Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 64

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

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Preserving a burden

Latest comment: 7 years ago160 comments13 people in discussion

I've been watching an editor claim that the BURDEN to source removed and CHALLENGED material is not solely on the editor who restores it, because if providing a source is solely the reverting/restoring editor's burden, then WP:PRESERVE is meaningless and toothless.

Far more time has been spent arguing about who ought to spend 60 seconds finding sources (the suspected OR is all trivially verifiable – but, of course, not every editor would know that) than doing a quick search and spamming in a few. I want to not see this type of discussion again. So I wonder: should we change BURDEN to include the word "solely", just for clarity? I'm a little concerned that this would discourage "bystanders" from helping out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: WhatamIdoing is referring to this discussion I had with Spacecowboy420; that discussion is now over, but I will leave a note there that the discussion has been continued here. What I stated in that discussion is due to what I have seen stated here at this talk page for years and at other parts of Wikipedia. When it comes to this talk page, see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 56#If WP:PRESERVE is "best practice" should it be mentioned somewhere?, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#The "provide an inline citation yourself" wording should be changed back to the original wording and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#More Burden stuff. And my point in the latest dispute with regard to the interpretations of WP:Burden is that WP:Preserve is indeed best practice, WP:Preserve makes it clear that editors should do their research on what they are removing before removing it (in other words, make sure that it is not important to the article...unless it clearly should be removed), and WP:Preserve is endorsed by WP:Burden. WP:Preserve is ignored often enough, and the fact that it is so commonly ignored has been detrimental to Wikipedia. Editors do not pay attention to the fact that WP:Burden endorses WP:Preserve; all they pay attention to is "Ooh, you can freely remove any unsourced material that you challenge." This is despite the fact that unsourced material is often ridiculously challenged and then ridiculously removed. Do read those above linked archived discussions for exactly what I mean (assuming you don't already know exactly what I mean). WhatamIdoing doesn't want to see this type of discussion again; neither do I. But these type of discussions happen all the time on Wikipedia, in some form or another. And by that, I mean the discussions involving editors removing easily verifiable content that belongs in the article and others strongly and rightfully objecting. Editors should not be allowed to come in and recklessly remove content, especially by citing WP:OR if the content is not WP:OR. And on that note, too many of our editors think that WP:OR means "unsourced." That is not what it means. And my exact words to WhatamIdoing about WP:Preserve being meaningless and toothless was the following: "If we want editors to follow the highly ignored WP:Preserve policy, we should be taking the time to explain to them why it is important. Otherwise, that policy should be scrapped." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

And do take notice how my view has changed over the years. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#More Burden stuff, which shows that I was quite annoyed by the idea of sourcing others' material because I challenged it. Experience changed me. But even then I acknowledged that it is "best not to remove material that you think or know is verifiable." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:Preserve itself says that unverifiable information should not be preserved... and WP:V is clear on who is responsible for demonstrating that information is actually verifiable ... Once unsourced information has been challenged, the burden to supply a source to support it does indeed rest on those who wish to preserve the information... and not on those who challenge it. Blueboar (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, and, as made clear lower by S Marshall, what was removed is not unverifiable information in the least. In cases like these, WP:Preserve and WP:Burden butt heads because we have editors who cite WP:Preserve when content is recklessly removed or otherwise carelessly removed from an article, and editors defending such reckless removals because they think WP:Burden gives them a license to be so reckless and careless. If WP:Preserve states that editors should check and see that what they are removing belongs in an article before they remove it, then that is a policy placing a form of burden on that editor; it's the policy stating, "Do your homework first." And that editor should be adhering to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've long argued that the tension between PRESERVE and BURDEN is a positive thing because when you put them together, the combination reads: finding sources is everyone's job. Whether it's PRESERVE or BURDEN that's being argued, putting the onus on other people to source easily-verified material is usually a characteristic of a Wikipedian who is in need of support and direction, and in my opinion we have far too many editors who are happy to send other people off chasing sources but get all huffy when they're asked to do so themselves. There are literally millions of {{cn}} templates on Wikipedia that are totally needless because the templating editor could easily have done it themselves. In my view editors who don't like searching for sources should find another hobby. But with that said BURDEN is the one that makes me more uneasy because as currently worded, it puts the heavy artillery in the hands of griefers. I personally have had the experience of seeing my whole watchlist light up when an editor with whom I had come into conflict went through everything I'd ever written systematically tagging it, adding several tags per minute.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to this: Which is more reasonable, asking those who wish to preserve the information to spend five minutes finding a source, and placing it in the article (thus ending the challenge and improving the article)... Or asking those who challenge the information to spend hours trying to "prove the negative" (that a source does not exist)? The community has repeatedly come down in favor of the first ... That asking those who want to keep the information to supply a source more far more reasonable than asking those who challenge to "prove" there isn't one. This is one of the strongest and oldest consensuses of the project. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

- In the case of the discussion we're actually reviewing here, it took me literally seconds to source the disputed sentence. It was literally at the top of the first page of the search results.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar has this right, but let me be a little more express. PRESERVE says, "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." (Emphasis added.) PRESERVE, therefore, always yields to satisfaction of BURDEN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me be a little more express in response. In this case, the discussion is about a user who went to Child grooming and removed a paragraph which said: "Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being. Additionally, a trusting relationship with the family means the child's parents are less likely to believe potential accusations." He used the edit summary "Seems like a lot of original research". Now, when I google "Child grooming" the very first page on the search results ---- above even the Wikipedia result ---- is the NSPCC, a long-established, highly respected organisation that's closely involved in child protection in the UK. Click that link and one (1) link to drill down, and you get this page which fully supports the removed paragraph. He and another editor then spent hours wrangling backwards and forwards about whose job it was to source the paragraph.
This was, obviously, a failure of judgment in a number of ways, but the WP:BURDEN absolutism that you and Blueboar are espousing is condoning and empowering editors who'll edit-war to remove easily-sourceable content from articles about child sexual exploitation. I urge you to read the discussion that gave rise to this.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

