Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 43

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

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

When a reliable source is required

Latest comment: 13 years ago276 comments23 people in discussion

Wikipedia has recently had severe problems with plagiarism and copyright violations which, in some cases, made it on the main page. These problems are usually introduced by editors (sometimes otherwise very experienced editors) who do not realise that their behaviour is problematic. It has been suggested, and I agree, that extremist interpretations of our verifiability and NOR rules contribute to the problem. Our policies are written to help decide legitimately controversial cases, but once they exist some editors will go around and apply them to non-controversial cases which nobody had previously had in mind. If we want to fix the plagiarism/copyvio problem, we must first of all make sure that there is a climate in which editors are not discouraged from adding uncontroversial, perfectly good content that is not a quotation or close paraphrase from a source.

One of the most obvious excesses in this regard is when perfectly good, well known and uncontroversial information is challenged just because there is no reference. This is basically why egg slicer now has two references. Obviously, the time to find them would have been better invested into finding sources for potentially problematic claims elsewhere. More recently, an editor has come to WP:RS/N#Having no source as a reliable source, claiming that very well known high school mathematics equations that can be found in every book that even covers the topic of the article (logarithms) must be sourced. There appears to be a consensus that this is in fact not true and that tagging a section just because it has no references borders on disruption. (In the past I have seen sections or articles tagged in this way which actually did have inline references, only not as footnotes but in the form of Harvard references or external links. This shows that some of these editors "challenge" sections without even reading them.) However, WP:BURDEN (part of this policy) is seen by many as justifying just that. They claim that if they add a fact tag for no good reason at all, that's a valid "challenge" in the sense of WP:CHALLENGE, and therefore others now have the burden of providing a source that the sky is blue according to WP:BURDEN.

In other words, this policy is slightly out of balance. We should fix it without causing the opposite problem. I propose the following new, third subsection of WP:V#When a reliable source is required after WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN:

Well known facts
Challenging a claim means arguing in good faith that it may not be true, or at least not as stated. Editors who think that an article would profit from an inline source for a fact that is well known relative to the field of the article should add such a source themselves or ask for one on the talk page, but not tag it. Asking for a citation for a well known, generally accepted fact is also not an acceptable way of expressing neutrality concerns.

Hans Adler 11:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans I'll be interested to see how other's react and what problems they might see, but from my first reading both your explanation and your approach are spot on and very welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The above is a mis-representation of the facts from the case at WP:RS/N#Having no source as a reliable source. It might be worth having a discussion on the subject but only by presenting the situation accurately. The idea that tagging was done for 'no good reason' is just plain incorrect. Also for the record the idea of requiring inline citations for this situation is not my view nor something I have asked for. Finally, if as you claim that it can be sourced to every book that even covers the topic, then why has a book source not been forthcoming and added to the article? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1) How does Hans's suggestion prevent plagiarism?

2) Tagging does not always mean "challenging". There is a difference between tagging something with {{citation needed}} and tagging it with {{dubious}}. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the change is unnecessary, although well motivated. If a fact is well known because it exists in multiple textbooks, it's easy to source. Talking about the dispute took much more time that sourcing would have. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent plagiarism, it's one step to address a root cause of vandalism: The general level of knowledge about plagiarism is abysmally low, and a lot of editors have very low writing competence. We will have to address the first point, and unfortunately we can probably not do much about the second. But one thing we can do rather easily is stop encouraging editors to plagiarise. We just lost an arbitrator, who made use of RTV after some of his plagiarism reached the main page. Apparently he thought that this is how we have to write articles, because when you write something completely in your own words after consulting dozens of sources, you are often accused of original research, leading to a process that typically ends in a sequence of sentences each of which is a closely paraphrased sentence stolen from a source. These things happen because editors lose sight of our goal of writing an encyclopedia and instead concentrate on rules which they apply out of context. Hans Adler 16:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator, this edit of yours was disruptive pedantry as described in WP:BLUE. You are probably doing this kind of thing in good faith, but it's still disruptive. There is a reason why you have most of the mathematics project against you when you do that. What the logarithm article needs is not inline citations after "claims" such as "The logarithm of a number y with respect to a number b is the power to which b has to be raised in order to give y. The number b is called base. In symbols, the logarithm is the number x solving the following equation: bx = y." It needs a general reference or two to a good maths book that covers the topic at an appropriate level. Hans Adler 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLUE is an essay, which I didn't know existed until recently. To my knowledge it has no community consensus and represents a minority viewpoints as it contradicts and opposes the consensus positions of the widely used policies and guidelines of WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOR, WP:SCG(recommend reading this one); also another essay WP:NOTBLUE. Regarding 'It needs a general reference or two to a good maths book that covers the topic at an appropriate level'; I agree. WP:SCG says the same. This has been my position all along. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I seems like you are conflating three distinct issues here:

1) Informing editors that we want them to paraphrase and summarize what the sources say in their own words (to avoid plagiarism)... but at the same time we also want them to accurately reflect what the sources say and cite it (to avoid OR). (my opinion: I agree that we could express this better ... both here and at NOR).

2) Teaching editors when they should cite what they write (my opinion: if there is any doubt, cite it, as it is better to over cite than under cite... and if someone requests a citation, you must cite).

3) When and whether to tag unsourced material... and whether it is appropriate to tag "well known" material. (my opinion: it is never wrong to request a citation... but understand that it may be annoying to do so). Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. I would say that:

The burden of proof for any reasonable request for a citation is on people who want to keep the fact.
It is normally easier to provide a citation in any given case than to argue about whether the request for a citation is reasonable.
The above point does not mean that it is right to go round making unreasonable requests. People could spend their time more productively elsewhere.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Yaris's #3 is that editors will disagree on whether the request is "unreasonable". I might make a request that I think is absolutely reasonable... you might disagree and think it is unreasonable. The current language resolves that by essentially saying "Yes, it may be annoying to have to cite it... too bad... suck it up, slap in a citation, and move on." Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not confident that it is "never" wrong. Tagging and questioning are clearly used sometimes to try to get POV positions into articles. Even when they fail to achieve that they very often do result in tortured re-writes, excessive footnoting, and tags which stay in articles for no good reason for a long time - which if nothing else reduces the value of tags. In short, this process, when pursued for the wrong reasons, makes articles worse. How can that not be wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that it is never wrong to request a citation. Such requests made politely should not be a source of irritation. Indeed, the material should be cited as it is put into the article. Even statements such as the sky is blue can be argued. In regard to the plagiarism, I readily concede there is a problem, but I am not sure how this suggested change would address that issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. The proposed addition addresses a recurring theme seen in many articles covering more technical, yet widely-taught/studied topics. It introduces a certain notion of 'common sense' that sometimes seems to be lacking in requests for citations. linas (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I see this as causing more problems than it will solve, shifting disputes in the direction of "It's well-known," "No it's not," "If you don't know it then you are stupid." This sort of debate favors the inclusion of dubious information rather than its removal. Better to have two sources for what an egg slicer is than open the floodgates of "common knowledge" to justify gross violations of NPOV. Besides, much that is well-known is false. Example: does the statement that people thought that the Earth was flat prior to Columbus' voyage require a citation? Answer: yes, because it is false, and it is good to force those who want to include it in the article to find reliable sources saying that it is so; that makes it easier to keep that statement out of the encyclopedia. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Hans' proposal specifically allow for tagging such things? I am not sure that this proposal gives any strong arguing point for POV pushers. Right now though, the burden wording is so unusually legalistic that I do believe it distorts the balance of power in favor of any POV pushers who learn, as they do learn, to structure their arguments so that they can cite it. I understand that the original thinking must have been something like yours now - that it is better to give one side a clear advantage in any imaginable content dispute. (I guess such an approach has worked well in the case of WP:TRUTH for example, which always favors the side with sourcing, rather than the side who might think they know more.) But actually if reality is messy, as it often is when it comes to judging what is common knowledge, then content disputes will be messy, and we actually shouldn't try to pre-judge by writing policies for all cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The current wording could well be improved, but Hans's proposal puts the burden on the person noting that a fact is not cited to find a source, and I think that's a problem. If I had a source for such a statement, I should just add it rather than tagging statement. If I note that a statement is unsourced, and don't have a source (and yes, I should take some time to look), then tagging should be perfectly fine, and should not be taken as disruptive. Hans's proposal also opens the door for POV pushing in that a group of editors sharing a point of view can just argue that the fact is common knowledge, and refuse to provide a source. Those kinds of discussions are very painful and difficult compared to the usual source based discussions. And, as I've said, if a fact is common knowledge even in a very technical article, it should be trivial to source. To my way of thinking the onus should be on the person who added or wants to retain the material to provide a source, since verifiability and reliable sourcing are core concepts, and the material should have been referenced when it was added. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We could clarify that tags are also subject to WP:CONSENSUS. It was suggested once that WP:Template messages should say that a template ought to remain in place unless there is a clear consensus against it. I was opposed to that 1) because that was not a policy, guideline, or essay page and so shouldn't make such pronouncements and 2) because it would lead to the problem we are attempting to resolve. If someone is disrupting an article by insisting upon inappropriate cn tags, they will be one voice against the consensus (even if a third opinion or RfC is necessary to get others involved), and they can certainly be warned about WP:POINT if they persist or go on a rampage involving many articles. I think more than this clarification of CONSENSUS will create problems. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hans's proposal puts the burden on the person noting that a fact is not cited to find a source". This is very misleading. If an article says one of the following:

log xy = log x + log y

The French Revolution happened in 1789.

The sky is blue.

and there is no citation for it, then the burden to add a source does not exist in the first place because the only reason a normal person would ask for a source is pedantry. When pedants ask normal editors to do work for them just to satisfy their unusual inclinations, then this is obviously irritating to the other editors. As the policy is currently formulated it gives the impression that this kind of behaviour is perfectly OK. It encourages the same kind of problem that we had with this editor. This was about orphan tags, but the principle is the same. If every section of more than 100 words, say, absolutely needed inline citations, then it would be no problem to write a bot that tags them all. We don't do this because in many cases the templates would serve no purpose. Humans add the templates, and they are supposed to exercise discretion. Humans who indiscriminately add such templates are a problem. I don't know why this needs spelling out, but the Wikipedia culture has become so bureaucratic and legalistic that it does need saying. Hans Adler 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, in reply to your earlier posts, I agree that on contentious pages editors are often forced to stick too closely to the source's words. But most pages aren't contentious, yet we see too-close paraphrasing everywhere. So I don't agree that trying to satisfy the NOR policy is the root case of the plagiarism issue. It's one of the things that has to be juggled, but just one. The major issue is editors not knowing how to summarize, and those same editors not recognizing an accurate summary when they see one. Changing this policy won't affect that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having some experience teaching at the uni level, I am often stunned at the poor level of understanding of plagiarism issues. Hans, I would suggest that if an editor is tagging excessively, then dealing with that behavior directly would be more useful. In your examples, two of the three should be delightfully easy to source, so I fail to see why sourcing them would be a problem. If someone asks that such a statement be sourced, the choices are to argue about whether they should be sourced, or argue about who should source them, or just provide a source. It seems to me that that latter is the quickest, easiest, and most productive approach. Now, speaking as an pedant, in regard to "the sky is blue", it isn't always. If someone were inclined to argue the point, and I would not myself, the fastest way to resolve the dispute would be to turn to the sources. That's the key point, to my way of thinking. In cases where there is a dispute, we turn to reliable sources, and sourcing a fact such as the sky is blue is generally speaking much easier than proving that it is common knowledge that the sky is blue, and to do either, we'd turn to sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right; "excessive tagging" is a behavioral issue, but that typically involves either tagging for citation items that are already cited, or adding a one or two dozen citation tags to an article at the same time. Adding one or two {{fact}} tags to an article (where the information is not cited) is never a problem; in fact, it's fixing a problem. When people protest vociferously that it's "pedantic to ask for a source" or "so obvious it's hard to source", it almost inevitably turns out that it can either a) be fairly easily sourced, or b) isn't as obvious as is claimed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

These comments are generally fine, but do not account, for example, for many mathematical articles where a short paragraph may contain ten facts, and each fact is well-known and presented in standard text books. A typical section in an article would contain several such paragraphs, so following the comments above, I would be entitled to add "citation needed" fifty times in one section of an article (or, to insist that a "this sections needs more references" box be kept until each fact is cited). In such a case, one or two generic references should be given for the section, without the normal requirement to provide a citation-with-page-number for each assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If all the material is in a standard textbook, you could add <ref>Smith 2010, pp. 3, 8, 19, 102</ref> to the end of the paragraph in a case like that. Or if there are multiple sources try bundling them between one set of ref tags. There's no need to add a citation directly after each sentence or phrase that might be challenged. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean there should be no need, but isn't the practical reality different? If someone gets a bee in their bonnet we have to go through the motions of doing whatever it takes to get rational discussion, compromises etc, and then it can happen again and again. This is not what we are working on WP for. So it is best to avoid doing anything that might cause bees to get in bonnets. What this means in practice on any closely watched article is avoiding making any text bigger than a short paragraph rely on only one footnote. I am not saying that is how it should be. Fact is that there are too many people critically patrolling relatively good articles that they do not read closely.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Random Break #1

Support This represents a little progress toward addressing some widespread problems in WP. While recent WP news was a nice catalyst for this, the ramifications go beyond "copying" issues. The widespread problem is people (mis)using wp:ver/wp:nor (and the fact to most content does not 100% comply with those as written) as weapon for other pursuits such as:

POV wars (to knock out the "other side's" stuff)
Make the "other side's" stuff look bad (unjustified tag-bombing)
revenge or to wage personal battles.
acting out anti-social tendencies

Instead of to tag or remove genuinely questioned material.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have to ask how would the proposed change help with any of that? It seems to me that the change would make dealing with those issues more difficult, not less. If the fact is well known, it should be easy to source. If challenged, source it, and you're done. Under the proposed change, I can argue that my POV is well known and doesn't require a source--everyone know the pope is in charge of a secret cadre of bears in the woods committed unspeakable acts of vandalism. You tag it as needing a source under current policy, and I have to provide it. Under this policy, I argue common knowledge, and remove the tag. At this point under the proposed policy, you have to argue that my POV is not common knowledge, and the only way I can see to do that is to go look at sources--but sources that support the notion that my view isn't common knowledge will be hard to come by, and instead of being a relatively simple task of evaluating the reliability of a source, the discussion becomes a vague one of what is and is not common knowledge.

Also, the four points you've brought up are all behaviour issues, and dealing with those is part and parcel of the project--the proposed change will not make them go away. Better to deal with them directly, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and thoughts. Starting from the end of your post, and working back to the beginning, I think that only the last three are behavioral issues. The first is what you inevitably have when you take people with opposite agendas, put them into the boxing ring, and say that the only weapons are the current WP rules. And, for all 4, WP CAN'T DEAL WITH THEM (and has been a failure at doing so) BECAUSE ALL 4 ARE FOLLOWING & USING WP RULES.

On the middle item in your post, the answer is simple, if someone challenges it, then it is no longer accepted as common knowledge.

Addressing the beginning of your post, forcing them to challenge the statement (they MERELY have to challenge it, not win a debate on the challenge) will dramatically reduce mis-use of tagging and deletion. Because an insincere challenge would make them look stupid. For example, a typical warfare-by-wikilawyering person who hates Paris would feel quite at ease (and maybe even feel morally superior for "enforcing the rules against a wp:ver violator") for tagging or knocking out a "Paris is the capital of France" statement for being uncited. But they are not going to want to look stupid by challenging the statement itself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Like you, working backwards, in the last case, the warfare-by-wikilawyering person will look stupid in either case, even if they are unaware of it, and if they are not, nothing to be done for that, really. Perhaps it is because I feel stupid when I ask for sources or nominate an article at AFD and the next thing I know someone has put in 5-6 reliable citations that I missed in my stumbling about in the dark.

I would argue that the citation tag itself acts as a challenge when used properly. As for "WP CAN'T DEAL WITH", I really do not agree with that, I think in the main we do a very good job dealing with most topics. The contentious spaces, like arguments over the naming of the british isles or anything to do with Israel or the Balkans will be a mess to deal with regardless of how fine tuned the rules are, and there is it particularly difficult since reaching consensus on questions of what counts as a reliable source is virtually impossible. It seems to me that math areas should be very easy to deal with, but I don't edit in that space since math makes my head hurt. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the middle item. Please think about this. It is a very different style than what has worked historically on WP. It would mean that if anyone says they do not know something, then it can never, by definition, be common knowledge? This would mean WP:CK or WP:BLUE would not only be kept weak but in fact could never be invoked. It defines common knowledge by the lowest common denominator. This is against the spirit of WP:CLUE and the spirit of such an approach would make it very difficult to write anything which needs to be sourced from materials in a foreign language or needing some understanding of technical jargon or mathematics. (The use of technical jargon implies understanding of how it is defined, which means understanding things about what the terms refer to.) As has been pointed out in the recent discussions about logarithms, it makes no sense to encourage demands for sourcing on any knowledge which many (but not all) people will have learned in high school. All this would come down to is holding WP back from dealing with subjects which it has historically been able to deal with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"if anyone says they do not know something, then it can never, by definition, be common knowledge? This would mean WP:CK or WP:BLUE would not only be kept weak but in fact could never be invoked". Not at all--decisions as to what constitutes common knowledge should be decided by forming consensus, like pretty much anything around here. My point is that if someone tags a sentence for citation, and it is common knowledge, providing a source is trivial. Pretty much by definition, if it is hard to source, it's not common knowledge. But IME, reaching consensus on what is common knowledge is much more difficult than reaching consensus on a source.

It seems to me that most folks are seeing this change as a way of controlling rogue editors engaged in drive by tagging. But think about it from the reverse--an article that is dominated by a small group of POV pushers with statements that aren't sourced. Under the proposal, to get those items sourced, I have to argue that it's not common knowledge, and determining will be difficult. Under the current policy I tag the problematic statement for citation, and if a source is not forthcoming, the statement may be removed, and I can take issues to the RS noticeboard. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your first paragraph: Well no it is not easy for me to quickly think of a source for the things I learned in school, or for the sky is blue, roses are read, cats drink with their tongue, pigs oink and so on. That is the point. It might be possible to find sources, go through discussions on RSN for every case etc, but in practice when people tag things like this, putting aside the obviously POV pushers, those tags generally just stay there. WP is done by volunteers in their spare time and this is the reality we need to take into account.

