silly to conclude that it would have been OK to use that info if she'd written it in her blog, but it's not OK if she says it in a interview that's possibly self-published by someone else. The issue is the same re: it being a primary source; BLPSELFPUB is primary source material, and we've OKed limited use of such material, so it shouldn't matter whether a secondary source has discussed it. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Right. That's what I realized myself. I missed the "third-party" part.--] (] &#124; ]) 14:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


If you take it structurally/literally you kind of end up with it saying almost nothing. It's a restriction on such a source's use ''as a source'' and in wiki context, that would mean to use it to fulfill a wp:ver requirement for an ''included'' source. So if you want to write "John Smith wore a green coat on December 30th 2024" with no ''provided'' source, that is permitted in practice, but if challenged, it would not fulfill the requirement to provide a suitable source. And, prior to / absent a challenge, the editor is on the honor system to not put it in unless they think that a suitable source (other than the excluded one) is available and that it is unlikely to be challenged. But taken literally, categorically and on a stand alone basis, many wiki rules sometimes conflict with each other and conflict with wiki-reality. And some common sense interpretation and balancing is required (with the strong wording of this clause being a part of that equation), the described practice being supported by influence from WP:IAR policy and the last point of wp:5p and other places. IMHO the intent and also the net result of the whole wiki system is: "Don't put something in from such a source in in such a situation unless it looks rock solid, uncontroversial, useful for the article, and meets other Misplaced Pages criteria. Which is a high bar to meet. And if the veracity is challenged, it is no longer uncontroversial. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== reliable sources and list entries ==


== Verifiability of rulesets for game shows? ==
An editor who has done some excellent research in creating the ] seems to be of the opinion that a phrase in a single album review that loosely associates a band with a related genre is sufficient to adding that band or artist to this list. Some other editors feel that the music should be representative of the style at the time and that several articles, particularly of contested artists, should be provided.


Granted, most lists don't even have a single reference for the entries, so this article is outstanding. Could we have a few people step in on the article to discuss? --] (]) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC) There's a conversation ongoing at ] regarding whether rulesets for game shows are required to be sourced. Additional opinions are welcome! ] (]) 20:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:41, 9 January 2025

    YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
    This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.
    The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
    ? view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions
    Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?
    At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
    Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
    No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
    Do sources have to be in English?
    No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available.
    I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it?
    No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough.
    I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it?
    Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material.
    Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?
    No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.
    Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?
    No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
    What if the source is biased?
    Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view.
    Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?
    No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.
    Are sources required in all articles?
    Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024.
    Are reliable sources required to name the author?
    No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
    Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?
    No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography.
    Does anyone read the sources?
    Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

    To discuss changing the lead, please first read the 2012 request for comments and previous discussion about the first sentence.
    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
    61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
    71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
    81, 82, 83

    This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

    Reliability of sources

    I've noticed that many right-wing sources on this site are considered unreliable; my question is: why? I'm politically neutral and, considering that the politics of Italy and the United States are different, I have asked myself this question. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

    That's not a question with a simple answer, but whether a source is perceived as right wing or left wing shouldn't be a consideration in questions of reliability. If you look into discussions about sources the issue are rarely ideological. Instead the cause is that media organisation have diverged since the days of print media, and that divergence has impacted media on different parts of the political spectrum differently. That change in the real world has then had an impact on Misplaced Pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: the thing that seems strange to me is that extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong), while extreme right-wing sources are.
    I repeat: I don't know the political situation in the United States in detail. In Italy we have a right-wing government; it's a government that many Italians support, because Italy is quite conservative, which for the Italian context is a very good thing; for the US context, however, it seems not, since the American right has, for example, denied climate change, which unfortunately exists.
    Returning to the main topic: the thing that seems strange to me is that extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong), while extreme right-wing sources are. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    extreme left-wing sources aren't banned (maybe I'm wrong) yes you age +are+ wrong. Take for example in British news media The Canary and Skwarkbox are both considered unreliable, and are on the far left of politics. Also to be clear sources aren't banned so much as actively discouraged if the consensus is that they are unreliable.
    Whether governments or voters are of a particular part of the political spectrum is also not a consideration in judging the reliability of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: thank you very much for this detailed and very useful explanation. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    The primary reason media sources get Deprecated (which is not quite a “ban”), is that they have repeatedly been shown to not fact check (or, in some cases, shown to completely invent “facts” which they report).
    As to why right leaning sources seem to be more likely to be deprecated than left leaning ones… this is due to the fact that right wing sources tend to get more scrutiny. It’s no secret that Misplaced Pages attracts academics, who tend to be a somewhat left leaning group. They notice (and complain) when right-wing sources don’t fact check… and they tend to be a bit more forgiving when left-wing sources do the same.
    That being said, we have deprecated a few left-wing sources when enough evidence has been presented to show they are not properly fact checking. It’s difficult, but possible. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Blueboar: Recognizing and admitting this problem is certainly a big step forward, but actions are more important than words; I would like neutrality not to be compromised in the encyclopedia. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    With respect, Blueboar’s comment is not an admission of any problem, it’s an example of the long debunked myth of the liberal media, which Blueboar evidently believes is true. Virtually every aspect of their comment is untrue, IMO. For example, the vast majority of US sources are center to center right, not "left", and the leading opposition party in the US (D) takes policy positions that are considered center to center right in the rest of the world. What I’ve found most interesting about this is to look closely at the history of CNN and MSNBC, two of the so-called "leftist" bugbears attacked by the right as communists. As it turns out, both networks take center to center right positions on most issues and are run by pro-corporate, pro-big business leaders. The idea that reality has a liberal bias began in the early 1970s as a right-wing libertarian call to arms, which has created an alternate reality where right is center and center is left. This was intentional. It began as a way to limit government regulation and undermine democracy. This is a good example of what happens when people lose touch with things like facts and become a post-truth society. And this is the true reason right wing sources tend to be highly deprecated. They don’t believe in things like facts. And when facts no longer matter, democracy ceases to function. Apologies if this offends anyone. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:JacktheBrown - Outside of politics the banning also happens. I think it is just the mechanics or effect of WP:RSP. For the UK it seems more an elitism thing than a political leaning -- for example it seems most British press by volume is excluded as low class. RSP seems to interpret 'reliable' to mean 'respected' or 'truth' to that WP editor, excluding consideration of 'available' or 'accurate' from 'verifiability'. (You can elsewhere see discussions on a paywalled source or remote paper being preferred despite readers generally not having access to such or WP:VNT) The terms RSP uses are "Blacklisted" meaning mechanically edits including that site are blocked, or "Deprecated" meaning the guidance includes "generally prohibited" by automatic warning of such an editor and removal of such edits by third parties, or "Generally unreliable" meaning outside "exceptional circumstances" not to be used with removal by third parties and pings in TALK. If you want to see what discussions on what to ban are like, they are mixed in at WP:RSN. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: I'm not convinced that this isn't political. What's the percentage between left-wing and right-wing sources that can be used? Perhaps an 80/20? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm saying that banning sources via blacklisting and deprecated designations seems basically an elitism act, and that it exists in all venues or topics - so it's in effect at articles for sports or music or basically anything. I'm not talking politics, or whether some parties might exploit it for financial or personal reasons -- I'm saying it simply is always a direct issue to the policies for V and WEIGHT. You cannot have WEIGHT properly measured if you exclude considering any significant circulation because editors think those are labelled as lesser venues, and if you are selecting paywalled or tiny elite items as the one to cite, then it's preferring the not accessible ones which is contrary to it being V verifiable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: very interesting discussion. So is Misplaced Pages making a mistake in rejecting certain sources or is it doing so in good faith? In my opinion the second option is correct, but I would like to read yours. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Well I tend to view RSP usage here as problematic, but my wider view is Misplaced Pages content is from editors that are just people - good people and bad people, informed one way among many, obsessive or ditzy, with good days and bad days, days they have time to be careful and days that are rushed. You can look over RS debates and RSP debates or just filter recent changes to the ones possibly vandalism and judge for yourself.
    For RSP in particular, I was not a fan of the idea back when it started and events have not improved my views of it and the way mechanics of it work. It supposedly was meant to capture the RS conclusions from earlier "Perennial" RS questions, so it could help the RS consideration. But folks just propose and argue from whatever stance for banning - there is not necessarily prior RS considerations or policy criteria in play. And instead of informing a RS consideration it seems mainly a blanket forever judgement - or at least I have not seen any reversals up or down. My revision of your 80/20 question back to you would be more along the lines of if WP bans 80% of the UK press, then is it a 20% valid portrayal of views ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: is it possible to have an accurate statistic of how many left-wing and right-wing sources are deprecated? JacktheBrown (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think one can only get a statistic of the simple sort and count by their status like 20 banned, 44 deprecated, 133 generally unreliable, 100 no consensus, 119 generally reliable. Anything else would need a chosen filtering and categorizing. But I think RSP counts is less a concern than percentage of external, or individual articles being totally dependent on limited source.
    The first concern is more how large a percentage of the total WP:WEIGHT of coverage for a POV is being excluded by RSP, because it seems the largest or most known sources are the ones to get excluded, so a simple count such as '5' banned needs the context of is that 5 of only 6 or is it 5 of 100, and does the 5 constitute 95% of the WEIGHT or what ? For example again, almost all of major circulation UK newspapers are banned, and the banning for reason for banning for being 'sensationalist' or 'just sports' then means not having the best available data or best known portrayals on topics that were UK scandals or UK sports events.
    The second concern is that at some articles the cites are too limited by selections which perhaps excludes what the most common view is outside of WP, or at least will not show all the common views so be a failure of NPOV. Again, this is all categories -- for example one cannot have a music article that only shows the academic views and think that reflects the world opinions and complete story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Markbassett: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources shouldn't have been created, perhaps Misplaced Pages is unnecessarily self-complicating. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it's possible to get such a count, because you'd have to first agree on where to draw the line between left and right. For example, CNN is most commonly described as centrist, but some editors think it's leftist. The New York Times seems to be considered center-left, except that there are complaints that it's right-wing on trans issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I haven’t heard the NYT described as center left in polite company. I think that’s a talking point on the right. If you followed the last presidential election, it appeared that the NYT was rooting for Trump on the regular and frequently pushes center to center right policy proposals. I think there’s this misunderstanding about the NYT that has persisted for decades, that because they cover a wide variety of topics that somehow makes them leftist. It doesn’t. If you recall, the NYT has been the subject of critiques from the left in the US since at least WWII, when they pretended Hitler wasn’t a problem and the Holocaust wasn’t newsworthy. Many controversies surrounding their conservative to right wing coverage in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, the NYT was frequently referred to by the left as Lies of our Times. In the 2000s, they were taken down a notch for supporting and promoting the Iraq War and for government stenography, failing to investigate the false claims of WMD. During the Trump, post-truth era, the NYT was described as giving Trump a free pass while also attacking Democrats who might have paid a parking ticket late, etc. One of the NYT’s lead reporters has been repeatedly accused of engaging in access journalism, replacing critical analysis with softball questions and empty analysis. I could go on. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    When I've seen people (usually inexperienced editors) complain about the New York Times (example), it's almost always because they think it's liberal/leftist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Should there be a statement that accessible sources are nevertheless preferred?

    Because I think there ought to be one. The present policy defends less accessible sources entirely but there ought to be a balance. If there is a more accessible source and a less accessible source for a given bit of information, and it's not desirable to cite both, the more accessible source should be preferred. If a piece of information with a citation from an inaccessible source is contradicted by a more accessible, equally reliable source, there should be a preference towards the verified piece of information unless the first source can be located. If I own the latest edition of a book on a topic and the text in question is the same as an older edition that is on archive.org, I should cite the older edition because editors can go look at the book themselves more easily. Doing otherwise might not be a problem in itself but might lead to issues down the line. Fangz (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

    When Misplaced Pages was young the better sources were almost exclusively off-line. While it is true that more reliable sources are now available on-line (almost all scholarly journals and many books), I would say that more than 95% percent of what is available on-line is still not usable as sources in Misplaced Pages. Most of the best sources on-line are still those that have been published on paper before or simultaneously with the on-line version. Unfortunately, many of the on-line sources are behind paywalls, but that does not mean that we should accept poor sources simply because they are free. The WikipediaLibrary has helped with that, providing access to paywall protected sources to editors who meet the requirements. Indeed, it has allowed me to drop my private subscription to JSTOR. We should always strive to use the best reliable sources to support content in articles. I would say that more of the highest quality sourcing is available on-line now than was the case 15 to 20 years ago, and so there is even less reason today to ease our sourcing standards than there was then. Donald Albury 16:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    The nightmare case is editors misrepresenting sources, and doing it with obscure sources that are hard to check. I expect you can think of the particular editor I have in mind (I'll name them if requested but I don't know that it adds much). I don't have a real solution to this; such an editor would not really be stopped by a statement that high-availability sources are preferred. But it's something to keep in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    In many cases it is a good idea to cite an off-line or subscription source with lots of detail, or especially authoritative, also citing one accessible online, perhaps with less detail or authority. Remembering also that google books previews are only available in different countries or times entirely as the publisher chooses. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm also seeing publishers or authors putting fairly recent but out-of-print books on-line for free, or as a free e-book. Not very common, yet, but I hope it is a growing trend. Donald Albury 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    All else being equal, where there are multiple high-quality reliable sources available for a claim, we can lean towards more accessible sources. But often all else is not equal. For example, citing an older source over a newer one can give the impression that the claim may be dated and no longer reflective of the literature. And where equally reliable sources disagree, we definitely shouldn't disregard one perspective based solely on how accessible it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