BURDEN is what burden is, but there's no 3RR or EW edit war exception for enforcing BURDEN. If someone violates 3RR or engages in a slow-motion edit war, they should be reported for that, regardless of which side of the issue they're editing on. If they're restoring unsourced material still unsourced, they can also be reported for that, especially if they do it after being warned. There's no reason to argue over it. If we make exceptions because of hard or sympathetic cases, they'll soon overrule the general rule. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC) PS: And this is just a cavil: I'm not sure that the NSPCC page is a reliable source, as it looks like a SPS on first blush. However, I don't doubt the general point that you're illustrating, namely that the material could be easily sourced. — TM 21:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TransporterMan here. There is lots to more I could say but this nails it. I strongly disagree with S Marshall's take. People come to Wikipedia for all kinds of reasons -- people who come here in good faith to realize the mission of presenting the public with summaries of accepted knowledge, and people who are ignorant of the mission and our policies but are really trying in their view to improve WP, to vandals of various kinds, including people who add hoax material just to make fun of us, and then crow about it. Every member of the community (meaning people who understand the mission and policies and have been around a while) has content we want to build and content we maintain. The demand in S Marshall's conception that I would PRESERVE every bit of content, no matter how UNDUE or blatantly wrong, is not a Wikipedia I want to live in (nor one that I imagine you actually live in, S Marshall). Removing unsourced content with a note "feel free to re-introduce with a reliable source" or moving it to Talk with the same note is completely, 100% OK. I do see the value, if some unsourced bit content seems potentially useful - -to collaborate and find sources and FIXIT it, and I do that sometimes. But saying that I have an obligation to do that, and even further that this obligation overrides BURDEN, makes no sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Who is this absolutist S Marshall who demanded that you PRESERVE every bit of content no matter how UNDUE or blatantly wrong? I want him caught and shot as an imposter. What I said was that there's a tension between PRESERVE and BURDEN, and that finding sources is everyone's job.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Laughing. That is how I read your stance. If you agree with what I wrote above, that's great. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to the extent that your post supports removing easily-verified content, I'm afraid I don't. I think that any editor who's considering removing a reasonably plausible paragraph from an article about child protection ought to have the nous to google it first, and that if our policies don't require that then our policies are defective.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some points from everyone here, but I especially agree with S Marshall. The thing about WP:Burden that I take issue with in cases like this is the following: It is so often misused to remove easily verifiable content that belongs in our articles, and that is a major problem. To Jytdog's point, I'm not talking about preserving content that does not belong in our articles; S Marshall wasn't arguing that either. We're talking about what WP:Preserve states, which is that "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." WP:Preserve is a policy, just like WP:Burden is, and it tells us to make sure that what we are removing should be removed. Unsourced content can still be good content. And if an editor is removing unsourced but good content all because the content is unsourced, that is not helping Wikipedia at all...unless the content is removed because of some other guideline or policy (like formatting issues or WP:Undue weight). But even then, the editor should consider preserving the content on the talk page. Jytdog commonly preserves text he removes; he does this by moving it to the talk page and explaining why he removed it and/or his concerns about it. Like I noted at the Child grooming talk page, if I had not been there to revert and source the content, valuable information would have been lost...which is a detriment to Wikipedia. Above, Blueboar stated, "It comes down to this: Which is more reasonable, asking those who wish to preserve the information to spend five minutes finding a source, and placing it in the article (thus ending the challenge and improving the article)... Or asking those who challenge the information to spend hours trying to "prove the negative" (that a source does not exist)?" But what about those who are not there to revert or otherwise challenge the editors who removed the content? What about easily verifiable content, which will only take a few minutes to source? What about adhering to the WP:Preserve policy? The community has repeatedly challenged reckless removals of content, including large-scale, disruptive blanking of content, no matter the good-faith nature behind it. And if we are not going to expect, or encourage, editors to do their homework on the content they are removing before they remove it (except, of course, for the content that should obviously be discarded), I really don't see the point of the WP:Preserve policy, especially if editors can just ignore it and hold up the WP:Burden sign in response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, PRESERVE addresses best practice for what should (ideally) happen prior to a challenge, while BURDEN addressed what must happen after a challenge. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, PRESERVE is not optional. It's a very old and longstanding part of the editing policy which enjoys widespread consensus. If you're editing in the mainspace then you have a basic responsibility to check that your edit improves the encyclopaedia before you click "save". Please don't misinterpret this as some kind of optional best practice step because it is not and has never been optional.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course PRESERVE is optional. It repeatedly says "consider" doing X, Y or Z... Which implies that you have the option not to do X, Y or Z. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes: sometimes you come across something in the encyclopaedia which is stupid, or obvious vandalism, and needs to be removed at once. If you find "George W. Bush is a chimpanzee" in an article, then there's no ambiguity there and forcing editors to google it achieves nothing. But removing verifiable content from an article about child protection is quite a different matter, isn't it? WP:PRESERVE applies to content that's plausible. But when it does apply, I think it's absolute. If you do go around removing verifiable content from articles about child protection, then you probably should be blocked on grounds of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I fail to see how WP:Preserve is optional simply because it states "consider" in a few parts; it states "consider" because it gives a variety of ways to preserve the content. There is no one way. It clearly states, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. [...] As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with so strongly challenging this removal. The most insidiously wrong content in Wikipedia is the kind that has "truthiness". We are not about "truthiness" here. And this topic in particular is one where i would imagine there are a lot of myths flying around and the importance of content being well sourced to high-quality sources, is all the more important. I often agree with Flyer22 but in this case I don't; the right thing to do in the face of that challenge would be to find sources, add them, and really importantly - copyedit based on what the sources actually say. That said, it would have been better for Spacecowboy420 to move that to the Talk page to highlight the need for sourcing rather than removing it. There is a public health/child safety issue there. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, in this case, we had an editor not only remove easily verifiable content that he did not take the time to do a quick search on, but an editor who removed the content as possible WP:OR. In other words, he removed important, easily verifiable content on an illogical basis. That is reckless editing. As made clear, I sourced the content and tweaked the wording, but it was very important to make it clear how careless and detrimental that edit was. Furthermore, once content is removed from our articles, it commonly stays removed. Editors (especially newbies or other less experienced editors) don't usually go into the edit history to see how how the article looked a few days or weeks ago (unless suspecting vandalism or other disruptive editing), or in a certain year; that's usually an occasional thing. This is why it's often good to preserve content on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally, well said Flyer22 reborn, it's usually a problem when any rule is fetishsized (See, WP:IAR). The one that bothers me, is when someone removes content from an (non-BLP) article, when it is sourced, just not where they think the citation needs to be, and because they have not bothered to even look at the sources already in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Alan, when something like that occurs, simply return the information with an edit summary saying "already sourced - see reference number X." This quietly lets the challenger know that WP: BURDEN has, in fact, been complied with... And almost always ends the challenge without it escalating into a huge drama. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I will make my contribution short and sweet, as I'm more involved with articles, than policies.

I don't really want to be specific about the article in question (even though, I was the editor removing content) - however, I will try to explain why feelings that apply equally to all articles.

If you have added content, then you should be knowledgeable about the content. That seems like common sense. You either have experience with the subject, or you have a reliable source in front of you. If you are in that position, then it should be a very simple procedure to cite that content. If you don't want to add a source (for whatever reason) you should be prepared to explain why it isn't required, or at least add it when requested.

I would suggest that all of the above applies equally to any editor who wishes to restore content that has been removed due to a lack of sources. You deem the content to be essential to the article? Then either explain why it doesn't need a source, or cite it yourself.

As has been stated already, it's far easier to cite something, than to prove that there are no reliable sources for a citation.

Losing content is the lesser of two evils, when compared to have POV/fringe/incorrect content. If content is removed due to the lack of a source, it can always be restored when a source is located.

Also, consider it a lesson learned. When people start losing content they they think is essential to "their" article, because they were too lazy to follow the general norm and provide a citation, perhaps they will take the time to cite the next content they add to an article. If the lack of sources is ignored and accepted, people will not bother looking for sources in the future. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I already made myself very clear about how you acted in this case, and that I can never accept such an action, I will reiterate that my responses are at the Child grooming talk page and that I stand by them. And like I just stated above to Jytdog: "Editors (especially newbies or other less experienced editors) don't usually go into the edit history to see how how the article looked a few days or weeks ago (unless suspecting vandalism or other disruptive editing), or in a certain year; that's usually an occasional thing. This is why it's often good to preserve content on the talk page." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no consensus supporting your opinions about how I acted in this case, and no consensus regarding any change in policy, you might just have to accept such an action from me, and whoever else edits in the same manner. One additional note: My comments regarding your high and mighty attitude having a counterproductive effect still stands. Arrogance and demands from someone without a position of power, don't usually work. Try being nice instead of bossy, and editors (such as myself) might be a little more inclined to see things your way - it's human nature. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as there is consensus in this very discussion that carelessly removing material in the way that you did is a no-no, and considering that the Wikipedia community has repeatedly come down hard on such actions, especially after the editor in question has been warned about doing so, you can bet that if you continue to remove material in such a careless way, I will seek to have you sanctioned for it. And you can bet that you will be sanctioned for it. And you can call that a high and mighty attitude, if you want; I couldn't care less. That you felt that I wasn't being nice at the Child grooming talk page when making it clear that you acted wrongly is your opinion, and is irrelevant unless I violated the WP:Civil policy. I do not see that that I violated that policy. You started with the snide remarks because you couldn't handle the fact that you were wrong and I was not willing to let up on that fact. An editor can be stern with another editor as much as that editor wants to here at Wikipedia (usually anyway). No one here has to be an administrator to be stern with another editor or to give another editor a warning. And many editors here have power without being an administrator. When I make a case at WP:ANI with valid evidence showing why an action was detrimental to Wikipedia and/or to editors, people listen. There will be no support for you going around removing things with faulty "WP:OR" justifications, I assure you that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're reading comments like mine and assume it has anything to do with the source of this dispute at child grooming, you're wrong. My only opposition is with regard to the change in this policy. But, WP:PRESERVE does instruct you to try googling a source and you shouldn't make a habit of not following it. Nor should WP:PRESERVE's weak language in any way justify removing easily sourced content.--v/r - T P 07:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, my comments were not based on yours, I just didn't really feel it was the place to respond to other editors who were commenting on the edits made on the article that prompted this discussion. I agree that editors should not ignore WP:PRESERVE at all times, however if they do disregard it in favor of other policies, then it certainly isn't worthy of sanctions (as has been suggested) and neither does it require a change of policy wording. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no support for your asinine removal. You were wrong; accept it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that you chill out a little regarding this? Getting stressed and making demands that people agree with you, when they obviously don't share your opinions, isn't a great way to have fun on Wikipedia. I edit, in between typing reports at work, to have fun. While I do certainly enjoy a spirited debate, I'm not here for drama and temper tantrums. The best thing that we can accept, is that we don't agree. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason we're stressed is because you made an edit to child grooming which we found irresponsible and a bit creepy. I have to admit that when I saw that edit I did not immediately AGF about your motives. Your subsequent air of surprised nonchalance suggests that I was mistaken and it's all quite innocent, so I apologise for that, but an edit of that kind could potentially have unfortunate real world consequences, because children don't understand Wikipedia and might well turn to it for information. If you're going to edit for fun from work and remove random chunks of text for being unsourced without checking them out first, then I really hope that you steer clear of articles related to child protection in future.—S Marshall T/C 07:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest you actually listen and stop trying to divert attention away from your inappropriate behavior, especially when the attempted diversions are mischaracterizations or outright false? Never mind, since it's not really a suggestion I need permission to suggest. And you've been fairly warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry S Marshall, but I'm here to make an easily understood, neutral and verifiable encyclopedia, not a "how to" guide or blog for child protection or any other topic. Put a link to some child protection agency at the bottom of the article, rather than trying to turn an article (and wikipedia) into something that it is not. While I'm sure that your intentions are admirable, they are also misguided. It is also misguided to imagine that wikipedia can ever remain neutral, while addressing social issues. That's how you and I differ - I don't care if I'm editing an article on MLK, KKK, NAMBLA or Child grooming, I will act in the same neutral manner in all of those articles, no matter what my personal opinions are on the subject. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer. I. don't. accept. that. I. was. wrong.