Concerning what you think everyone's intentions are I can at least say this does not correspond to what I am thinking. I am thinking that policy and guideline pages do not determine the outcome of consensus seeking but they are worth getting right because they can give a strong advantage to one side. As the mirror image of what you say perhaps some people do not want the change because they actually think they can judge what "most" real arguments will be about and so they want the text to help certain types of cases more than others? More logically, we should not try to pre-judge but rather just define what the important points for discussion would normally be in a neutral way. But this is apparently what some people do not want, just in case POV pushers will read it and use it? Problem is that POV pushers read whatever we put up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. The only criticisms I've seen so far is holding this proposal up for comparison against the non-existent standard of "miracle cure". This is certainly not a complete cure for anything, but I think this could help as one way of informing the community better about the right way to work. If established policy and guideline pages are starting to be seen as ancient laws, which basically means being treated differently than they were originally intended, then it is probably a good thing to review them more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, per comments above, just to be official about it. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Nuujin. In your response to "WP CAN'T DEAL WITH..." above, I think that you accidentally made and addressed an incorrect version of what I said. I was referring only to those listed types of mis-behaviors, not to coverage of topics in general. . And I was saying that once someone learns how to "play the WP game", it is impossible for WP to address those forms of misbehavior, and it has failed in doing so. The reason is that not only is the perp within the (explicit) rules, but they have learned how to (mis)use the rules as tools in that mis-behavior. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I still don't agree that we cannot deal with those behaviours, although I will readily admit that doing so can be extraordinarily painful and time consuming. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, or something very like it. I think as citation needed should give a short summary why if the subject isn't obviously controversial or dubious. Even WP:NOTBLUE says 'If there is any doubt about the validity of the claim, you should probably cite it.' Note the word 'doubt'. A tag is not a doubt. After going around the place just trying to justify the tag on the basis of policy says I can do it and I don't need to give reasons, you're wrong to say otherwise, the final reason given in this case is that the editors high school maths is weak so what is really wanted is a school textbook pointer rather than some scientific citation. Giving a reason in the first place would have shown this up and such comments would lead to better articles rather than people rushing around like headless chickens trying to satisfy people who won't say what the problem is. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. We are getting closer to a real problem here. WP:BURDEN was created for the common situation that you remove "There is probably intelligent life on Mars" from an article, and the editor who added it asks for a justification. Having to argue that out is an unreasonable burden on the reasonable editors. But very often it is invoked instead by the kind of editor who removes "Barack Obama is the current president of the US", or adds a fact tag to it, as an easy way out so they don't even have to argue their fringe positions. It's an invitation to try scoring on a technicality. Now if an editor adds a fact tag to "2 + 5 = 7", then I don't know if the editor subscribes to a fringe view about arithmetics, has fundamentalist ideas about verifiability, is a pedant who believes rules are more important than their spirit and purpose, or is engaging in WP:POINT violations because earlier his unverifiable original research about intelligent Martians was shot down. Because I don't know this, I am under stress when I have to deal with such an editor who appears to doubt a perfectly fine statement of fact and refuses to give a reason. Hans Adler 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good examples. I would say that there are concerning common knowledge and so on, two more or less mirror image types of problems that can commonly happen, as reflected in the two types of example you give. But I think that the Burden wording helps one side, but not the other. It takes a side, and creates a "legal loophole". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I've already registered my opposition above, but if the community is going to do something like this, it should at least spell out what "common knowledge" is. Perhaps we should let anyone who says "I disagree with that statement" add the tag. That might cut down on the WP:POINT tagging without giving ammunition to the edit-warriors' claims of "common knowledge." If there is a content dispute at all, I don't think that someone should be able to appeal to a "common knowledge" exception to WP:V. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that even with that low bar (just needing to claim it is not common knowledge or make any other challenge of the statement itself other than simply for being not cited) it would be an improvement. And so, if someone did that and tagged it, if there were a dispute, the the burden of "proof" would still be on whoever wants to remove the tag or reinsert the material.North8000 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what it is about: "I disagree with that statement" is perfectly fine as a reason to invoke WP:BURDEN. "I am not sufficiently confident that the statement is correct to be comfortable with having it without a source" is also fine. (I am assuming that this is said in good faith. If an editor transcludes such an explanation from their user space to thousands of talk pages it is probably not in good faith.) What is not OK is this: "There is no source, so I can remove the statement whether it is true or not, and by pestering me with questions about my motivations the other editors at this article are just being disruptive." Unfortunately I have seen this more than once. The philosophy behind the proposal is to nudge us back towards intelligent content work, as opposed to purely mechanical game-playing. Hans Adler 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And here is where I disagree with Hans... you see, I think the first part of the sentence "There is no source, so I can remove the statement whether it is true or not" is absolutely OK. It may not always be "best practice" (tagging is often a better option than removal), but removal is allowed. And, given that it is allowed, for those who want to keep the statement in the article to raise the issue of the remover's motivation can be disruptive and bad faith. The simple fact is... if someone asks for a citation, a citation should be provided. Period. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar either you think such behavior is absolutely OK or you do not. Your explanation makes it however sound like you think it is (a) OK because it is "allowed" (which presumably simply refers to the fact that it is what is currently being encouraged, but then again your wording is in disagreement with WP:CLUE, WP:CK, WP:BLUE) and (b) often going to be a case where other parties are going to need to "raise the issue of the remover's motivation". That does not sound absolute. And the problem surely is that the burden rule tells people they do not have to accept people raising issues against them. All they have to do is invoke the legal loophole of WP:BURDEN. The whole point of a "burden of evidence" being named in a set of rules is that in that type of case one type of party can always be assumed right without any rationale. It is a deliberately one-sided rule. The simple fact is that if people can ask for citations on anything they like, without rationale, then 99% of WP can be tagged, and I do not mean by this that 99% of Wikipedia is wrong. This approach is already leading to footnotes on every sentence in relatively un-technical articles. How absolutely great is that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - A basic tenet of WP is that everything should be verifiable. As noted ad naseum above, if something is common knowledge or easily verifiable, it is easy enough to add a citation and be done with it. That is far easier, in fact, than arguing about whether a fact needs a source. Since WP can be edited by anyone and is subject to inaccuracy because of this, its value is greatly increased when its articles are readily verifiable. That is done with well-cited, reliable sources. One should not have to have knowledge that a fact is false to ask for a source to support it. And having a cite on every sentence is not necessarily a bad thing; it allows the article to be quite easily verfied. That allows readers to rely on WP (or at least the sources it cites), even without professional editors and the same sort of quality control of professionally edited encyclopedias.

As an example, with this edit North8000 (who supports this change) added a fact to Starved Rock State Park that to me smacked of OR/personal knowledge. So I tagged it, even though I had no idea whether or not it was true. North then added a source (though somewhat incomplete) with this edit. Bit since it was a good enough lead, I was able to figure out the actual source, and fill it in with these edits. Then, after reviewing the source itself, I discovered that North did not get the facts exactly correct; nothing major, but the school was the University of Illinois at Chicago, not the University of Illinois and it was just one of several excavations. So, with this edit, I turned North’s almost correct, sort of sourced sentence into a fully sourced paragraph. But if I had to actually believe that the sentence North originally added was wrong before tagging it, I never would have realized it was, in fact, not quite right. Had that been the case, the article would have a minor inaccuracy, several fewer cited facts, and one less source.

Novaseminary (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Hans' proposal has any practical effect on examples like the one you explain, or do you think it is perhaps going to have no effect on them? Please consider whether your point is relevant. I think Hans's proposal is attempting to remove the possibility of abuse and he is trying to do it in a way which will not cause new abuses. There are real problems. In the real world, not every such discussion goes quite so smoothly as the one your report, to say the least, and what I have found is that real POV pushers who might have dared add blogs as refs a few years back now know that if they want to make an article say something different than the mainstream they should selectively attack sources they disagree with. In the end it is very difficult to resist this, and even if you have time the result will be changing the article into a quote farm with footnotes on every sentence. Consider: If you go to a community noticeboard and say you have someone putting in a blog as a ref you can expect to hear the furies of hell rushing over to the article. If you go to a noticeboard and say someone is trying to delete a good source because they think the professor being cited is obviously wrong because of whatever, you can expect the sounds of silence. You just have to change your sources to direct quotes and whatever until your case is impervious, but this means making articles worse. This is what really happens. I am not an admin and I am not into bullying, so my concern is making sure that POV pushers at least feel that they have to discuss things with me like I have to discuss with them. Any wording that seems to indicate otherwise has to be a concern, basically because it is violates WP:IAR, makes consensus-seeking a thing of the past, and encourages wikilawyering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a real chance the proposal would have prevented the good things that happened at the article. (North8000 was not thrilled with my request, but I would hope would at least acknowledge that the article is better because of it now.) I also do not think the proposal would do anything meaningful to prevent the sorts of problems that Donald Albury described below (tags where the fact is actually cited at the end of the sentence, e.g.). As for POV pushers, the best way to combat POV is by forcing citations to RSs, not by preventing somebody from demanding citations. And plagiarism is a problem that is not solved by encouraging people to rely on personal knowledge or otherwise avoid relying on sources. If a source is plagiarized, at least having it listed as a source would allow others to realize it and rework the text. Where an author means to plagiarize, they cut and paste without any pointer to the source. That is harder to discover and fix. Novaseminary (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is very relevant, but not in the intended way. As an aside, the correction was not a correction. There is the University of Illinois- Chicago, and the University of Illinois - Champaign. They are both University of Illionis, and so it was correct as originally written. Even the titles of the articles linked to confirm this. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well,University of Illinois redirects to University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign not University of Illinois at Chicago, but I do not know nor care about any University of Illinois naming debate. Even if North8000’s sentence was not wrong, the sentence was ambiguous because, per North, more than one school is known as the University of Illinois. The source allowed me to disambiguate it. But even had the sentence North added been 100% correct and not ambiguous, my request of a source ultimately gave me the tool to add several other facts and put the fact added by North8000 into context (more significant excavations had already occurred at the same location). Reliable sources are good. Citing them is almost always inherently good for verifiability reasons. Moreover, citing them can lead to other good outcomes a step or two removed, as described above. Novaseminary (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@Novaseminary, please have a look at the text Hans is really proposing. I fear a little bit that a lot of the comments hear might be on the basis of first categorizing the proposal as pro/anti sourcing control, and then answering on that basis. Hans is not asking for any less control of sourcing in my opinion. He is in a sense just trying to clarify something to make it harder to abuse? I hope people are really reading it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From the proposal: "Challenging a claim means arguing in good faith that it may not be true, or at least not as stated." If this had been in WP:V, I probably would not have requested/demanded the source I demanded above. This would seem to preclude tagging for any reason other than a suspicion the fact is wrong. A suspicion that it is OR or out of context or not terribly relevant in the grand scheme of things is not the same as a suspicion it is wrong. Why isn't just having no idea whether a fact/claim is true or not (mostly, because no source is there to support it) enough? I guess if one reads the may not be true language as allowing one to question and ask for a source even if the person has no idea whether the fact is true or not (as was the case in the example I gave above), then maybe I could still have asked for a source. But if we read it that broadly, I wonder if it does much of anything. Putting aside the determination of what constitutes common knowledge, true "common knowledge" is very, very easy to cite. Arguing over whether something is or is not will lead to more futile fighting, not less. Moreover, a cite to common knowledge could lead an interested reader to more information or give an interested editor a lead for expanding the article. Novaseminary (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but personally I think when rules would require futile fighting to abuse, then they are abused less. I rarely see people citing the difficult to define policies like WP:IAR, simply because that would require discussion. The type of abuse I am most worried about is precisely that concerning people trying to avoid any discussion. Sourcing is one of the only areas where the policies are written in such a way as to imply that no rationale is needed at all, and whaddyaknow they seem to get cited the most during questionable cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is equally no need for in-depth discussion if a citation is added. Why force a "discussion" if a quick request can be satisfied with a quick citation? As noted above, if an assertion can't quickly be sourced by someone in the know, that is all the more reason such an assertion needs to be sourced. After a source is added, if there remains disagreement, the normal consensus process can begin. If a source cannot be found, then the only question is how quickly to remove the unsourced (possibly unsourcable) assertion. Novaseminary (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you assume that every type of common knowledge is easy and quick to source? Of course it is not, and of course in many cases when confronted with such demands good faith editors will simply shrug and walk away if they even see the demand, not improve WP at all. So someone who admits to no having no WP:CLUE should then, according to your examples and argument above, delete by default, and hope that the other party will thereby pressured into doing something good for WP? Furthermore, I dislike this type of "you even get some time to answer" excuse for concerns about over-zealous sourcing behavior. It is not just the obvious "guilty until proven innocent" logic but also the fact that this is a model of thinking suitable to private enterprise and not WP, as per numerous WP policies and guidelines such as WP:DEADLINE, WP:OWN, WP:PRESERVE and of course WP:IAR. In other words this "management strategy" simply does not work here. I fear that discussions like this are often dominated by people with a different mode of working compared to most of Wikipedia, because they do actually labour at WP in an organized way. But WP has not really have permanent staff waiting to answer challenges and it does not encourage article ownership at all - many articles are poorly watched, and many good faith editors drop by with long gaps in between, and do not stick around when challenged by someone implying they've done something bad. Do we want to push people to feel like they own articles and have deadlines? Anyway I think my impressions and your impressions probably depends a lot on what articles we have worked on, but I can at least say that a thorough reading of the policies and guidelines is in line with the addition proposed. Frankly, I can not really imagine any case which is in conflict with the addition which is also not in conflict with other policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing should be in WP unless it is verifiable. I'm not advocating blind deletion, but if a statement is made without any source provided, what is wrong with tagging it to ask for a source? Delete by default, no, but require adherence to verifiability, yes. A tag gives somebody a chance to add a source (maybe even the editor who adds it if they get a chance later), and might indicate to an inexperienced editor who otherwise didn't know better that they need to add more sources. That might encourage them to be more productive editors more quickly; if having a citation needed tag added to a fact one adds is enough to scare them off, they won't last long on WP anyway. There is no guilty until anything and adding a tag requesting a citation is not an implication that anyone has done anything morally wrong. It merely means a source should be provided to support the fact (whether that is bad or not in a normative sense is not the question), just like a wikify tag means there are some wikiling/formatting issues. Facts should not be added without verifiable, reliable sources. If a fact cannot be readily verified (common knowledge or not), that is all the more reason to demand a citation. A short, well-cited stub is potentially of far greater use to a reader than a long OR/uncited essay. The reader can at least begin to verify the cited stub and be more certain of what they are learning. Anyone relying on the long, uncited essay is in for a rude awakening. And speaking of deadlines, that there is no deadline is exactly why good sourcing should always be required. We don't have to make the midnight presses. Things can stay out (or stay flagged) until somebody can add sources. And if the proposal does not change policy ("I can not really imagine any case which is in conflict with the addition which is also not in conflict with other policies") why bother? We could all be finding and adding sources to articles right now... Novaseminary (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence raises the right point: Why bother? Because I am saying that the wording can be improved so as to reduce misunderstanding and reduce the scope for abuse. Are you saying no improvement in wording should be considered unless we are also saying we disagree with the intention?

For the rest, just for the sake of clarity I have not at all argued that WP should start including un-verifiable material. You on the other hand are making an argument which in effect is an argument against WP policy, because you are trying to find a way to argue that it will be a good thing somehow in the end if people tag things they have no WP:CLUE about just because they see no tag. Indeed, this is happening. That's effectively what you argue that the policy pages should encourage. I know that is obviously not how you want to put it yourself, and that's why you are adding all the "probably such and such will happen anyway" qualifications. The nice things that might happen unfortunately do not happen. Articles get filled with tags, and then good material either gets deleted or someone spends the time to turn everything into direct quotes or texts with footnotes on every sentence - and yes, sometimes-just-sometimes the tagger and another editor click just right and manage to come to an understanding to keep good material without turning it into a quote farm or poor imitation of an academic style, despite the encouragements of policy pages which seem to encourage taggers to feel no need to consider any aim other that finding sentences lacking footnotes. Just me maybe but I do not believe that WP needs to encourage people to go around creating that kind of problem - at least not any more than they are going to do anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to encourage anything other than the creation of well-sourced articles. So what if a poorly sourced article has a ton of tags? Apparently you think a heavily, if accurately, tagged article is abuse (of course, if the tags are wrong that is a different story not addressed here at all). That seems wrong to me. In fact, I don't think it is even a negative, let alone abuse. (Poorly sourced articles, on the other hand, are a negative that detract value from WP.) There is no deadline. Editors can chip away at the article deficiencies whenever they get a chance. Such an article is deficient whether tagged or not. At least tags highlight the fact flagging it for those who care to edit it, or flagging it for readers to pause and think to themselves "is this accurate or completely made up, and how do I know?". You can cite to WP:CLUE all you want, but one should not have to know or believe a statement is wrong to ask that somebody give them the means to verify it. Novaseminary (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to insinuate that I am aiming at less well sourced articles. We presumably share that aim. The difference between out position is apparently concerning wording preferences and what types of behavior we want the wording to encourage and discourage. You apparently find it hard to believe that tagging, flagging etc, are being used in ways which worsen articles. I however fear that this happens a lot. I would like this policy page to be even handed towards anyone working within the spirit and word of all the policies and known consensuses. You would like it weighted in favor of a sort of positive discrimination that is against the spirit and letter of other policies, but has the beauty of being a "lowest common denominator" and clear rule. I understand the beauty but fear the practical effects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to insinuate that your goal is anything less than well-sourced articles. I apologize for anything that could inadvertently be construed as questioning your motives. That was absolutely not my intention. I only meant to argue that this proposal, good intentioned or not, will actually work against that goal. Novaseminary (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Without repeating arguments given above, I do not see this proposal as doing anything to increase the reliability of the information in Wikipedia or reduce the level of contention between editors. I do see the proposal as capable of being used as one more argument to chip away at full implementation of this policy.

Yes, I am sometimes annoyed at what I consider to be unnecessary 'citation needed' tags, as when one is placed in the middle of a sentence where there is a footnote at the end of the sentence citing a source for all of the facts in the sentence. However, we are supposed to assume good faith, and I do realize that other editors may not be as familiar with a subject as I am, and deserve some sort of neutral, it not positive, response to the requests, even if it is just removing the tag with an edit summary stating that the 'fact' questioned is covered in the source cited at the end of the sentence or the paragraph. What I find more irritating is when editors insert 'facts' into the middle of a well-sourced sentence, paragraph or section without providing a source for the new information, making it look like that information is also covered by the cited sources.

-- Donald Albury 11:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To Andrew Lancaster on above comment I agree. (Disclaimer: Novaseminary and I have a lot of history.) One example of this topic is at Machine Vision where a lot of content put in by other editors over 7 years which was correct, UNCHALLENGED, is now all gone, to the point where this article on an important topic now says nearly nothing useful. I gave up and left the article. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"...this article on an important topic now says nearly nothing useful"... assuming this is an accurate statement, the key word is "now"... ie you are describing a temporary situation... sooner or later, someone will come along, and build the article back up... and, hopefully, they will include proper citations this time, so the information they add will stay in the article. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Again there are these assumptions that people will struggle to make articles good even if WP does everything possible to make it difficult to add material, easy to delete. I think the likelihood of such efforts is related to the encouragement or discouragement given by the community in the form of things like the wordings chosen on policy and guideline pages though, and I think these things have changed balance over time, as indeed has the balance of behavior. We have more people tagging and deleting, less good faith editors willing to add big bits of good information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar hit the nail on the head. A lot of unsourced essay content was removed (for now, it can always be added back with sources, and always lives on in the history) and a smaller amount of well-sourced material replaced it. As indicated by his talk page comment in this section of the article's talk page and the section below it, North8000 seemed to think that his many years of experience in the industry coupled with his "drawing inferences from reading hundreds of low grade articles" was sufficient verifiability for Wikipedia. Of course, it is not (even if it is "common knowledge" in the industry). At that article, in the last version before I came along most recently, there was literally one potentially COI inline citation, some ambiguous further reading, and a commercial EL of little value other than as an advertisement. There are now a half dozen or so good sources--all but one added by me--and less (but better) text that can be readily verified in useful RSs. Now readers don't have to take North8000's word for things appearing in the article. As for the material being unchallenged and correct, I tagged the material and clearly challenged it as having several problems. Whether it is correct or not is not the question, unless we want to change the intro sentence to WP:V to something other than "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Novaseminary (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Much I would say is not correct there, but not relevant to this discussion. But to correct one false impression because it improperly reflected on me, 95% of what I'm talking about is deletion of material by OTHER editors, NOT mine. And the compromise I offered was after I restored the gutted material, Nova would selectively re-delete whatever fraction he/she wanted. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, but this discussion is (to repeat) not just a generic discussion between people who like keeping junk and strict people. (I am quite strict on sticking to policy I would say, but that means all policy.) This is an discussion about whether people should be able to always assume material is not verifiable even if they have absolutely no clue, and see no special danger signs. It is about whether we may at least encourage just a little thought, hesitation and consensus seeking, and give just a little discouragement to drive by tagging. There is broad consensus that drive interventions should be done cautiously, and there are all sorts of policies telling people that they should think about preserving good material, fix the problem, seek consensus. So why is there resistance to actually making this particular policy page fit the other ones?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to assume anything other that material is unsourced to tag it as unsourced. Something either is or isn't sufficiently sourced. Is it better if an editor seeks to verify the information him or herself before tagging? Sure. Just as it is better to seek to link appropriately to an article rather than tag it as an orphan. But why isn't an accurate tag better than nothing? You seem to think more, but unverified, material is better than less, but well-sourced, material. In light of the spirit of V requiring verifiability, why would we assume that? And why would we assume that unsourced material without a tag is better than unsourced material with a tag? Novaseminary (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you agree it is "better" to think before tagging, if it is better to seek consensus, fix problems, not work in a "drive by" way, then why do you want this "better" excluded from the wording of the policy page? Why should it be hidden? That's all this is about. No one is arguing against verifiability as a basic goal. Again, I fear you are arguing a generic case for verifiability, which no one is arguing against, rather than looking at the words that were actually proposed.