    editing the text of WP:SPS

    The text of WP:SPS currently says (1) Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources, and (2) Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Sentence (1) does not exist in the corresponding WP:RS/SPS text. Moreover, it implies that expert SPS cannot themselves be independent reliable sources, and it's not clear to me that the claim about probability is true. I propose deleting this sentence, or at least the portion of it that comes after the colon. Sentence (2) is a bit inconsistent with the corresponding text of WP:BLPSPS, which now includes the following exception: It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. WP:NPROF has similar exceptions in various places on that page; I'm not sure about other subject-specific notability guidelines for people. Should a corresponding sentence be added to WP:SPS? (FWIW, since editors disagree about what SPS does/doesn't encompass, I will likely start an RfC about that after the closure of the RfC on grey literature mentioned above. We could wait til that's over, as it may have broader implications for the wording of WP:SPS.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    In regard to BLP, it seems like "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example" is not saying that it is ok to use an SPS on a BLP, just that this does not count as an SPS. If that is the case does it provide a counter example to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"? - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, the recent clarification at WP:BLPSPS is saying that your employer is not a "third-party" to you. A press release is always self-published. A press release or a social media post saying "Bob's Big Business, Inc. is delighted to announce that they have hired Sam Sales as the new Vice President of Global Sales" is:
    • non-independent (of the business; of the new VP of sales),
    • self-published (written by the business, published by the business),
    • primary (very close to the event, based on no prior publications),
    • reliable (for sentences such as "Sam Sales was hired as Vice President of Global Sales in 2024"), and
    • acceptable under BLPSPS.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Bilby, people have varied views on what is/isn't self-published (see the SPS definition discussion above). AFAICT, everyone agrees that (a) things like personal blogs, wikis, and social media are SPS and (b) things like traditional newspapers and book publishers are not self-published, but people disagree about (c) whether publications from advocacy organizations, universities, companies, think tanks, museums, learned societies, governments, etc. are SPS. The community needs to come to some consensus about (c), and that's why I'm thinking of creating an RfC about it. Depending on one's view about what is/isn't self-published, the BLPSPS sentence might mean that those publications are not self-published (and so don't fall under BLPSPS) or that they're self-published but are exempt from BLPSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, "a press release is always self-published" is only true if the press release is published by a natural person, not an organization. It is, however, a primary source. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    You made the argument above that a natural person (e.g., me) can self-publish something, but that when an organization (e.g., "WhatamIdoing, Inc.") does exactly the same thing, it's magically not self-published. I'm still not buying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    FactOrOpinion, rather than trying to keep everything perfectly in sync across multiple pages, maybe we should point to BLPSPS. That might involve adding works like "Per WP:BLPSPS," but would not necessarily involve removing any existing text.
    About your (1): "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources".
    The change I'd suggest here is to change "published it in independent, reliable sources" to "published it in a non-self-published reliable source". The non-self-published part is the part that matters. That source will be independent 99% of the time, but it's technically not the problem we're talking about here.
    About your (2): "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
    What we're trying to say is that even if the author is amazing, and even if the author has written a dozen non-self-published books on this exact subject, it's still 100% not okay to use their self-published works for BLPSPS purposes.
    Imagine, e.g., that Gene Genealogist has written hundreds of articles and several books on genealogy. Gene has even written a whole book (HarperCollins, 2021, good reviews, decent sales) specifically on the subject of birthdates and is considered an expert in the field. Gene self-publishes this on social media: "Here's a fun fact: Paul Politician, Joe Film, and I all share exactly the same birthday. We were all born on the 32nd of Octember in 1960, making us all Baby Boomers. We are all 64 years old right now."
    Using the list above, this post is:
    • non-independent of self, but independent of the others,
    • self-published,
    • primary,
    • reliable, and
    • acceptable only for statements about Gene's own birthday/age/generation. It is unacceptable for statements about Paul or Joe.
    The problem isn't that Gene isn't independent or reliable. The problem is that there was nobody to stop Gene if publishing this were a bad idea for some reason. And rather than say "Oh, it's never a bad idea" or "Do this only if it's a good idea" – and then have fights over whether this is a good or bad idea, then editors voluntarily placed a blanket restriction on ourselves: Don't use even independent expert SPS sources about other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Re: (1), why do you believe that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source" is true? How would one even go about testing that?
    Re: (2), you quoted a different sentence, one that I'm not questioning. I understand the BLPSPS condition. I also understand that there's significant disagreement about what is/isn't considered self-published. But my question was whether something like It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example, which is currently in the text of WP:BLPSPS, should be added to the text of WP:SPS. Instead of your Gene Genealogist example, it's instead something like Notable Academic got a Notable Award from Learned Society, as published in Learned Society's newsletter. If one considers a newsletter to be self-published (and you do, though some others might not), then that sentence is saying that it's still OK to cite the newsletter for text on the academic's BLP re: the academic having gotten the award. And the BLPSPS text makes that clear, but the SPS text doesn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    (1) I don't think it's universally true, because "the information in question" could be basic information about the subject (e.g., all biographies should identify when and where the person lived; all articles about books should say what the book was about; all articles about species should say what kind of an organism it is), and sometimes part of that information might not be available anywhere else (e.g., a birthdate or birthplace; the author's explanation of what the book is "really" about; a scientific monograph from previous centuries).
    However, outside of such basic information, if it isn't available in a non-self-published reliable source, it's unlikely to be WP:DUE for inclusion. Remember that this is an information statement rather than a rule (i.e., it does not tell you what to do), and it is not absolute, since it says this is only "probably" the case.
    (2) My suggestion is that we solve the mismatch by having a single copy of the full BLP rules at BLPSPS (=not here) and that we indicate that WP:V does not have a complete copy of the full BLP rules. The alternative is that we have duplicated text, which will inevitably diverge over time. The available choices are:
    • a single "official" text, and everything else points to it, or
    • the maintenance hassle of resolving contradictions that arise between multiple copies.
    The first approach is recommended in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Content ("minimize redundancy"), but if you prefer ongoing maintenance hassles and the periodic need to de-conflict policies, then we could do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    I forgot to address your Learned Society example before I posted this. It's the same as the employer press release:
    The Learned Society publishes a newsletter. The things we call newsletters are usually self-published, because they are usually being written and published by the organization; however, in some cases, the organization only sponsors the publication, and the publication's staff has editorial independence similar to a magazine (e.g., Newsletters on Stratigraphy). For simplicity, I'm going to stipulate that this is a self-published newsletter.
    One of their self-published newsletters says that Prof. Notable Academic got a Notable Award from the Learned Society. This newsletter item is:
    • non-independent (of Learned Society; of Notable Award; of Prof. Notable Academic ),
    • self-published (written by the org, published by the org),
    • primary (very close to the event, based on no prior publications),
    • reliable (for sentences such as "Learned Society awarded the Notable Award to Notable Academic in 2024"), and
    • acceptable under BLPSPS.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Re: (1), I still don't understand where you're getting the data from that allow you to conclude that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source." To me, it seems like a case where some editors believe this but don't have data to back it up and where it's unclear how one could gather such data. (Arguably, the vast majority of RS information isn't DUE, but that's a different issue, and is the case regardless of whether the source is SPS or non-SPS.)
    Re: (2), your comment reminded me that there has been a similar conversation about the parallel texts in WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:BLPSELFBUB. The people involved in that conversation decided that the best solution was "Remove the SELFSOURCE material in RS ; retarget that shortcut to ABOUTSELF's location in V, and "advertise" the shortcut at that place instead; in RS , summarize ABOUTSELF in a sentence and cross-reference it, without an unnecessary and potentially confusing devoted section."
    Re: the Learned Society example, the only reason that it's acceptable under BLPSPS is because the exception is specified. It would not be acceptable under the current text of SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    For (1), this is not a statement about collected data. This is a statement about editors' collective experience.
    For (1), there are two classes of information that are suitable for inclusion. Those two kinds are:
    1. Basic information about a subject, which belongs in an encyclopedia article because of the requirements of the genre. This includes, for example, writing boring information like "George IV (George Augustus Frederick; 12 August 1762 – 26 June 1830) was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and King of Hanover from 29 January 1820 until his death in 1830" instead of jumping straight into the subjectively attention-catching content, e.g., "King George IV, nicknamed Prinny, was known for being obese, profligate, prodigal, and promiscuous."
    2. Non-basic information about a subject, which belongs in an encyclopedia article because it is in desirable sources.
    For the second category, the existence of suitable sources is definitional.
    For the first category, the "probable" existence of suitable sources is the collective experience of editors. You might not be able to find every common detail (e.g., a complete birthdate may be unknown, or it may only be available in a self-published source) but if the subject actually qualifies for a Misplaced Pages:Separate, stand-alone article, you will be able to find enough non-self-published sources to meet the requirements of the encyclopedic genre, e.g., to place the subject in the encyclopedic context of time and place.
    In re the Learned Society example, it was accepted in many thousands of articles before the exception was specified. The exception was written down to make the written rules more accurately reflect the community's actual practices. Per WP:NOTLAW, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. The accepted practice was set by the community for more than a decade. Recently, we updated the written rules to document the already-existing community consensus that an employer is not a True™ third-party from its employees (for the purposes of this policy) and that an award giver is not a True™ third-party from its awardees (for the purposes of this policy) and that therefore self-published statements from these sources are not excluded by BLPSPS.
    Perhaps this is the fundamental misconception. The written rules follow the community practice. The written rules document the community practice. The written rules are not supreme. The community is supreme. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for having pointed out WP:NOTLAW. As much as I try to be familiar with (and abide by) the PAGs, I don't know that I've read all of them in their entirety, and I don't remember all that I've read.
    Re: (1), I'd say that editors' experiences are a form of data, but it's unclear to me how the community determines what the collective experience is. There are ways to determine the consensus of a small number of editors (e.g., in an RfC), where those editors may make arguments based on what they believe about the behavior of editors not involved in the RfC, but that's still a tiny fraction of editors. I don't know how anyone could confirm in any reasonable timeframe that "In re the Learned Society example, it was accepted in many thousands of articles before the exception was specified." (You can't confirm it with any kind of straightforward search; instead, you'd have to individually look at the sources for that kind of info on many thousands of articles, and you also have no way of knowing how many editors left that kind of info out of yet other articles because they thought that the employer, awarder, ..., wasn't an acceptable source.)
    It seems to me that in discussions, there's sometimes a tension between what PAGs say and what collective experience might be ("might" because I'm not sure how to determine "is"); that arose in the discussion about whether learned societies that are highly regarded within an academic field are wiki-notable, and is in play in the dispute about what is/isn't an SPS.
    Re: your 1. and 2., I'd interpreted "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source" as addressing both. And I've probably worked more on academic BLPs than other BLPs, which likely affects how I view all of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Widely advertised discussions, including but not limited to RFCs, are assumed to represent the view of the whole community unless and until disproven, or at least seriously challenged.
    Every decision is made by a tiny percentage of editors. Even if we had a thousand editors respond to a question, which almost never happens, that's still only 0.12% of last year's registered editors. But it's enough; we don't need large numbers of editors to make the right decision. If the first decision is wrong, we'll discover that over time and adjust.
    In many cases, editors are learning by watching. They see that he cited the Oscars website, and didn't get reverted; she cited the Emmys website and didn't get reverted; they cited the Nobel website and didn't get reverted; and then rationally conclude that award websites must be okay. They will also see the Oscars website sometimes get replaced by a book, the Emmys website sometimes get replaced by a music magazine, and the Nobel website sometimes get replaced by a newspaper article. This means that when a single experienced editor shows up for a discussion, they're describing what they have seen get accepted (or rejected) by dozens or hundreds of editors across many articles.
    Academic BLPs are challenging, because the accepted criteria give little consideration to why we require significant coverage in independent sources in the first place. I would expect it to be difficult to much past the stub stage for many academic BLPs without veering into OR territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    WhatamIdoing, thank you for your responses. You are helpful and extremely patient with all of my questions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Proposal to adjust policy on self-published sources

    Hi folks, I just wanted to discuss WP:SELFPUBLISH as I think it needs to be tweaked.

    The proposed change

    I propose that the current wording: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. be changed to:

    Self-published sources may be considered reliable when they are either:

    • Produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
    • When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication.
    • When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable.

    Why make this change? Currently we allow a wide range of sources without decent review standards. I'd be surprised if we've not all come across books containing claims that make us wonder if an editor ever held the book, seen podcasts given as sources, etc. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be highly suspicious of self-published sources, that I do not question, but there are other ways of determining a book's reliability than just checking if it was published by a third party.

    As the policy currently stands, it does not matter how reliable a self-published book is. This is an issue as not only is this standard far above what we expect from other forms of media, it ignores the reality that book-editors often don't fact-check, and (most importantly) it limits us from using potential sources that can be demonstrated to be otherwise very reliable (even more reliable than other books published by a third-party, as I hope to demonstrate).

    Why would this policy change lead to an improvement in Misplaced Pages? I raise this is as I've been working on Daisy Bates (author) and I've found that two of the recent biographies, often disagree with one another on very simple facts about Daisy Bates's life. My suspicion is that they both read autobiographical work written by Bates ("The passing of the Aborigines " (1936)), as well as a biography by Elizabeth Salter (titled "Daisy Bates: Queen of the Never Never" (1972)), and that they didn't do their due diligence in checking other primary sources. I'll give some examples in the collapsible table below:

    Fact checking claims of de Vries and Reece
    Some examples below:
    • Bob Reece claims on page 37 that Bates camped at Ma'amba reserve in 1901 and was invited to meet a duke and duchess in that same year because she organised a corroboree to welcome them on their arrival in Perth. When I was trying to understand the situation and the reason for the conflicting account I found a journal article and a government report which contradicts Reece; they describe that what was organised in 1901 was not a corroborree and that it was not organised by Bates. According Elizabeth Salter, Lomas and de Vries, Bates only went to Ma'amba after being hired by the government in 1904, this is backed up by correspondence we have between Bates and government officials (which is quoted by Lomas in his book). You only get the date of 1901 if you take Bates at her word in her autobiographical work.
    • It appears that neither de Vries nor Reece actually read many of Bates's first articles. For example:
      • They both disagree on what one of Daisy's first papers (published in Western Australia's journal of agriculture), "From Port Hedland to Carnarvon by Buggy" (1901), was about. de Vries thinks that it "covered her observations of the Indigenous people she had encountered" but this is plainly false if you read the journal article (as I have, at the J S Battye Library). Reece says that it was more a travel account.
    • Both de Vries and Reece state that Bates started her enthographic work shortly after arriving in Perth, but there's no evidence of this. They both just trust Bates on this, but if you actually read her papers you see that they have nothing to do with anthropology. Again, Lomas was the only one (of the three) to actually read the original papers himself and point this out.

    To summarise the reliability of de Vries and Reece, who are both published by a third party and have gone through some kind of review process:

    • They both are often lacking in giving citations, this makes their reliability hard to judge.
    • They both contain the errors that could have been avoided if they (or an editor) had read other primary sources.