Seriously, do we have to keep on going round in circles over this issue? You can reword your complaints about my actions a million times, but unless you add something new and awesome, I'm highly unlikely to change my mind. Really, stop getting stressed about it, the article is fixed, the discussion is over. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In the light of those responses, how could it possibly be any clearer that we need to amend WP:BURDEN to make editors accept some kind of responsibility if they remove easily-verified content from important articles?—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And I don't care much that you don't accept that you were wrong. WP:ANI will do all the talking for me...should you continue to inappropriately remove content. We wouldn't be talking in circles if you would stop trying to get the last word by defending your mess of an edit. Seems to me the one stressed out about this is you. When you have to defend your edit like you have been doing, it's plain as day that you were wrong. Move on and edit the way you are supposed to edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I will move on. Unfortunately, based on the previous discussion, I don't see my editing style changing much. I guess the biggest change, is that I might be a little quicker to totally ignore comments from editors who waste my time with drama. If ANI seems like a good option, then go ahead and file the report. But then again, if I remember correctly, you previously stated how you were convinced that I was a sock-puppet, you knew the identity of the master account and that you would be filing a report, if you didn't like my edits. (which of course is all bullshit, because this is my one and only account, and you filed nothing). Probably the best thing for you to do, is to change the arrogant, moody and aggressive attitude of your comments, be a little nicer, learn to ask, rather than demand or threaten, and I'm sure I can be far more flexible the next time our paths cross. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I stated, keep on editing disruptively, and you will see what happens. As for you being a sockpuppet, you can keep playing the game, but we both know the truth. After what I stated to you on your talk page about it, I also later made it clear that I would not be bothering to report you. As seen at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 19#Oooohhh..., if I feel like reporting an editor as a sock, I will; if I don't, oh well. I have good reasons not to in some cases, such as wanting to build up more evidence (including using the editor's own responses about whether or not they are a sock), which I've excelled at time and time again. I do not bluff. But thanks for following me to the WP:Sock page to deliver input on my sock catching tactics. Much appreciated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And my response is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS.--v/r - T P 06:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward

Forget it then. Apparently you can remove whatever you like, and you don't have to take any responsibility for it at all.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:BURDEN: If the content you are thinking about removing is not vandalism or obviously wrong, then WP:PRESERVE applies. Please take a few moments to check that your edit improves the encyclopaedia before clicking "save".—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Re: your comment above "No, PRESERVE is not optional". Perserve is optional, do you know what's not? WP:V. WP:PRESERVE says we "should" do something. WP:V says we "must" do something. Clear as day.--v/r - T P 08:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No, no, no. It is not the editor removing content's responsibility to find a source. They dispute the existence of the source. They don't have a responsibility to prove a negative. That would take an infinite amount of time. It's on the editor who adds or restores content to prove the source exists, because proving it exists shouldn't take an infinite amount of time. WP:V is a core content policy. All content must be verifiable. If it's not verifiable, it must be removed. If I doubt a piece of content is verifiable, I have no obligation but to remove it. Period, dot.--v/r - T P 08:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No addition required. We are not talking about the removal of blatantly correct content that most laymen would be familiar and in agreement with. Keep it as it is, and point it out to editors adding content, that they should also be adding sources if there is any realistic chance of it being challenged. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That was blatantly correct content, easily verified by anyone with a one-minute internet search. Anyone editing in the mainspace ought to have performed the search before clicking save. I'm puzzled by your total refusal to accept any responsibility at all for that edit, and I'm worried by TParis' attitude which I think is unbecoming of a sysop.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree S Marshall. I agree it expressed commonly held notions about what child molesters do, but I am not at all sure that this is what they actually do. This kind of content is particularly important to actually VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- - It's a simple reading of the policy. Wikipedia is a reference for millions of people worldwide and it's important that our content is verifiable. If you want to say that an editor should spend the 30 seconds to google something before removing it - then fair enough. But what I'm not prepared to accept is that an editor must search indefinitely for a source. The editor removing content does not have that level of responsibility.--v/r - TP 19:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    - The proposed edit says "Please take a few moments." It doesn't say "You are absolutely obliged to perform a philosophically impossible task before you're permitted to remove any content."—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      - But it's not required. WP:Preserve says "should". For this change to WP:V to match the "should" language of WP:PRESERVE, it should say "...or obviously wrong, then consider WP:PRESERVE beforehand." Because, despite what you and Flyer22 Reborn have said, WP:Preserve is optional. You'll need to change that policy to make it a requirement. This is not the right policy to try to force that change through.--v/r - T P 20:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. I agree that WP:Preserve is not optional. There are various ways to preserve content; it is not simply about having an editor source the content. And I think that an editor should spend at least 30 seconds to Google something before removing it...unless it obviously should be removed or is best temporarily removed. For example, there can be formatting issues, WP:Due weight issues, or even WP:Consensus issues. Either way, it is high time that we put an end to the reckless removals of content in our Wikipedia articles based on WP:Burden reasoning. I also suggest that S Marshall turn this matter into a WP:RfC and advertise it at the appropriate forums, such as WP:Village pump (policy). I would help advertise it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposed - The proposed addition will simply result in more arguments and needless Wikilawyering... If we adopt it, editors will argue endlessly over whether the challenger performed a diligent enough search to preserve... Instead of taking the far faster (and ultimately less frustrating) path of least resistance... by simply returning the information with a source (if possible). The beauty of BURDEN is that it cuts through all the Wikilawyering bullshit. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall I won't address your comments regarding that specific article here. I will however address issues regarding the policy in general. If you have any outstanding issues on the specific article, go to the article talk page, or my user talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Our policies and guidelines are not absolute and rigid – see WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR. It therefore follows that WP:BURDEN is not an iron rule and so should be considered in context. For an example of WP:BURDEN being pushed too far, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there's no right to violate 3RR or to otherwise edit war over the removal or restoration of uncited material and the findings of fact in that case clearly state that the outcome was the result of the parties edit warring over it, not merely over the removal or restoration of the material. The case is not on point. Indeed, editors can and have been blocked for systematically or routinely removing unsourced material (especially, if the removals reflect a POV motive, but — very rarely — without one as well) but that's because of their generalized behavior, not because of any one or two removals. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion continued at S Marshall's talk page, and I like the points he made there as well. I want to point out that WP:Policies and guidelines states, "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

That's how I edit Wikipedia. I do not view our policies as optional unless there is a valid WP:Ignore all rules factor. And, to me, the word should in our policies reflects things we are supposed to do unless there is a valid WP:Ignore all rules factor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: If you view "should" so strongly, then you should obviously regard "must" in such high regards. As in "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (emphasis mine)--v/r - T P 06:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer has not been objecting to the idea of sources being added. She has only been objecting to the idea that she personally is required to find and add the sources to any PRESERVE-worthy material that is CHALLENGEd by editors whose CHALLENGE is based upon factual errors (as far as she can tell). Based upon several of these conversations, I believe that what she would prefer for the process is more like this: You remove unsourced material because you sincerely, although mistakenly, believe it's wrong. She reverts you and tells you that the material was correct, and you go find sources to prove that she's correct (and, to be fair, she almost always is correct). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what I have been stating, as should be clear to anyone who has read my comments in this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

New example

I didn't want to personalize this or lean too heavily on the Child grooming example (which is complicated), but let me give you one in which Flyer's edit is indisputably factually correct, so that we can avoid that unnecessary complication:

Someone recently made a change to Human penis. That change was wrong. Specifically, the source he relied upon directly says, on page 14, that what the editor believed to be a 'fact' was the prevailing belief only until the end of the 17th century, i.e., that it is no longer believed. It's an honest mistake, but it's a mistake. Flyer reverted to the accurate, but still unsourced statement.