Concerning And why would we assume that unsourced material without a tag is better than unsourced material with a tag? I have to point out to you that not all materials missing a footnote are simply equal. There are many things that could be going on than just whether there seems to be space for a few more footnotes. I look carefully before tagging things. That's basically what Hans is suggesting, isn't it? Any problem with that? Why do we need to encourage people to act more blindly? They'll do it anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Random Break #2

Speaking just in general, much of the above presumes that the intention (not just ostensible intention) for tagging/ deleting was to improve the article, rather than one of the other four common reasons listed just under Random Break #1. This ignores a whole lot of what is going on in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I do not see how you can distinguish ignorance or sloppiness and true bad intentions in most of these cases. If someone demands sourcing for the fact that the sky is blue, for example, who cares what their intentions are? What I can not understand is how people can possibly be arguing that even hinting that taggers should think twice about such things is somehow showing that you must be soft on the aim of verifiability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But of all of the "bad" behavior out there, adding “too many” fact tags is the easiest to definitively combat, without needing to assume anything other than good faith. Add a source. If the editor continues, there are other policies that will take care of things. I would be less opposed to a "be careful in tagging" command, but how would we enforce it, especially, if the tag is correct? Do we really care how a correct tag got there? If the tagging is wrong, that is a different story that is addressed in other policies and guidelines. Again, I do not think you are soft on verifiability, just that this proposal would have that effect, albeit inadvertently. And as for citing whether the sky is blue, I would argue such a sentence does need a source and is inaccurate as written (WP:NOTBLUE). If this oft used example of "common knowledge" is not always correct, why would we ever rely on "common knowledge" and why would we allow whether something is or is not "common knowledge" to be the gate? Wouldn't the determination that something is common knowledge need a source stating as much? If so, why not just add that source? Isn't supporting the fact that something is common knowledge (assuming an editor is intent on challenging a sentence or the like) actually a higher bar than just supporting the fact without regard to how widely the fact is known?Novaseminary (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Andrew, I think that the way to distinguish is requiring them to at least question the statement when tagging/ deleting. Merely questioning it would invoke WP:Burden. Those with article improvement intentions usually do this anyway. Those with the other 4 motives usually don't. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But you have objected when I have invoked WP:BURDEN in the past (e.g., here, after the outdent). Why not just assume that in adding a tag one is necessarily saying "if this is not sourced in a reasonable amount of time (determined based on various factors), it should be deleted and not returned to the article unless some editor can meet WP:BURDEN"? Assuming good faith, isn't adding the tag doing just that? If merely questioning it would invoke WP:BURDEN, why not allow merely tagging it to do so? Isn't tagging it and asking for a source (which assumes there is a source to be had, itself a measure of good faith) a more gentle way to bring an article into compliance rather than forcing an editor to question the accuracy or motives of another? Novaseminary (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In short, I think that requiring a tagger/deleter to at least question the statement (which would then invoke wp:burden) would substantially thin out instances where the other 4 motives are at work, while having little impact on those who's motive is to improve the article. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yours is a bad idea, too IMO, but it is not the proposal being discussed here anyway. The actual proposal would prohibit a tag when the placing editor does not have reason to believe a fact is actually wrong (the difficulty in establishing what is going on in the editor's mind notwithstanding) and instead would require a mention on the talk page . And haven't you supported (or made) similar proposals before to no avail (here, here, here, here and here)? Not that supporting or making proposal repeatedly is necessarily wrong, but the idea that somebody has to invoke some magic words in order for their addition of a fact tag to be proper has been rejected recently and repeatedly. Novaseminary (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My how clever. An ad hominem that ostensibly isn't.

I don't see any difference. In any case I am agreeing the original proposal. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary, Blueboar, reading through your positions the way I read it you are saying that tagging and deleting are "absolutely" (Blueboar's word) always a good thing or at least a neutral thing, and then you are saying of course there are exceptions but you insist this is another subject. Then we look at the proposal of Hans, and it is about those same exceptions, which you then do not want to be named as being separate to the intentions of this policy. Do you see what I mean? You do obviously admit and know that the wording of this policy can be seen as being in conflict with good behavior, and the consensus about how to edit. It is only those cases that I am interested in. If the wording can be improved so as to explicitly exclude any interpretation which would be poor editing or "behavioral issues" then why not do so? The kind of case I see too often is where an editor who has been pushing a POV for months or years learns that to get their way they just need to invoke burden more often, for everything they do not like. I do not see any good practices being brought into question by Hans. Let me break the proposal into the 3 components:-

1. Challenging a claim means arguing in good faith that it may not be true, or at least not as stated.

This sentence is correct simply by logic of all other policies: You should edit in good faith and aimed at improving articles, which means you should tag in good faith, aiming at improving articles. See sentence 3 below for cases to show how it is possible to do otherwise. Insisting that all tagging is by definition good faith is like insisting that the customer is always right: it is a rule of thumb sometimes used to explain a way of acting, but not actually something anyone believes. Here on this page though we are deciding on how to word rules of thumb.

2. Editors who think that an article would profit from an inline source for a fact that is well known relative to the field of the article should add such a source themselves or ask for one on the talk page, but not tag it.

I think this is a nice idea - talk before tagging. I do see that it is a new idea for some people or one not widely enough used. OTOH it is to some extent separable in my opinion and could be removed if it was a real problem.

3. Asking for a citation for a well known, generally accepted fact is also not an acceptable way of expressing neutrality concerns.

I would say the third one is a no brainer, because to me what it seems to be saying is that using the burden rule in order to push a POV or "win" a content dispute is not good practice.

I hope this summary helps. We should avoid getting stuck on the historical cases between North8000 and Novaseminary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the usual bold-revert-discuss should apply to adding tags like anything else. If a person gives a reason with an edit then one has got to stage three with the tag in, whereas if one doesn't give a reason another editor is perfectly entitled to remove it if they disagree. For something like a citation needed one should try a bit harder to assign meaning and I'd try to put in a good explanation why I disagreed. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What an excellent idea, and and excellent modification to the proposal. But the "discussion" needs to have at least a tiny bit more in it than just saying it is uncited. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is with 1 above. The default is/should be that every fact stated in an article has a source. An editor, no matter how good intentioned, "knowing" a fact is not sufficient. (This also informs the common knowledge aspect of this discussion, too; if twenty editors "know" a fact, that is not sufficient without a source, since verifiability is what matters, not truth.) If you add a fact, add a source or be sure it is supported by an existing source (adding an inline citation where necessary). I could add "facts" to articles that are completely made-up (whether on purpose or with good intentions because I was sure I had heard it somewhere). But other editors wouldn't necessarily have any reason to doubt other than a general suspicion that something unsourced is wrong. People might remember something wrong, what have you. So I think tagging a fact to request a source (call it challenging or whatever), especially if it is an important fact, but even if it seems trivial (why would trivial facts be in an article anyway?), for no reason other than it is not currently supported by a source is perfectly valid. The project would not be worse off if every instance like that were tagged or the whole section, as appropriate. Even if an editor is doing it for the wrong reasons, the only down side is that it is done unevenly throughout articles. But uneven application is always a problem (there are plenty of articles without sources or way too few sources, and others properly sourced). Perhaps we could best avoid the problem by making editors verify that their edits either are supported by an existing source (and note which one) or it is not adding any new information (stylistic or copyediting, e.g.). Of course, it is always harder or impossible to prove a negative, so why would we require somebody to indicate why something does not belong rather than why it does belong. And as for improper editing, whether good intentioned or not, (e.g., adding tags to facts fully supported by inline citations) that can be handled through other means and just removed since the tag will not reflect reality, no different than removing an orphan tag to an article with 75 links to it. Of course, if you disagree with the substance of the edit (not the apparent reason), or are unclear as to why a tag was added, as noted by Dmcq, you can revert to force a discussion per WP:BRD. Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying that what the default should be is a standard which currently the vast majority of Wikipedia violates just sets the majority of WP content up for attack for whatever purpose. But going to the last sentence, that seems to agree with the BRD-revised version of the proposal except that I assume that you prefer that the tagger could just say "it's not cited" without expressing any concern about the content, and that alone would automatically make them prevail in the tag/no tag debate. I think that the spirit of the proposal is that at the "D" stage of the "BRD", the tagger would need to say at least a tiny bit more than that. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's take today's FA for example. FA means it's in the top 1/10th of 1% of WP articles. And let's skip the lead which is inherently even more vulnerable to tagging. The first sentence in the "Essex Gang" section: 'Turpin most likely became involved with the Essex gang of deer thieves in the early 1730s." contains 2-3 statements, none of which are cited. If I were a social-misfit or in a pissing war with the main advocates at that article, I could tag bomb that sentence. One for the "joined" statement, one for the "Essex gang was a gang of deer thieves" statement And, if anyone disputed the tagging, I could just say "it's not cited" and win. (And even claim moral superiority for enforcing WP rules against such a "violation".) Without raising even the slightest question about either statementNorth8000 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Minimal proposal. Novaseminary, if your problem is with the first sentence, what about, for example, just the third sentence being added?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support I support the proposal at the head of this long discussion as it seems to make good sense and provides some much needed push-back against vexatious tag-bombing. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If something is well known, is it automatically easy to source?

I wanted to separate this one assertion out as a question to the community. This assertion seems to get thrown around a lot. It is one of those types of arguments which seeks to dismiss the other side by suggesting that there is no real problem, and no need to discuss. I'll state my opinion that it is absolute nonsense to say that well-known facts are automatically easy to source. Anyone who has seen a POV pusher use source questioning systematically will likely agree with me. It is a non sequitur and I am not even sure that it is true that there is any tendency that well known facts are even relatively easy to source. They are sometimes easy to source and sometimes not. Does anyone really have any evidence or logical argument to say that well known facts are always easy to source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it can be quite hard to get reliable sources for well known things. For instance I've tried to get good sources about floor cleaning but failed to do so, which is strange since it is one of the biggest occupations in the world. Yet there are how-to sites and suchlike that freely hand out information about it. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But, 'floor cleaning' in the sense you seem to be using it here wouldn't count as 'common knowledge'. You are talking about the knowledge of workers who (more or less) specialize in cleaning floors. As Wikipedia is not a 'how-to' manual, I will assume that what you are looking for are sources that describe the process and the materials used. I do know that there are books on subjects such as "How to start a janitorial business" that might work as sources for an article on floor cleaning. Web sites may also be reliable sources (although they can be ephemeral). But, in the end, I would say that if you cannot cite a reliable source for something, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If something is 'well-known', but you cannot find a reliable source for it, then it is by definition not verifiable (in the meaning of this policy). It is also the case that many 'well-known' things are in fact not so, or not clear cut. Three years or so ago in an earlier round of this discussion someone offered up the 'fact' that George Washington's false teeth were carved from wood as an example of something that was 'common knowledge' and did not need to be sourced. Unfortunately for that position, that piece of 'common knowledge' is in the same category as the story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree, as his false teeth were actually made from human teeth, animal bone and teeth, and metal. As it stands, it would be easy to cite sources for the wooden false teeth story, but any treatment of that 'fact' in Wikipedia would also require citing sources for the construction of his actual false teeth, one set of which still exists.

You seem to be concerned about 'citation needed' tags being used by POV-pushers. I would say that the best way to reach NPOV in an article is to cite multiple reliable sources. In my view, Wikipedia is popular because users regard it as a useful source for almost anything they want to know. Drawing on and citing multiple reliable sources in an article is the best way to build Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source. It is, in my opinion, a waste of time and electrons to argue about whether something is 'common knowledge' or how 'true' or 'accurate' a statement is. That time could be put to better use finding reliable sources to use in improving articles. If reliable sources disagree on the 'facts', then we should reflect that in the articles. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Donald, I guess everyone is having different things in mind, but your example certainly is not relevant to the types of things I have in mind. My only concern really is about cases of what others are referring as "behavior problems". The thing I can not understand is why we can not mentioned behavior problems. Indeed I'd say that there is a lot of "talking past each other going on". The way I see it the main practical discussion here should not be about whether there are behavior problems stoked up by particular policy wordings more than others, but whether the proposed wording will help clarify and therefore avoid encouraging the wrong types of behavior. Comments trying to argue the extreme position as if there are actually no such things as behavior problems relating to picking on sourcing are in my opinion not helping, but rather just making discussion very difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To get back to the question as asked, I would certainly agree. Obviously most well-known facts are very easy to source, but some may not be, especially if they are not a concrete fact like GW's teeth, but a broader statement. These are harder to pin down by internet searches as the wording of statements may have very varied vocabulary, and use words that occur in vast numbers of contexts, so that a google search is difficult. I quite often have this problem writing about art history. Often I come across a RS source reading about something else later, but I have far too many books to go looking for something fairly general if I can't remember where it came from. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In WP there are many conditions attached to the word "source" to the extent that most sources in WP do not fully comply. Not even counting interpreting how explicitly the source must support the statement. When a person is in a tagging or deleting war for adverse motivations, they also exploit the "not fully". And so yes, it can be very hard or time consuming to source common knowledge in compliance with all of these criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Time consuming" is an important criteria, an excellent weapon for chasing productive people away from an article is to send them in a time-sink hole. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeaah thanks Google. Last time I looked up for books or a reliable web site about looking after floors I couldn't find anything suitable but there seems to be a few books now that look okay as reliable sources. All I found before were some how-to web sites and manufacturers extolling their wares. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Even for sciences such as biology or paleontology it can be hard to find good sources for basic facts that are covered in 101-level courses. If you're really lucky you can get access to a textbook that covers the topic well and has a good index. --Philcha (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The machine vision example I gave earlier is another example. Lot's of good material available at the micro-level, but nothing at the key info level in this field which is at 30,000' view level, especially meeting WP:RS criteria which can be trotted out. I know this because I was asked by a major publisher in that field to write the missing book, and also teach course segments at universities and have looked in vain for such a book. I guess this doesn't fall under "common knowledge", but did fall under the uncontested good material that other editors put there over 7 years which is now mostly gone. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If material is covered in 101-level classes, it almost certainly appears in textbooks, which means those books can be cited or the textbook's sources themselves could be cited. Google books is wonderful for this; one need not even pick up a real book. This is far preferable to good intentioned remembering of 101 classes you may have taken. And should we lower verifiability standards because complying with them is time consuming? I hope not. The easiest way to prevent one's work from being removed is to add it with sources in the first place. That can be done as quickly or slowly as an editor has the time and inclination. As for the machine vision article, it was entirely unsourced for most of its life, was terribly written, full of advertisement ELs, etc. Now it at least has sources and an indication about why anybody should care about the subject. North8000, you noted on that article's talk page why you thoughts WP's normal policy requiring inline citations (or even listing sources) shouldn't apply here and here. Should articles edited by people with 12 years in the field (13 now that your comment was added nearly a year ago) be exempt from sourcing? How would we draw that line? This sounds perilously close (as does the common sense exception) to treating editors as RSs, which would require a change to WP:RS, too. Novaseminary (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Draw the line by whether or not someone questions the statement itself. Even the mildest question (other than for just being uncited) would invoke WP:Burden for keeping it in or removing the tag. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than focusing on verifiability, we are focusing on truth (or whether we question it or not). It seems this proposal, or whatever we are actually discussing now, really calls into question the first sentence of WP:V. That seems like a bad idea. There will be some statements that very few people would ever be in a position to dispute, as was the case with the unsourced insertion you made at the Starved Rock State Park. As discussed above, your think the sentence was perfectly accurate; I don't. Regardless, you could very easily have incorrectly remembered the year of the dig or made some other perfectly innocent mistake. We would never be able to verify it or even ask for a source to support it. Odd. Why should you have to think something is wrong to ask for a source so that you can verify that it is right? This proposal also calls into question this section of V. North, I think you and the folks arguing in favor of this proposal think that the default should be inclusion of material rather than exclusion; you want to change the burden. You don't have to invoke BURDEN, it just applies, since it is part of WP:V. To fully implement this proposal, we would need to change it to read "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, but only if another editor thinks the material is false." Novaseminary (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) This mis-states both what I said and the proposal. For example, under both, during the "D" of BRD, someone could just say: "That looks questionable to me...please provide a citation" and that would invoke wp:burden. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that WP:BURDEN is just a section of WP:V, right? Burden always applies (subject to WP:IAR, I suppose) since it is policy. One need not invoke policy for it to apply. I am fine with you reverting a tag you disagree with and asking for a better explanation per WP:BRD, but "unsourced factual assertion" is sufficient for a citation needed tag, whether the editor thinks the fact is true or not. My point is that to fully implement the proposal, we would have to fundamentally change other aspects of WP:V. Novaseminary (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the proposed change, with the BRD qualifier would be fine. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@Novaseminary, if we all agree that behavior should be withing the limits of other policies like IAR, then why are some people so strongly against making a comment to that effect in order to avoid misunderstandings?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would ask a related question... if something isn't easy to source, can it really be "well known"? I don't think it can.

Ultimately, however, this entire debate all comes down to a simple issue: Who gets to decide whether something is "well known" or not? Is it determined by the editor who adds the material, or the reader who subsequently challenges it. My answer is... the reader. We all make mistakes, and the writer might assume that something is "well known" when in fact it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What I find hard to source are statements about the prevalence of competing capitalization or punctuation of short words and abbreviations. Some of them are easy because they are in general or specialized dictionaries, but others are too new or specialized to be in dictionaries. They are next to impossible to find with search engines because the search engines ignore capitalization and some punctuation, and include results for variant forms, which is exactly what I want control over. (Plus search engine results are frowned upon as a source.) I might *think* a certain usage is the best known, but it can be hard to prove. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are these things called "Libraries" which contain "books"....(; Yes, I have run into the same problem. But really, if something is well known but impossible to source, we're afoul of verifiability, and I think that is a big deal. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@Blueboar, I think that who gets to decide is the editors who have to reach consensus, but in practice some people think that if it is a sourcing problem, then it is different. Of course a careful lawyerly read of all the WP policies will show that to be wrong, but it does not help that the Burden is written in a way which almost deliberately avoid cross reference to other policy - no, looking at debate here it probably really is deliberate? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, at least what I am worried about are certainly not cases of things which can't be verified, but cases of being asked to verify everything in circles for a month or more by a POV pusher, whose aim is obviously to change the weighting of coverage in an article. Saying that all calls for better sourcing are good is like saying all talking on the talk page is good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think chapter 4 of this book regarding the blue sky, indeed the whole book, helps illustrate why we might not want to rely on common knowledge as a source, even if we were able to determine it accurately. And does anybody else find it funny that the WP article on common knowledge has no inline citations? And based on the Wikitionary definition of common knowledge, isn't it a logical fallacy (Circular argument) to rely on common knowledge to determine whether a particular challenge is reasonable? Novaseminary (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"the WP article on common knowledge has no inline citations" Ha! I'm gonna go put some cn templates on it.... --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the denifition of common knowledge is common knowledge. If so, those in favor of this proposal might have problems with the tags... Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are joking I guess, but such bottomless pit questioning actually occurs on WP: how do you know that you know that you know; or of course some more complex WP-jargon-related variant, spilling over onto talk pages and noticeboards and getting no where. I at least am not at all worried about good faith calls for sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Although this is a sidebar discussion, it did go back to a mis-representation of the proposal, with the BRD modification. For here it would go as simple as this:

Parson "A" (just) tags something.
Person "B" removes the tag saying that it is common knowledge, uncontested or whatever.
Person "A" then says "I don't think that it's common knowledge" or "I'm thinking the statement is wrong", or expresses any concern other than / in addition to just "uncited"
Person "B" now has to get it cited.

This would substantially reduce the mis-uses, while not deterring anyone where the motive for tagging was to improve the article.