    This is not to say that they should not be used; I note all of this to contrast them with Lomas's book, which is self-published.

    Coming to Brain D Lomas's "Queen of Deception" (2015):

    Indicators that Lomas is reliable
    Indicators of Lomas's reliability:
    • Lomas's book is used as a source in Eleanor Hogan's "Into the Loneliness: The unholy alliance of Ernestine Hill and Daisy Bates". "Dr Eleanor Hogan is a 2023 National Library of Australia Fellow" and her book was published by NewSouth Publishing at the University of New South Wales Press Ltd. This book won the "The 2019 Hazel Rowley Literary Fellowship".
    • Lomas has done a lot of original research on the topic:
      • He has combed through old newspapers and government records to corroborate Bates's whereabouts; Old newspapers contained the names of folks who arrived at a port, Bates also developed a level of fame where people would report on her whereabouts in letters to papers, he also went through government records for her travel expense receipts she had sent to the government for reimbursement, etc.
      • Reading through a ton of archived material spread between Perth and Canberra. This includes the just mentioned receipts for travel expenses, but also personal and government correspondence (who for a while was her employer). I haven't seen indication that the other biographers went through so much archived material.
    • He regularly lets the source material speak for itself by giving quotations from primary sources.
    • He is quite consistent in giving citations, making it very easy to verify his claims. As a result it has been far easier to fact-check Lomas than it has been to fact check de Vries and Reece.
    All of this indicates to me that Lomas is reliable.

    Conclusion To summarise: Lomas is used as a source by an award winning non-fiction biographer, has done a ton of original research that involved reading through archived material, provides quotations from primary sources, and gives consistent and reliable citations. This results in Lomas being an arguably more reliable source on the topic than both de Vries and Reece. However, according to current policy, he cannot be used as a source alongside de Vries and Reece. I argue that current policy should be amended in the given or similar form. I am not arguing that self-published sources be allowed to be used without their reliability being demonstrated.

    Happy to answer any questions, clarify any statements, provide quotations, etc. if people wish.

    Criticism of Lomas and response to potential questions
    A failing of Lomas fails is a lack of polish in terms of his grammar, typos and some of his citations' page numbers being off by a couple pages (which, while sloppy, is again better than the other biographers). This is where most an editor's attention would have gone to, and have been most useful.

    Why not use the other published secondary sources? They are being used, but in the interest of using as many reliable sources as possible, and giving a balanced article that avoids giving undue weight to misinformation, Lomas's book should not be barred from being used as a reliable source.

    Why is it self-published? If I had to guess I'd say that it is because he is retired and didn't want to go through the headache that is publishing. If you have experience with this you know that it can be difficult. This is only conjecture though.
    1. Susanna de Vries's "Desert Queen: The many lives and loves of Daisy Bates" (2008) and Bob Reece's "Daisy Bates: Grand dame of the desert"

    FropFrop (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    @FropFrop to clarify, Lomas has never had any work published elsewhere?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I'm aware, no. The author never states it explicitly but my judgment is that it was a retirement project. However, he does also speak French (and maybe dutch?) so he could have published somewhere that I haven't found.
    FropFrop (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused by "When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable." If the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable, then why wouldn't you instead use the sources that reliably verify the information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
      In practice, that line amounts to "whenever we want to". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think that we're capable of taking due diligence when it comes to these things, but would a narrower wording help? Perhaps changing that line to "When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. This is to be done by the editor/s providing quotations and the source's citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its reliability." or something to that effect? FropFrop (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      Sources aren't required to include citations, and most of them don't. If the source does have (good) citations, then why not find, read, and cite those sources instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      I could do that, but then I'd be relying on primary material (which I want to avoid) and it would require a lot more work on my part. A lot of this archived material only has physical copies available. I've verified some of it, particularly at the beginning when I was judging how reliable Lomas was but this was quite time consuming.
      FropFrop (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      I could do that, but then I'd be relying on primary material (which I want to avoid) and it would require a lot more work on my part. A lot of this archived material only has physical copies available. I've verified some of it, particularly at the beginning when I was judging how reliable Lomas was. FropFrop (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      I too think this would be a bad proposal since it would effectively open the door wide for OR. What FropFrop seems to argue for here (and as they are constantly arguing on Talk:Daisy Bates (author)) is essentially: "I did the OR, following up those sources and so I consider this credible." But for good reasons we don't allow OR here, because such judgements are better left to the subject-matter experts at hand. Without OR, "clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable" simply means: There's another reliable source that says so. But if that's the case, then we can just cite that source and no change to SELFPUB is needed. Gawaon (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      That's not OR. If a source has WP:Published something, and an editor checks the source's footnotes just to be sure, then that's not an editor making up stuff that isn't in any published source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      But if the editor decided based on this check that a self-published source is reliable and should be admitted, then surely it is OR – what else could it be? It's not something that could be decided on the base of the source alone. Gawaon (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Gawaon, the definition of OR, from the first sentence of that policy, is:
      On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.
      So:
      • The word material means "stuff we put in articles". If it's not going in the article, then it's not OR.
      • If a published source says ____, and editors deem that published source reliable for saying ____, then saying ____ in the Misplaced Pages article is not OR.
      • Checking whether a source (self-published or otherwise) is reliable and should be admitted is required of all editors, every single time they cite a source. Sometimes this is quite easy (e.g., a newspaper you know is widely cited, a book you happen to know is reputable), and sometimes it requires effort or a trip to RSN, but determining for yourself whether the source is reliable is normal, expected, and desirable behavior.
      On a separate, related note, you might be interested in the old concept of source-based research, about which the NOR policy used to say Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
      Source-based research is not about determining whether a source is reliable, but it does involve determining the strengths and weaknesses of sources, and sorting out contradictions, such as why some sources give −1.592 × 10 coulomb as the charge of an electron and others give −1.602 x 10 coulomb instead (e.g., different POVs? Different time periods? Different circumstances? One of them's just wrong?). If an editor decides that the best way to settle the question is to find and read the published+reliable+primary sources that the cited source names, then that's okay. We don't ban editors from reading the sources cited by our sources. Sometimes it even helps us get article content right (e.g., by figuring out whether our source's claim about "the average" should be linked to Mean or Median). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Sure, but can an editor's own research promote a non-reliable (e.g. self-published by an unknown person) work into a reliable one? That's what we're discussing here, right? Gawaon (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      A source is reliable if there's a consensus among editors that it's reliable. I've told this joke many times, but here it is again:
      • Three baseball umpires are talking about their profession and the difficulty of making accurate calls in borderline cases. One says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as they are." The next feels a little professional humility is in order and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as I see them." The third thinks for a moment and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, but they ain't nothing until I call them."
      This is how Misplaced Pages works: A source isn't "non-reliable" until editors make the call. Editors might well decide that Lomas is reliable for a given bit of article content. They also might decide that it's not. But nobody's "promoting a non-reliable source into a reliable one", either through their own hard work to establish whether the source is one that we should rely upon or through any other means, because it's the community that ultimately makes the call, not just one editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
      Agree. All of the criteria in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources are based on characteristics commonly found in sources the community has deemed reliable, and therefore help in predicting whether a given source will be deemed reliable. Editors may differ on the details of what makes a source reliable, but the arbitor of reliability is a consensus of whatever part of the community is paying attention at the moment. And, as always, a consensus of a wider part of the community will trump a local consensus or individual opinion. Donald Albury 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
      It's also essentially impossible for other editors to verify, without repeating all the research by themselves. Gawaon (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      So? See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost.
      But: It doesn't matter. If one editor decides that they want to make sure that a source is really, truly, absolutely backed up by the sources that it cites, then they're allowed to do that. You can decide whether you trust them; you can decide for yourself whether you think they're lying; you can decide whether you think their evaluation is incompetent. But you can't say "You did a lot of work, but I'm unwilling/unable to replicate it, so we have to ignore that". Some people spent a lot of time learning other languages or studying advanced math or obsessing about the reputation of academic journals. I can't verify their conclusions without repeating all that work myself, but that's okay. I don't have to. They are not limited or restricted to the level of work that I choose to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    if there is one other than Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling Thank you for that! Another editor has been quite frustrating and has been citing WP:SELFPUB and has not engaged with any of my requests or offers of broader discussion. Going so far as to remove all citations of Lomas (white not editing the content to remove information I gathered from him, saying that it'll be done later).
    FropFrop (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Same here. In particular, I find the “Indicators that Lomas is reliable” convincing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @FropFrop, I don't think your second point ("When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication") will work.
    Imagine that someone self-publishes (e.g., posts on social media) a manifesto for some obviously wrong view (e.g., Flat Earth, tinfoil hats, coffee tastes good, whatever you want). Alice Expert cites this manifesto in a high-quality reliable source as evidence that this view exists (e.g., "These views appear to be genuinely held by some people. The 'None of This Nonsense' Manifesto, which went viral in 2023, lays out four primary reasons for believing in magical dragons, including...").
    That would be an instance of an expert who "uses the self-published source as a reliable source in a publication", and we still don't want editors to use the self-published manifesto directly themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Speaking of manifestos, imagine this being applied to murder/suicide notes. The UK news yesterday had a story about someone sending a scheduled social media post announcing his suicide. So: the self-published announcement got "used" as "a reliable source in a publication" (several, actually), and this would therefore make the self-published announcement 100% okay to use in articles (except that to the extent that it would violate MOS:SUICIDE). That's what we don't want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a very fair point.
    To avoid such potential scenarios, what do you think of the following:
    • When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.
    Would the addition of "secondary" and the (already included) "as a reliable source" be sufficient? Or would the latter need greater specificity?
    FropFrop (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The problem I have with this proposal it that it would mean that a single mention in a reliable source would be enough to promote all of a self-published work as "reliable/useable" for us, including (and especially) the parts what weren't mentioned in the reliable source. Specifically, in this case: the only real argument (besides OR) I have read from you re Lomas's reliability is that he's cited in Eleanor Hogan, Into the Loneliness (NewSouth, 2021) which is indeed a reliable source. But in that whole book Lomas is cited just once, with two sentences sourced to him (for a full quote, see Talk:Daisy Bates (author), my comment from 09:35, 23 December 2024). Based on that his work is mentioned just this single time in her whole book on Bates I'd rather conclude that she doesn't consider him particularly credible, otherwise she would certainly have cited him more often. By contrast, de Vries and Reece are both cited more than a dozen times – clearly they are more reliable sources for her. In our article on Bates, largely rewritten by you, Lomas is cited about 35 times, and you want to keep all those references based on this single mention by Hogan. However, if we want to cite the single fact which Hogan attributes to Lomas, we can just cite her book without having to mention him at all. As for the other 35 facts you would like to cite, there's no evidence that Hogan considers any of them credible, and so I don't see how this single mention by her could be a basis for the extensive use of his book which our article currently makes (in clear violation of SELFPUB as it currently stands). Gawaon (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it is only once. I made this point as part of a larger argument. If this were the only point that support's Lomas's reliability, then I wouldn't make the larger argument.
    Perhaps then the amendment could be worded like so (taking some of the adjustments made by @FactOrOpinion):

    When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example:

    • If the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to.
    • The content falls under ABOUTSELF.
    • The content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
    • When the source's claims can be clearly and non-controversially verified and deemed as reliable. Editors should provide sources' quotations and sources citations so that other editors can discuss the content and form consensus on its verifiability.
    • When an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication.

    If a self-published source meets one or more of the above examples, that does not automatically warrant its use as a reliable source; careful consideration of its reliability should still be made. Keep in mind that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source.