A short edit war ensued, in which the other editor cited a source (which he slightly misread), and Flyer reverted again without adding any sources ...and went to the talk page to talk about how she's right, and spammed WPMED about the edit war, but never adding a single source to verify it. Some time later, someone else added the sources that AFAICT WP:BURDEN says Flyer should have added during or shortly after her very first reversion.

My question amounts to this: Does the ideal of PRESERVE exempt an editor from meeting the BURDEN when reverting an honest mistake? What do you think an editor in this (non-extraordinary) situation should have done? And is requiring this editor to provide a source (promptly) actually in conflict with PRESERVE at all?

Maybe what we need is to expand PRESERVE to explicitly say that if you restore CHALLENGEd material, then part of your duty under PRESERVE is to meet the BURDEN by providing one (1) plausibly reliable source to support it. Requiring you to demonstrate that the material is actually verifiable does not IMO seem to conflict with the idea that the material should be preserved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly support that last suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And frankly adding a source is by far the most effective means of settling these kinds of disputes. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, this rule would have made things easier for the editor who was damaging the article, and harder for the editor who was protecting it, so I think it's pretty obviously not an appropriate response to the edits we're discussing here.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this would have made no difference at all for the editor who was accidentally damaging the article, and that spending two minutes spamming in a pair of sources might have prevented an edit war, a thousand-word-long discussion on the talk page (including rather insulting comments about how the only editor who actually tried to provide a source wouldn't care what the sources say), another distress call to the WikiProject, the involvement of at least five other editors in resolving the dispute, and this discussion. So maybe it's "bad for editors who don't want to cite articles", if we assume that "refusing to provide citations" and "protecting the article" have a substantial overlap, but I'm thinking it's "pretty good for the overall project" to stop this kind of "I'll revert you but I won't back up my assertions with sources" thing, and "really great for the article", especially in the long run, to get those sources added. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

My position is that a large "substantial overlap" is between people who remove accurate paragraphs from the encyclopaedia and people we don't want editing the encyclopaedia. In other words, I feel that irrespective of whether someone's a vandal or a well-meaning idiot, reverting their damaging edits should be as easy as possible... at the end of the day Flyer is in the right and it behoves us to back her. No?—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What's clearly accurate to one person may be highly questionable to another person. Hence the need for sourcing. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If something's contested in good faith by one editor (do you really mean to call the editors in these disputes "idiots"?), then behooves us to get a source in the article so that we don't have to go through again in the future. Personally, I'd rather support citing a decent source than supporting the assertions of any editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I've been much grumpier on-wiki lately than I usually am. Nevertheless, yes, the word was meant: I've read the recent edits to that article and... err, respecting your wish not to name names or point fingers, I would characterise the content that Flyer22 removed as idiotic. In fact, there's a new policy for you! Let's have a Wikipedia version of the Idiots Act 1886. We could simplify all our other policies enormously.—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The human penis dispute had nothing to do with BURDEN v PRESERVE. The content was never sourced in the body nor in lead. An edit request with a citation to a book was made here to change "The penis is homologous to the clitoris" in the lead, to "The penis is homologous to the vagina" and it was implemented only in the lead here by someone who did it quickly (and apologized in the midst of the talk page hullaballoo). The citation given was ISBN 978-0071840064 p. 568. which I have uploaded to my google drive here for this discussion. That is not the clearest. If you dig into this; yes the glans of the penis and the glans of the clitoris are homologous (they both develop from the "genital tubercle"), but the original "genital fold" develops into the inner vaginal lips (labia minora) in women and into the "shaft" of the penis in men (kind of; tissues inside there come from somewhere else). (shown much more clearly here). So... neither editor was completely correct, content-wise; both were wrong. Flyer was more correct content-wise but not completely. This is just an example of two people, equally very sure of themselves, asserting things instead of working carefully from high quality sources <>altogether outside of VERIFY. No amount of policy will fix that. And it has nothing to do with BURDEN or PRESERVE. The Human penis article is still not correct even as I write this. I will go fix it now. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer claimed that PRESERVE justified her restoration of the original despite not adding a source; BURDEN says that whenever someone "restores" material that was removed for being (as far as one editor believes) factually wrong, that that person need to cite at least one source. Therefore, both of those policies have quite a lot to do with the behavioral aspects of the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

i agree that they have been cited. people mis-cite things all the time. Both sides failed WP:VERIFY and if you outside VERIFY you are in Mad Max land where nobody is acting appropriately. shoulda made that more clear above.Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There must be exceptions. A lot of text removal is purely vandalism that should be reverted, blocked and ignored, not encouraged by a scurry to find sources. You mustn't hogtie our vandal-fighters with any kind of absolutist language. Vandalism shades into ignorance and stupidity, and it should also be possible to revert an edit which is too stupid to stand. I shouldn't be obliged to leave obvious error in a key article just because I have to go out to work.—S Marshall T/C 08:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is not a CHALLENGE. We've already got that covered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I searched for "vandal" and "vandalism" in the page text and found only the hatnote. And how's "vandalism" defined for this purpose? Would it include people who're using BURDEN in a vexatious or retaliatory way, or to target the contributions of one particular editor?

I'm also concerned about editors who will use BURDEN to remove material that disfavours their (nationality/ethnicity/religion/sincerely held conviction/preferred brand of snake oil, delete as appropriate). I see from footnote #4 that this has been thought of and there's an instruction not to target one particular point of view in this way but if we're going to start strengthening BURDEN then I would also prefer that to be beefed up.

As you can see I'm very leery of this. We've had a number of recent incidents of editors employing BURDEN when (a) they're editing in topic areas they know nothing about and (b) they couldn't be bothered to google. I'm concerned that we're creating a tyranny of ignorance here, where editors who have useful knowledge to contribute are hindered because they're at the constant beck and call of Randy from Boise. I do realise how important BURDEN is to edits in the most contentious topic areas of the encyclopaedia but I'm quite worried about the impact of beefing it up in the rest of the encyclopaedia.

One answer might be to have various different versions of it. If we're talking about BURDEN used in an area subject to discretionary sanctions, then yes, strengthening it could be appropriate. What about if we're talking about BURDEN used by a school IP address on a featured article created by a Wikipedian who no longer edits? There's far too much potential for "I don't like this content you've written so I'm going to keep removing chunks of it until you go away"-type behaviour.

I've always been of the view that finding sources is everyone's job and I still encourage you to consider putting this language into the policy. Recent discussions here have brought me to the view that any editor who edit-wars to keep out something they could have verified with a thirty second google search should be held responsible for their behaviour and is in need of support and direction from our admin corps.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes "a challenge" isn't defined at all in this policy. However, the concept is fairly well-understood after community norms and many discussions. "A challenge" requires a good-faith claim that it is impossible to verify the material, e.g., that it is factually wrong or original research. Material removed for other reasons, e.g., that it is non-neutral or a copyvio, is not "a challenge". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct that "The human penis dispute had nothing to do with BURDEN v PRESERVE." As for me not being completely right about the homologous factor, that is not correct. Like I just stated here of Jytdog's edits, "I'm not sure about going with the 'Most of the penis' wording since sources simply state that they are homologous, and since the labia minora is an aspect of the clitoris." I know this because I have extensively researched the clitoris and wrote most of the Clitoris article. Sources don't usually state that "most of the penis is homologous to the clitoris"; they usually state that "the clitoris and penis are homologous."

WhatamIdoing's characterization of what happened at the Human penis article is completely off; nowhere in that discussion did I claim or imply that "PRESERVE justified [my] restoration of the original despite not adding a source in this case." I told WhatamIdoing the following: "The editor was vehement that he could source the content. If I had sourced my reversion, I felt that my addition would still be contested by this editor. After all, sources can conflict. But WP:Due weight is something we must also consider. And the due weight is with the clitoris and penis being homologous. [...] While I am a big believer in WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, I recognize that this is not a 'sky is blue' case. I wasn't stating that I was exempt from providing a source, but when something as detrimental as this is added to the lead of an article and the editor vehemently defends it, I will revert (once or twice) and bring the matter to the talk page for clarification. I am stating that simply adding a source for the information is not what was needed in this case. Discussing it here on the talk page is what was needed since the editor was, or is still is, convinced that he is right. I do not see that my adding a single source, or even two, to the statement in the lead would have resolved this dispute. When I bring a matter to the talk page, I am fully prepared to defend my reversion with WP:Reliable sources, as seen in this, this and this case."