North8000 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That whole process is fine, except for the second part of the third bullet. A fact merely being uncited does fail BURDEN, and other aspects of V. For that reason alone the challenge is sufficient. That is the challenge. Changing BURDEN is a big deal. For consistency a change such as that proposed would require a change to BURDEN and other parts of V and would call into question the basic principle behind V that all material should be verifiable (not to mention WP:NOR which states "a source must exist even for material that is never challenged"). If all you are dong is trying to throw up hurdles to make it less appealing to tag things, fine. But why not throw up hurdles to make it less appealing to add uncited facts then? Tagging does not violate a basic tenet of WP, the insertion of unverifiable facts does. As explained in the very first sentence of V, the policy boils down to "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Violating that is, with nothing more, at least sufficient support for a tag. Novaseminary (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) The second part of #3 is the only change, and, as you indicated, you are opposed to the change.North8000 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and I'm also not sure how the policy would reduce misuses of the cn tag, since that's the first step of the procedure. If the tag is being place by a POV pusher, then they'll put the tag in regardless. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A more thorough answer will need to wait at least a few hours, but as a quick note, but it would help will all 4 of the misuse/abuse situations listed under random break #1,(only)2 of which are POV pushing misuses. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, these?:

POV wars (to knock out the "other side's" stuff)
Make the "other side's" stuff look bad (unjustified tag-bombing)
revenge or to wage personal battles.
acting out anti-social tendencies

In all cases, I would suggest, the tag occurs first, and these are behavioral issues. So I either tag under current policy, or ask/challenge on the talk page. Under current policy, the next step would be for someone to provide a source. We might then argue about the reliability of the source, due weight, etc, etc. Under the proposed policy, after I ask/challenge, someone says it's common knowledge, I say it's not, then we turn to sources, and might then argue about the reliability of the source, due weight, etc, etc. under we reach consensus that it is or is not common knowledge. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but just sourcing the statement seems a whole lot easier to me. And if I'm just being a dick, I think I look like a more like a giant dick arguing about a sourced statement than an unsourced one. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that putting in a tag is not necessarily a challenge. It is simply putting in a tag. Saying that you think something is dubious because of xyz is a challenge. Burden is asking for something that is not supported by the main statement of the policy 'This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation'. Dmcq (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To put it more straightforwardly. 'It is not cited' is not an indicator that something that is stated in an article is dubious and is therefore not a challenge. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq is correct... A citation request is not necessarily a challenge. However, to remove the tag you need to act as if it were... by either providing a source, or at least explaining why you think the tag is not appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that to "challenge" a fact is to necessarily say it is dubious. Why can't a challenge be a request for a source; that is a "prove it"? ("a demand to explain, justify #4") Whether a request for a source is a challenge or an indication that the fact "is likely to be challenged" (if it continues without a source) or neither, I agree that removal of the tag is only appropriate if a source is provided, or some other claim is made negating the need for a source (e.g., a summary in the lead based on fully sourced text in the body). It might be easier to change the "challenged or likely to be challenged" to "challenged or likely to be challenged or for which a source has been requested". Either way, I think the current language is fine for the most part. I think that the current proposal would (unintentionally) weaken WP:V, and that is no good. Surely if "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" (WP:PROVEIT, a section of V) then that material could be tagged. I've got to agree with Jimmy Wales: " "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources" (quoted from a source in the Further Reading section of V). Novaseminary (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, can you give me an example of a non-POINTy reason why you would fact-tag a sentence that you already, without doubt, know is absolutely, undisputably correct? Would you, for example, fact-tag "The human hand normally has four fingers and one thumb"?

As for something that you think is WP:LIKELY to be challenged—why not wait until it actually is? If you know how many digits are on the human hand, but you think that any sentence with a number in it is "likely" to be challenged someday, why don't you wait for "someday" to arrive, and do something more important in the meantime (e.g., looking into sentences that are very probably wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said I would add that tag, nor would I bother. But I don't think we want content policies that depend on the state of mind of the editor who didn’t even add the text (or the inserting editor, for that matter). I'm more concerned with the "fact" that I have no reason beyond the lack of sourcing to doubt, but equally no reason to believe. I just don't want to have to debate whether a tag is or is not appropriate every time I do add one when, regardless of the tag, a source is always appropriate. Whether added/cited or not, the statement should have a non-OR source (unless with this proposal we want to even more fundamentally weaken the verifiability, RS, and NOR requirements of WP). An editor supporting this proposal actually thought this version of an article did not deserve a “No footnotes” tag. Why? Becuase "The Wikipedia model of in=line reference to authoritative sources does not work very well" in that article. In addition to being a bad idea in its own right, I fear that is where the reasoning behind the proposal will take us.

Pointy editors will always argue; so will those who prefer to make talk page postings rather than find, analyze, and add sources and text to article. The proposal will merely shift the argument from the validity of the source to the validity of the tag, doing damage to verifiability in the process. And speaking to your example in particular, the digit section of the hand article highlights the difficulty in determining what needs sourcing. How much of that entirely unsourced section is "common knowledge", how much is specialized knowledge (which I guess this policy change would allow me to tag, if I have reason to think it is wrong), and how much is wrong (which I could only tag if I already think it is wrong)? I don't know. Rather than arguing about tags, why not just add a source? It took me far less time to find and link to that source than to write this comment.

Novaseminary (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For something where you just don't know a more general reference may be more reasonable rather than an inline citation on a specific point. The burden bit was talking about sticking in inline citations, if used with challenge just meaning a tag was added it means every single sentence might cite the same section of a book. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is the answer I promised about 12 hours ago to: "I'm.....not sure how the policy (change) would reduce misuses of the cn tag:

First to recap the example types of mis-uses from under "Random Break #1"

"The widespread problem is people (mis)using wp:ver/wp:nor (and the fact to most content does not 100% comply with those as written) as weapon for other pursuits such as:

POV wars (to knock out the "other side's" stuff)
Make the "other side's" stuff look bad (unjustified tag-bombing)
revenge or to wage personal battles.
acting out anti-social tendencies

Instead of to tag or remove genuinely questioned material.

The first two situations relate to POV wars. Two or three changes would be needed to have a BIG impact here, but this small/safe change would nevertheless have an impact. For example, if, in the President Obama article, anti-Obama folks found RS coverage of claims by a group that say that he wants all dogs killed. And then I write "there is no known evidence that he wants all dogs killed." Currently, someone from the other side could tag and delete my sentence sentence without questioning it. So then I have to either waste hours of my life looking for a RS that has studied the topic of whether or not Obama wants all dogs killed, or just take out the sentence, or get disgusted and leave the article and, after a few more of those, leave Wikipedia is disgust. So, it takes 5 seconds to tag, 5 hours to source. This is the war of attrition that is going on out there, a part of the situation where nearly all contentious articles are an eternal battleground. Having to say "I question the "no known evidence" " sentence rather than just tagging / deleting it would reduce these.

The second two represent a group of misfits which is wandering Wikipedia. The ones that are not Wiki-savvy get taken care of.....they collide with the WP system pretty quickly, and WP either ends up making them go away, or putting them on the right track. But the ones that are wiki-savvy have learned how to play the game.. While pursuing such ends they have learned how to say "I'm just enforcing the rules" while using such to wage personal battles, seek revenge, or indulge anti-social tendencies. These are usually experienced editors who care how they appear. If forced to say "I question" an undisputed or obviously true statement at the "D" stage of BRD, they typically will not want to look ridiculous doing so, and so would only question it when the is a genuine question of the statement.

Conversely, the persons who are none of the above should have not have a problem with having to say (merely) "I question that statement", and even then only have to do that when it reaches "D" of BRD. What a HUGE hardship! (sarcasm) What well-intentioned sincere person would have an objection to doing that, or consider that to be a huge problem? North8000 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a content policy, not a behavior policy. The easiest way to deal with POV warriors and other "misfits" is to not engage them in battle... just provide a citation where they want it, and they will go away and pester some other article. If you can not find a citation, you need to re-think whether the tagged bit of information should be in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I believe that you are for 100% status quo, and I respect opposing opinions. But those are either bad situations or destructive behavior problems which either CREATED or ENABLED by imperfections in the current versions of the policies. And the current system is not working in those areas. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am 100% for the status quo on this. I think the "current system" does work. The policy is clear and simple... we are allowed to add material we think is accurate to articles without a citation... but if a citation is requested, a citation must be provided (and the burden to do so rests on those who want the statement to remain in the the article). No exceptions. It is the same for both sides in any dispute. It resolves far more disputes than it creates (and changing it will create or enable even more disputes). Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Me, too. We already have edit war behavior policies (which in some cases apply even without respect to the actual content added). We have content policies that already deal with the POV issue directly rather than indirectly. And we have this policy (and WP:NOR) to directly deal with those who add material without having a source to support it. I would note that some of us really do think it is important to have sources on things (as does Jimbo Wales, it seems), not even because we don't trust editors (though some shouldn't be trusted, of course), but because having sources as leads to learn more is of more value than having text that an editor or two in a particular industry "knows" to be true. And this is not "to wage personal battles, seek revenge, or indulge anti-social tendencies". People who like to add material without sources may not like to be called out on it, and sometimes don't like to do the work of finding sources (or making other important contributions, like copyediting). The project is not any worse off if they leave. I've been involved in cases where relatively new articles edited by only one or two eds need sources. I tag them, help the interested eds figure out the sourcing process, and now there are well-sourced articles (maybe shorter than they would be if eds with personal knowledge relied on that knowledge) that easily survive potential deletion reviews, etc. (I'm thinking of the Wallace Clift article as an example.) Nobody needs to wonder about the accuracy of what is in them and readers are directed to reliable sources the readers themselves could properly cite to in other contexts (unlike to WP itself). That requires all editors to actually want to follow polices and guidelines, though. Of course, tagging can go the other way, too, because the article subject is not actually notable, the material is not actually verifiable, the interested ed does not want to do anything to support the article they have created or added to, or a combination of thoe factors. Novaseminary (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of saying that if something is a "behavior problem" it is not relevant here. There is no logical division between these two things at all. What is the difference between a "behavior problem" which involves citing Burden, and a problem in behavior related to the use and understanding of the wording of Burden? If Burden can be misread or abused and a wording tweak can reduce that why not? No one seems to be arguing that a wording tweak couldn't possibly help, there is mainly just this strange distinction being made between behavior and behavior.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this will clarify at least my view of that. Issues where there is a simple disagreement about sources or policy between well meaning editors are generally relatively easy to deal with, even when feelings are strong, because at some point consensus or a compromise is reached. A well meaning editor, even when confronted by consensus with which they strongly disagree will withdraw from the disagreement. Some of the concerns discussed here concern issues dealing with POV pushing, wikilawyering, retribution etc. Those issues are what I consider behavior problems, because in my experience editors engaged in those behaviors bend rules, continue to argue even against strong consensus, and attempt to be disruptive. The policy change we're discussing here will not, in my opinion, help problems of the latter type, since the problem is how those editors behave and their motives. I also find myself in complete agreement with Blueboar that the current policy is clear and straightforward, and I do not see anything broken with it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Never say never, but it is also my view that a wording tweak to this policy wouldn't help the various problems advanced by those in favor, certainly not anything like this proposal. It's not broke. As for behavior v. content, content policies like WP:NOR (and this policy) tell us what material is properly part of the encyclopedia (sourced material, e.g.) regardless of how it gets there. Behavior policies and guidelines like WP:EW tell us what behavior is encouraged or prohibited regardless of the content being added, removed, or changed without reference to the substance of the edits (with BLP and a few other content-related exceptions). Regardless, I think the eds opposed to the proposal do not think tweaks to WP:V would help the problems described. As for Andrew's question to me a few threads up (but added more recently), I do not think the third sentence alone makes sense, either. It is more relevant to WP:NPOV, especially on its own, but I don't think it works there, either. Neutral phrasing is, at the very least, helped by good sourcing, so categorically closing off relevant tagging as a way to deal with it seems ill-advised. Novaseminary (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Random Break #3

Thanks Nuunjinn, Novaseminary. Those answers maybe don't agree with my judgment on whether the current wording can be improved, but at least address my points to some extent. (I still find the separation of common "behavior problems" out as a separate subject from what should be considered when wording policy to be illogical.) I should maybe have posted my question down hear about whether just the third sentence on its own could be helpful, and if not helpful at least not causing any new problems. That sentence is "Asking for a citation for a well known, generally accepted fact is also not an acceptable way of expressing neutrality concerns." What do others think? And, if I may suggest it I think we need to separate the types of concerns. The most important types of concerns the way I see it are not general remarks about how changes should be avoided or how we already have other policies which cover behavior problems, but instead:-

Does anyone see the principle, spirit, intention of that sentence as wrong per se?
In practice, would people have a tendency to misunderstand or abuse the sentence? Is it going to cause problems?

Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's a great proposal, better with the modifier that the requirement for the good faith challenge can wait until the "D" of BRD. To set one red herring aside, there are no particular requirements for the good faith challenge other than the obvious, which is to say something besides "uncited".

This would significantly reduce abuses, and I can't imagine anybody claiming that requiring merely a good faith challenge (and only if it gets to "D" of BRD) is too much to ask. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would strike the "also", but I think having that sentence would be fine--I don't think it will help with pov pushers, etc, but it's clean and clear and might help editors understand use of the tag, and I don't see it causing any problems. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW this brings the intention and spirit of "challenged or likely to be challenged" from wp:ver and wp:nor into actual practice. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have three comments... first, limitations on "expressing neutrality concerns" should be dealt with at WP:NPOV, not in WP:V. Second, the proposal ignores the fact that editors can and often do disagree about whether something is or is not "a well known, generally accepted fact", and so will encourage debates rather than resolving them. And third, the proposal encourages editors to focus their debate on the motivation behind a citation request, as opposed to the request itself.

One reason why I prefer the current language is that it cuts out endless debates and arguments... it says that if someone requests a citation, you have to give one. Period. Don't worry about why someone made a citation request... no matter what the motivation may be, the resolution is the same: provide a citation. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I really wonder if there is consensus on the extreme version of this position of "sourcing demands are never bad". Even your own version is quite odd. You use words like "absolute" and "period" but you never fail to mention that there are also "behavior problems" which we won't talk about here. I would think that communication on sourcing is something often done badly to the detriment of WP. I would think that for other such things, like how to communicate on talk pages, there are hints and cross references all over the place. I do not understand why there is a fundamentalism about sourcing related behavior which has led to this particular policy text not being allowed to either cross reference to other issues, or even to be consistent with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion mistakes the causes of tendentious, pointy editing. The people who demand citations for everything because of NPOV concerns, or just because on some other page their edit was rejected as un-sourced and so now they go to every page looking for un-sourced statements to tag, are not doing so because the policies and guidelines are unclear. Clarifying the them will not stop the behavior. Nor do we have a problem where third opinions or administrators come in and decide that the editing behavior is not disruptive, at least that I have seen. Tendentious editing is the expression of personality issues, not unclear boundaries. Editors don't refuse to hear things because they haven't read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The only thing to do with tendentious editors is to assemble the community against them. Tinkering with the wording of a policy will not remove the need to assemble the community against them. This change can, however, make legitimate content disputes more difficult to resolve by shifting the focus from content to editors' motivations, as Blueboar pointed out. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of good comments. I understand Blueboar's concerns and generally agree with what you've said, but I don't have strong feelings either way regarding this one sentence addition. It does not, I think, undercut the notion that when one asks for a citation, it should be provided. Although editors may sometimes focus on and argue about motivation, we have policies such as AGF to guide those discussions to content. Perhaps some of the concerns might be mitigated by using active voice and being more explicit?:

"Well known, generally accepted facts may not require citation, but a citation should be provided if asked for. Editors who believe an inline citation for a well known fact would improve an article should first try to find such a source themselves, and failing that, request help in finding a source on the article's talk page or with a {{cn}} template. Such requests should only be made when there is a question of verifiability."

I do not know if this is better or not, I'm just taking a crack at dealing with some of the concerns expressed here. I'm also wondering whether or not this might be better placed at the cn template page, since it's pretty focused on that--if we are really talking about use of the template, instructions may be more appropriate there. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuujin's language is more acceptable to me... but I really don't see the need. Our core content policies are clear, if you want to say something in an article, you need to be able to support it by citing reliable sources. This simple concept lies at the heart of all three of our core content polices (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV). That concept is non-negotiable... and if you wish to edit Wikipedia, you have to abide by it.

Now, the key word here is "able". You should be able to provide a citation, when you add information to an article. We do allow you to omit the citation if you think the information is unlikely to be challenged. However, that is a conditional allowance... if someone does challenge the information, and requests a source, then you are required to provide the omitted citation. To put this another way... you should at least have a source in mind at the time that you add any information. And if someone asks for it, you need to actually give it. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting a dubious tag on something at least says why one has put a tag on something. Citation needed is simply tagging something without saying why. It isn't a challenge of any sort. The obvious question if the reason isn't obvious is 'why?'. It is ridiculous to require people to do things without a reason being given. Articles can be improved better if people know why they are doing things rather than just following rules they think are silly. Without a reason and without anything obviously wrong people can do all sorts of silly things just to stop getting nagged. Perhaps what is stated is dubious - then the statement should be checked and a citation given, perhaps it is confusing rather than dubious, then a rewrite may be needed or a reference given to where things are explained simply. Perhaps it is a general requirement - then a citation for the subject should be given rather than for a particular statement. Perhaps they have misunderstood something - then again they might be pointed to a citation of what they were really interested in or a paragraph need rewriting. Just putting in 'citation needed' no I'm not going to explain why - look at burden it is your problem or I destroy the article is not cooperative editing consensus or anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unsourced information is not "destroying the article"... It is a step towards improving the article. And if a source can not be found in a reasonable time, then removing the unsourced information is also an improvement. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I am not opposed to Nuujinn's language (which I think clarifies, but in the correct, opposite direction of the proposal), though the last sentence could use further refinement. I would prefer leaving things, though. As to Dmcq, the reason to tag something as uncited is because it is uncited. It is also a warning that, if no source is added, this text may be removed. It gives editors a chance and is less harsh than immediate removal (which is very appropriate, even required, at times, too). A tag objectively is or is not appropriate (with room for debate at the margins). If an editor pointily adds a couple of well-sourced paragraphs in proper context, who cares that it was pointy? Same with a tag that belongs there, or category, or what have you. When you start worrying about motives, it makes it easier for editors to get under your skin, and harder to actually improve the article. The proponents still seem to believe that unverified/able text is better than no text. I disagree, and so does the heart of WP:V and WP:NOR. I don't doubt that a lot of unsourced/able text was put in with good motives. But I care less about motives than results. WP:CIR. And as an aesthetic matter, if there are too many inline fact tags, replace them with a section tag, or top level tag, but realize they are equivalent; that is, don't say you weren't warned when somebody removes sentences without their own fact tags.Novaseminary (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the policy. The policy is called 'verifiability'. That something is not cited is not a challenge and is not a reason to remove anything. The policy applies to information that is challenged or liable to be challenged. Saying something is dubious for instance is a challenge and there are a number of other good reasons, for instance biographies are much more stringent even about stuff everybody believes is obvious and true. Dmcq (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

@Nuunjinn, thanks for your effort. I certainly see your proposal, like that of Hans, as potentially helping avoid problems. As I have said throughout this discussion, I agree with the principle and spirit of verifiability very strongly and when I edit write what I know I can source. I can see you've tried to word it to insist on this, which is fine by me.

@RJC, with all due respect I can see you've reflected on this but we've probably had different experiences. I disagree that a policy page has no affect on behavior. It does. Burden is a magnet for wikilawyering because it is written in a special way right now.

@Blueboar, pretending that tagging never harms articles and is always a positive step, and pretending that tagging behavior is never affected by the perceived style of policy page wordings, is over-simplification and therefore not helpful to discussion. You know that is not true, because your own qualifications show that you know it.

@Novaseminary, please clarify why you think the proposal of Nuunjinn and that of Hans Adler are opposite. This is a surprising description to me and maybe I am missing something.

@Novaseminary, motives do matter for this discussion. We are not in a talk page discussion about a particular case, we are talking about how to word a page that wikipedians read individually concerning generalized situations. I think the current wording of BURDEN can be interpreted as being in conflict with policy. It is deliberately written so as to be a stand alone law, such as one finds in legal systems, without references to anything else. I do not think this helps WP achieve its aims, including the aims described on this policy page, and this because it creates a distraction and loophole for wikilawyering outside of the norms of this community. If you've never lost a month of editing to an editor who kept coming up with new policy based demands then lucky you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A couple of folks keep arguing cases that presume that the universe consists of well-intentioned tagging->deleting. Those are specifically the cases that this is NOT about. Goober9000 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking though my old overall list of passwords and found an ancient Wikipedia account (2007) that I had from years before I was an editor. I logged in just to see if it was really there, and forgot to log out before editing here. The goober9000 edit was by meNorth8000 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Andrew... I agree that a citation is not always necessary... but I also firmly believe that adding a citation never harms an article and always improves it. (Seriously, if you can think of a situation where adding a citation would harm an article, share it with us. I can't think of one). Thus, tagging should be seen as a step towards improvement. Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar I do not understand the relevance of this reply. There is no discussion about whether citations are always necessary. There is also no-one arguing the case for weakening the principle of verifiability. The discussion is about challenges to material which are only made in order to achieve aims inconsistent with other aims of WP, such as POV pushing. Your repeated assertions that challenging sourcing is always good are simply not correct. People use burden in order to make talk page discussions near impossible, because they argue that burden allows deleting or tagging editors to act without rationale.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If your assumptions were true, then Wikipedia:Citation overkill wouldn't be a concern.