    FropFrop (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your points 1+2 essentially seem to describe or refer to WP:ABOUTSELF, since that already exists as an independent section, there's no reason to repeat it here. About your points 4+5 I have already explained in other comments here why I think they would be unworkable and weaken the basis of reliability at which the aim. Nothing has changed in that regard. Gawaon (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    When the source's claims can be clearly and ... If a self-published claims can be verified using other reliable sources, use those sources instead.
    ...uses the self-published secondary source as a reliable source in a publication This is treading on the toes of WP:USEBYOTHERS. If a source is widely cited in other high quality sources it could be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Overall, looking at the specific situation, I wonder whether WP:IAR might be a better solution. We generally try to avoid changing overall rules just to deal with a situation at a single article. Perhaps an RFC explaining the situation? Or just asking "Is Lomas' book reliable for <this exact sentence>?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Most of what I posted originally I took from an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. An editor has been very firm on this being a gross violation of WP:SELFPUB and does not take WP:IAR or WP:ADHERENCE seriously. Neither have they engaged with my arguments for why Lomas should be an exception to WP:SELFPUB. They've been editing the article to remove all citations of Lomas (white not editing the content to remove information I gathered from him, saying that it'll be done later). FropFrop (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It sounds like it's time for Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedures. Maybe an RFC? I think I'd pick something small, like "Can we cite this book for this one sentence?" If you get agreement for the simplest/strongest single instance, then it will be easier to expand from there.
    There have been several questions about self-published sources recently, including the one from Void if removed at #SPS definition and from 3family6 at #Are articles written by a publication owner/publisher reliable secondary sources, or are they self-published sources? and from FactOrOpinion at #editing the text of WP:SPS. The volume of questions, plus the rise of more "respectable" self-published works (this one, but also things like established fiction authors self-publishing books they like but their publisher didn't want to bother with) makes me wonder whether we need to re-think this concept entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    WhatamIdoing, FWIW, I've been trying to come up with wording for an RfC on the definition of SPS (checking the consensus on what people consider self-published, and whether the current definition and examples communicate that well). I think I understand the main views (I'm in the midst of rereading the discussions to check), but so far, I haven't been able to come up with something short; maybe there's just no way to make a short RfC about what I think is important to get at, or maybe it's a problem with how I'm thinking about it. I've also been waiting to see what the closer of the grey literature RfC says, though I gather that the timeline for that is open.
    A couple of questions that came up for me vis-a-vis your view (I feel like I'm a font of never-ending questions; feel free to ignore them):
    • You've said that you sometimes put governments in the traditional publishers category. For example, you've called the Census Bureau a traditional publisher and wrote "little-g government(s) ... are, in some respect, traditional publishers (e.g., of laws and reports)." I'm curious what guides your view about when the government is a traditional publisher vs. when it isn't.
    • Both you and Void if removed have said that you think of traditional publishers in terms of the business model. Void if removed elaborated one traditional model: "an arrangement with a separate publisher is a business setup where both parties bring something (marketable content vs marketing infrastructure, connections, brand recognition etc)," where the publisher pays the author (content creator) and "If the publisher rejects the , then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher." That more or less works for books, freelance journalism, peer-reviewed journals, and probably movie documentaries. But it doesn't capture the structure of most print, electronic, radio, and TV journalism publishers, and probably not TV documentaries (assuming that you consider radio and TV journalism to fall in the traditional publisher category). How would you describe their business model(s)? And would you say that a business model is simply irrelevant to governments as traditional publishers?
    As for FropFrop's proposal, it strikes me as more about who counts as an expert than about what counts as self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think "free to sell it to a different publisher" is a given. 3rd party publishing can still prevent the author from self-publishing or selling it on to another publisher. This is pretty much standard practice in music publishing, with all sorts of high profile cases of artists contractually unable to release their own material, while the publisher refuses to publish finished work.
    The thing about traditional publishing is that it encompasses more than just "making material available", but for sourcing purposes, we consider "making material available" to be all that really matters to be "published". So the distinction is sometimes unclear - its on a website either way, so what's the difference? But a publisher will invariably be responsible for matters like advertising, promotion, legal due diligence, complaints, distribution in physical media, and so on.
    And really, the only reason it matters is because of WP:BLPSPS.
    So after all this I think the real question is: what level of sourcing do we need for contentious claims about 3rd party BLPs?
    Much of this debate around the edges of what is or is not an SPS has that goal in mind. Being traditionally published (ie a book, newspaper, magazine or journal) is to my mind a reasonable proxy for "you can use this to make a contentious claim about a 3rd party BLP, if its due", because a publisher is on the hook for defamation as much as the author. And that is probably the extent to which I care about whether a source is SPS or not. Void if removed (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your "free to sell it to a different publisher" point, agreed, though I don't think the SPS restriction matters much for something like music, since I don't see that being used for fact or opinion content, only for content that falls under ABOUTSELF. Ditto for things like TV dramas/comedies and non-documentary movies, though I'm still unclear about whether you'd say those are published by traditional publishers. Although you and What am I doing have highlighted business models, I don't recall others doing so, so that's why I'm trying to understand how you describe traditional publisher business models. Re: the other things that a publisher is responsible for, don't they also apply to publishers that you consider non-traditional (e.g., if GLAAD publishes something defamatory, isn't it on the hook too)?
    I think your description of the "real question" is a significant part of the real question, but not all of it, as FropFrop's proposed change shows. (And I've encountered similar questions on RSN.) Also, right now, SPSs can't be used as BLP sources even if the claim is non-contentious.
    As best I can tell, SPSs are singled out because editors think SPSs are much less likely to be RSs. For example, the WP:SPS section appears in a larger section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable," the current definition refers to the lack of an independent editor "validating the reliability of the content," and an early ArbCom conclusion (referred to by What am I doing above) said "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking ..." (That text was introduced into WP:RS in 2006, and although there was text in WP:V about self-published sources at that point, there was no attempt to define self-published, and the examples were totally limited to situations where one or a few individual persons had total control over whether their own work was published.) I assume that this is why the expert source and ABOUTSELF exceptions exist: self-published content written by experts in their area of expertise is much more likely to be reliable than other SPS content, and SPSs are often reliable sources about the author (but not about others or if the content is too self-serving; for that matter, we also have to beware of non-self-published sources producing self-serving content, as might occur in their marketing material, though as best I understand, you and What am I doing always consider marketing material to be self-published).
    So I think the underlying issue is assessing whether a SPS is reliable for the content in question. When it comes to the SPS policy, it may be sufficient to say something like

    When assessing reliability, be especially wary when the source is self-published, and doubly so if it's being used as a source about a living person. Self-published sources are more likely than non-self-published sources to be unreliable sources for WP content, though there may be mitigating considerations, for example, if the content comes from a reputable organization and involves information such as who works for them or who they gave an award to, or the content falls under ABOUTSELF, or the content is produced by a subject-matter expert whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" or falls into the situation that FropFrop introduced. Keep in mind that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in a non-self-published reliable source.

    However, that still means that we need to be clearer about what does/doesn't constitute self-published material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This all sounds good to me (with the amendments added after WhatamIdoing pointed out some potential issues).
    FropFrop (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Void if removed, if you don't mind a couple more questions ...
    In the RSN discussion of SBM, you said "We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them."
    • I'm guessing that in addition to "self-published," you're thinking of "author" and "publisher." Are there any other terms (besides "self-published," "author," and "publisher") you think are contested?
    • For each of these terms, if you have a sense of the different meanings attributed to them, would you say what they are? (For ex., I know that you've distinguished between a publisher as "the person who publishes" vs. as "a business whose business is publishing.")
    Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, some examples gleaned from the various debates:
    • Author could mean anything from a single individual who wrote a blogpost, to the company whose unnamed employees were instructed to write content.
    • Publishing could mean the trivial act of placing some content online, or a business arrangement whereby a publishing company takes responsibility for the distribution of content, along with marketing and various other concerns.
    And as I mentioned in the previous debates, in English "publisher" (a publishing company) and "publisher" (a person who did the act of publishing) are the same word, and this leads to confusion. Depending on how you interpret all the above, self-published can mean anything.
    By the narrowest definition of self-published, only something like a single-author blog where one identifiable person both wholly wrote and trivially placed content online is "self-published".
    By a broader definition, a corporate website where company employees write content at the behest of the company and it is placed online at the sole discretion of that company, is also self-published, because the author (the company) is the publisher.
    By a maximal definition, anything where there is not a traditional, commercial publishing structure, ie a book publisher, a journal, or traditional news media, is self-published.
    Many of these debates get derailed by discussions about why we should care, and because many of us are laser focused on "published" as meaning "I can read it online", the commercial aspects of traditional publishing arrangements seem like a total irrelevance.
    So, with that aspect usually ignored, most seem to argue that we care something is self-published because we hope for some level of independent oversight, and so editors might point to "editorial oversight" as proof something is not self-published. This is the case for SBM, where a group blog set up and run by individuals who are also presently its sole editors somehow has been decided to be "not self published".
    But that, to me, seems like a hack. Editorial approval is not what defines "self-published", its just one component of how we assess a source's reliability and accountability. I think this is part of the incorrect conflation of SPS with "unreliable", when SPS and RS are really parallel concerns, just as PRIMARY and SECONDARY are. Trivial approval steps between someone writing copy and another person ticking a box or pressing "approve" on a blog are not sufficient to make something not self-published. As I've given as an example previously, by this minimal definition, a celebrity social media account run by a PR agency is therefore not "self-published", which seems to be a nonsensical interpretation.
    Another common issue is publishing uncontentious information (like scientist X won Y award), and so different interpretations of "self-published" emerging to get round the BLPSPS restriction.
    By my reading of past discussions we care very specifically about third-party BLPs because of the interplay between a) the low threshold for anyone to put any nonsense they like online and b) the possibility of that being defamatory.
    And my interpretation then is a traditional, commercial publishing arrangement is the thing that provides some level of confidence that Misplaced Pages is not going to be on the hook for defamation, where "a blog owner approved their mate's guest post before pressing submit" does not.
    So if I were to propose something it would be something straightforwardly restrictive like:
    • Any non-trivial, negative or otherwise opinionated claim about a 3rd party BLP must be sourced to something traditionally published (presumably with lawyers who checked this claim before going to press), ie a book, magazine, journal or newspaper.
    When it comes down to it, I think this is what BLPSPS is all about, and I think if you settle it that way all the argument about what is or is not self-published ceases to be quite such a concern. Void if removed (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Lawyers don't normally check any claims during the publication process. A large publisher will have some on staff, and a medium-sized one will have some on call, but (a) there is no routine legal review of content and (b) even when something gets flagged to their attention by other employees, they're not actually engaged in fact checking. They're only evaluating the information that's handed to them, to determine how much risk the company will be exposed to.
    This should be obvious if you think about it. Imagine the ordinary working of an ordinary daily newspaper: The city had a meeting, and the newspaper sent a reporter to it. The reporter comes back with notes and writes an article. The editor looks it over. The editor might ask some questions or make suggestions. After any agreed-upon changes, the article appears in the next morning's paper. There is no "get approval from a lawyer" step in the editing process (unless the editor deems it necessary, and that's going to be an unusual circumstance). There's not even an independent, pre-publication fact checking step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    FropFrop, the RFC I have in mind would be posted at Talk:Daisy Bates (author) and would say something like this (pick any sentence you think is appropriate):
    Can we cite this book:
    Lomas, Brian (2015-10-29). Queen of Deception: The True Story of Daisy Bates. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-5170-5385-7.
    to support this (currently uncited) sentence in the article: "Eventually arriving in Broome, she boarded the Sultan with Father Martelli and arrived in Perth on 21 November 1902"? The relevant page says "<insert direct quotation here>" and cites a letter in the archives at Big University. This might seem like overkill, but while I was at the archives last month, I found the letter Lomas cites and verified that the letter supports Lomas' claim.
    When you are in the middle of a content dispute, changing the policy so that you can win the dispute is not usually the best approach. Settle the local dispute first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    When you are in the middle of a content dispute, changing the policy so that you can win the dispute is not usually the best approach. Settle the local dispute first. That's what I tried to do prior to writing this up, as I imagined that my post here wouldn't be taken well due to it being an active dispute. However the other editor said that I should try and change policy before trying to make the argument for inclusion. Because the conversation seemed to be going nowhere, I followed through with that suggestion.
    Regardless, I'm happy that my post seems to be going well and has sparked some genuine conversation on the broader issue. I'll try and see the dispute through.
    FropFrop (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    FactOrOpinion, I don't think that we should focus on wording for an RfC on the definition of SPS. Specifically, I think it's a bad idea for Misplaced Pages's definition to diverge from the ordinary definitions. I encourage you to think more about clarifying "Misplaced Pages's rules about when it's acceptable to cite self-published sources" instead of "creating a Misplaced Pages-specific definition of the word self-published".
    For your specific questions:
    • I think that it is not unreasonable to consider a government agency to be a traditional publisher if its main duties revolve around publishing information. This means, e.g., that the US Census would be considered traditionally published, but an announcement from that same government agency that they're having a public meeting, or that they have job openings, would not count as traditionally published. Compare:
      • The book publisher Bloomsbury traditionally published Harry Potter and self-publishes current job openings on their corporate website.
      • The government agency United States Census Bureau traditionally published 2020 United States census and self-publishes current job openings on their government website.
      • An elementary school does not traditionally publish anything, and self-publishes current job openings on its government website.
    • It's true that the structure of most print, electronic, radio, and TV journalism publishers does not always allow for selling rejected works to others. Journalists (and musicians, as mentioned above) are allowed to negotiate contracts that allow a publication exclusive control over whether their work gets published. In the case of ordinary journalists, they get paid the same salary whether the article runs or not. I'm not sure why this question has arisen. The inability to take a document elsewhere for publication isn't necessarily proof of anything, but it's associated with traditional publishing.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your answers to my questions. Re: "I'm not sure why this question has arisen," it's because you've said things like "Being a traditional publisher is about the business model," and it seems to me that traditional publishers have more than one business model, and I'm trying to understand which business models count as traditional publishing. For ex., when it comes to the government as a traditional publisher, arguably the idea of a business model doesn't even apply.
    I do understand that you think it's a bad idea for Misplaced Pages's definition to diverge from the ordinary definitions. You'd already said as much earlier (e.g., "Yes, it's true that our terms sometimes diverge from ordinary words, but self-published in this policy is supposed to be the ordinary dictionary definition. It is not supposed to be some kind of wikijargon").
    Some problems with that approach:
    • Dictionaries don't all define "self-published" in the same way. Looking across a number of different dictionary definitions, I've seen two main features highlighted: (1) whether the author pays for the work's publication, and (2) whether the author uses a publisher (with variations such as "publishing company" and "established publishing house"). Some definitions highlight (1), some highlight (2), and some highlight both. Although (1) and (2) intersect, they're definitely not the same (e.g., material written by an employee is not self-published according to the first, but may be self-published according to the second). Also, some definitions refer to an "author," which may be ambiguous (e.g., by author, do they only mean the specific person(s) who wrote/created something, or are they also including corporate authorship?).
    • A number of editors clearly don't agree with your preferred definition / don't think it represents practice.
    • You've said things like "most traditional publishers have ... self-published content (e.g., marketing materials, investor relations reports, advertising rate sheets)," but I don't see that carve-out in any dictionary definitions. (Maybe I've missed it.)
    • To the extent that WP:SPS defines self-published (in a Reference note at the bottom of the WP:V that says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content"), that definition already diverges from dictionary definitions. So if your goal is to get people to use a dictionary definition, and especially to choose your preferred dictionary definitions over other dictionary definitions, you'd need an RfC to align policy with your preference.
    FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I believe that there are some government agencies that sell documents they publish. The US federal government has some limitations on exclusivity, so the costs are usually limited to reimbursing the cost of printing and distributing, but there's nothing inherent in a government publishing office that would prevent them from using the same business model as other traditional publishers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Point taken. But it seems to me that traditional publishers do not all use the same business model. One model is the one I originally quoted from Void if removed, where there are a couple of variations (the person can take their work elsewhere if a given publisher rejects it, or they sign a longer term contract giving one publisher exclusive rights to future work even if the publisher decides not to publish it). Another business model is the one used with non-freelance journalists, and if a government sells documents created by employees, perhaps that falls under the same model. I'm not sure if you'd say that those are the only two business models that a traditional publisher might use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The business model is mainly: I publish this (book, news article, whatever) because I think people will pay me for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    That seems to apply to some self-published material too (e.g., some self-published books, an individual's Substack with subscribers), though it clearly doesn't apply to other SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, but the theory is that authors are less likely to judge the market correctly. Everyone believes their first novel to be a masterpiece, until they've written ten more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    "We generally try to avoid changing overall rules just to deal with a situation at a single article." This doesn't strike me as a single article issue. If it was, we'd just cite wp:KUDZU and be done with the discussion.
    Instead, it appears to be an example of a fundamental change in the publishing industry issue.
    Or maybe not a change. FropFrop's example shows that publishers are not the same as fact checkers, which may have been true all along. In that case Fact or Opinion's "more about who counts as an expert" is a better way to look at it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    To my mind, the “fact vs opinion” question has always been the key here. I have long thought that SPS material should always be presented as the author’s opinion (ie with in-text attribution). This shifts the debate from WP:V to WP:DUE. The citation reliably verifies that the author said what we say he/she said… the more important question is whether it is appropriate for us to note this author’s opinion in X specific article. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    FropFrop, I must admit I'm somewhat annoyed you started this discussion behind my back. It's true I had suggested you might try getting SELFPUBLISH changed, but I wasn't monitoring this page and had no idea you had actually decided to do so. Discussions shouldn't silently be forked and continued elsewhere without the involved editors being informed, so I don't think it was fair what you did here. Gawaon (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Now that you know about this discussion, what is your opinion regarding the substance of FropFrop's proposal? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    See the two comments I wrote above regarding specific details of the proposal. In a nutshell: I think the suggested changes are unworkable and would make SELFPUB considerably worse. And, thought that discussion rather belongs on Talk:Daisy Bates (author), Lomas seems to be a doubtful and considerably biased author, hence I'd say that his is just the kind of book SELFPUB is meant to protect us against – and that's how it should remain. Gawaon (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    SELFPUB isn't really meant to protect us from bias (and biased sources can be reliable anyway). It's meant to protect us from things like authors being reckless with the facts, and to focus due weight considerations on content that's newsworthy/non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree to some degree, which is why I meant that discussion belongs on the article talk page rather than here. Still I think some overlap is likely – biased authors are more likely to distort the facts in order to get their point across, and I'm pretty sure that that sometimes happens in Lomas. Indeed FropFrop, in an earlier comment on Talk:Daisy Bates (author), already admitted that his bias sometimes leads him to problematic conclusions ("He does get overly critical at times (often assuming that Bates outright lied when it could have been an honest mistake)"). Academic peer review should normally help to reduce such issues, forcing authors to be more honest with themselves and their audiences; and the editorial process though which nonfiction books go with non-academic publishers should have the same effect, at least to some degree. I know very well that these processes will never work perfectly, but I see them as good "filters" that should make our work better, and hence I'm weary of self-published sources, which didn't make it through these filters. Gawaon (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Non-academic book publishing often encourages overblown claims, because controversy results in free publicity, and publicity improves sales.
    I agree that traditional publishing is a good filter for us. If we say that 50% of traditionally published books are bad for us, then I'd start with an assumption that 95% of self-published sources are bad for us. But it's also possible that sometimes, probably rarely, a self-published book will be an okay source for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, and there's already an exception in SELFPUB for some such works. I doubt, however, that the additional exceptions discussed here would be great at finding additional okay sources, and rather fear that they would allow slipping a lot of not-okay sources. Gawaon (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    For the general case, I agree with you. For this specific case, however, it's possible that Lomas is one of the few "okay" sources instead of the many "not-okay" sources.
    What I'd suggest to you is that you try to disentangle your worries about bias (How dare he call her "the queen of deception", just because she told so many lies about herself!) from your worries about reliability. What matters for that article is not whether this long-dead person told lies, or whether the recent sources called it what it was. What matters for that article is much more mundane: Is Lomas correct when saying that she arrived in Place A on Date B? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, apologies. As you suggested that I try and amend the policy I didn't think this would be an issue.
    FropFrop (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    New Shortcut re “ONUS” section?