In other words, I fully intended to provide sources for the material. There is nothing in WP:Burden that states that a source has to be immediately added; in fact, it's clear that time for providing a source is dependent upon the situation (it's a case-by-case basis). I was explicitly clear that I felt that the matter needed discussion and why. And, indeed, the other editor came back with a source, which he no doubt would have used to challenge any source I would have added. Taking the time to discuss matters, including educating editors while I'm at it, and providing sources there on the talk page, is what I do. WhatamIdoing doesn't like my approach, but I can't, and won't try to, do a thing about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And this and this clearly is not spamming. It's neutrally alerting the relevant WikiProjects to a relevant dispute, as is common. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In the section titled "WP:Preserve is policy" by you, you say things like "The WP:Burden is not solely on me" to provide sources for material that was CHALLENGEd in good faith (i.e., by removing the content while citing a policy that an experienced editor sincerely believed had been violated). You said that by restoring it without adding any sources, "I acted in accordance with both WP:Burden and WP:Preserve" because you believe that "that the burden was on [the other editor] to do your homework and preserve the appropriate content", despite the actual policy saying that the BURDEN is on "the editor who adds or restores material", which means you.

What was the result there? Five thousand words on the talk page – much of which is editors asking you to cite sources, and you claiming that someone else ought to do the boring bits – and five days later, you finally added the sources that you had previously claimed to be exempt from adding, by saying things like "I did my part by cleaning up [the other editor's] mess. He should have done his part by researching what he was removing."

BURDEN does not have a specific timeline, but we could fix that: We could update it to say The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies solely with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. In the event of an editor restoring material whose verifiability has been challenged in good faith, the reverting editor should normally cite a source within one hour of restoring the material to the article." Since an editor is nearly always offline within 30 minutes after the last edit was saved, I think that providing twice that amount of time is likely to be sufficient.

I don't actually care whether you "felt that my addition would still be contested" or even that you have such excellent mind-reading skills that you can reliably determine that "simply adding a source for the information is not what was needed". (Funny, but the edit war at that article stopped when someone – someone who not apparently laboring under the mistaken belief that a source-free "trust me, I know about this subject" talk-page chat would solve anything – spammed in a couple of sources, didn't it?)

I care whether you're citing sources when you are required to cite them. You need to stop "reverting (once or twice) and bringing it to the talk page for discussion", and start "reverting (once or twice), citing sources, and bringing it to the talk page – minus the foot-dragging and week-long delays. If you are having trouble believing that this policy requires you personally to promptly cite sources for explicitly challenged material when you personally hit the undo button, then I'm fully prepared to change both BURDEN and PRESERVE to make it absolutely, unmistakably clear that you must change your behavior and start citing sources when you revert the blanking of CHALLENGEd material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And the way you view these matters is flawed, per everything I and others (especially S Marshall) have stated on this situation. Since I've already made myself explicitly clear why what I did in the case of the Child grooming article was completely appropriate and that it's not a matter of an editor doing the homework for me, but rather a matter of the editor doing his homework in general and behaving competently so that his edits are not detrimental to Wikipedia, I am not going to extensively repeat myself. The WP:Preserve policy is clear that he should have done his homework and preserved the appropriate content. That policy is clear that it was his responsibility to do that, which is why I noted that the burden was also on him. Like others have stated on this talk page, locating sources is not solely the responsibility of the editor who objects to the removed material. You seem to be pitting WP:Burden against WP:Preserve, and that is not what we are supposed to be doing; they are supposed to be in harmony. The editor in question didn't view the policies as being in harmony either, but rather as contradicting each other, and that is a problem.

You stated, "Five thousand words on the talk page – much of which is editors asking you to cite sources, and you claiming that someone else ought to do the boring bits – and five days later, you finally added the sources that you had previously claimed to be exempt from adding, by saying things like 'I did my part by cleaning up [the other editor's] mess. He should have done his part by researching what he was removing.'" And that is yet another mischaracterization by you of what happened in a case of me reverting detrimental edits to important content that happened to be unsourced. What actually happened is that an editor carelessly removed easily verifiable, important content. I reverted a day later, stating, "Revert per WP:Preserve, and per what WP:Burden states about preserving. Blanking is not the solution. And 'unsourced' is not what is meant by the WP:Original research policy." I then made this edit, where I removed some redundancy and unencyclopedic wording. I intended to source the material, but, again, nowhere does WP:Burden state that an editor has to immediately source the material; it is clear that such matters are a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, some of us (including me) are extremely busy. You very well know that I am extremely busy. The editor showed back up two days later and made this edit, stating, "A notice that a citation was required has been there for four months. Feel free to add that content again, when there is a source supporting it." He didn't fully revert me, but he still removed easily verifiable content. So that was twice that he removed easily verifiable, important content without trying to preserve it. I took the matter to the talk page, where I made it very clear that I would be sourcing the material, but that it was important to address why the editor had acted inappropriately. For any editor who is open to constructive criticism and actually following this site's rules with common sense, that discussion would not have been a waste of time. I've had many such discussions with editors who took my words to heart and listened; they went on to become better editors. This case involving Thelonggoneblues is one such case. I did not revert a second time at the Child grooming article until I had sourced the material days later.

From what I see, the so-called edit war at the Human penis article stopped because the editor saw that he read the source wrong, in a hugely embarrassing way. He further saw that he was wrong by comments on the talk page. The so-called edit war stopped before Zad68 made that edit.

So what we have here is you criticizing my methods and presenting yourself as the more experienced and/or better editor, like you usually do, no matter that my methods get the job done and have worked well for years, and I am just as experienced as you are. You are a big believer in reverting once (despite the fact that you do not always revert only once); I am not...when reverting the second time is very helpful or needed. And it has not caused me much grief. What we have here is you making it seem like I felt I didn't have to source anything or refused to source anything, when, in the Child grooming article case, I was clear that I would be sourcing the material and eventually did source it, and certainly would have sourced the human penis content as well. My track record shows that I provide sources, either in the article or on the talk page, or both. It is my decision and right to go about the matter immediately or days later, and it is very understandable for the editor to source something days later when the editor is very busy. You commonly change our policies and guidelines, often without discussion, to suit your views. But if you think that adding "the reverting editor should normally cite a source within one hour of restoring the material to the article" is going to stick, I must state that you are mistaken. Do revisit Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#Restoration of challenged material. In the case of these two policies (WP:Burden and WP:Preserve), I will not simply sit back and let editors shape it willy-nilly. Any future substantial changes to them will be via consensus, as should be the case for any of our policies.

And to see you of all people, someone who has vehemently advocated for the WP:Preserve policy, be so nonchalant about the aforementioned detrimental edits to the Child grooming article, is quite the change. For example, at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading (your "17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)" and "21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)" posts), you sound very much like S Marshall and I sound now. You stated, "'Instead, whenever you encounter plausible but unsourced material, you personally should try to PRESERVE it. If the material actually is contentious/dubious/unverifiable/etc., then someone who knows that it's problematic will deal with it. We don't blank apparently acceptable material based on unsupported speculation that it might possibly be contentious. Let me give you a real example: a BLP contained a birthdate. In this instance, the birthdate was especially relevant (a 'youngest person' world record, since broken several times), and slightly wrong. The subject of the BLP corrected it. The correction was promptly reverted to the erroneous date because the accurate date wasn't sourced. Is that good? No. Does that actually comply with our policies? No. Is it appropriate to blank that highly relevant information? No. What should have been done? Someone should have stopped reverting and blanking and spent ten minutes finding an adequate source. That is, somebody should have followed our policy to PRESERVE good information about BLPs instead of taking the lazy, destructive, blank-em-all approach. [...] The community does not want you to destroy good content merely because someone didn't jump through a hoop labeled 'inline citation' before you saw the sentence." But, as seen in past WP:Burden discussions I've linked to above (you know, back when you wanted me on the "it's your job to source the information too" side), I've changed as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You will notice that I didn't blank any of this material. But saying that editors should not blank "plausible but unsourced material" – which is not what you were dealing with, since the other editors stated that the material was, to the best of their limited knowledge, better described as "wrong and unsourced material" – is not the same thing as saying "and if someone blanks material that you believe is plausible, then you can just restore it and skip all that stuff in BURDEN about "if you restore it, then you have to cite it".