Additionally, you might consider whether the encyclopedia is actually best improved by using our limited resources (particularly editors' time) providing inline citations for widely accepted statements, instead of working on higher priorities, like fixing, citing, or removing distinctly dubious claims. For example, I recently wrote an article whose entire contents can be sourced to the same (cited) document, except for maybe two and a half sentences (whose details expand on a point mentioned by my main source). But I'm really not convinced that spamming the same ref tag after each and every "uncited" sentence would do anything other than make the article harder to read, and I am convinced that my time is better spent on other tasks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It would take no time to add the inline citations to the article you created if you have already added the source (and using named refs, wouldn't clog the refs sections, either). The two 1/2 sentences "expanding" on the source probably shouldn't be in the article (at least yet), especially if the material is synthesis or original research. And citation overkill is only an issue where a particular fact already has multiple inline citations. As for use of time, why would arguing over whether a fact is "widely accepted" (we were talking about common knowledge before, now just 'widely accepted"...) be a better use of time than just adding a source and getting a still disruptive editor blocked? Novaseminary (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The two and a half sentences were duly provided with an inline citation to a different source, of course, but you've misunderstood the nature of the policies you cite: If a source exists, then the material cannot violate NOR or SYNTH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary do you think that deletion should be considered for the WP links which show concerns about the matters you say are not problems such as WP:BLUE, WP:CLUE, WP:Citation overkill, WP:IAR, etc etc? That would be consistent given the position you are taking here, but I do not think there would be much consensus for it? Obviously a lot of people over time have felt those things needed to be said. Your repeated assertions that there are never any such problems seems to be extreme and untenable. There is no point arguing such an extreme position. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, IAR is a policy, and not really relevant to this discussion. The others are just essays which any editor can create on their own (and some have shadow essays saying the exact opposite (WP:NOTBLUE)), so I don't care much either way. I fully acknowledge that POV pushing is a problem, so is plagerism. I just think this proposal won't help either, and might hurt. Novaseminary (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If IAR is a policy why are people in effect arguing for that this rule should be written and used like a stand-alone law in a legal system, and specifically is it being insisted that it be written in a way which encourages behavior in conflict with other aims of WP policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we in the wrong place?

It seems to me that we keep coming back to the {{cn}} template. If the primary desire of the editors supporting a change in policy is to reduce abuse of {{cn}}, would it not make more sense to make changes in the instructions at the template? The more I think about it, the more I think this is the wrong venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The template {{cn}} already says 'to identify questionable claims' but people here are just ignoring that. They only read the policy and then misunderstand it. One option would be to remove the template altogether and have more specific ones like dubious. It's the misreading of the policy and the burden clause that is the real problem though so I would like it to clarify what 'challenged or liable to be challenged' means. Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way I think articles should always have some sort of general citation anyway even if the information is never going to be challenged in any way. It gives notability to an article and an entry to a reader to find more about the subject. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Dmcq's comment interspersed above, yes, something being unsourced is a reason to remove it. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The only question is timing, and tagging gives folks a chance to add the source first. In a lot of ways, tagging is a courtesy for cases where the unsourced material is not especially harmful (more harmful than unsourced material is in its own right, that is). I suspect Dmcq would object to having their unsourced material immediately removed. And to the comment directly above, general citations are not consistent with policy. It may be better than nothing, but not a goal to be worked toward. I suspect we have all spent more time on this discussion, which seems to be at an impasse, than any of us would in dealing with the mythical pointy "fact" tag adding editor. As for preferring dubious to unsourced as a tag, I have to say that unless I personally know a fact to be true, any uncited fact is dubious in my book. There have been cases of seemingly accurate information getting on WP only to be revealed to be inaccurate. I believe there was an instance with an article cited on the main page, even. Novaseminary (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the main page breaching incident I mentioned above. Novaseminary (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see the relevance. Clearly, smart vandals can cause significant problems. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The only relevance is that unsourced material is bad, and even when there appear to be sources, it could still be a problem. Anything that has the effect (intended or not) of appearing to authorize uncited material or that makes it harder to address unsourced material makes this sort of thing even more likely, not to mention cases where incorrect facts are innocently/inadvertently added. And, if this proposal is accepted, why not require an editor to actually believe an obscure or unknown source is actually made up before tagging it for verification? The reasoning would seem to be the same. Novaseminary (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that people will read something "between the lines" which is not in the proposal? Are you sure this is not only something which applies to defenders of the faith here on this talk page? Where are people going to get all the things you say they'll see between the lines?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that your proposal above, as well as other attempts to weaken WP:BURDEN by introducing "well known facts" exemptions or "good faith" requirements, will make it easier to add wrong information and harder to remove it, severely damaging the reliability of Wikipedia in the long run. When challenged by one of the too few Wikipedians who actually check the new information that is being added to Wikipedia each minute (MuffledThud in this example), a hoaxer could and would in the future point to your wording, claiming that the challenged statements consist only of "well known, generally accepted facts" - well known and generally accepted among all people who are familiar with the subject of that article, which of course means only the hoaxer himself -, and require those who care about verifiability and might prevent the hoax to jump through various time-consuming hoops.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Again and again opponents to this proposal are not addressing the proposal but only addressing the straw man of "weakening" the principle of verifiability - which no one is proposing! This is not about weakening burden, it is about making it more consistent with the other policies and aims of WP so that it will actually work as intended. If you think about how editing works, and what is being proposed your point is off topic. This proposal is not about adding material or editing as such but about people making demands in obvious bad faith in order to impede someone else from editing. The present wording of burden seems to many editors to give no limits on bad faith. If people are feeling encouraged to cite burden as part of a POV push, unable to show any rationale, is that good?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because of course, anybody disagreeing with you must be making straw man arguments and failing to address the actual proposal. Nobody is saying you are trying to weaken BURDEN. We are saying that will be the effect of the proposal. And there are better ways to deal with POV pushers. And this proposal will do little to nothing to prevent ill-intentioned editors. And this proposal will make it more difficult to encourage editors to add sources with their facts. And this will lead to arguments about whether a piece of information is common knowledge or widely accepted (or whatever formulation proponents are putting forth now). In short, I believe this will not do what it is aimed at doing, will lower the reliability of WP, will actually lead to more argument, and, related to all of these things, would cause an (apparently unintended) fundamental change to several policies.

By my count, 8 7 eds are in explicitly in favor (Hans Adler, Andrew Lancaster, Yaris678, linas, North8000/Goober9000, Dmcq, ~~Goober9000 (who has only made two edits ever, a sock?),~~ and WhatamIdoing), 3 seem to me to be in favor (Johnuniq, Johnbod, and Philcha), 3 seem to me to be opposed (SunCreator, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg), and 6 are explicitly opposed (Nuujinn, Blueboar, RJC, Novaseminary, Donald Albury, and HaeB). Nobody has changed their mind in the week this has been discussed. It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus for the change and that too much more discussion, especially from the same few editors, is likely just going to lead around in circles wasting everybody's time. Maybe we should let this proposal fade into the sunset.

Novaseminary (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why count votes before there is a clear discussion about what the arguments and counter arguments are? No matter what else happens, I am honestly interested to see if there are any arguments against the real proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you would care to read my comment in full, you would find that I specifically addressed the wording of the proposal. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The proposal clearly shifts burden from the person adding the material to the person requesting a citation (someone patrolling new articles or recent additions, working to prevent hoaxes or falsehoods, now first has to research whether a fact is "well known" - among whom? - or not, and if they come to the conclusion that this might be the case, they should "try to find such a source themselves" and be prepared to prove that there exists a "question of verifiability", whatever that means exactly). Therefore, it amounts to a weakening of WP:BURDEN, whether intended or not.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First, the proposal does not simply shift burden from one side to the other. There are no two sides. It reminds people of what policies already say are the different burdens concerning different matters. It keeps the basic spirit and wording and adds what is effectively a reminder about how other policies might apply.
Second, I keep seeing that all arguments against the proposal seem to assume that WP:BURDEN is only used for sentences with no sourcing at all. This is actually not what happens. WP:BURDEN encourages people to think that you can delete anything you like as long as you incite WP:BURDEN. You just have to say that you don't like the way the sourcing is done. I have even seen a case where the compromise which resulted, agreed to by the sourcing challenger who had sysop powers in that case, was to leave uncontroversial information in the article but delete any mention of where it came from.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The original proposal does indeed shift some of the burden--if I believe that a statement requires a source and request same, other editors can then claim it is a well known fact. Then I have to somehow prove that it is not. Proving such can be difficult. In regard to your second point, I simply disagree with your assessment. I also think at this point it's pretty clear that there is no consensus on this issue here. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuunjinn, I for one have not claimed any consensus. Indeed there seems no clear consensus either way and that seems to me to make this subject worthy of discussion, because it shows there are concerns even if getting an agreement about how to describe them is difficult. (I'd say discussion is being made difficult though because there is a justifiable concern about any discussion of changing this wording at all.) Concerning your disagreement about my second point, what do you disagree with? Are you saying people WP:BURDEN is not cited in cases where there are sources, and can not lead therefore lead to the removal of sourcing on materials which are themselves uncontroversial and left in then without sourcing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If WP:BURDEN is ever cited as a reason to remove a reliably sourced citation for a statement in an article, then I would say that it has been misapplied. If you can provide a diff to any articles where that has been the case and the damage remains undone, I'll be happy to try to fix that. Personally, I can see neither reason nor justification to not have a source. I do think this discussion has been valuable, but I think at this point its value is diminishing. I also think that we can address some of the concerns here regarding misuse of the cn template in the instructions for that template, and I think what I'll do is go there and suggest some wording changes. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole point of this proposal is to shift WP:BURDEN. What else is it intending to accomplish but to tell some people not to add the {{cn}} tag or to suggest removing certain statements? This is a weakening of BURDEN, because only a weakening of BURDEN will achieve the result desired by those editors advocating this change. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I oppose it. I see a lot of harm, and almost no benefit if we weaken BURDEN. And the harm far outweighs any benefit. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You could always apply the {{dubious}} tag if you think a statement is dubious and that would be a challenge to a statement saying you think the statement should be removed unless it has an inline citation. The problem is that the statement citation needed is not a challenge in the meaning of this policy. There's also tags for general references and suchlike for new articles like saying notability is not established or no reliable sources. We could also have some tag saying a citation for a section would help the article without saying it should be removed. I've already said the documentation for cn is not the place to fix the problem because no-one reads it. If people did actually read it and follow what it said we wouldn't have these problems, but it is just being misused too widely. It is being applied according to the words 'citation needed' rather than the description of the template which says what needed is - which is what verifiabily says. It seems to have gone through a recursive loop referring to itself in some peoples mind rather than the policy. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is that no one reads the instructions, then let us point folks to the instructions when they misuse the tag. And I see nothing wrong in using it according to the words 'citation needed', since it is a way of marking a sentence as needing a citation. Is it better to also explain why it needs a citation? Yes, of course. Also, I'm unsure of what you mean by The problem is that the statement citation needed is not a challenge in the meaning of this policy, could you clarify? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

When you see ^{[citation needed]} appearing in the text, you need to look at the edit coding... I think it makes a difference whether it appears as the result of a {{cn}} tag or a {{fact}} tag... {{cn}} is not necessarily a challenge to the verifiability of the information (it may just indicate that someone thinks the statement should have a citation). A {{fact}} tag, on the other hand, almost always indicates a challenge. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RJC, Blueboar, to make my own position clear I certainly do not see anything in the wording really being discussed which would "tell some people not to add the {{cn}} tag or to suggest removing certain statements" unless those people are violating other policies. If I did see such a thing I'd not support the proposal. But let's be honest, no one has given any explanation about how the proposals that have been made (there are currently 3 variants) would impede any source challenging that is within line of other policies. It seems to be taken for granted that this is the case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. My view is pretty straight forward:

The original proposal explicitly does attempt to dissuade use of the {{cn}}: "Editors who think that an article would profit from an inline source for a fact that is well known relative to the field of the article should add such a source themselves or ask for one on the talk page, but not tag it."
The notion that "well known facts" do not require citation is fine, but I think we should emphasize that if a source is requested, however that request is made, one should be provided. Any movement from that position I oppose. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to discuss only the original proposal. I think there are three proposals open for discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Random Break #4

Overall comment. Many folks have brought up variants of this concern and suggested change. The history has been been that 2-3 regulars committed to 100% status quo here have quashed it, and then the person who brought it leaves, and the 2-3 stay stay, waiting to quash the next person who brings it up. This situation is the same, except for participation by Novaseminary who I have had hundreds of interaction with, and, in a brief tip of the iceberg statement, has done a large amount of the tagging/deleting-without- challenging which is one of the objects of this discussion. I.E. not a disinterested party in this matter.

It is time to start seriously considering the ideas and concerns of those folks instead of the routine of 2-3 status quo folks stomping them down. one at a time.

I don't know whether the suggested next step would be to make the tiny proposed change, or to find a way to open up longer term substantive discussion on this topic (which the transient nature of the talk page does not support). Wikipedia is one of the biggest success stories of the century, but it has many many serious unresolved and significant problems which can be remedied by a some well crafted policy changes in order to move forward in areas where it has been unable to do so. Either way, making a tiny change like this proposed change would be a nice start. North8000 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'm not sure if I'm one of your 2-3 editors. I've started a discussion on the cn template page to try to work in some of the concerns here. So far, Blueboar is I think the only other editor to participate there. I am very committed to not weakening WP:BURDEN, and I suggested an alternate version to try to address others' concerns without weakening WP:BURDEN. You mentioned Novaseminary, and my suggestion would be that if you think they are out of line in their edits, that you bring that up on an appropriate noticeboard--this is not the venue to evaluate an editor's behavior. Wikipedia is one of the biggest success stories of the century, but it has many many serious unresolved and significant problems which may be made worse by ill advised changes to core policies, and to be blunt, I am concerned that anyone would suggest that there is any reason not to provide sources for statements in articles.

That being said, perhaps we could make some progress forward if those who believe that a change is require could provide some diffs of edits where the proposed change would have made a difference in the presumably bad outcome current policy allowed. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here, any mention of an individual is only as useful for that statement and to provide context. Policies create, guide, fail to guide, or enable certain behaviors overall. That is what is relevant in this discussion here. The need to make a cursory challenge, and even then only if it gets to "D" of BRD IMHO is not saying "reason not to provide sources for statements in articles" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please explain why you've singled out Novaseminary? And why say "...the routine of 2-3 status quo folks stomping them down. one at a time." Such language is pretty provocative. And why does use of a cn template not qualify as a reasonable way to ask for a source? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of your summary. My first contribution to the current discussion was today, am I one of these "2-3 regulars"?

If you are in a prolonged conflict with another editor, it is a bit weird to suggest that their opinion should be ignored because they are "not a disinterested party in this matter", while at the same time offering your own summary and "overall comment" as if they came from an impartial observer.

Instead of drawing this discussion onto a personal level and focusing on whose opinions you consider important and whose you think should should be be dismissed, it would be good to return to arguments which concern the actual matter. In my reading of the above discussion, these "ideas and concerns" which started it have already been seriously considered and addressed. The same can't be said about the objections that these proposals might do damage to the reliability of Wikipedia.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In my mention I was only pre-addressing the obvious rebuttal to my "2-3 regulars" statement. If anyone wants to take it farther than that, (as one has done) then I was would say that the particular situation it is very instructive regarding the topic of discussion, and it's importance. But I did not go there and let's not. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you brought it up, but we won't go there. I note that you're not explaining what you mean by the stomping comment, but we can leave that aside, too.

What I see here is a simple disagreement about the effect the various proposals might have on the conduct of editors and varying degrees of concern about weakening WP:BURDEN. I also see no movement towards consensus, although many bits have given up their lives in the course of discussion. Finally, I'm not sure what the scope of the problem the original proposal is supposed to address. Is it really so onerous to provide sources for well known facts? What harm comes from providing such sources? And if a fact is really that hard to source, is it really well known? I think at this point real examples would help move discussion forward. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be helpful if the proponents provided diffs of what they think this proposal would prevent. I think it might highlight why the proposed solution doesn't fix the problem or otherwise justify the change. I provided diffs several days ago (regarding the Starved Rock State Park article, my 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) edit above) showing an example of where this change would have prevented a very good outcome. Likewise, North8000 brought up edits to Machine vision above. As I noted above that I think a good result happened there, too (my 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) edit). (Those two articles, plus this deletion discussion, a request I made on his talk that he provide sources when adding facts, and my questioning whether he was meat or sockpuppeting might explain why North8000 doesn’t like me much.) Anyway, maybe diffs would allow this discussion to move forward productively. Otherwise, I see little reason to keep rehashing the same reasoning. I can't imagine why the answer isn’t to just provide sources and deal with editors who refuse to acknowledge reliable sources through various noticeboards. Novaseminary (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

An absolute mis-statement of the situation, and then and using the mis-statement for ad hominem purposes. My how clever. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to Novaseminary and North8000, who have both made efforts to be neutral here, Novaseminary, I do not see that any more discussion about specific examples is helping the discussion because memories of disagreements between the two of you appear to be distracting away from discussion of the principles involved. And North8000 I do not think your summary at the top of this section is really helpful to be honest. Again, I do not mean that to be a strong criticism, just my opinion. Nuunjinn thanks for your reflection on the discussion. You ask for a refresher on what the proposal was aimed at. Hans Adler started the discussion but has not continued with it so far. Anyway, to explain my reason for supporting any of the 3 proposals, I have no problem at all with the type of behavior you and Novaseminary describe as the proper use of WP:BURDEN. I am concerned about uses of it which clearly go well beyond its intention, such as (for example) saying that you can delete (or tag and then delete) material with a source on it or even keep material and delete reference to where it came from, just by saying "I think the source is not good enough and the burden is not on me to give any more rationale than that". (They can then simply say that all arguments do not convince them, no matter what you say.) I would prefer not to re-open closed cases and distract discussion with examples, because if you just read the current wording of Burden you'll see that such usage of the policy is not excluded. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Two points, with all due respect. First, examples do not have to come from discussions took place the editors involved here, if this is a wide spread problem they should be easy to find. Second, WP:BURDEN is about verifiability, and questions about the reliability of sources falls under WP:RS, and in the situation you describe, the appropriate action is to bring up the issue at RS/N. In any case, the proposal we are discussing would not, as far as I can see, affect that situation at all. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what needs to be shown? It is clear from discussion here so far that people are already knowingly arguing that they want WP:BURDEN to be free from any comments which remind people to work in good faith, because it might make them think twice and it might reduce the amount of tagging. The argument has literally been made by more than one person here that all challenging of sources (which to remind everyone always includes the implication of deleting sourced materials) is absolutely good, and the possibility of strategic challenging with bad intentions can be ignored, or at least that Burden should be written as if that were true. So anyway I do think there is already some level of agreement that a wording change might have an effect on making people think twice before trying to use WP:BURDEN as an excuse for something against its spirit.

I happen to really doubt that there is community consensus for the idea that all challenging of sources is by definition absolutely a good thing.

Concerning using RS/N or taking up your offer to have go over old cases, really I do not see that as practical or relevant in this discussion. For the purposes of this discussion here I think the main point to observe is that the community is not strong on helping out in such cases. Indeed I do not know if it should ever aim to be. Wikipedia basically works based on consensus building, which can be difficult enough without people lawyeristic behavior. Noticeboard discussions and admin advice can sometimes help but the less we rely on these the better? Indeed, WP:BURDEN, being worded to work something like a commercial law, looks like it was written for a future WP where disputes will be settled by appeals and counter appeals. And defenders of the wording seem to be thinking that, just like with a law which will be used only by courts and judges, misunderstandings of the wording can be ignored because if people abuse or misinterpret it they can come to court?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This proposal (and these parts od V for the most part) has little to nothing to do with "challenging sources". It is about requesting sources. AL seems concerned not so much with sentences without a citation being tagged, but with sentences with an RS being tagged. He seems concerned with what it takes to meet BURDEN. Like Nuujinn, I think this is really an RS or verify source issue. Such an editor is claiming that the source is not an RS but they failed to use the "Rs?" tag or they feel the source doesn't support the entire sentence and another is needed. If it is the latter, I see no problem with the tag being used, though the person would need to explain (or be subject to having the insertion reverted) why they added a citation needed tag next to a citation. If it is the former, the tag should be reverted. If the editor wants to challenge a source, there are appropriate tags for that or talk. But this seems a different goal than the goal others have stated of disallowing "uncited" as a reason to add a citation needed tag. Editors adding citation needed tags on facts with RSs is no more a problem that can be solved with a change to the proposed aspects of WP:V than editors adding dead link tags next to working links can be dissuaded by a change to WP:RS. And I still do not understand why the proponents cannot give examples of tags they feel are inappropriate that this proposal would have prevented. Opponents have given a couple of instances where, at least I, feel this change would have prevented a good outcome. If there is no example of the problem this would solve, I'm not sure we should be trying to solve it. Proponents seem to be saying that it is "common knowledge". Well, give us a source! Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This approach to the discussion might indeed be helpful. Yes, a big part of my concern is to do with how BURDEN effectively can be used to remove sourced materials. But I do not think you can separate the strength of BURDEN from RS. Policies are linked, but in this case the linking is especially important.