    I see that the shortcut “WP:VNOT” has been removed from visibility as a link at the “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion” section (justification being that no one has linked to that shortcut in a long time). I am fine with that… however, this removal leaves the only visible shortcut for the section as “WP:ONUS”… a word that was recently edited out of the section and no longer is appropriate. So… I think we should also remove the “WP:ONUS” shortcut, and come up with a new, more appropriate shortcut for people to use in the future. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    There has been talk, off and on for a couple of years, about moving the onus-related sentence to a different policy altogether. I'm not sure that it makes sense to worry about which shortcut points to it until that question gets settled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t really care about that final sentence. Keep it, amend it, move it, whatever… thing is, despite how much we have discussed it, it’s not actually the important part of the section. The important part is what comes before it - the reminder that there is more to “inclusion” than just Verifiability.
    And I think it would be helpful to have a shortcut that focuses on the important part of the section rather than on what is really just an afterthought. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    The sentence "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." is still there, and out there on the coal face it is the thing that people have used the ONUS link for countless times. So I don't see why it is redundant. Zero 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not a fan of stripping down the link boxes on this policy page to each list only one shortcut. WP:LINKBOXES states that link boxes "generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects", and uses the plural word redirects to indicate that multiple shortcuts should be listed in link boxes when appropriate. When there is only one shortcut listed in a link box, that shortcut will almost certainly remain the shortcut with the greatest number of pageviews due to its prominent placement. Most editors will use the shortcut displayed on the link box instead of going to Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Verifiability (and checking "Hide transclusions" and "Hide lists", then resubmitting and browsing the list) to find other ones, even if the unlisted ones may be more concise or more appropriate.Personally, I will continue using the WP:QS shortcut to refer to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Questionable sources, and I do find it strange that the more concise shortcut is omitted in favor of only listing WP:NOTRS, regardless of the pageview counts. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The most common practice for section links is to have only one shortcut. We're more likely to see two at the top of the page (e.g., WP:NOR and WP:OR). ONUS gets clicked on about five times as often as VNOT, so I can understand someone wanting to choose the more common. My concern is that if the last sentence gets moved (e.g., to WP:Consensus), then the shortcut should get moved with the sentence, in which case VNOT should presumably reappear here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I generally agree with that. ONUS gets referenced quite a bit so we need to make sure that those previous references don't get lost. There is also a bit of an issue that editors may have something like "the ONUS part of WP:V" only to later have the links changed. It might be good to have some type of indication in the new location that it used to be part of WP:V just so those older discussions still continue to make sense. Springee (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    We could split the 'ONUS sentence' into a different paragraph, and then put a shortcut for WP:VNOT at the top of the section and a separate one for WP:ONUS on the new, single-sentence 'paragraph'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would support that. The final sentence really is a separate concept from the rest of the section, so it probably should be on its own. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have decided to be BOLD and do this… revert if necessary. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Calling something the "common practice' doesn't prohibit other practices in appropriate circumstances. I think we all agree that this section says two distinct things: (1) Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. (2) If challenged, consensus is required for inclusion. In this case it is appropriate to show two distinct links (VNOT and ONUS). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    It conflicts with the WP:Consensus policy, doesn't really describe its original (good) intent, puts an arbitrary finger on the scale towards exclusion, and it's current wording says something that has nothing to do with wp:verifiability. We could do a lot of good, accomplish the original intent, and fix all of those problems by changing it to: "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    The subject of this topic is the content of the shortcut box. Do you mean to start a new conversation regarding the substance of the ONUS portion of the section? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    North alway reminds us of his favorite wording, whenever we discuss the section.
    Now… if he could turn it into a good shortcut, I might be persuaded to give it a try. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    North, does the ONUS sentence conflict with any part of the Consensus policy except the WP:NOCON section, which says it "does not make any new rules. If this page and the more specific policy or guideline disagree, then this one is wrong"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Onus is the best advert for lack of consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    seeking guidance re: draft RfC on the meaning of "self-published"

    I'm planning to open an RfC about the meaning of "self-published" in WP:SPS. (Here's a draft, if you want to see. Feel free to comment there, though I'd rather that you not modify the draft itself.) I haven't ever created an RfC before and would like a bit of guidance:

    • An RfC about whether advocacy org grey literature is always SPS was opened on 11/10. Does anyone feel strongly that I should wait until that RfC is officially closed? (A closure request was submitted on 12/2. On 12/12, an editor volunteered to close it, but so far hasn't had time. There's no telling when it will actually be closed.) I don't think the closure in that RfC has strong implications for this RfC, and at this point, I'm inclined not to wait.
    • Should I open this here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
    • "Policy" is the primary category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an Under discussion tag to the WP:SPS section?
    • In terms of what text will appear at WP:RFC, I only plan to include the first sentence, as I think that gives a good enough description.
    • I know that it would be better if the whole thing were shorter, but I simply haven't been able to figure out how to make it shorter. Suggestions welcome.