"Don't blank stuff unnecessarily" is fully compatible with "Even if someone else blanked good material, then you have to cite it when you restore it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In the Child grooming article case, I was indeed dealing with an editor who removed "plausible but unsourced material"; there was not a thing implausible about what he removed. And as repeatedly stated, he did not even check to see if the material was plausible, which was a WP:Preserve violation. He removed the material because, to him, it seemed like WP:Original research, which was clearly his way of stating "unsourced and probably made up"...like so many other editors who misuse the WP:Original research policy. In the case of the Human penis article, it was not a WP:Burden vs. WP:Preserve matter at all, and the editor at least researched the topic after reverting me. And as for the rest, I've already been over it; I'm not going to repeat myself, especially since I am insanely busy these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

He did not believe the unsourced material was plausible.
Two wrongs don't make anything right. Other editors' alleged failures are no justification for you failing to respect BURDEN's very explicit requirement that you provide the sources whenever you restore unsourced material that was CHALLENGEd and removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that he "did not believe the unsourced material was plausible." I see no valid indication whatsoever that anyone could reasonably infer that the material was implausible. My opinion? Yes, but it is the rational one. Furthermore, neither WP:Burden nor WP:Preserve state or imply that it's okay to remove material simply because one thinks it's implausible. For example, no one should be going to our science articles and removing unsourced material simply because, with their limited knowledge, they think the material is implausible. And you know that. If it was okay to remove material simply because one thinks it's implausible, our articles would be worse off now and the WP:Preserve policy would not exist. Something being challenged does not mean that it was validly challenged. We commonly do not tolerate nonsense.

Two wrongs... There was no two wrongs since I did not act wrongly. No matter how many times you state or imply or that I did not "respect BURDEN's very explicit requirement that [I] provide the sources whenever [I] restore unsourced material that was CHALLENGEd and removed," the article's edit history shows that statement or implication to be false. With my "07:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)" post above, I recounted very clearly what happened. You are free to ignore it as much you wish to, but your mischaracterizations of what happened are easily dispelled. The only wrong here is you defending this editor's disruptive and misguided behavior, you acting like I behaved wrongly by not immediately sourcing the content, as if there is some wording in the policy page stating that the sourcing must be prompt, and you complaining about the fact that I complained about the editor's disruptive behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll just say that this may be the first time I've ever heard anyone involved in a BURDEN-related discussion suggest that material could be re-added and remain unsourced indefinitely(?) with the apparent intention for it to be sourced "eventually". I don't think that's how the majority of editors would interpret it, and to me it sounds a bit like rules-lawyering. Now, I have found myself in a situation where someone claimed that they had sources available but needed some time to get things sorted, and we discussed the matter amiably. Two weeks later they hadn't touched the article and I removed the unsourced material, left them a note, and haven't heard from them since. Call it cynicism, but my feeling is that the majority of editors who successfully add information to an article without providing sources at the time will not ultimately provide them later unless the issue is forced. I would also point out that for the PRESERVE-minded editor, moving the information to the article's Talk page until such time as it can be reintegrated with sources seems like a satisfactory compromise to me, and is a technique I have engaged in on multiple occasions. DonIago (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not state or imply that "material could be re-added and remain unsourced indefinitely." Just replied to WhatamIdoing above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

People keep missing the point... BURDEN isn't about what has to happen before a removal - it's about what has to happen before a restoration. What is required in order to remove information is often subject to interpretation (and the decision as to whether to remove, tag, or ignore unsourced information often involves making a judgement call). The requirements for restoring information, however, are not subject to interpretation or judgement. Whether you agree with the removal or not, if you want to restore it... you have to supply a source. It really is that basic. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. All this absolutism in the emphatic declarative. If you, Blueboar, or WhatamIdoing, or Flyer22, removed content then I would understand that I was required to add a source before restoring it. That understanding would be because I know you're not vandals or editing vexatiously, and because I trust you not to remove factual content unless you had reason to be sure (either you knew, or else you'd checked, that it was inaccurate). But if an IP address or brand new account removed content without explanation? Nope, not buying that I can't revert.—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

But if any editor has removed information without explanation you're allowed to restore it and ask them to provide one. In fact, there are warning templates for editors who are removing information without providing an edit summary. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that has to be correct but I don't think Blueboar agrees. I feel that if it is correct the policy should say so unambiguously. I also think there's more to this than edit summaries.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Based upon previous conversations, I'm prepared to guarantee that Blueboar does agree that an unexplained blanking is not necessarily a CHALLENGE. If it's not a CHALLENGE, then BURDEN does not necessarily apply.

However, when someone uses an edit summary such as "seems like a lot of original research" or "That was correct, i will add the source!", to give two examples from these disputes, then I don't think that any reasonable person can claim that these are unexplained removals or reversions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As much as one would like it to be "simple", it's not (encyclopedia writing for the unthinking?): by removing correct information that belongs in an article - belonging, generally a judgment concerning other policies, not this one -- makes an article worse, and even possibly misleading by removal of context or mistaken in other ways. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And again, none of that has anything to do with BURDEN. Burden is about restoring information, not about removing it.

If someone removes an accurate, but unsourced statement, it isn't a big deal... Because you can easily return it with a source. Returning the statement with a source doubly improves the article.

On the other hand... Arguing about whether the removal was justified or not is a waste of everyone's time (especially your own time). Don't do it. You can spend days in unnecessary argument... Or... You can spend two minutes finding a source, and returning the statement. I am going to favor the short path every time.

To quote from Star Wars... "Let the Wookie win". Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a 'big deal' to make articles worse, misleading and so on. Whether anyone will be there to correct it, is an unproven wish. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's not a waste of time to inform editors that carelessly removing material is highly problematic and WP:Preserve should be taken into account. If an editor carelessly removes material from an article, I am very likely to note the matter in an edit summary while fixing the matter, or on the article talk page before very likely fixing the matter, or on the editor's talk page before very likely fixing the matter. Doing so has often improved Wikipedia because the editor saw how careless he or she was and now knew of the WP:Preserve policy. Like I've noted more than once, the WP:Preserve policy is not as widely known as the WP:Burden policy, and, enough editors who do know about it, ignore it. Also, I strongly support the view that inaccurate or otherwise problematic information should not stay in our articles, no matter if the correct or otherwise better version is unsourced. It's obviously better to go with the correct, unsourced version than the detrimental version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I would say it's better to go with no text at all than either allegedly correct but unsourced information or information that is sourced but known to be incorrect. Who is to say that the information is correct if it has been challenged and nobody can provide a source? DonIago (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If nobody can provide a source then of course the content should be removed. With all due respect, nobody has said otherwise. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the interaction between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, so by definition the content we're talking about meets both.

This bears some emphasis in case it wasn't apparent. WP:PRESERVE says "Preserve appropriate content". Only verifiable material is appropriate for Wikipedia. Therefore nobody is talking about unverifiable material.

The subject we are discussing is material that is fully verifiable, but has been challenged anyway. WhatamIdoing has posted examples involving good faith editors who are employing WP:BURDEN because, apparently, they can't be bothered to google. I do not think these people are helping us to build an encyclopaedia, and I am disinclined to pander to them, but I think WhatamIdoing is more sympathetic. I have also been discussing cases where editors employing WP:BURDEN might not be in good faith. But, if you'll excuse the increasingly Blueboar-like levels of text emphasis I'm finding myself using in this discussion: nobody is saying we should PRESERVE unverifiable content.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming I'm reading you right...and my apologies if I'm not...what you seem to be saying is that editors should have the right to claim that material is verifiable without providing a source, perhaps by claiming "a quick Google search will turn up sources". If that's the case, then I'm still left feeling that the most expeditious resolution is to simply re-add the information with the source itself. Why argue about whether sources can or cannot be easily found when you'll spend more time engaged in that argument than you will by spending (probably) less time simply adding a source? I hope the intention isn't to prove a point. Maybe editors shouldn't need to do that (I imagine feelings on that depend on who you talk to), and yeah, it sucks to be told that one's allegations of verifiability aren't good enough, but the sky isn't always blue either.