What defines an RS is often open to good healthy debate. That is how I think it should be. Does everyone agree?
But BURDEN, even though it refers to a subjective criterium of reliability, is written in an absolute way. Therefore anyone who wants to POV push should make sure they are the first one to "challenge" and incite BURDEN, because burden, when invoked willfully, kills the good healthy debate about what a good source.
I am not worried about people invoking Burden once during an RS debate and then actually participating in a discussion. I am worried about people deliberately invoke BURDEN in order to kill discussion about rationales. You just have to say: I invoke Burden, so you have to convince me and I am not convinced. BTW I realize this is not what it was intended to do, but look at the wording and tell me where it says you can not do this in any clear way.
I do not agree that Burden is written like other WP policies and guidelines and only gives the normal problems. It is deliberately legalistic in a way that only some policies such as those concerning living people or copyright are written. You can also see how there is a push in this case to keep it that way. Other policy pages tell people to remember other policies, seek consensus etc. This one does not.

It is for this reason that I think some cross referencing to other policies could be helpful, to at least make it clear that the Wikipedian community did not intend BURDEN to be used to break other policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A pretty good guess is that about 80% of the statements contained in Wikipedia are neither cited nor tagged. See my FA example above, and this is an article which is in the best 1/10th of 1% of articles. So, exactly what IS the criteria for tagging->deleting? When people are merely trying to improve the article, the criteria is whether or not there is a good faith question about the statement. When they are not, it's a whole 'nother story.

Answering the example question.....So Editor #1 deletes 3/4 of an article which editors had been building for 7 years. Editor #2 reverts the deletion. A heated "discussion" ensues, after which editor #1, in a period of 30 minutes goes to 6 other articles which editor #2 has edited and tags their edits in all 6 articles. All 6 edits that were tagged have never been challenged. And they can say "just enforcing the rules". My point here is the rules which enable this, and how a minor change could help the situation. Regarding the different situation using tagging of statements (without questioning them) to conduct POV wars, how many hundred examples would you like me to produce?

Finally, may I suggest tweak to the proposal? It was suggested by someone else which is that the good faith challenge is not required until (if) the "D" stage of BRD is reached. (possibly this has already been incorporated into the discussion) North8000 (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: When people are merely trying to improve the article, the criteria is whether or not there is a good faith question about the statement. The problem is that you don't have to have any "question" to add a {{cn}} tag... As long as you think that a uncited statement should be cited, adding the tag is appropriate. "Gee, I think this should be sourced" is a valid (good faith) reason for tagging. I would agree that the bar for removal of information is a bit higher (although I am sure that I set that bar lower than North would like).Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In that environment, tagging, after a time delay, if not cited, ends up as removal. On your opening point, IMHO the argument is somewhat circular, saying that the change would conflict with the pre-change situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily... I have known cn tags to stay in an article for years without the information being removed. Yes, there may come a time when someone says "gee... this has been tagged for a long time, and no one has provided a citation for it... perhaps it isn't actually verifiable after all" and they remove it. That is absolutely appropriate. (Which is why discretion is the better part of valor, and cn tags should not be completely ignored.)

I find it helps to contact the person who added the tag directly and ask them for clarification... saying: "Hi, you recently added a cn tag at [[ARTICLE]]. I am the primary editor working on that article, but I very busy working on some other things at the moment, so I need to know how much of a priority this is for you. Would it be OK if I hold off on providing a citation until I have time to deal with it?" I find the vast majority of editors will reply to such a note with "sure, take your time", and those who don't will provide more information on what is being challenged ("I think the information is wrong because of x,y and z, and demand a citation.") At least I know how pressing the issue is. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, the policy is now written to make nothing necessary at all as long as you act first by picking on a source, then incite burden, then make sure conversations get nowhere. For example, you say that the bar should be higher for deletion as opposed to tagging. Really? Where does it say that? Where does it say that the bar should be still higher for deleting materials where there is a source and you just don't like it? Or do you perhaps think that WP:BURDEN somewhere says that it should not even be used in such cases? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If all North8000 wants if for an editor to add an ES saying "I think this material is questionable" as they add a tag that doesn't necessarily imply as much, does anybody think that would stop an editor who is not intending to act to better WP? Of course not. Such an editor would in bad faith invoke North's magic words and continue doing what they are doing. This would only cause good faith editors to pause, and everyone seems to agree we don't want to do that. And what does "questionable" mean anyway? In light of how easy it is for COI and bad faith editors to add "facts", I find almost all unsourced statements to be at least "questionable". And, so what if North800's extensive, statistically valid study --or at least the common knowledge as it exists in his mind-- has proven that "80% of the statements contained in Wikipedia are neither cited nor tagged"? If true, that is a problem, not a status quo that should be protected. Why would we do anything that would percent us from lowering that percentage? Rather than get insulted when unsourced material you add is tagged, why not just add sources when you add material? It will certainly slow down the rate at which you can add material that you "know", but it will make your contributions much, much more valuable. Novaseminary (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@AL, so isn't the problem really with the RS sections of V and WP:RS? I'm not sure that problem can be fixed with the sort of proposals being made here. Novaseminary (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"You just have to say: I invoke Burden, so you have to convince me and I am not convinced. BTW I realize this is not what it was intended to do, but look at the wording and tell me where it says you can not do this in any clear way"? Can you provide any examples of this actually happening? If an editor tags a statement as needing a citation, and I provide one, and they argue it's not reliable enough, then I take it to the talk page and we try to build consensus as to whether it's a reliable source. Failing there, we take it to RS/N. This works well. And I have no clue as to how WP:BURDEN can kill debate on reliability of a source, can anyone provide an example of that happening or explain how it could happen? Tagging with cn, whatever the intent, is ultimately just a request for a citation. Also, any editor can delete material at any time, the tricky bit it making it stick. The process of dealing with that is all exactly the same whether or not a cn tag was ever in the mix. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is common for editors to say: "It was tagged (for a certain amount of time), and nobody put in a cite, so I am deleting it." North8000 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so let's say you do that. Then I notice it's gone and post a note to the talk page to say I'm restoring it. If I'm smart, I'll provide a citation when I restore it. Then we move to other arguments like due weight, is the source reliable, etc. All of which would be exactly the same if you deleted a statement that was cited, or an uncited one that wasn't tagged. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@North - But if the text fails BURDEN, and the inserting editors were given time to correct it but do not, what is the problem? Would you prefer deletion first without tagging? The material can always be added back with a source when the outraged editor who objects to its removal see fit to actually satisfy BURDEN. Novaseminary (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I frequently remove material that has sat uncited but tagged for a long time (how long is "a long time" depends on the situation, but usually I give it several months). My rational is "If no one has been able to provide a citation for this in all that time, perhaps it is not verifiable after all". If someone returns it with a citation, great! If they return it without a citation we go to discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's the $64,000 question.......what is that discussion about? Just whether or not it has a cite? That wouldn't be much of a discussion. Or is it something else.....like a good faith questioning of the statement. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, for me the core of the discussion in such a situation would be about whether it can be cited or not (which is a good faith question as far as I am concerned). The discussion might also delve into other issues, such as the need to demonstrate that the information isn't Original Research. So... I would expect the conversation to primarily be about what sources support the information. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar is exactly right. And that is a pretty short discussion if there are no sources that anyone evens asserts support the claim. Hence, the request tag. If there are sources, this entire proposal is irrelevant. Novaseminary (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@Blueboar, if it is your concern that WP:BURDEN should insist that something can be cited, then the present wording is doing something very different. It is not about that at all. It is a "burden of evidence" text, and what it really says allows it to be invoked in order to simply delete sourcing information or sourced information without a rationale, and not just unsourced material. If you believe that is not the intention then look at the wording and please explain where I can see that this is not the intention. It would be easy to limit things a bit more, for example by taking out the word "reliable" and thus implying that once a source has been given and the debate is about the relative merits of a source, burden ceases to apply in its strongest form. That is not how it is worded now, nor how it is used now. But is that what you are really thinking?

@Nuunjinn, I've left an example on your talk page, but I've already mentioned that I find this whole discussion is having problems keeping on track.

@Novaseminary did you see my lengthy response to the same question above at 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)? You did not respond to it there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, WP:BURDEN states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" (bolding mine). To me this clearly indicates that it applies to unsourced material. There may be reasons to challenge and remove sourced information (if, for example, the source does not actually support the information, or if the information gives undue weight to a particular view point, just to name two), but these have nothing to do with WP:BURDEN. If someone is pointing to WP:BURDEN to remove sourced information, then they are simply pointing to the wrong policy section. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I've honestly seen it used differently and the wording can be read that way. The key is the word "reliable". You just have to say "you inserted material without a RELIABLE source in MY opinion, and so now you have to convince me, and I can not be convinced". Is that not consistent with the wording?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AL, your interspersing of replies throughout the discussion has been a bit confusing to me, and could be leading to some of your posts being ignored inadvertently. I am disregarding my own advice (to post sequentially) and replying here because I don't think my reply to this particular reply is that important. Anyway, nothing in BURDEN indicates that any particular editor needs to be satisfied. Whether BURDEN is met is decided by the community, not one editor. If the issue is whether a particular source is an RS (and thus, whether the fact is sufficiently supported to meet BURDEN), the community decides that, not the editor removing it. There are dispute resolution procedures just for this purpose, and the general ones, too. People can cite to anything for any reason. That doesn't make them right or able to overrule consensus. Novaseminary (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that but if you look at the time stamps Blueboar also continued here after a break was made below. I see no easy solution to that given how the discussion has gone. I have done quite a few replies-to-several-replies-at-once-replies also, but that also isn't really neat and tidy. Anyway, the point you make is interesting to me. I've never seen anyone NOT interpret BURDEN as being about the burden upon two or more people in the roles, apparently clear, of deleter and deleted, and I think this is close to where my concerns lie. The deleters DO often, no matter what you say, claim that having "challenged" they personally must be convinced. And the "deleted", the defender who will do the work to convince the deleter, is also a problematic concept because quite often well, they do not exist. On WP there is no-one around just waiting to do defense jobs like this. The end result is that this policy can be a license to kill. Here is a scenario that would concern me, and I suspect is also closer to what Hans was thinking of:

Concerning a subject, there are let's say three common theories, A, B, and C. Anyone reading the talk page can see that everyone editing the page already agrees about this, and the editors are split into defenders of those three theories.
Let's say that the article is not in great shape, not covered in sources at all, and during a period of inactivity, a longtime supporter of theory C tags and then deletes all references to theory A, citing BURDEN, and saying the references were not good enough. And let's also say, for sake of the argument, that it is clear even to an outside observer of the talk page discussions, that everyone knows A is actually the main theory in the field and the article is simply not well sourced overall.
Let's say no one watching the page has the time and energy to challenge someone who can rightfully claim that there is a policy which says that anyone can tag and then delete something which is not reliably sourced, and that it is up to others to convince.

The point has been made a few times during this discussion that the types of articles you edit, perhaps for example how high in quality that are, may have a big effect on how you see this whole discussion. I think that Burden is particularly difficult on less-than-perfect articles, which are in my opinion the articles that deserve, but do not get, the most work. I think wikilawyering generally is really a discouragement to anyone whose WP activities are not focused upon making good articles a tiny bit better, but rather on making poor articles at least acceptable.

Novaseminary can you point to anywhere on WP:BURDEN which would show a person reading it that what you say is true, and that WP:BURDEN may not be invoked by any individual deleter as a demand that he or she be convinced? And in practice how would this distinction help anyway, given that in most articles there are not many people watching to being with?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What does 'challenge' mean?

Well I had a look at {{cn}} and there seems to be a pretty fundamental difference there. I interpret 'challenge' the same way as citation needed is currently written i.e. as meaning questionable. It seems others think citation needed should not say 'questionable' and that 'challenge' has a much wider meaning and quote entry 4 in this dictionary definition of challenge as 'a demand to explain, justify, etc.: a challenge to the treasurer to itemize expenditures' and that saying you want a citation should automatically invoke WP:BURDEN meaning an inline citation is required otherwise a statement can be deleted. This would be irrespective of any general citations or whether there is any doubt about the statement. I think this is the basis of the problems above, so what do others think? Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. In the policies it is ambiguous and even conflicting. I think that the clear intent,and oft-interpreted meaning of the "challenged or likely to be challenged" is clearly a challenge being something besides the circular logic of the only challenge being that it is uncited. That's like saying "if "A" happens, then "B" must happen", and then allowing "A" to be defined as saying that "B" hasn't happened. Such makes the conditional ("if") aspect of the statement meaningless, and thus renders the statement meaningless. But wording elsewhere in wp:ver and wp:nor conflicts with that clear intent and oft-interpreted meaning of this section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How is "challenging" a factual assertion because one cannot verify it circular? If the policy is for inline citations, and something a fact lacks an inline citation, that is reason enough, isn't it? And if everyone is hung up on challenge, why not just change challenge to "request a source"? I can challenge something as OR even if I personally know it to be true, right, because OR violates policy. How do I know whether an unsourced fact is made up, or the product of OR, or or just citation laziness, if I don't ask or boldly delete (per BRD/BURDEN). And how can language that "is ambiguous and even conflicting" "clearly" mean anything? Novaseminary (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The one aspect, the intent of that statement, IMHO is clear, reinforced by it being oft-quoted here as meaning such.

I think that I described how it is circular. More briefly, saying: if "A", then "B", and then letting "A" be defined as being that "B" hasn't happened is circular. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am saying it is a WP:CHALLENGE (or the equivalent) because a fact seems to fail WP:BURDEN and the first paragraph of V. Regardless, even if we define "challenge" to not cover challenges based on the unsourced status of a claim, this has little effect on the proposal which seeks to prevent editors from noting a factual assertion is uncited in instances where a factual assertion is uncited, merely because the editor seeking the source has no reason to believe --other than the lack of citation-- that a fact is incorrect (in many cases this would require proving a negative!). Or worse, it would require us to determine, and then argue about, whether particular information is common knowledge (I guess without resorting to sources, since to do so would obviate the argument since the statement would then have a source). Wikipedia isn't an amalgamation of what WP editors know, it is an amalgamation of what WP editors can summarize from RSs. And how do we prevent arguments about whether something is "properly" challenged? The only way to refute my characterization of some unsourced fact as "likely to be challenged" or even that “I am concerned this fact may not be true” would be to provide a source, wouldn't it? If your primary goal is really clarity and consistency, and not to weaken BURDEN or condone unsourced material, we should just remove the “challenged or likely to be challenged” language from V. That will make it even more clear that only summary/lead information taken from properly cited sections elsewhere in the same article and other very, very limited circumstances is V-complaint if it lacks an inline citation. Novaseminary (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But what's happening is that citation needed is being put on stuff that has got general citations in an article and is clearly verifiable, and BURDEN is quoted as stating an inline citation is needed on particular statements without any reason being given except saying it needs a citation as it has been challenged by putting citation needed on it and it can be removed if an inline citation isn't added after the statement. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So add an inline citation. If there is already a source, it is just a matter of cut and pasting. It takes all of 30 seconds to resolve the situation. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something... we seem to be conflating three distinct things... 1) requesting a citation, 2) challenging a statement, and 3) questioning a source.

1) Requesting a citation is not necessarily a challenge (it can be, but it does not have to be). There is no BURDEN on a citation request... editors are allowed to ignore a citation request. That said, ignoring a citation request can (and often does) result in a challenge being issued (of the "you had enough time to find a source... now I have to ask if a source even exists?" variety).

2) There are lots of reasons to challenge a statement... including "this needs a source" which is another way of saying "prove to me that a source supports this specific statement." WP:BURDEN, however, is not a reason to challenge... WP:BURDEN talks about what happens after a challenge is made. It tells us who is responsible for resolving the challenge.

3) Sometimes, the problem isn't with the statement, but with an existing citation. Perhaps the citation is incomplete (for example not supplying page numbers), or perhaps someone questions whether it actually supports the statement... there are lots of reasons why someone might challenge the source. Such a challenge isn't covered under WP:BURDEN, which only deals with unsourced information. That said, when a source is challenged, there is a burden on those who think the source is fine to respond to the challenge and resolve it. This isn't the same burden that is discussed in WP:BURDEN, but it is a burden never the less. After all, if they ignore the challenge, the obvious result will be that the source will be removed. And... if the source is removed, the statement becomes unsourced... at which point the statement may be challenged, and WP:BURDEN will kick in. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anywhere where all this is explained? How is someone reading WP:BURDEN supposed to know all this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is disputed on the citation needed talk page which is why I was asking about the meaning of 'challenge' here. It is pretty difficult to come to a conclusion if the language of th policy is so ambiguous in its main statement. Whatever about that I think cn should be changed to be described to be like that as that is how it is most often used as far as I can see and only a reason makes it specific. It is a well known tag and it stops editors having to learn loads of tags for specific purposes if they can just stick in one tag and write their own reason if it isn't obvious. There's no need to make things difficult for editors who aren't full time wikimaniacs. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and my feeling is that the cn template is at heart just a request for a citation, since we have a number of other related tags that are more specific. Also, I think good practice would be that an actual challenge should involve posting to an article's talk page, just before or just after making a change, but regardless, under the BRD cycle, we're already covered there. Andrew Lancaster, it is a bit confusing, since we're talking about a hierarchical matrix that's constantly changing. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Something like this is discussed in the narrower context of WP:SCICITE, but currently that issue is also disputed on talk there. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to keep on subject here

There is a risk we are getting off track. With lots of other issues affecting discussion. In terms of real proposals we are supposedly discussing, currently I believe Nuunjin's compromise proposal has significant support, and also not many clear opponents, and I think personally it is maybe the best. Am I right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Instead of self-serving discussion summaries which emphasize those users which agree with you and ignore these who don't, it would be more productive to actually address the serious objections that have been voiced against these proposals to weaken WP:BURDEN. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HaeB sorry but I am not sure what is self serving. I have just listed the proposals again, not given any discussion summary. There is discussion above, but my only point is that it has become unclear which discussion applies to actual proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See below North8000 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Current policy	Hans Adler proposal	Andrew Lancaster (reduced from Hans Adler's)	Nuujinn compromise idea
Burden of evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.	Burden of evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.	Burden of evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Asking for a citation for a well known, generally accepted fact is also not an acceptable way of expressing neutrality concerns. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.	Burden of evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.
NA	Well known facts Challenging a claim means arguing in good faith that it may not be true, or at least not as stated. Editors who think that an article would profit from an inline source for a fact that is well known relative to the field of the article should add such a source themselves or ask for one on the talk page, but not tag it. Asking for a citation for a well known, generally accepted fact is also not an acceptable way of expressing neutrality concerns.	NA	Well known facts Well known, generally accepted facts may not require citation, but a citation should be provided if asked for. Editors who believe an inline citation for a well known fact would improve an article should first try to find such a source themselves, and failing that, request help in finding a source on the article's talk page or with a ^{[citation needed]} template. Such requests should only be made when there is a question of verifiability.

Agree, let's start with that one. My suggestion would be to enter a "refinement" phase where we tweak it in ways that don't fundamentally change it. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern was where there was a general citation in the article which clearly covers statements and the item isn't questionable, yet a citation needed with no reason is stuck after statements asking for inline citations and BURDEN quoted saying they'll be removed if no citation is given. I wasn't so worried about well known facts though even there giving a reason would also solve problems I think. Baically I think either more specific tags should be put in or a reason should be given, or if no reason is given it should be treated as a request rather than a demand and taking it to the talk page could be a response. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

These four proposals had failed to achieve consensus above. Instead of just reposting them here, it would be more appropriate to address the fundamental problems with such exceptions for "well known facts", an extremely vague notion.

To re-state just one of the arguments above, even Nuujinn's proposal will make much easier to add hoaxes and other wrong information, and harder to remove them, thereby severely damaging the reliability of Wikipedia in the long run. It would require the - too few - Wikipedians who actually check the new information that is being added to Wikipedia every minute to jump through various time-consuming hoops each time: They now first have to research whether an added-fact is "well known" (among whom?), and if they are not sure that it isn't, they should "try to find such a source themselves" and be prepared to prove that there exists a "question of verifiability", whatever that means exactly, so as not to be accused of abuse under the policy.