    Other than the text of the RfC itself, is there anything else I should be thinking about in preparation? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Your draft begins "This RfC is to determine whether the current definition and examples in WP:SPS..."
    WP:SPS does not include an actual definition, so there's no point in asking people about "the current definition...in WP:SPS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I explain underneath, I'm using the word "definition" to refer to the quoted statement from the WP:SPS reference note. What word would you suggest I use for that — "characterization"? something else? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Characterization" is better.
    I've seen some editors this year opposing RFCs that ask for general principles (as yours does), instead of providing exact proposed wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've changed "definition" to "characterization" throughout the text, except where the former refers to dictionary definitions. FWIW, a number of editors in the BEFORE discussions used "definition" in a more general way, and dictionary definitions of "definition" do allow for that broader use.
    I think it's premature to focus on the exact wording and that if I were to suggest specific wording, much of the discussion would get bogged down picking at that instead of focusing on the more significant issue, which is whether people agree with the current description, and if not, what do they think it means to be self-published? This might be naive of me, but I think that if we can figure out the consensus about what is/isn't self-published, then interested editors could work out the precise wording on the Talk page without needing an RfC. (Or, for that matter, maybe the consensus will be to leave it as is, though I personally will argue against that.) I could certainly add a line saying that if someone is concerned about the lack of precise wording, they should feel free to introduce a corresponding 3a/b/c with exact wording, or to propose wording just for their selection, as part of their !vote. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about this for several days. I have been trying to judge the odds of success, when "success" is defined as solving the real/underlying/long-term problem you have in mind.
    I am usually pretty good at this, but I feel like I can't make a reasonable prediction in this case. I think this is because I don't understand which problem you want to solve. To established the answer for a particular class of sources? To add an agreed-upon definition? To have the policy be right, irrespective of specific applications? (I believe this last is inherently a good thing.)
    I wonder if you could think about your goals in the Five whys model, and come up with a Theory of Change statement. This format might help: "I want to learn from the RFC so that we can ." (It might need several so that statements, e.g., "I want to learn whether the community prefers X to Y, so that I can reconcile USESPS and WP:V's odd footnote, so that we can resolve disputes about whether source type Z is self-published, so that we can apply BLPSPS more consistently across subject areas"). Or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is a bit of a tangent, but perhaps it will help you understand what I'm looking for.
    Advocacy organizations frequently engage in a marketing activity that they call "issuing a statement" (context for this example). That is, they write and publish a press release and hope that some (independent) newspaper or magazine will decide to include their views in an article. You've seen it a thousand times: "Paul Politician said something, which was hailed as the truth by Group A and decried as scurrilous lies by Group B".
    Traditionally, we use these independent articles determine which groups' views are worth mentioning in Misplaced Pages articles. Our idea of "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" is usually weighted according to the usual desirable qualities (i.e., independent, non-self-published, secondary). If Group A issues a press release, and the media picks it up, then we tend to include it, too, according to how much attention the independent sources gave them plus our own editorial judgment of what's needed in/relevant to the article. If Group A issues a press release, and the media ignores it, then we tend to ignore it, too, unless there is some obvious necessity for including it (e.g., it's WP:ABOUTSELF for ordinary encyclopedic content).
    However, what if the media landscape has shifted so much that information that seems important to editors is frequently being ignored?
    So I might say: "I want to learn whether editors consider press releases and other statements issued by organizations to be self-published, so that I can correctly classify sources, so that I can give DUE weight to these sources (i.e., less weight to self-published sources and more weight to non-self-published sources), so that I can apply the core content policies consistently across different subject areas." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know if this will be helpful, but here goes...
    I appreciate your having thought about it and your questions. First, I thought some more about the distinction you drew between definition and characterization/explanation. I'm not trying to determine a definition per se. The RfC is to learn ,
    • so that (1) if people have suggestions for improving it, we hear them; or (2) we learn what the consensus view actually is, and then can shift to the work of revising the SPS (body + footnote) text to reflect this other consensus; or (3) we're faced with figuring out a productive next step, and hopefully the responses will give some hints about what that might be;
    • so that the improved the text — in cases (1) or (2)— helps people have an easier time personally judging what is/isn't SPS and reduces disagreements, as the (sometimes contentious) disagreements take up people's time and energy when they could go to something more productive, and they can be frustrating, and it can also frustrate new editors to feel like they're getting mixed messages.
    I've reread multiple discussions about what "self-published" does/doesn't include, and that makes me want to take on the task of trying to improve the guidance, even if I fail. But I believe that it can be improved, and I think a well-crafted RfC would be helpful. (Now, whether I've actually created one is a different question. I still have some editing to do.) I did the 5 Whys, and my last entry was: I don't know why the guidance in SPS and USINGSPS is divergent (if you agree that it is, I'd be interested to hear your take on that). It can be hard to write effective guidance (e.g., language is sometimes ambiguous, the guidance has to apply to very diverse publications). People also come to editing (including disagreements) with different experiences, knowledge, values, and goals, which influence their interpretations and choices. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think I understand your goal now, which I'd classify as a question about whether the current state is satisfactory vs if clarifying this part of our ruleset is something that the community would like to prioritize.
    Towards that end, I wonder:
    • Is an RFC is actually necessary, given that we have had multiple discussions about it during the last year? I kinda think we already know the answer.
    • If you want an RFC on whether to fix it, maybe it should just say "Hey, we've had so many discussions about what, exactly, we mean by a self-published source. Do you think that's all good, or should we be providing more/better advice?
    • If you want to skip the "Houston, do we actually have a problem?" step, then I think that one sensible approach would be to have an RFC that proposes replacing the existing text "X" with improved text "Y", and seeing whether people accept the proposal. I'm pretty sure you could write something better than what we've got.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Re: what we know, I know that people have quite divergent views about what "self-published" means, but I honestly don't know what the consensus view is. I also don't know whether the current SPS text does or doesn't reflect the consensus view. The views people presented in the discussions mostly don't strike me as corresponding to the footnote characterization, and a few people criticized it, but many others didn't address it at all; maybe some people think that their own interpretations do correspond to that text, and they're just interpreting that text differently than I am and differently from each other. I've tried to capture the 3 most common interpretations of "self-published" that arose in the discussions, and they're options in my draft RfC; keeping the current wording is another option, and the fifth is "other." Personally, I think the characterization in the footnote isn't good, and in the RfC I'll argue for changing it. I think I could write something better than the current text, but it feels like too much to present good sample text for each of the 3 main interpretations; as it is, my text presenting the options feels long. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what the community consensus is except that its complicated.
    • complicated means eternal wikilawyering by determined parties to keep sources they don't like out.
    • At risk of Appeal to consequences fallacy, some of the hot-button issues with SPS (gender/sexuality/politics) have seen sufficiently determined wikilawyers use BLPSPS for WP:TEND disqualifying entire sources as supposedly SPS. Example scenarios include:
    Language in WP:SPS to end wikilawyering as yes or no for at least some of these sources would save editor time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Alternatively, I have questions on the absoluteness of WP:BLPSPS... though admittedly, I have no clue what ramifications of changing WP:BLPSPS would mean Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have a long Notes section (which will be hatted, but which I hope people will at least skim), and I should include your point, as that's a context in which a lot of these disagreements arise. FWIW, I think the third bullet is an example of two distinct issues: whether the SBM article is self-published, and whether a WP statement about a fringe theory held by Person X falls under the BLP policy (because the reason we're mentioning the theory is that the person espouses that theory) or doesn't fall under the BLP policy (because the WP statement is about the theory itself, not about the person, even though the reason for mentioning the theory is that person espouses it). FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As probably one of the "wikilawyers" involved, I'm of the opinion that whether a source is considered self-published is related to the sources purpose and organizational/editorial structure. Not if it's used by others, not if editors like it or not, not if it has the right or wrong opinions. Codifying a process on how we achieve this would go a long way to end wikilawyering on articles. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The question asks people to choose among some options: the current explanation, 3 alternatives (the ones I think came up most often in previous discussions), and "other" (where the editor elaborates). Each editor will have to determine whether any of the first four options addresses their view sufficiently, perhaps with tweaks. For the latter four options, the editor either thinks there's either already a consensus for that option or they hope to generate consensus for it. Depending on the details of purpose and structure that matter to you, you might or might not decide that one of the first four options represents your view pretty well. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that the first option can be omitted. People who want "none of the above" will say that.
    Your 2b is not making sense to me today. There is no barrier to writing your own 'About us' page. It is redundant with 2a.
    For 2c, reader comments are not "from" the traditional publisher.
    I wonder how you'd feel about prefacing this with a side quest: Does the community believe that it is possible for a corporate author to self-publish? For example, are all of these self-published?
    • Alice writes something and posts (i.e., publishes) it on her website.
    • Alice and Bob work together to write something, and they post it on their website.
    • The communication team for Paul Politician's campaign writes something and posts it on the campaign website.
    • A charitable organization writes something and posts it on the charity website.
    • Bob's Big Business, Inc. writes something, and (after the branding team added ® symbols) the business posts it on its website.
    • A government agency writes something and posts it on the government website.
    I think my answers would be "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and it's complicated". I think the answers from Jc3s5h would be "Yes, maybe, no, no, no, and no." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    My answers would be "Yes, yes, no, no, no and no." Also, if Alice wrote a letter to the editor of a major newspaper and the newspaper has a practice of publishing all letters that are not obscene or defamatory, then Alice's letter is self-published. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll think about dropping 1, but given that I'm trying to assess whether consensus has changed (and if not, whether the current text can be improved a bit), I'm inclined to keep it. 2 is framed as "The current explanation doesn't reflect consensus and/or is problematic in some other significant way(s)" so the current explanation is good doesn't fit in 2d. (Yes, I could change the framing for all of 2, and I'll think about that.)
    2b isn't redundant with 2a. 2a excludes organizational authors. I tried to make that clear by referring to "persons," and it's stated explicitly in the elaboration in the Notes section, but I guess I need to state it explicitly in 2a itself. The publisher itself materials do include organizational authors. I don't want to describe the "publisher itself" materials as "no barrier" but with an organizational author, as I'm trying to exclude things that the organization publishes about other things.
    I'll think about how to reword 2c.
    I don't understand how that "side quest" link is relevant (is that the content you meant to link to? were you trying to suggest that it's a deviation from the main focus?). I'm hesitant to add any preface to what's there, as it already feels long to me. I think everyone agrees that the first two are self-published, the third is in 2b, the other 3 are mentioned in the Notes section, though not in those words. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    A deviation from the main focus.
    If we were to determine that corporate authors are to be treated the same as/different from individual humans (or very small groups of individual humans), then you could merge your 2a/2b distinction according to the outcome.
    About trying to assess whether consensus has changed: Does this mean:
    1. A decade ago, you believe that we all had an idea of what self-published meant, and you wonder whether maybe now we have a different idea of what self-published means? or
    2. A decade ago, we agreed to put these words in the policy, and you wonder whether maybe now we think some different words would be better?
    I'd say that we have had a relatively weak agreement on what self-published means (i.e., I wrote USESPS because we kept having disputes about it), that we probably have a stronger agreement in theory now but would like even greater clarity, and that the wording in this policy is pretty bad, has been pretty bad since at least when the footnote was added, and could be improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Re: 2a/2b, somehow I'm still not communicating clearly. If 2a included organizational authors, then anything published by an organization would be considered self-published, as the organization can publish what it wants (even if in practice it doesn't, because it doesn't want to be sued, may judge material to be irrelevant to its mission, etc.). Whereas in 2b as I intend it, GLAAD's "about us" info would be self-published, but it's GAP info and media guidelines would not. I think what I should do is try to create a table with different kinds of publications from different kinds of authors, and show whether they would/wouldn't be classified as self-published by 2a vs. 2b vs. 2c (and I'd leave a 2d column where people who dislike 1 and 2a-c can think about how they'd classify these materials). I have no experience creating tables, but assume I'll be able to figure that out, and I'll hat the table but again suggest that people look at it to clarify what 2a-c mean. I'll have to think about whether to include 1, because I don't know that my own judgment about what the current explanation means will correspond to others' interpretations when it comes to material from non-traditional publishers, whereas with 2, I'm the one trying to make the meaning of the categories clear. I'm wondering if I should also add a column for the USINGSPS interpretation, where I might ask you to fill it in.

    Re: your 1 and 2, I'm trying to get at two things. One of them is your 1 (though I'm thinking more than a decade ago, before the footnote was added in 2011), but the second doesn't correspond to your 2. The second thing that I'm trying to get at: As best I can tell, no one discussed the footnote prior to it being added; it was simply added, and no one challenged it. (I might be wrong, I only did a cursory check of that in the WT:V archives.) So I wouldn't say "we agreed to put these words in the policy." I'd instead say something like: The footnote was added and never challenged; some people may have never taken a close look at it (because it's in a footnote and they felt that they had a good enough sense of 'self-published' from the text in the body), and others thought it was consistent with consensus. I have no idea what the split is between those two groups. Because the footnote was there, new editors started using it to guide their own decisions about whether they could use a given source, and some people started using it in discussions when there's a disagreement about whether a source is/isn't SPS. Even though NOTBURO, over time it became the letter of the law regardless of whether it captured the spirit of what people meant by 'self-published' prior to it having been added. Over time, the distribution of people's interpretations of "self-published" may have shifted as new editors come and other editors leave. I'd keep "you wonder whether maybe now we think some different words would be better?", but I think "different words would be better" can mean very different things to different people. I have zero idea how many people fall in each group: (a) the group of people who agree with the overall sentiment of the footnote but might want to use different words for the characterization and/or examples to make the explanation a bit clearer, and (b) the people who don't agree with that sentiment and want to use different words for that reason (and where different people in this group may have different views about what 'self-published' really means, and therefore different views on what the new words should portray). Does that make sense?

    Only tangentially related: I really was hoping that someone could give me guidance about some of my original questions. If you have suggestions re: the following, I'd be grateful:

    • Should I open this here at WT:V, or should I create a new subpage of WP:RFC in anticipation of it being a long discussion? (Though if I'm understanding right, I guess it could start here and then be moved if necessary.)
    • "Policy" is the primary category for this RfC. Should I also include the "bio" category, since the RfC has significant implications for BLPs? I'd advertise it on BLPN and WP:VPP (and WT:V, if the RfC itself is located on a WP:RFC subpage). Is there anywhere else that I should advertise it? (WT:RS? WT:BLP? WP:RSN? a WikiProject?) Should I also add an Under discussion tag to the WP:SPS section?

    Sorry to have been so long-winded. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Easy answers first:
    • Either start here and plan to split it to a subpage ("WT:Verifiability/SPS") or just start on a subpage (either of this talk page or of WP:Requests for Comment/).
    • Policy is the primary RFC category, and the rest isn't super important. I'd suggest WT:BLP, and if anyone complains, invite them to post their own, CANVAS-compliant messages, and (if you want to be more formal and organized) to record these invitations in a section similar to this one. If you want a bigger response, add it to WP:CENT.
    I would suggest holding off on the advertising push until you know whether people can make sense of the question (probably 24–48 hours). If the responses seem confused or tangential, then you might not want a ton of people showing up. You might instead want to withdraw the question and try again.
    BTW, you can ask questions like this and get advice on your question at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, if you want to create a table, try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:FactOrOpinion/Draft_SPS_RfC?veaction=edit and then Insert > Table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. I've added a table. I may add a few other examples, and I still need to learn how to add colors, as I think that will make it easier to see the differences. I decided to leave most of Option 1 blank, as I'm sometimes uncertain how to asses it (perhaps because I've heard different editors interpreting it in different ways). Maybe it's just as well to let editors decide for themselves how the current explanation would classify various materials. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    See Help:Table#Colors in tables. You'll have to do this in wikitext. The visual editor may not cope well with templated approaches to adding color, so I'd add color towards the end/when you don't expect more changes to the table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. I don't know that I've ever looked at WT:RFC, and it hadn't occurred to me to ask there. I wouldn't start advertising it until I'm happy enough with it, so: not yet. It's obvious that it's not yet clear enough. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Self-published claims about other living persons

    I am seeking clarification on the following sentence within Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

    Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

    This sentence is corroborated by Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS), which states:

    Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

    My understanding is that the above policy requirements prohibit self-published sources from being used for any claim about another living person for whom the author has no vested interest, and that there is no exemption to allow self-published claims about other living persons even when these claims are deemed uncontroversial and self-published by a subject-matter expert. This strongly phrased rule exists to ensure that all content about unaffiliated living persons undergoes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages.