Speaking again to my cynical nature, when editors start to claim that material shouldn't need to be sourced because it's "common sense" or can "easily be sourced", it tends to just increase my skepticism...because if it can be done so easily, why are those editors not doing so? To assume bad faith for a moment, it often seems they are more invested in the argument than in any preservation of material, because the fastest, strongest way to preserve material is to source it. DonIago (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Surely the fastest, strongest way to preserve material is to do the basic checks before you remove it in the first place. Surely this is why PRESERVE is policy. Any editor who's removing material recklessly or stupidly is making needless work for the rest of us and should be summarily reverted, and receive administrative intervention if they persist. Wiktionary's rule about this is an admirable summary of my thinking, so I'll quote it:- Actions that appear destructive are usually either a result of someone not caring, not understanding, or not thinking. Those who don't care should be blocked lest they cause damage, those who don't understand should have things explained to them, and accidental damage should be undone. Once the removing editor has done their minimum due diligence under PRESERVE and decided to remove the material anyway, at that point we have a valid challenge under BURDEN and yes, you should need to provide a source before you restore. The effect of PRESERVE is really to define what legitimately counts as a challenge and what's just asshattery.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And as for common sense stuff, I don't believe that common sense stuff should be cited...but I will cite it if the editor is silly enough to persist in challenging the information, or if I'm beyond annoyed by the matter. WP:Verifiability is more so about material that is likely to be challenged anyway. Otherwise, a lot of our encyclopedic but unsourced articles would simply be blanked in their entirety. Wikipedia generally does not encourage such blanking...just like it does not encourage deleting an article without doing a WP:Before job. WP:Preserve is like WP:Before. If one should check to see if an article meets the WP:Notability requirement and/or other requirements to be a standalone piece before seeking to have the article deleted, one should check to see if information in an article is verifiable and important before deleting it. If there are other reasons for deleting the information (such as WP:Due weight issues or WP:Consensus issues), that's different. As for editors complaining about others recklessly removing easily verifiable content, they, as I noted above, should complain about it. And, as I noted above, a lot of us are too busy to immediately source the easily verifiable content we restored. There's also the fact that sourcing some content can take an hour or more. In the Child grooming article case, not only was I busy, it was not a quick sourcing matter when it came to sourcing all of that. I took the matter to the talk page and was clear that I would be sourcing it. As previously noted, I sourced it days later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Or, "nope". The fastest way to preserve material is to be omniscient, and for every other editor to respect your omniscience. However, the policy-compliant way is for you to source CHALLENGEd material that you choose to restore. If you don't choose to add the source promptly, or you feel that you can't because you're "too busy", then leave the decision about whether to source it and restore it for someone else. (You can always copy it to the talk page, as recommended by PRESERVE, if you're worried that it will get lost in the page history.)

The English Wikipedia does encourage the blanking of unsourced material that any editor believes is wrong. The suggested timescale runs from absolutely immediately for contentious claims about living people to some months after tagging for minor things, but if you honestly believe that something is wrong, then we want that material either to be verifiED correct or killed. Blanking unsourced material that an editor suspects of being wrong, even if it would belong in the article if correct, has been explicitly encouraged for years:

"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. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."
— Jimmy Wales, 19 July 2006

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Letting important information stay out of our articles because an editor did not due his or her duty of checking to see that the material is important is not a solution; it's detrimental. Leaving inaccurate information in our articles is not the solution; it's detrimental, and, above, I quoted you from years ago making that clear. WP:BURO, which is also policy, is very clear that our policies and guidelines should not be used so strictly that they are detrimental to our articles; they should be used with care and common sense. And that's how I edit. Blanking unsourced material that an editor suspects of being wrong, even if it would belong in the article if correct, has never been explicitly encouraged when it is solely based on suspicion because the editor did not research what he or she was removing; WP:Preserve is intended to stop silly removals like that. The only way I would remove material based on suspicion is if my researching the topic did not bring back any results for support of the material and/or if it's WP:Non-English. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"Blanking unsourced material that an editor suspects of being wrong" is absolutely mandatory for contentious material about BLPs, and it is to be done "immediately", e.g., without waiting to do research. Therefore, I conclude that your assertion that this "has never been explicitly encouraged" is false. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You can conclude that, but Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#Restoration of challenged material and various other discussions show that Wikipedians often do not tolerate editors removing any ole unsourced material that they want to from our BLPs. Like I just stated to you above, "Something being challenged does not mean that it was validly challenged. We commonly do not tolerate nonsense." In my "22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)" post, I wasn't focusing on WP:BLPs anyway, which everyone knows are a stricter matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break

I'd totally agree with WhatamIdoing that any editor can and should blank material they believe is wrong. I think the only bone of contention here is at what point it's reasonable to "believe it's wrong". My position is that there are two alternatives: (1) You have a basic knowledge of the topic area and you reasonably believe the information is wrong; or (2) You are ignorant of the topic area but you have performed a basic internet search, glanced for up to sixty seconds at the first page of results, followed any of the links that might be to reliable sources, checked, and you then reasonably believe the information is wrong. My position is that if you haven't done these things then you might well believe it's wrong, but you have no reasonable basis for your belief, and it's irresponsible of you to remove the content. It's also a violation of the editing policy as enshrined at PRESERVE. If Flyer22 then reverts you she may be in breach of BURDEN, but you the removing editor breached PRESERVE first.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And how do we know which category another editor is in? Typically, the person who removes the information honestly believes that he/she is knowledgeable, and that the removal is reasonable. And typically those who object believe that the remover is ignorant, and that the removal is unreasonable. We are supposed to assume good faith... even when it comes to removals. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How do we know which category? We use our judgment. This discussion was triggered by two groups of edits. Firstly, this, followed by edit-warring to keep the content out (here and here). I'm completely confident that neither you, Blueboar, nor WhatamIdoing, would ever have removed this content with this edit summary. The removing editor lacked a basic knowledge of the topic area and had not performed a thirty-second google search. Both Flyer22 and I sourced the content but this was fractious, difficult and wasteful of competent editor time. My position is that if repeated, this kind of behaviour should be grounds for administrator intervention on the basis that the removing editor was in breach of the editing policy. I feel it would be better if WP:BURDEN did not enable and encourage removing key paragraphs from articles you know nothing about and have not researched. The other example seems more complicated to me.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also... there is a third alternative... (3) You are an intelligent person who knows a little bit about a topic area... enough to question some bit of unsourced information... but not enough to know which sources are reliable, and which are not reliable (there is a lot of unreliable crap on the internet, after all... so doing a quick google search may not actually answer the question). My opinion is that it is quite reasonable to challenge the information in such situations, in the hopes that those who know the topic better than you do (those who might be able to determine which sources are reliable, and which are not) will supply a reliable source for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case I would say that you were not behaving recklessly or stupidly, and I would feel that your CHALLENGE was reasonable. I would urge you to employ a tag before removing the text, but if your decision was to remove the text, then I think it would be inappropriate to revert you summarily. I would not be willing to replace the challenged content without an inline citation to a reliable source. I only really differ from your position in the case of editors who recklessly or stupidly remove content that is verifiable but not verified.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
In which case, you must agree that the editor at Human penis took a reasonable action, based upon his (or her) knowledge of the subject (however limited that knowledge may have been). The edit summaries there indicate that the editor recognized that the text was didn't match what he'd read before – and even cited a reliable source to support the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally I find that example more complicated. The editor had researched and come to conclusions which, ah, do not accord with what I was taught in developmental biology. They also apologised, and were less confrontational and less prone to edit-war. Yes, I do find their behaviour in general more reasonable. I think the child grooming example is much clearer, and I think it strips the issue we're discussing down to the bare essentials, because the content that was removed was indisputably accurate, the removing editor was factually wrong. In that case "reckless" is not too strong a word.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