And when a hoaxer is challenged about an article about a nonexistent subject, they could and would in the future claim that the challenged statements consist only of "well known, generally accepted facts" - well known and generally accepted among all people who are familiar with the subject of that article, which of course means only the hoaxer himself.

Just ignoring these problems doesn't make them go away. Please try to be aware that this is a very general policy that has to be applicable to more than three million articles and tens of millions of factuals statements on Wikipedia. Weakening it just to make it a little easier to deal with one annoying conflict you encountered recently (and which could well be solved differently) is a bad idea.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout just requiring a good faith challenge of any type on any basis (beyond just"no cite") and only at the "D" stage of BRD? North8000 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with most of what HaeB and Dmcq have said. I'm very uncertain that any changes to WP:V are needed. I'm not really a fan of even my own proposal. Also, most of the discussion here has revolved around use of the cn tag, and I have come to the conclusion that dealing with those issues will be easier on the template's talk page. My view of the cn tag is pretty much exactly what Dmcq said, in that "either more specific tags should be put in or a reason should be given, or if no reason is given it should be treated as a request rather than a demand and taking it to the talk page could be a response". I also take it as a fundamental principle that if we as a community cannot find a reasonable source for a given statement after a reasonable period of time, that statement is fair game for deletion. But most importantly, I do not see any real potential for consensus at this time. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Since everything else must follow policy, I think that it needs to start here rather than on the template page. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. I think we can achieve some consensus on improving the instructions on how to use the cn template, and it seems to me that one thing we are in agreement about is it that it is sometimes misused. We should not propose anything there that is in opposition to WP:V, but even if we did, WP:V would overarch whatever errors we made there, since template instructions are subordinate to policy. A suggestion was made that we may need a "citation requested" template--I am open to that notion as well. I think part of the disagreement we have here is based on differences in what we think the cn tag means--I and Dcmq seem to fall in the same camp, in that we do not think placing cn templates in an article need be viewed as anything more than a request. I believe some others feel that it is an actual challenge, but in any case, discussion of the use of the tag here has not led to any consensus I can see regarding desired changes in the WP:V policy. And I think there is deep and abiding disagreement in regard to the issue of changes relating to "well known facts". Perhaps a way to resolve this is to have an Rfc on whether or not any of the proposed changes are desirable--if there is no consensus on whether any change would be good, there's not much point in hashing out what proposal is best. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by them most recently (and ad nauseam above), I agree with HaeB in opposing the proposals. I also agree with Nuujinn that the place to discuss use of a tag is on the documentation for the tag and in not being a fan of the proposal attributed to Nuujinn. This seems especially appropriate because it seems people are (oddly to my mind) less worried about deletion than insertion of the tag. The challenge or request issue seems like a red herring to me. The only way to prove a source is well-known is to provide a source. Once that is done, the request or challenge or whatever is meet, subject to discussion on whether source is RS, UNDUE, etc., but that invokes different policies all together. And if somebody tags something as a "request" and later deletes it, it does not matter whether the tag was a challenge or request. BURDEN requires a source, even if the removal was pedantic. Point one out (because of course whoever added the text in the first place had one and was not relying on personal knowledge per WP:OR and WP:RS) , add it in, and we are off and running. Novaseminary (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To Nuujinn, I just meant that any (even the tiniest) change in policy would need to be implemented here, for the very reasons which you stated. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion achieves some handy instructions somewhere in WP that might make it worthwhile. These things deserve careful discussion, and I continue to believe that this particular bit of policy is worded over-legalistically in a way which conflicts with other policies and principles generally accepted on Wikipedia. My main concern with this discussion is that the issues on both sides are perhaps not yet being clearly and consistently defined. There is in my opinion a lot of talking past each other, etc. Maybe it nevertheless helps people think it through for further discussion one day through.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, which other other policies and principles do you think this conflicts with? Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it depends upon how you read it, and I suspect that you are going to say that all such interpretations are wrong. You may be right, but I'd say that how people read it is what counts. In most cases the reason WP:BURDEN is in conflict with other policies is simply the way in which it is written to be absolute. Being absolute, it appears to allow for no exceptions. I think one thing we've learnt during the discussion is that this is deliberate.

So to start with it, by seeming to allow no exceptions, it is in conflict with WP:IAR.
In the same way, by being an absolute direction where one individual has to convince others and the deleters needs give no rationale, it is in direct conflict with WP:CONSENSUS.
Again, the discussion has shown that it is deliberately worded so as overrule WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which is effectively demoted to "good practice" in the current wording, and clearly treated as a lower priority which can be treated as optional if you are inciting BURDEN.
As per the discussion Hans started, the policy is clearly sometimes used in ways which effectively treat it as trumping WP:NPOV. See my example above, for Novaseminary.
There has also been discussion here about how it sometime seems to too easily trump WP:BLUE, WP:CK, WP:LIKELY, and WP:When to cite#When a source may not be needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to AL's request in an section above for where in BURDEN it says that consensus is how we determine whether the inserting editor has meet the burden, I would simply note that nothing in BURDEN indicates that it is a single editor veto. Without such an indication, WP:CONS applies, as it does to every determination that needs to be made under the various policies (It is "the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia."). Nothing in BURDEN even suggests that it is a unique policy not subject to the normal consensus process. That said, if, after a source is added, there is still disagreement, then BURDEN is probably not even the applicable guideline or policy anyway (per Blueboar above).

As for BLUE, CK, LIKELY, etc. those are merely essays. Anybody can write and cite their own essay. They are not the product of consensus and in no way binding. (Here is the policy on essays.) So there is no trumping of them, there is nothing to trump in the first place. An essay is just useful when you would like to give a more explanation of your position but do not want to reinvent the wheel or clog talk pages, so to speak. An essay has no more weight than an individual's posting here.

And as for WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, there is nothing inconsistent between BURDEN, or CN tagging, and that policy. FIXTHEPROBLEM in the very first sentence discusses flagging. It might be the quickest way. If I think a fact needs a source, it might be quicker to flag it in hopes that a more familiar ed or the inserting ed will add the source they should already have than to research it myself in the first instance. FIXTHEPROBLEM is not a command to either fix a problem or ignore it.

As for IAR, it says to ignore rules (when appropriate), not to write rules with an "ignore it" exception. Other rules do not say "Subject to IAR, this is the rule..." Why would we do that here? The reason we have IAR is so that we do not have to write in every possibly conceivable exception.

Finally, I fail to see how BURDEN conflict with NPOV. Again, if disagreements about what is neutral arise, CONS applies. I see them as being complimentary, not in conflict. Well-sourced material is far less likely to be POV than unsourced claims (whether purported to be "common knowledge" or not).

Novaseminary (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary, like I said, it is how people can and do read it which is most important. The wording certainly does imply a different interpretation than the one you and I prefer, and this is encapsulated in the concept of a "burden of proof" which by definition implies "guilty until proven innocent" and puts all rationales on a lower priority than demonstrating to others that one is not guilty, and it is up to others to determine whether to accept your arguments. Remember, "burden of proof" is a legalistic term with usage outside Wikipedia. It is only to be expected that people assume the wording was chosen for a reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems you agree with my interpretation of BURDEN vis-a-vis CONS etc. I think others here do, too. So, as noted before, if you are going to rely on your perception of a widespread problem/misinterpretation (or a problem at least widespread enough to justify a change to V), you are going to need to provide examples. I have put forth a couple of examples of where I think the proposals would lead to a bad/less than optimal result. I suspect the examples you would give would indicate a problem was resolved through normal dispute resolution means if somebody tried to run with their interpretation that their opinion was all that mattered with respect to BURDEN. But without the diffs, I don’t know. Or the inserting editors just thought they had consensus and failed to use RfC or other dispute resolution mechanisms when another ed disagreed. No proponent has given even a single example of what AL describes immediately above. And how would a single editor overrule consensus without getting reverted and blocked? And how would any of the proposals prevent an editor from attempting to hijack consensus? I don't think they would. Of course, a non-GF editor wouldn't care and would need to be handled through other mechanisms. So, are there that many GF editors that actually think only their opinion matters with respect to BURDEN? If it really is a problem, why not just add the following to the end of Burden? "The deternination of whether an editor who adds or restores material has meet this burden is, like all other editorial decisions, made by consensus. Novaseminary (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In those examples, while you were wrong in saying that you made a correction, there were two cases where an improvement was subsequently made, and both improvements were made by you. Assuming that you aren't saying that you needed your own tag to work on them, those are not examples that support your case. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Machine vision example, that might be true, since I added all but one of the several new sources. Though I did sucessfully prod you into adding at least one source. If BURDEN were weaker, though, that might not have happened. In the Starved Rock State Park example (a better example in my mind), I was able to add the cited paragraph because of the citation you added at my request. It is possible that I could have found that source on my own without tagging, but who knows. The fact that policy allowed me to tag it prevented me from wasting time looking for a source in a area in which I am unfamiliar. You were very easily (I presume) able to add the source. That paved the way for me to take a look at it and add some more material based on it. Again, if something in policy said I should not have tagged in that case (as some of the proposals would do), I would not have. But then none of the new, cited material would be in that article now. Novaseminary (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to the Machine Vision article, nor was I thinking that you were referring to it. There was no improvement there. You gutted it of material that editors had spent 7 years putting in and wrecked the article. The 5% that I put in is expendable and a secondary issue. As an acknowledged expert in that field I can say that the article on that important topic is now pretty much worthless. I put references on some of their material to protect a little bit of it, but then got disgusted and gave up and left. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Added later.) Immediately after I reverted your near-blanking of the Machine Vision article, you followed me though Wikipedia, and, within a half hour period, tagged (only) my edits in 6 articles, Starved Rock was one of the 6. In each of those articles, over 90% of the statements are uncited, and you chose mine. The other 5 edits are near "five fingers" obvious and neither them nor the 6th has been challenged. And the policy provides cover for and enabling of this behavior by enabling the person to say "just enforcing the rules". Simply requiring the person to question the statement, and only at/if "D" of BRD is reached is a benign way to reduce this problem. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But I fear that your comment highlights the outlook of some of the proponents. Being an expert (self-proclaimed or otherwise) does not negate the necessity for one to cite their sources. Being an expert and vouching for the text does not and should not meet BURDEN, though arguably under some of the proposals it would. What is common knowledge to you is not necessarily so to me or other educated Wikipedians. Bringing it back to the proposals, how would we (you, me, anyone on an RfC if you wanted wider input) ever have come to agreement as to what is "widely accepted" or "common knowledge" in such a specialized field without sources? And if you had just provided sources for the tagged and ultimately removed material, I would have been thrilled to let it remain, perhaps fixing some of the terrible writing along the way. I begged (and hereby do so again) you to add sources and text to that article. I added a half dozen sources and only left out what I could not find in them (and even then left in some unsourced material with a tag). Novaseminary (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was only citing expertise with respect to judging the current state of the article, NOT as a basis for adding content as the above implies. And, as I said, my small additions were expendable. I was referring to the 7 years of work by other editors....in there for years, stable and consensused, which is now gone.North8000 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

None of their work is "gone"... it is in the edit history and can be resurrected once sources are found. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Let's not let this devolve into a personal squabble. North8000, with all due respect, nothing has been lost, it's all back there in the history. Novaseminary is basically asking you to help them provide citations for unreferenced material. If you feel strongly that the article is in bad shape now, I would suggest that one positive outcome to these long discussions would be that you two work together to bring back that material with appropriate sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that, I meant gone from the article. I'm not trying to move the iceberg which this is a tip of to here. This (plus my "inserted later" item a few paragraphs back) is more to give a glimpse of the other types of situations which lend support to saying that something along the lines of the proposed change is needed and would help. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for being dense, but this is giving me a glimpse at how the suggested changes would make the situation describe above worse. As it is, the situation is pretty cut and dry--if you and others can provide some references, the material comes back. Arguing about what is and is not well known for a specific case is difficult, and to resolve the issue would require producing sources anyway, so why not cut to the chase and provide sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at Machine vision I think it is a good example of the harm caused by heavy handed application of citation needed even when stuff is obviously verifiable. This sort of questioning of every single statement even when the link would show easily it is so when one doesn't know anything about the subject is I believe very counterproductive. Some people know about a subject and can describe it, others can make the english better and more readable, other check it through and other make certain citations are okay. As said above Wikipedia doesn't have enough people checking references - the solution to this is not to go around asking for more references where it is obvious none is required and deleting the stuff if none is provided. This does not have to be a protected activity requiring no justification except the challenge oif sticking in the six characters {{cn}}. I thought perhaps it just needed a little reining in with reasons but that example really worries me. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to verify things on that article. The entire article was unsourced before I came along, and was full of spam links and other COI material (Here is that version). It was an OR mess (though some of the text was copied verbatim into a PhD dissertation, as discussed on talk here!). I asked for sources, etc. But North in this section and this one on the talk page indicated that he thought significant chunks of WP:V should not apply to the article. That really worried me. Anyway, I was able to verify a lot and add sources. All but one source I added, and most of the text was rewritten to conform to the sources. North's complaint is with what was deleted. It was properly deleted per BURDEN, and the proposals do not address that at all (as North noted above), so it is not a terribly good example either way. Whether text was tagged properly or not, my deletions and ESs made clear I was challenging the material for several reasons (UNDUE, Dubious, etc)(what is a bigger challenge than deletion?). And there was discussion. The talk page is full of my requests and my statements of what was wrong with particular material. North himself noted the lack of available sources in this section of the talk (though I am not sure I agree, since I found textbooks on the subject. Apparently North has problems with most of the textbooks covering the subject.). In that same talk section I even tried to line up the individual facts so that North (or anybody) could indicate what source supported the fact. I did everything I could to help North meet BURDEN on the talk page. He didn't, no one else did, so I removed or left out the text for the reasons given on talk and ESs. North thinks this version is better than what is there now. I strongly disagree. Dmcq, if your problem is with the many citations to the Demant source ("every single statement even when the link would show easily") after the various wikilinked processes, I agree. I would prefer one source that indicated which processes are used in machine vision and be done with it. I asked for it, but North added the pointers to that source instead. All that said, this has little to do with when a cn tag is inserted. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments regarding the particular article, including that it was informative (through the work of editors over 7 years) and now it is pretty much worthless. There is no current battle there because I have abandoned that article and situation in disgust. The relevance here (both on the incident at that article, and on, after I reverted the near-blanking of the article, subsequently following me through Wikipedia and tagging my never-contested edits in 6 articles within a 30 minute period) is that there ARE problems related to the topic here, and that this proposed change can help. And finally, it is just the point of the proposed change that it does NOT change WP:Burden, it merely adds a very tiny and very easy step to invoking of wp:burden, and that is not required unless/until the invoking has reached "D" of BRD. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the article looked better before and the pattern of editing does looks questionable. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So you would prefer an entirely unsourced OR cruft and spam-filled essay to a much shorter, but well sourced start article? If you prefer long and unsourced to short and verifiable, I am not sure we are coming at the "problem" from the same direction. I, and apparently Jimbo Wales and others, think sourcing is of the utmost importance, not to keep out "knowledge" from editors but to raise the verifiability of the encyclopedia and thus its value. As for a pattern of editing, North added several unsourced "facts" in a short time around then, I tagged them and alerted/notified him on his talk page. It is not like I did anything secret or underhanded. Let's focus on the issues at hand here. Novaseminary (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't cruft and it wasn't spam filled and it wasn't an essay. It was developed by editors over 7 years, and left in by consensus over that time period. And, as aside it was accurate and informative. And, to the point here, IMHO, both situations would have been better under the proposed change. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have checked through the references that were removed and only one looked definitely like spam. The confusion might be because some of the others had advertisements on them even though they were for associations or news organisations, even a university one had an ad at the side. I don't see how removing everything and putting in a link to dmoz instead is a good idea - it may be a reasonable link but wholescale abrogation of selecting good links sounds a bad idea to me.. Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

References? I think you mean the ELs in the EL section pointing to various service providers, industry groups, etc., none of which supported facts in the article. Though this is very far from the correct page to discuss, each violated WP:ELNO and none met WP:RS to be used as a ref (except maybe the academic lab site, but it would not be useful on that article). If those are your idea of a "general reference", all the more reason for editors to demand/request/ask nicely for inline citations with page numbers or specific links. Novaseminary (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I meant the external links by references here, but by general references I mean references in a references section which don't have a inline citation at the point where cn is put in. In that article there were such links in a further reading section. Yes some service providers like industry groups can provide a very useful resource for people wanting to read, for instance why exactly was the very first one in the externals [1] deleted? The Machine Vision article now has a whole pile of references for obvious things just pointing to different pages of a book saying that for instance optical character recognition is part of machine vision. Now there are citation needed tags on little bits of sentences after every sentence has a citation. And the externals have been reduced to a pointer to dmoz in {{dmoz|Business/Industrial_Goods_and_Services/Machinery_and_Tools/Industrial_Metrology/Non-Contact_and_Video_Inspection/Machine_Vision|Machine vision}}. There is more to an encyclopaedia than harassing and gutting articles sticking citation needed where they're obviously not needed and driving good editors away. There's plenty of places which do need work checking up without this sort of carry on. Dmcq (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's one other complexity with this article that comes into play. What you see there constitutes about 5% of my interactions with this individual who I try to avoid but usually not to the point of abandoning articles when they come and "visit" me there. What made that article different in this respect is that in this field much important information is of the "summarization" type where it is very difficult to find bulletproof sources for, making the situation particularly hopeless in that environment there. I saw a situation where I could only protect the granular level statements from tagging/deletion. This makes it a more complex than ideal example for the topic at hand here. But I think still an example supporting the proposed change. Requiring at least a good faith questioning of the statement, and only if & when the tagging has reached "D" of "BRD" would have certainly helped in this example plus the others that I gave. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we done here?

I think we are. It seems to me that the discussions have diverged, some of this really belongs on the talk page for machine vision, and we have a discussion on the cn template talk page. Is there anything left to be done here? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Could we get a link to the discussion at the cn template please. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, 'tis here, comments much appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Interplay of Proposals and Original Research

As we have discussed this, I keep wondering why the proponents think there has to be a common knowledge exception in the proposals above, and why that bothers me so much. Whether true or not, WP:OR material is prohibited. If something is OR, that alone is sufficient to remove material, or tag it. But the only way to show something is not OR is for an editor to supply a source or claim it is common knowledge. We have discussed above why "common knowledge" is so troubling. So that leaves requiring an editor to provide a source. Which gets us right back to where we started. In many cases, I would view a cn tag as a less confrontational version of an OR tag. So, I think without a common knowledge exception the proposals are pretty much useless. And with it, the proposals are even worse. Novaseminary (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And exactly where have I said that? Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposal involves a minor change in the process for invoking those rules, not a change in those rules.North8000 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to Dmcq in particular. Each proposal has a "common knowledge" exception/reference/provision/whatever you want to call it. That is what I was talking about. And North can characterize it as minor all he wants, but it would have less than minor negative effects. Novaseminary (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.220.134.197, 3 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please edit this entry to reflect a middle name or middle initial for the deceased British composer. There is a best selling Christian fiction American author also named Beth Wiseman, (1962-present). Website: www.bethwiseman.com Thank you. 66.220.134.197 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is not really the proper forum for your request, however, I have performed a brief search and am unable to find a middle name or initial for the composer Beth Wiseman. Until there is another Beth Wiseman article, there really is no need for any sort of disambiguation anyway. Location (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree... no need for disambiguation until an article on the author is written (assuming notability can be established). That article can be entitled Beth Wiseman (author) to distinguish the subject from Beth Wiseman (composer). Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No specific objection to "current status" of research

Latest comment: 13 years ago75 comments15 people in discussion

Slim continues to delete without any specific objection. Linking to MEDRS is appropriate while editors should seek to resolve any discrepancy. Using the current research is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

These attempts to force scientific point of view into the policy are not appropriate. They've been rejected for years on multiple pages. Edit warring to try to force it in is out of order, and follows my asking you yesterday in the interests of dispute resolution to stop this kind of thing. This is hardly a response that's in your interests. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Specific enough for me. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My argument is specific enough for Blueboar. Blueboar agrees that MEDRS should be given context.