    Some editors in the discussion at WP:RSN § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider seem to be in disagreement, so I am seeking clarification on whether uncontroversial self-published content from authors who meet the subject-matter expert criterion is exempt from this requirement. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Amended to incoporate language from WP:IIS. — Newslinger talk 03:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I would question the assertion that such content would ever be uncontroversial, if its self-published, about a living person other than the author, and can't be found in any more reliable source it is de-facto a controversial claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I still say that the solution to this sort of stuff is in-text attribution. Doing this shifts the debate from: “is X reliable for saying Y” to “is it DUE to mention that X said Y”. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I thought part of the point of the policy prohibition was to say that this type of content from a self-published source is never due. – notwally (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think its circular in a way because the answer to the question is that its basically never due anyways (theres grey area as with all things, especially when you get into someone making claims about events which they were personally involved in but which also involved other living people). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whether such statements are never DUE, rarely DUE, occasionally DUE, etc is a question that can and should be discussed further. My only point is that focusing on the DUEness of an SPS statement is much more appropriate than focusing on the author’s reliability. Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think these work hand in hand. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the SPS report is uncorroborated and/or not discussed by RSs and so would not be DUE anyway. If it is corroborated/discussed, then the SPS does not need to be cited except in rare circumstances where it is itself part of the story. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some of that discussion seems to veer into WP:NOTNEWS as well as its gossip/diary aspects, not to mention other DUE concerns. Why would it be so important to include reporting about every possible casting change or rumored cameo? Part of why we prohibit SPS on BLPs is to avoid these types of more rumor/gossip/tabloid reporting. I don't see the value is making exceptions to the rule, especially if it is going to result in these types of long, drawn-out discussions about content that is only being sourced to a single, self-published source. – notwally (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    BLPSPS and its related policies are quite clear about "never" meaning "never". I do not think a wholesale change to allow SPSs, even from experts in uncontroversial scenarios would be beneficial. Many SPSs are from self-proclaimed experts, or their readers think they are, and changing the default stance to general allowance based on editor discretion would be opening the floodgates to a lot of low reliability additions that violate the non-BLPSPS areas of BLP. If what they're talking about isn't corroborated or even discussed in RSs, then it would likely not be DUE anyway.
    If a change is made, I think the furthest it should go for now is in cases where RSs have corroborated or widely discussed the BLPSPS report itself, similar to how WP:BLPPRIMARY works. If the BLPSPS report is corroborated by non-SPS RSs and is itself the subject of discussion, then using it as a citation so readers can access it and with clear attribution in the text might be okay sometimes. Similarly, if the BLPSPS report is widely discussed by RSs but not corroborated, if the discussion around it in RSs becomes DUE for inclusion in and of itself, then it might be okay to cite the original report with attribution in some cases. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have posted a notice at WP:BLPN, since this impacts the BLP policy. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the specific case that requires more discussion is how so many journalists are going independent due to the degradation of the outlet they previously worked for. They are still top-tier journalists doing journalism work, but now this policy means none of their work can be used on any person's article because it now falls under SPS. I feel like this is going to become ever more an issue as journalism continues to fragment due to the self-inflicted wounds that legacy media is doing to itself (particularly those that are being bought out by billionaires and that new ownership leading to censoring of the outlet's journalism). Silverseren 02:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that the media landscape doesn't look like it did when we wrote these rules. But I'm not sure that changing the rules is a good idea, since "top-tier journalist" isn't an objective quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we'll eventually get to a point when we would have to re-evaluate, but the amount of good, credible journalists going fully independent is still relatively low. Given the BLP issues, if it changes, it would probably be a default to exclude position, with case-by-case or use-by-use evaluation at RSN. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This policy is pretty clear to never use self-published sources as third-party sources. It says nothing about never using such sources at all, and there's a reason why that language has been maintained.
    As others have mentioned, this is why we use attribution for such sources and why this policy has the carveout. An independent reliable source can often be used in Wiki-voice, but for SPS both the lower reliability tier and potential legal issues of saying something about a BLP in wikivoice with poor sourcing comes into play. That's why if an SPS is considered WP:DUE, it is used with attribution because it is not an independent source. They're treated essentially as being involved or close to the subject, especially in disputes. There is the option to use such sources, but it needs to be done with care.
    I can't say much about the example brought here, but it looks like it's a question of the reliability of the source and how WP:DUE their statements are rather than trying to exclude them solely due to being an SPS. KoA (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for noting that. The phrase third-party source in WP:SPS covers all self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author "has no vested interest", and the language in the sentence does state to "Never" use such self-published claims. The language in WP:BLPSPS prohibits the use of all self-published claims about other living persons, with the following carveout: "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example".I've amended my initial comment to clarify that I am specifically focusing on self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author has no vested interest. The discussion at WP:RSN § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider fits in this category. — Newslinger talk 03:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    the language in the sentence does state to "Never" use such self-published claims Not quite. The policy says never to use them as third-party sources (i.e., independent sources). That is why attribution is used when consensus determines the source is otherwise appropriate. KoA (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the context of my reply, "such self-published claims" refers to "all self-published claims about other living persons for whom the author 'has no vested interest'". Based on the language of WP:SPS, I do not see how the use of in-text attribution would allow this prohibition to be bypassed when the self-published claims about other living persons are determined to be independent. — Newslinger talk 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Something being a third-party source is not synonymous with not requiring attribution. If you look at WP:RSP, many independent sources which are deemed generally reliable or marginally reliable still require attribution. Attribution is not a panacea for the clear pronouncement at WP:BLPSPS.
    Since there's only really first and third party sources, the line at SPS is just a summary of the fuller policy at BLPSPS, which has a carve-out for allowing WP:SPS when it is a first party source in some cases: It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:INTEXT attribution would not make the source stop being independent/third-party anyway. The rule is:
    • Never use Alice's self-published website to say anything about Bob, unless Bob and Alice have some substantial connection (e.g., marriage or employment).
    There is no exception related to adding the magic words 'According to Alice' to the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    As one of the editors involved at the Sneider discussion, we aren't just seeking clarification on how the current wording should be interpreted but also potentially looking for an amendment. If the intention of the current wording is to prevent SPS from ever being used for claims that are even slightly related to a living person, then I think we should be adjusting that wording to be more lenient for non-controversial/exceptional claims. If the SPS has already been determined to be a reliable source (i.e. a reliable, trusted journalist who is now self-publishing their reporting, something that is becoming more-and-more common these days) and they are publishing a non-controversial claim that is deemed to be useful for an article, why should they not be used? We can make it clear that there should be attribution if we still want that level of caution. And to those who are concerned about whether such an inclusion would be DUE, surely that can be determined on a case-by-case basis through local consensus? The main problem here, in my opinion, is this policy's wording is being referenced to shut down any further discussion about how and where these sources can be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    • A "reliable, trusted journalist who is now self-publishing their reporting" may not even qualify as an "established subject-matter expert" (which is a higher standard than just being reliable) under WP:SPS. This presents even more problems under WP:BLPSPS because self-published means that there is no editorial oversight, and this is just too much of a risk for using on BLPs. Attribution doesn't address these concerns, as the information would still be there. The point of the policy is to set a bright line because those types of sources should never be used for BLP information. The argument that SPS should be able to be used routinely on BLPs presents too many problems compared to the potential benefit, IMO. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm obviously talking about someone who does qualify as an established SME. I recognise that the lack of editorial oversight is why we are being cautious here, but again I think we are being overly cautious for instances where the material being sourced is not controversial or exceptional in any way. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think that is obvious from your comment as a "reliable, trusted journalist" is not necessarily going to be an "established subject-matter expert". I would argue often is not, and that in this particular case, Jeff Sneider does not qualify as one, for multiple reasons. Further, the discussion on RSN seems to suggest that what could be "controversial or exceptional" is also not as clearcut as your comment would suggest. Rather than have repeated discussions about when a person is a subject-matter expert for reporting on other living people, when content is really controversial or exceptional, and when all of this would be due when relying on a SPS, I think the brightline rule against using this information for BLPs makes a lot more sense. While some issues may be obvious to some editors, for other editors the issues may appear far more complex. – notwally (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      I am talking about situations where a self-published source has already been deemed reliable. That means they are an established subject-matter expert, because that is the only time a self-published source is deemed to be reliable on Misplaced Pages per WP:SPS. I disagree with your opinion on whether Sneider is a reliable source, but that is irrelevant to this discussion and should be taken up at the existing RSN discussion. This discussion is about self-published sources that have been deemed to be reliable, regardless of who they are. I don't buy the argument that determining whether a claim is controversial or exceptional is too complex an issue for some editors to handle and therefore we cannot trust them to have that discussion. We currently trust editors to determine whether a self-published source is a subject-matter expert or not, and we trust editors to come to a consensus on whether such a source should be used for anything not related to a living person. Why can we not trust them to determine whether something related to a living person is controversial or exceptional? Because it could be hard is not a good reason to have an overzealous ban on something. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      But what has the source been deemed reliable for? A source may be deemed reliable for some content, but not for other content, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Especially in BLP cases, the reliability of the source must be evaluated for the specific use proposed, and any determination of its reliability in another context should be ignored. Donald Albury 23:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
      Good point… while I can think of many authors I would consider subject matter experts on politics, I question how many are subject matter experts on any individual politician.
      Ok… the exception might be someone who had written a non-self published biography of a specific politician… now self-publishing an update on that politician. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't disagree Donald Albury, but under the current BLPSPS wording we do not have a chance to consider whether the source is reliable in such a context because self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to living persons. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's not accurate to say "self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to living persons." They're banned from use as sources for content about persons themselves. They're not banned from use for content about something related to one or more persons but isn't about the persons themselves. There may be gray areas where you ask whether proposed content is about a person or only about something they're linked to, but there also are areas that aren't gray at all. For example, you cannot use a SPS to say "this actor was the director's first pick" (assuming the actor and/or director are living or recently deceased) but you could use a SPS to say "the movie was filmed on location" (as long as the SPS and the proposed edit meet other conditions, e.g., the SPS is a RS for this content, and the content is DUE), even though the latter is "remotely related" to many living people, including the actor and director. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm not sure if you completely missed the point of my comment or if you are intentionally being overly pedantic to try shut me down, either way this is a very frustrating response. What I meant was... under the current BLPSPS wording we do not have a chance to consider whether the source is reliable in such a context because self-published sources are blanket banned from being used for any material remotely related to one or a few living persons. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm certainly not trying to shut you down, and I regret that my response frustrated you, but you seem to be missing my point. You keep referring to "remotely related to," and I'm saying that that's not what the policy means. BLPSPS rules out self-published sources used for WP text that's about a living person themself (or about a few people themselves). It does not rule out SPS used for content that's remotely related to one or a few living persons. In the example I gave, WP text that says "the movie was filmed on location" can be sourced to a SPS because it's not about any living person themself, even though it's remotely related to some living people (e.g., it's remotely related to the director who chose to film on location). There are some gray areas in BLPSPS, but "remotely related to" isn't one of them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      Again, you are trying to undermine my argument by pointing out something that we are not even talking about. This discussion is about situations where BLPSPS does apply under the current wording but some editors, including myself, think it should not. Explaining what BLPSPS does not apply to is a red herring. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      Then I suggest that you stop using the phrase "remotely related to," since it's inaccurate. I'm not trying to undermine discussion of the situation where BLPSPS does currently apply.
      I asked the following below: is the proposal here to change the last sentence of WP:SPS to something like "Self-published sources are only permitted as third-party sources about living people if (a) the author meets the subject-matter expert criterion, and (b) the WP text sourced to their publication is limited to uncontroversial content"? If so, then I'd like to hear more how you'd bound "uncontroversial," providing some sense of where the boundary lies between "uncontroversial" and everything else. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't think we should be defining what "uncontroversial" means, that is going to depend on the situation. I think it would make more sense to say something like "the text sourced to their publication is not an exceptional claim". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      There's a huge difference between "uncontroversial" and "not an exceptional claim." I'd absolutely oppose the latter as way too broad. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      As an example, "Ronald Reagan was an actor" is "uncontroversial". "Ronald Reagan was a conservative politician" is "not an exceptional claim". And IMO that latter should not come from a self-published source, about any BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      Both of those are claims which can be sourced from numerous high quality reliabe sources though... The examples need to be cases where the highest source in which the claim can be found is a single SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      The point of these examples was to illustrate the difference between "uncontroversial" and "not an exceptional claim". This difference is not unique to self-published sources. Editors are likely to be less concerned about statements about someone's day job than about whether the person adheres to a particular (and contested) political viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      This seems to assume that a SPS can make either an uncontroversial or non-exceptional claim in this context and I don't think they can... Any claim in that context is both controversial and exceptional by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    I brought up an element of this at the BLP noticeboard: What about cases where a band member in an interview makes a statement about a fellow band member or recording personnel? And by this, I'm not talking about controversial statements or attributing opinions or beliefs to another individual, but basic stuff like "they played on this album" or "this guy was studying record production so he produced our demo" (I have a specific band and interview in mind with this latter example).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    My understanding is that activities and events which include multiple people are something of a grey area which we address on a case-by-case basis. Generally though when its to the level of talking about a single living person by name its a no though (I've seen a lot more leeway for claims of non-specific collective action). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm referring specifically to one named individual speaking on behalf of the band about other named individuals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    If it's in an interview, then it wouldn't be a WP:BLPSPS issue and it's probably fine to use with attribution (e.g. "In an interview with X, Y said that...) unless it's an exceptional claim. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Patar knight my understanding is that interviews are considered primary sources. And sometimes the interview isn't in an established RS but maybe on someone's blog or personal site but they nonetheless managed to get an interview with the band, which would definitely make the source only usable as a primary source rather than independent coverage. I would almost always attribute an interview regardless of the statement made. And I agree with some of the other editors above that even with attribution, it's still a statement about a living person.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, if it's an interview in a SPS, then it should not be used per WP:BLPSPS. If it's in a reliable source, then it's probably fine with attribution as long as it's due, and is outside the scope of this discussion. If they're naming other members of the band or talking about the band itself, assuming it's a relatively normal-sized group, then it would invoke BLP protections. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The fact that interviews (i.e., ones that focus on the speaker) are considered primary sources is irrelevant. Sources can be secondary and self-published, just like they can be primary and non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say that falls solidly in the grey area, especially because of the ABOUTSELF aspects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back Right. That's where I'm thinking this might need to be clarified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BLPGROUP basically says it's a spectrum of how similar statements about a group are statements about an individual where a small enough group will attract BLP protections, but a larger group is less likely to, with the nature of the material (e.g. controversial/harmful vs. not, quasi-identifying vs. entirely general) also affecting that analysis. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Patar knight Yeah, this is why on some band list articles, like those for Christian music artists or for National Socialist black metal, I would absolutely consider BLP protections to be in effect. I think it gets into this grey area when it's uncontentious statements about fellow band members in an interview of the band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That doesn't inherently sound like an SPS source as an interview often isn't the stereotypical person just putting their own opinion on a blog. That's unless there's a serious question about whether the interviewee actually said what was claimed. That's more likely to be a primary non-SPS source.