Slim still have not made a specific objection to the text. For example, Slim has not given a specific reason to delete links to MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand how or why anyone would object to this edit. It says that where scholarly research exists, we should accurately summarize it. That's a fundamental part of the mission of any serious, respectable reference work, and the fact that it's met with suspicion and accusations when raised here is a continuing source of disappointment to me. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this a thousand times, MC, including recently on this page, and there has never been consensus for this kind of addition. The issue is not as simple as you're portraying it, because editors use those words to keep out points of view they don't like, including points of view from other academics. If everyone were editing intelligently and in good faith, those words would be fine, but then if everyone were doing those things we wouldn't need the policies in the first place. When writing policy you have to look at how the words will be misused, as well as used. You also have to think about the effect on articles you don't care about, as well as the ones you do, because there can be inadvertent effects. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add a point: there is absolutely nothing in the current policy to prevent editors from summarizing the current scholarly state of affairs in any article. Indeed, the policy recommends using scholarly sources. So the only benefit of QG's addition would be to exclude views that some editors don't like, to shift the POV emphasis. The edit is not about inclusion, it is about exclusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind linking to MEDRS in the right context... but I am not at all sure this was the right context. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The edit I cited doesn't link to WP:MEDRS. I don't think it's essential to link to MEDRS here. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar agreed to having MEDRS with some context. Slim's argument on the talk page makes no sense. A link to MEDRS with context did improve the page. I don't see any valid reason for the deletion. I understand why an editor would object to this edit. It is because of the editor's background conflicts with scientific research. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to add to policy that articles should accurately reflect academic research, because no one has ever suggested otherwise. What you are trying to sneak in is that articles should only reflect that, and that's what is not acceptable, either in terms of this policy or the NPOV policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your background is confusing your judgement. The text does not say what you claim and you have not suggested a better proposal becuase there is no problem with the text. You have no specifc objection to MEDRS either. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what my "background" is. The text does not say that it will exclude other material, but that is how certain people would use it. Otherwise there is no point in adding it, because we already say academic sources are good. There's therefore no need to add that they should be reflected accurately, as opposed to inaccurately. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do know what is your background which is causing your confusion. We should accurately reflect the "current status" of research. Slim, you inaccurately reflected the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what QG is referring to here, but in his edit summary he wrote: "I hope I can get your written permission to reveal all of your COI background." [2] I have no COI background, and the threatening, personalizing tone isn't appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you won't give me permission to reveal your severe COI background by filing a COI report with your continued abnormal behaviour. You cannot explain why we should not accurately reflect the "current status" of research. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Where a topic is subject to a significant amount of academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the current status of research

This seems like it's already covered by WP:NPOV:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

Since significant academic research would have considerable weight, POVs represented in that material should be included. I don't see how this is relevant to WP:V, though. This policy focuses on the issue of making sure that what is included is verifiable, a different issue. Will Beback talk 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems a little odd. Does anyone here actually favor of misrepresenting the current status of academic research? How about presenting last century's academic beliefs as if they were this century's?

I didn't think so. So if, as SlimVirgin asserts above, there's really "never been consensus" on this point, where's the Loyal Opposition that actually opposes the substance of this statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're addressing my comment, I think that a) this is the wrong policy page, and b) it's already covered by the right policy, WP:NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, it's the wrong policy page, and it's already covered. The constant temptation to "beef up" or modify policies by adding narrow and specific regulations intended to assist in winning edit wars in specific topical areas is understandable but unhelpful. Please review m:instruction creep. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not already covered and this is the correct page for this text. If it's the wrong policy page then where is the correct policy page for this text. It is unhelpful to claim it is already covered. What is the problem to accurately reflect the current status of research for Wikipedia articles. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We last had this discussion in September (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 41#Academic and media_sources). SlimVirgin is wrong, but is hardly alone in being wrong on this point. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It started in September but continued until October 21, and QG was involved in it as I recall, so for him to arrive a month later to try to force it into the policy is very disruptive. I see he's also making objections to the NPOV policy along similar lines on another page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is abnormal you continue to object without any logical reason to using the "current status" of research and giving MEDRS some context. Your objection is becuase of your background. Your personal background is confusing your judgement. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal remarks aren't helpful. If there's a personal issue please take it to another page. Will Beback talk 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

QG, please stop making personal remarks about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think is abnormal to continue to object without any logical reason to using the "current status" of research and giving MEDRS some context. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a COI because I'm abnormal? :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If true, you might have a COI at the abnormal psychology article, but not here. :) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody objects to using the current status, just to using only that. It shouldn't be our policy to exclusively use recent or current academic sources. Historic context counts too. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LeadSongDog here... We already make it clear that when writing an article, different types of sources are appropriate in different contexts. Of course current academic sources are best for supporting statements as to what the current academic thinking is... and historical sources are best for statements as to historical thinking... and when an article discusses non-academic thinking (which we need to do for NPOV), non-academic sources are best. In other words... no matter what the topic may be, we use the best, most reliable sources that support for the statement being made. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback's comment at 22:18, 24 November 2010; I don't see why WP:V has to ask for the "current status of research"; it seems WP:CREEP. In truly controversial cases, it may not even be possible to ascertain what that is. See for instance the paragraph about 5-HTTLPR in Major depressive disorder#Monoamine hypothesis or the current status of string theory. Dealing with multiple (wp:secondary) sources that don't necessarily agree may be a necessity for determining "current status of research", so the issue is much better suited for discussion at WP:NPOV. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what? You prefer no instructions? QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tijfo098's comment. WP:V has the right amount of "instructions". Please don't make straw man arguments on behalf of others. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors should try to improve the wording rather than reject what will improve V policy unless editors prefer very little policy. Since there was no suggestion for a rewrite I will rewrite it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication that the wording needs "improving", and the changes you are trying to impose have the opposite effect. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No specific suggestion to rewrite "current status" of research

(Original proposal) Where a topic is subject to a significant amount of academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the current status of research.

(Rewrite) Where a topic is subject to academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should include the current status of research.

I think this rewrite may work. If you don't like the rewrite then you could suggest a proposal. It is not assumed that Wikipedia articles will accurately cover "current research" in any topic when this issue is not covered adequately in any policy page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Wikipedia articles not only "can", but "should", and possibly even "must", reflect the current state of academic/expert views. Including the (reasonably) current state of expert/academic knowledge is necessary, not merely permitted. It doesn't really matter what the subject is: You should not write articles on "Heart disease" or "African-Americans" or "Art hoaxes" or "Chaucer" or "World War One" without accurately presenting the (reasonably) current state of expert/academic knowledge. An article based on last century's expert/academic views, or this decade's blogger's views, is unacceptable.

What "can" be optionally included (and often "should") is information about significant views at different points in history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "should". QuackGuru (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the proposal to the page. There was no specific objection to the rewrite. I changed "can" to "should" as suggested. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No specific objection to MEDRS guideline

There was really no specific objection to adding MEDRS to V. The objections were vague. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The objections were not vague, QG. I will list them here for clarity:

It is assumed that wikipedia articles will accurately reflect significant scholarship on topic. this is an NPOV (UNDUE) issue that is covered adequately there.
'Significance' is not really a factor of verifiability. Verifiability only asks whether we can demonstrate that the given source exists and that it says what wikipedia claims it has said. One can verify that (say) Aleister Crowley said many things about the use of magick without concerning oneself over the quality or reputation of those sources.
The wording as given is sometimes abused on certain articles (such as - just for random examples - Chiropractic and QuackWatch), where it is used as an excuse to suppress otherwise potentially usable sources, generally for no particularly good reason.

Since the wording in not strictly appropriate to this policy, is already covered in other policy, and lends itself to abuse, why would we want to add it here? --Ludwigs2 03:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The objections were vague to MEDRS, Ludwigs2. Your comment is irrelevant to the MEDRS discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Heavens to Betsy! do I have to spell it out letter by letter for you? fine - if you actually need me to think this through for you, I will. same points as above, specific to MEDRS

MEDRS is a content guideline designed to ensure that wikipedia articles accurately reflect significant scholarship on specifically medical topics. This is (again) a matter of NPOV (UNDUE), not a matter of verifiability. MEDRS (ignoring its flaws for the discussion) is subordinate to core policy, and adequately covers the extension of core policy to the specialized areas of medicine. there is no need to link to or toimport anything from MEDRS here.
Items published in high-class medical journals are no more and no less verifiable than items published in Alternative Medicine forums or the popular press. There may be separate concerns about the accuracy or trustworthiness of sources from these different venues, but anyone with eyes (and most people without) can verify whether or not what wikipedia says in articles is an accurate reflection of what those medical journals, altmed forums, or popular press material say.
You yourself (if I remember correctly), along with others I could name, consistently use MEDRS (and verifiability, and NPOV) to try to remove non-medical-journal sources from CAM articles in order to shift such articles from being descriptive to being critical (and conversely, I've seen you myself use these tactics to whitewash all criticism from the Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch articles, in an effort to produce a nauseatingly glowing image of the man and the site). You do not use these materials to more accurately reflect significant scholarship; instead you use them to less accurately portray minority viewpoints, and that's just wrong-headed. Wikipedia does not need to take the Tonya Harding approach to advancing science.

Do I need to spell this out for you in moredetail? because you know I can; just say the word. --Ludwigs2 04:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There no reason to delete the link to MEDRS. You are making no sense. There is a link to IRS which is also a guideline. QuackGuru (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

QG, you've had half a dozen people on this page explain the same thing to you, and you have told each one of them that they are making no sense. I think it's time that you recognized that the entire rest of wikipedia is too crazy to understand you, and you will never get us to see your point. You best give it up; you can't fight collective insanity on that scale. --Ludwigs2 06:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You have explained you don't like MEDRS and you don't want to follow it. That is not a reason for deleting it when MEDRS has consensus to be a guideline. There are links to other guidelines including WP:IRS. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I explained at all. care to try again? --Ludwigs2 21:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS has broad consensus to be a guideline. You don't delete links to a guideline with some context just because you think it is flawed when the community supports MEDRS. There is no valid reason to hide MEDRS because you don't seem to care to follow MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's not what I said. I said the link to MEDRS doesn't belong in this policy, since it's not a verifiability issue. Now, are you going to respond to that point, or are you going to continue making personal comments about me? --Ludwigs2 00:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are making no sense. The page says "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement,...". The page says "For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources,...". So it belongs in this page as much as WP:IRS belongs in this page. There no consensus to delete the entire paragraph that does discuss the reliability of a specific source. See WP:CON. QuackGuru (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

the fact that you don't understand does not mean that I'm not making sense. WP:V is a general policy that should deal with broad, cross-project concepts; WP:IRS is a general content guideline dealing with broad cross-project concepts; MEDRS is a specific guideline dealing strictly with medical issues. I'd personally debate having WP:IRS dealt with on this page, and I certainly see no need to include information about area-specific issues. there is a link to MEDRS at the bottom of the page. that is sufficient. --Ludwigs2 02:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that you are not making sense when there is context for another similar guideline. You'd personally debate having WP:IRS dealt with on this page, but the consensus is to include it. You have not made a specific argument against having a link to WP:IRS with some context. You see no need to include context about a specific MEDRS guidelines when you argue MEDRS is flawed. It is not sufficient to exclude MEDRS because you don't like it. You see no benefit for MEDRS because you think editors misuse it. You should get used to it that MEDRS has the approval of the community. See WP:CON. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

well, as I see it, you're the only one who wants to include it, and there are at least 6 people who object to including it. If you don't want to listen to the reasons I give, then you should at least listen to the numbers. I'd rather we discussed the reasons, but if you're trying to rely solely on numeric consensus you haven't got a leg to stand on. --Ludwigs2 06:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are not 6 people who specifically object to including MEDRS. If you don't want to give a valid reason for excluding it, then you should stop claiming there is a problem to including it. You haven't got a leg to stand on when your objections are bordering on wikilawyering. I'd rather we include it and move on. You have not given any good reason for continuing to argue against MEDRS when you read there are links with context to another similar guideline. It was inappropriate for you to consider deleting WP:IRS too. QuackGuru (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are at least six people who oppose - go back and count. So, by consensus, it's excluded; by weight of reason, it's excluded. why are you still arguing this? If you have an argument as to why we should include it, go ahead and make it; if it's a good argument, I might consider it. But as it stands it's simply your personal desire to include it (for whatever reason you may have) against my reasoned arguments to exclude it and the opposition of several others. As I said, you haven't really got a leg to stand on.

QG, you can keep hammering the same defunct line over and over, but you're not likely to get anywhere with it, and sooner or later I'm going to start getting irritated by the obvious tendentiousness. make a decent argument for inclusion or give it up, and do so before I start considering RFC/U. --Ludwigs2 08:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

I'm not particularly interested in this tedious argument, that has descended into personal abuse, but I must counter one point Ludwigs made. Point 2 that "Items published in high-class medical journals are no more and no less verifiable than items published in Alternative Medicine forums or the popular press." Ludwigs is confusing "verifiable" with "can be shown that someone, somewhere, no matter how unqualified or biased, has published this". The thing we "verify" against isn't any old rubbish (if it was it would be an utterly meaningless requirement and easily worked-around). It must be verifiable to a "reliable source", which later on is defined as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is this aspect that MEDRS addresses wrt medical articles. I agree that MEDRS also builds on WP:WEIGHT as that requires establishing "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", or "reflect significant scholarship on topic" as you put it. So MEDRS builds on both WP:V and WP:NPOV. Colin°^Talk 12:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Colin: You've made an error in reasoning - basically the same error that amateur scientists make when they confuse reliability with validity. You say I've bollixed the term 'verifiable with "can be shown that someone, somewhere, no matter how unqualified or biased, has published this", but if you remove your ad hominem that's precisely what it means to verify something. You are confusing editorial fact-checking with scientific fact checking, and messing things up royally in the process. let's parse out the difference here.

Scholars, scientists, and people in the real world fact-check to defend or advance particular theories. Scholarly/scientific argument boils down to the statement "this theory is better than that theory because this theory explains the observed facts better than that theory does".
Encyclopedia editors fact-check to prevent misrepresentation of ideas. it's not a question of defending or advancing ideas, merely of representing them accurately.

In other words, we at wikipedia are not trying to show that an idea is accurate, we are trying to accurately show what the idea is. I understand that you personally think some ideas are 'rubbish', and I personally might even be inclined to agree with you. but if there are enough people talking about that 'rubbish' to make it notable, then it's your job and mine to accurately show what the rubbish is, not to show that whatever-it-is is accurately described as rubbish. If you can't make that distinction, you will end up as a POV-pusher, sooner or later. You can't help but do so, because there will be topics where you will always think that an accurate portrayal (encyclopedia-wise) is an inaccurate portrayal (science/scholarship-wise terms), and the paradox guarantees edit wars.

It's a silly philosophical language trap, on the same order as "I lie, even when I say I'm lying". Climb out of it.

MEDRS is a worst-case example of of this kind of silliness. given that there are useful elements in MEDRS, much of the guideline is an effort to convince wikipedia editors to give up accurate encyclopedic description in favor of advancing western medical theories as more accurate than other perspective - basically trying to warp verifiability into a truth-assertion. while I don't disagree with the attitude in general (If I get an infection I'll go for the penicillin, thank-you-very-much), it's not a particularly encyclopedic attitude. Editors who want to do that should really be writing for WebMD, not Wikipedia. Do you see what I'm saying? --Ludwigs2 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Colin is correct here. When we talk about "verifiability", we're not simply asking "did X say Y?" We're asking, "do any reliable sources say Y?" The policy repeatedly contextualizes verifiability as dependent upon reliable sources, not simply upon demonstrating that someone, somewhere said something. I also disagree with you about MEDRS, but that's a separate topic. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

MC: there are two issues here. Both of them are important, but they cannot both be handled under a single rubric without queering things. the issues:

descriptive accuracy: we want to make sure that when wikipedia says 'something' that 'something' is accurately framed. For instance, if a wikipedia article were to discuss claims that President Obama is a socialist, we would want readers to be able to trace the various various statements made in that article back to the original sources who made them, so that the reader know (a) the statement was not taken out of context, and (b) the statement is not Wikipedia editorializing, but rather a statement that Wikipedia is reporting.
factual accuracy: We want to make sure that Wikipedia says things that are truer rather than falser (to best of our ability within the current state of knowledge). For instance, we want to present the currently favored theory of gravitation as more prominent than old discredited theories or new innovative theories. This is so that readers are given the best understanding possible of the material.

Much of the time these two issues correlate nicely - Either there's a very broad consensus about factual accuracy such that accurate description captures it (as with gravity), or the issue is clearly a matter of opinion and no one pretends to factual accuracy (as with Obama's socialism). But where there are contentious articles, these issues need to be separated and dealt with individually. This mostly happens on fringe-ish pages. For example, a description of orgone is something like a proto-living energy that permeates the universe: advocates will try to say that's 'true', skeptics will try to say it's 'false', but true or false, that's the kind of description that needs to be given. Factual accuracy has to take a back seat to descriptive accuracy here, because the theory of orgone is factually bereft. if it doesn't, we become advocates against orgone rather than just editors describing orgone, and that's not what wikipedia is for.

You and I both know that this issue keeps invading verifiability because a lot of editors want to use it as an anti-fringe tool. basically, if one can use verifiability to rope factual accuracy and descriptive accuracy together (through reliability), one can instantly cut the legs out from under every off-beat topic. Even something like Alternative Medicine (as broad and pervasive as that topic is) can be trashed simply by labeling anyone who writes about alternative medicine as a 'fringe author' and tossing them as unverifiable. you're left with 'verifiable' authors, meaning authors who criticize altmed from a scientific perspective (which is a bit like restricting sources on Obama's article to Fox news pundits). I've seen this happen dozens of times.

Verifiability should only be about descriptive accuracy - factual accuracy should be covered in different policies, and a very clear line should be drawn between the two. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If this were a courtroom, verifiability is 'supported by testimony' whereas RS involves the 'credibility' of the testimony (and MEDRS involves 'expert' testimony). On the other hand, RS is spread around patchwork throughout NPOV, V, and NOR, so no guideline can wholly claim it: NPOV has the 'significance' part; NOR stipulates 'not already published in reliable sources'; and V mentions 'verifiable in reliable sources' while patchily covering sources in general. MEDRS, should be linked to from IRS, from FRINGE, and from MEDMOS, but not really from this very general sourcing guideline, at least not as either WP:SOURCES or MEDRS are currently written. Ocaasi (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Still no specific objection to MEDRS. There was really no specific objection to adding MEDRS to V. The objections to adding Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) were vague. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about this... in some cases it directly contradicts WP:V (and other core policies) especially in its dismissal of news reports as reliable sources. We should not link to something that contradicts the policy. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Or how about this... MEDRS is a relatively young guideline that some editors use to push a scientific point of view over the long established neutral point of view, particularly for topics which are considered Alternative Medicine. AltMed articles are a complex fusion of history, sociology, psychology, mythology, practice, pseudoscience, health claims, counterculture, allopathic rejection, aspirational technologies, spiritual claims, cultural traditions, and current research. MEDRS seeks to present only the current research as the correct view of these subjects, and to cast a constant dismissive shadow of on all of the others. While that MEDRS/AltMed conflict is being sorted out, it makes sense to keep the useful but not fully matured MEDRS out of the established and fully understood V. Since you may be apt to say this is vague and that I just hate MEDRS, you may be preemptively incorrect on both accounts. Ocaasi (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we reading the same guideline? The one on my screen says things like "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article." How do you get from "the popular press is a good source for social and historical information" to "MEDRS doesn't allow newspapers as a source on history, sociology, etc."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And again

The context should be shorter like WP:IRS. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The guideline MEDRS has the broad consensus of the Wikipedia community. Any old reference is not reliable. MEDRS explains which refs are reliable for biomedical assertions. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is necessary for MEDRS to be linked in this document, and I think it is inappropriate for you to keep adding things to this policy when you know that more than one editor objects to what you are adding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think these edits are beginning to get disruptive. After all the debate on this page, I don't think asserting the special important of MEDRS and weakening the statement that V takes priority of "other guidelines" can be said to have any consensus. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur, having reviewed the discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If we let QuackGuru have his/her way, Wikipedia will be "the encyclopedia anyone who lives near a major university library can edit". Lack of access to the latest research journal would not be grounds, for example, to delete an article. Of course, if an editor has access to the latest reseach and either there is a lack of controversy, or good review article sort out the different current views, such material should be included. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes—I agree with what you mean, and what I previously assumed QG was trying to accomplish with that sentence. But his messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Recent_2009_study make me believe that I have misunderstood the proposed sentence, which appears to mean (to QG) something more like "WP:RECENTISM is good, so long as it's a scholarly source that says something negative about Chiropractic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)