    At least for the purposes of this page though? If it really is an SPS, then there's nothing inherently wrong with using it with attribution. The questions instead are if there's valid concern if the statement was actually made like I just mentioned above and primarily if it's WP:DUE. WP:PARITY may help inform that discussion among other things. Between treating the source as SPS/non-independent, there's a bit higher bar for scrutiny as to whether something is DUE or not. If a band member says something in an SPS, who cares, is it really relevant to an encyclopedia? That's probably the bigger question. I'd be more likely to question if information is being put in the article simply because it exists rather than being DUE (without knowing the specifics of this actual dispute). The short of it is that it should be somewhat inherent that the information would have encyclopedic relevance when used with attribution. KoA (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The problem is we can't have a discussion about whether something like this is genuinely DUE if there is a blanket ban preventing it from being added. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    This policy explains why we don't use SPS sources as independent sources, and that is what is prohibited here. If someone is saying such sources are banned entirely, that's missing the point of this policy and not engaging with the underlying reasoning why we're so careful about SPS about living people. It's ultimately up to talk page consensus to decide if the content should be included or not. KoA (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is relevant to an FA review, where I as a reviewer have to help come up with that consensus, which is why I brought it up to the BLP Noticeboard (which seemed to be of a similar mix of consensus that leans toward it being a case-by-case grey area).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    So if I were reviewing discussion in a talk page in that situation, I probably wouldn't give much weight to someone just simply saying "can't use SPS sources" and leaving it at that as it isn't addressing the gray area. Instead, the weight would go more towards those really focusing on the spirit of related WP:PAG and saying there is/isn't WP:DUE for inclusion (which you should do even if it's a bad SPS). If there was consensus for inclusion, then just make sure there was attribution. It's WP:CONSENSUS that would rule the roost there.
    That's at least what I would be looking for if I was doing a FA/GA review knowing there was a piece of content that had some controversy that someone was trying to add/remove again during the review process. KoA (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BLPSPS doesn't allow self-published sources to be used for any "material about a living person" at all. If the wording of that policy was consistent with this one then we would be able to discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis to determine if inclusion with attribution is appropriate, but because of the stricter wording at BLPSPS we currently can't. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would violate the policy on this page, and like I alluded to above, I'd be worried about WP:LETTER if someone is insisting all such sources are prohibited rather than engaging with the why of there being guidance of SPS related to living people. Ultimately, WP:NOTBURO is policy too, so you'd set aside the letter of the policy language and look at the spirit of it. There's additional guidance because SPS have additional hurdles when they intersect with claims about living people. Like when newspapers print articles quoting people, we first navigate those issues by using attribution (and the determination that the statement was actually made by the person). We simply don't treat SPS as independent or as reliable as non-SPS sources. Everything else is up to basic WP:ONUS and talk consensus. KoA (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is the goal to see if there's consensus for changing BLPSPS as a policy? Or is the goal only to see if there's consensus for allowing this one specific SPS (The InSneider) to be used for specific WP text about one or more living persons? I hear people making different claims here and at RSN. Either way, so far my read is that there isn't consensus for either one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since this talk page is about the policy as it applies to all Misplaced Pages articles, the current discussion is about the general application of WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. I mentioned WP:RSN § Jeff Sneider / The InSneider only to give context on why this discussion was started. Any evaluations of Sneider's self-published content should ideally be posted or at least cross-posted to the noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. So is the proposal here to change the last sentence of WP:SPS to something like "Self-published sources are only permitted as third-party sources about living people if (a) the author meets the subject-matter expert criterion, and (b) the WP text sourced to their publication is limited to uncontroversial content"?
    Although editors agree that some kinds of sources are self-published (e.g., blogs, social media) and that some kinds of sources are not self-published (e.g., newspapers, standard book publishers), there's a fair amount of disagreement about whether other kinds of sources (e.g., material from universities, governments, advocacy organizations, corporations) are or aren't self-published. (I'm working on an RfC to clarify that.) Depending on what is/isn't considered SPS, the "size" of the impact of this change will vary. To some extent, the current BLPSPS carve-out falls in this realm: if you consider the material published by most employers or groups making awards to be self-published, the carve-out takes the perspective that it's nonetheless OK to include WP text that the person works for that employer, or that the person got an award from that group, because as long as they're reputable, the employer/group is an expert RS about who they employ/give awards to, and the info should be uncontroversial. But I'd like to hear more from the people proposing this about how they bound "uncontroversial," providing some sense of where the boundary lies between controversial and uncontroversial (not just focusing on easy cases). FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this example, a band member is not independent of a fellow band member or recording personnel with whom they have a working relationship, as all of these people are closely collaborating to create a musical work. Therefore, the prohibition in WP:SPS against self-published claims about other living persons (which is restricted to "third-party sources") does not apply to the band member's statement concerning a fellow band member or associated recording personnel.WP:BLPSPS is much more vague, since the described exemption is "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example". I believe fellow band members and associated recording personnel qualify for this exemption, as they are all employed in the creation of the same musical work. The language in WP:BLPSPS should be refined to be explicitly consistent with the language in WP:SPS. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this example, a band member is not independent of a fellow band member or recording personnel with whom they have a working relationship, as all of these people are closely collaborating to create a musical work. Therefore, That has nothing to do with the discussion here. The point of the policy here and elsewhere is if it is an SPS, don't treat it like a third-party source. In terms of this policy, you don't need to get into whether band members are independent or not. KoA (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    As you pointed out in an earlier comment, the language of WP:SPS states: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people", with the term third-party sources linking to Misplaced Pages:Independent sources. A band member's statement about a fellow band member is not an independent ("third-party") source, so that statement would be excluded from the prohibition. I am not sure why you think this point is unrelated to the discussion, when WP:IS is explicitly linked from WP:SPS. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're talking about mutually exclusive things and appearing to confound them in multiple comments, so that's why I'm spending a little time with you on this. For our purposes here on this page, it's irrelevant whether a band member's statement is third-party or not for the other reasons you mention. That is outside the scope of this discussion. All that matters here is if it is an SPS, and if so, don't treat it as third-party as well.
    There are other reasons a source may not be a third-party, such as close involvement in a group or other aspects of WP:IS like you mention, but that is independent of the SPS text in question. This part of the policy doesn't have anything to say about whether sources should be used or not based on independence/third-party that you are mentioning. It only talks about use if they are an SPS. KoA (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    You appear to be interpreting the language of WP:SPS ("Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people") to mean that it may be permissible for an editor to use a self-published source that describes another living person as long as the editor does not treat the self-published as an independent source. That interpretation is semantically incorrect, because the language of WP:SPS does not allow an editor to bypass the prohibition by pretending that the self-published source is non-independent.
    Here is an example of a rule that is constructed in the same way as the language in WP:SPS: "Never use guns as weapons against living people." It would be incorrect to claim that the rule allows a person to use a gun against living people as long as the person considers the gun a non-weapon. What the example rule actually does is prohibit the use of guns against living people when the guns function as weapons. Likewise, what WP:SPS actually does is prohibit the use of self-published claims about living people when the self-published claims function as third-party sources (independent sources). — Newslinger talk 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Clarified wording — Newslinger talk 06:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The wording of WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS differ somewhat, and I think the text of the latter is the guiding text in this specific case. The latter says "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." If you have a self-published source written by band member X, and in that source X talks about another band member, Y, there are two interpretations: (1) that source can't be used for a statement about Y, because Y isn't the person who wrote the source, or (2) that source can be used for a statement about Y because X and Y share a vested interest, as long as the use meets the criteria in WP:BLPSELFPUB (e.g., it's not unduly self-serving). Whether the interpretation is (1) versus (2) might turn on whether the article is about X, or about Y, or about the band, or about none of those (given that BLP applies to WP text about people even if the subject of an article is not a person). BLPSPS should be reworded a bit; right now it refers to "the subject of the article," which ignores the last possibility. Maybe something should also be added to more clearly address a situation like this one, where "the subject" might be a small group of identifiable people (like a band) rather than a single person. Also, the phrase "third parties" in BLPSPS criterion 2 should be linked to WP:IS to make its intended meaning clear. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd caution about this degree of semantics on very plain language here. There's no need for metaphors that are apt to get off-base. The prohibition here is very clear not to use self-published sources as third-party sources, and that's very purposeful language and background in how it's written already previously described detailing why SPS don't get the same privileges as otherwise normal third-party sources.
    In your metaphor, it misuses context. It's not some loophole if the person considers the gun not a weapon and still fires it as you allude to. That's still using it as a weapon. If you use your version of the metaphor, that would instead be like using the SPS as a third-party source without any attribution and "pretending" it's actually third-party in one's head. That's not ok and isn't what's being discussed here, so it does feel like a bit of an unintentional strawman at this point in the context of what I've actually been addressing. KoA (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @KoA, I wonder if the "as" in the sentence is throwing you off. The rule is:
    • If it's a self-published source, and you want to write something about a BLP in a Misplaced Pages article, then the source must be self-published by the BLP you want to write about in the Misplaced Pages article.
    There is no special way to use an SPS from Alice to write about Bob so that it gets cited "as" a third-party source or "not as" third-party source. The rule is that you don't get to use SPS from Alice to write about BLPs who are not Alice (or at least BLPs closely connected to Alice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The rule here is that you don't get to use an SPS about BLPs as a third-party source. The "as" is very deliberate in this policy's language as well as the rest of that part of the policy. You can't make a statement like, "Bob defenestrated chickens in his youth." in Misplaced Pages's voice because Alice said it in her blog. Functionally, the source becomes as if it is closely involved with the subject matter and doesn't get the benefits of a more distanced sourced. It gets functionally treated instead as WP:BIASED and defaults to the more conservative WP:ACCORDINGTO if used.
    Now that statement I quoted could be true and due weight for some part of a BLP (maybe Bob got tired of tossing chickens out the window and invented a better way to get them out of the shed), but the main caution here is that because the statement came from an SPS, there's less degree of certainty about reliability, due, etc. in a BLP context. Even WP:RS is clear about this while adding additional information not in this policy that even being an expert, etc. is not an exception to the third-party aspect. Putting a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice with such a source opens Misplaced Pages up to potential legal issues, so that's why there's an even higher degree of scrutiny on SPS BLP use. IRL, newspapers deal with that by attribution and still checking that the claim is reasonable. You can use attribution saying Alice made the statement in their blog instead as others have mentioned above, though that's still subject to WP:DUE, WP:ONUS, etc. with inclusion already being much less likely due to being an SPS as others have mentioned. There's actually a lot going on in the background of this simple line of policy when it says third-party and links to more information.
    The policy says don't use SPS sources in X way, not don't use SPS at all. Yes, I'm aware a single line in BLP policy exists that doesn't exactly match what is said in these other areas of the project, and that seems to create a subset of editors having trouble with this policy here and similar guidance like this. I am concerned in terms of WP:NOTBURO policy when someone is using that single line to say SPS cannot be used at all in BLPs and instead would say to look at the full context of what WP:PAG say related to this (and that they mostly specify what kind of use). The spirit of it all though is that SPS in a BLP would be heavily scrutinized even with attribution to the point that most still won't make the cut. That's really up to individual talk page consensus to decide on a case-by-case basis for the rare times when SPS may be seriously considered for narrow use. KoA (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think that this "as" clause was intended in the way that you are interpreting it. The intention was "Is Alice a third-party/independent source about Bob? If yes, then you can't cite Alice's self-published works about Bob."
    The "as" clause has nothing to do with "in Misplaced Pages's voice" or "ACCORDINGTO". It actually does mean do not use Alice's SPS at all about any BLP that Alice is a third-party to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    This was the original version:
    "Self-published sources, such as blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."
    I don't know if that's clearer to you, but according to the edit summary, it was meant to match this statement from the BLP policy, which I believe is much clearer:
    "Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"
    So: The policy says you can't use it. It does not say "don't use it in one way, but you can use it in another way". It says don't use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, Newslinger, that makes sense, and the principle that I was operating from. KoA, I'll give some examples of how I think this is relevant. At the FAC review, I brought up how this source is used to support the statement that a band member only met the rest of the band two days before they went on tour. It's a statement by one of the band members, speaking on behalf of the band. The source itself might be RS, but the article is posted by the site owner/main editor. I brought up the question recently on some noticeboards/talk pages about if articles from a publication's publishers, owners, and/or editors would be considered SPS, because they presumably don't have the same editorial process that an article from another staff member would have. The answer seemed to be yes, those are a type of SPS. So, in regards to that interview, the article is essentially SPS, but the statements from LaPlante are perfectly fine to use as primary source statements about herself or the band collectively. Where it potentially violates BLPSPS is her making statements about other individual band members. I think Newslinger highlighted the important distinction here - LaPlante is not independent from the band, and neither is the other band member. She's a closely affiliated source. Wall of Sound would be independent, but statements by LaPlante herself published via Wall of Sound would still be primary. The other example I was thinking of is regarding the production of a demo by Vaakevandring. The demo was produced by Stian Aarstad of Dimmu Borgir. On that fact there are multiple independent non-self-published sources. Where I think it gets questionable is the sentence that Aarstad sings on one of the songs - as far as I can find, the only source for that is an interview with a member of the band (in German). The source is not self-published (it's from a German youth ministry organization with multiple staff), but as the statement comes from a member of the band, it's a primary source statement. So does that violate BLPSPS? If Newslinger is correct, probably not, because Aarstad and Dæhlen are closely affiliated. But is that a correct understanding of the consensus?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the key thing here is that for the purposes of this page, much of this discussion on that dispute is out of scope and more suited for a general noticeboard (especially given the notice at the top of this page This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.). That's what I was getting at about relevancy. Here we can comment on what SPS has to say a bit, but not really on the other areas of the content issue.
    Like you mention, assessing WP:IS of a source regardless of SPS or not is one thing to consider in discussions, but for here, the question is just what to do about an SPS that is being considered. So given what you just summarized, is there an SPS being considered for content, or have they pretty much been excluded for other reasons? It sounds like it might be the latter, so I just wanted to see how narrowed down it is now so there could be focus just on what this policy has to say about the situation. KoA (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    So given what you just summarized, is there an SPS being considered for content, or have they pretty much been excluded for other reasons? The first example, the Courtney LaPlante interview by Wall of Sound, is cited in a featured article candidate. I brought the question to the BLP Noticeboard for clarification, and the majority opinion was that the statement is fine and useable, although FactOrOpinion expressed that, in their opinion, likely the source is technically outside of policy. My decision as an FA reviewer, based on that discussion, was to ignore the rules for sake of improving the article as nothing defamatory or controversial was stated by LaPlante and she's close to the subject. The second example, of Vaakevandring and Stian Aarstad singing on the demo, is used in the respective article about the demo, which I recreated awhile back and have revisted recently to clean up.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    3family6, the discussion here made me realize that I wasn't really paying attention to the "third-party" element, and I was also focused too much on the letter of the policy but not on the spirit of the policy. (I'm not a totally new editor, but am still only moderately experienced, and my understanding of how all of the policies interact and what they mean changes somewhat as I reread policies in response to people's questions + the discussions that result from them, and as I consider others' views.) My current view of the LaPlante interview is that it's OK to source that WP content to that interview, as it would meet the BLPSELFPUB conditions had she written it on her blog instead of it being published in Wall of Sound (it's not unduly self-serving, the other band member is not a third-party to LaPlante, we trust the authenticity, etc.). It shouldn't matter whether we judge the interview to be self-published by the Wall of Sound owner; it's an interview response, not the interviewer making his own claims, and it would be silly to conclude that it would have been OK to use that info if she'd written it in her blog, but it's not OK if she says it in a interview that's possibly self-published by someone else. The issue is the same re: it being a primary source; BLPSELFPUB is primary source material, and we've OKed limited use of such material, so it shouldn't matter whether a secondary source has discussed it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right. That's what I realized myself. I missed the "third-party" part.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    If you take it structurally/literally you kind of end up with it saying almost nothing. It's a restriction on such a source's use as a source and in wiki context, that would mean to use it to fulfill a wp:ver requirement for an included source. So if you want to write "John Smith wore a green coat on December 30th 2024" with no provided source, that is permitted in practice, but if challenged, it would not fulfill the requirement to provide a suitable source. And, prior to / absent a challenge, the editor is on the honor system to not put it in unless they think that a suitable source (other than the excluded one) is available and that it is unlikely to be challenged. But taken literally, categorically and on a stand alone basis, many wiki rules sometimes conflict with each other and conflict with wiki-reality. And some common sense interpretation and balancing is required (with the strong wording of this clause being a part of that equation), the described practice being supported by influence from WP:IAR policy and the last point of wp:5p and other places. IMHO the intent and also the net result of the whole wiki system is: "Don't put something in from such a source in in such a situation unless it looks rock solid, uncontroversial, useful for the article, and meets other Misplaced Pages criteria. Which is a high bar to meet. And if the veracity is challenged, it is no longer uncontroversial. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Verifiability of rulesets for game shows?

    There's a conversation ongoing at Talk:Pyramid (franchise) regarding whether rulesets for game shows are required to be sourced. Additional opinions are welcome! DonIago (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)