In general i am struggling with this whole debate. VERIFY is fundamental to what we do here and citing sources is really basic scholarship. Basic. I have >60K edits and I don't think I have ever written something in Wikipedia (outside of content in a LEAD) that wasn't derived from a source and cited to that source. The mission is to provide the public with articles that reliably summarize accepted knowledge. I struggle with people who edit emphasizing PRESERVE but will not provide sources per VERIFY; they are never on solid ground as they are always at least half-wrong. This whole thing, arguing fiercely over unsourced content, is just so wrong-headed and .... lost. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(Written in response to the first version of Jytdog's comment): This discussion was triggered by this edit, followed by edit-warring to keep that paragraph out of the article. It's pretty clearly intended to invoke WP:BURDEN, and it was pretty clearly a reckless and/or negligent edit in contravention of the editing policy. You're not exactly my favourite editor, Jytdog, but you're capable of paying attention and thinking before you click "save". You probably wouldn't have made that edit, and if you had made it and been reverted, you would have checked and then apologised. You certainly wouldn't have edit-warred to keep the paragraph out. Why are you defending behaviour that I'm quite sure falls far below your own standards?—S Marshall T/C 17:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See what I wrote here, to you. That content should not be in WP without a high quality source. That is the issue here, to me. There is all kinds of nonsense that people believe about really important things. Whether this is nonsense, half-nonsense, or is actually a summary of what we know about molesters, I don't know. That nobody brought a source is bad on both sides; nobody was applying basic scholarship. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is saying that the content shouldn't be in Wikipedia without a high-quality source. There are plenty of high-quality sources for it, and in fact when I was pinged, I provided one with my next edit. (If you don't know who the NSPCC are or why they're a reliable source, please don't edit articles about child protection on Wikipedia.) I've repeatedly said that finding sources is everyone's job. What would you have done in Spacecowboy420's position? Would you have removed the content and edit-warred to keep it out, or would you have looked it up?—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Or perhaps both? Flyer originally claimed that it would be easy to source it (and so the editor, if he'd done next to no searching at all, should have kept it), but then says that it took quite a long time to find reliable sources to support it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  - It was easy to source, though. You can very easily test that for yourself. My experience of you is that you're a thoughtful and reasonable editor who cares about getting articles right, and I think we want policy to encourage editors to behave roughly as you would. And I keep saying that you would not have behaved like that. You would not have edit-warred to keep that content out. Would you? Will you look me in the eye and tell me the removing editor wasn't behaving recklessly?—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    - Sure: I believe that we could identify multiple other satisfactory explanations for that edit, ranging at least from worrisome POV pushing through a POINTY-headed CHALLENGE to an honest misunderstanding based upon the editor's knowledge. However, I do not believe that recklessness – which means being indifferent to what happens to the article – is a reasonable explanation. It seems to me that the editor cared very much what happened to that content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
      - Hm. Okay, I admire your ability to see the best in people. I think if that editor cared about the content he would have checked the sources. All I see is an editor objecting to being reverted and creating a content dispute where none was necessary.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring is reckless, no doubt about it. Removal of unsourced material or removal of unsourced material which has been restored without a source is not, regardless of how easy it might be to provide a source, unless, perhaps, the removal is so quick as to not provide the restorer the chance to provide a source in a second edit within a few minutes or, at most, an hour or two. While removing unsourced material without first seeking a source or {{cn}}-tagging may be a reason for sanctioning someone if done routinely and as a practice (especially, and perhaps only, if in pursuit of a POV), the remedy is not to restore the unsourced material unilaterally but to file a complaint at ANI. The problem in that case is not the removal of the material per se (regardless of subject matter or deemed importance) but the fact that an editor is consistently not following best practices and, by doing so, demonstrating that s/he is NOTHERE. Prior to showing that about themself, however, AGF is also a policy and on any individual edit or short or intermittent series of edits (interspersed, in the latter case, with quality edits) cannot be presumed to be reckless merely because they remove without looking for a source which is clearly permitted by policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to pick out and address this idea that WP:AGF protects editors who remove content. Obviously AGF applies to everyone, but the true case is that Wikipedians can, do, and must, form judgments about the intent behind an edit. This is what makes it possible to deal with editors who are socking, have undisclosed agendas, or otherwise behave in ways detrimental to the encyclopaedia. We look at the edits and we judge the person behind them: it's routine, normal. In the specific case we're discussing any fool can see that we weren't dealing with a bad-faith editor. We were dealing with Randy in Boise.

There's an apposite quote from WP:COMPETENCE: Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, differences in skill sets are not a problem. This was technical content, and the truth is that Wikipedia is full of un-cited technical content. I could spend my whole life going through articles within the scope of, say, WikiProject Mathematics adding citations to paragraphs that are perfectly accurate and have no inline citations whatsoever. And when I'd finished Randy from Boise would still be able to remove random paragraphs under WP:BURDEN to the material detriment of the encyclopaedia. We're at the stage now where not every key article is on anyone's watchlist. People like Flyer22, who're willing to watch this stuff and guard its accuracy, need our support. We can lose valuable editors this way. Please feel free to pop over to her talk page and add a thank-you or the barnstar of your choice because if she hadn't intervened, the article would probably still look like it did when Spacecowboy420 left it.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced. It is still not a matter of intent, it's a matter of effect. Someone whether they are clueless or malicious does something that makes an article worse. (True we perhaps err on the side of assuming cluelessness but then again, we want to communicate in a non-drama fashion, clarify, remember we are not infallible, etc.). But sure, extended cluelessness becomes an incompetence problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, S Marshall. I want to point out that I do follow the WP:AGF guideline (it's not a policy), but I am not as strict with it as some editors are. I've already noted that I follow our rules with care and common sense. But just as there are times when I probably should have assumed good faith, there are times where assuming good faith was inaccurate. As seen in this and this section from my talk page, Bishonen rightly questioned me for reverting a couple of edits as WP:AGF. I told Bishonen the following: "There was a time when I would have been quick to revert that as vandalism. These days, I am more likely to assume that maybe the editor heard it somewhere, including by the subject himself, was joking because they honestly don't know how Wikipedia is supposed to work, or something else. I glanced at the edit quickly and wanted it gone, and I did not want to analyze it any further than that. I usually revert vandalism or other disruptive edits as vandalism or disruption; other times I might not. And I'm stating that as someone who despises how much the WP:Good faith guideline is used without reason. Goodness knows it's my enemy in sockpuppet cases where I know what I'm talking about and sometimes have to put up with the 'assume good faith' people."

Bishonen pointed to WP:Don't link to WP:AGF, which is an excellent essay about people pointing/linking to the WP:AGF guideline in unhelpful or inaccurate ways. None of the cases being discussed here now at this talk page was a WP:AGF matter. Pointing out reckless behavior is not a violation of WP:AGF. We all make mistakes. And, in this case, Spacecowboy420 made a mistake. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break

What a wall of text over what could be a nonissue. Article content is supposed to be referenced so that anyone reading the article knows where it's from. Otherwise, the likely answer is "Off the top of the editor's head" (or a somewhat less polite expression meaning the same thing). That might be right, it might not. If someone challenges it (a real challenge, such as a removal with the edit summary "Remove, this needs a reference", not some drive-by blanking vandal, and yes we can all tell the difference), the burden is now on any editor who wants to restore the material to go find that reference. If it's something dead obvious and well known, great! Finding the reference will be very easy. Cite it, restore the material, everyone goes on about their day. But I know I've had more than one experience where I thought I knew something, only to find out I was wrong to some degree when I actually went and looked. And that's why the requirement actually is that article material should be referenced in the first place. If someone notices it's not and challenges it, an editor wishing to restore it must find and cite a reliable source. Period. If that can't be easily done, well then, the material should stay gone until we can find a good reference and get good facts from it. Challenging unreferenced material is not "damaging" or "vandalizing" an article; indeed, I'd say it's more damaging to an article to have massive chunks of unreferenced text hanging around indefinitely. To not worry about it with your own edits, every time you add article material, cite a reference. You were doing that anyway, right? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, could you just confirm that you've followed the diffs and you know the context?—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Seraphimblade nailed it. Most of the above is drama that misses the fundamentals. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of talk about the blindingly obvious. Really, either remove or tag it if you're too busy to source it. If you're the one adding it back in under some urgent compulsion to PRESERVE, then either source it or at least tag it yourself as {{cn}}. We do need to stiffen our resolve on this: why not ask for cites up front, before the content. Even if they're badly formed cites, it should clarify to other editors just whence the wild idea came. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, I think that all Seraphimblade really needs to know about the diffs is this: At Human penis, neither the sourced change nor the unsourced version that Flyer was reverting to were actually correct. One was certainly more wrong than the other, but it's not until these edits by Jytdog that the article gets the facts straight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

And as made clear above and at the Human penis talk page, "[S]ources don't usually state that 'most of the penis is homologous to the clitoris'; they usually state that 'the clitoris and penis are homologous.' [...] The clitoris and penis develop from the genital tubercle and are very much the same organ, except manifested in different ways due to sexual differentiation. This is why they are called homologous rather than 'mostly homologous.' " So, given the abundance of sources that state that "the clitoris and penis are homologous," including those that do so without any need of stating that "the shaft is homologous to the labia minora" (you know, the same labia minora that is an aspect of the clitoris), feel free to explain how the article stating "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." was wrong. I've been meaning to expand on this at the Human penis talk page discussion, but I'll go ahead briefly note it here as well: Sources are not always consistent in how they address the genital tubercle and urogenital folds matter with regard to the development of the clitoris and penis. This is likely because the urogenital folds aid the formation of the urethral groove on the ventral portion of the genital tubercle. Some sources simply state that the genital tubercle forms the glans clitoris and glans penis, while other sources state the genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis, and that the genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris. In other words, sources do not only state that the genital tubercle only forms the glans of both organs. Nor do they usually state that genital tubercle only forms the glans of both organs. This 2003 Diagnostic Imaging of Fetal Anomalies source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 606, is one example of that. This 2011 Lecture Notes: Biomedical Science source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 245, is another. And this 2009 Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility source, from BI Publications Pvt Ltd, shows where both Jytdog and I were coming from; it has the following layout:

Labioscrotal swellings -- Scrotum/Labia majora

Urogenital folds -- Ventral aspect of the penis/labia minora

Genital tubercle -- Penis/Clitoris

Urogenital sinus -- Urinary parts

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I really don't have much more to state on this matter. I'd be repeating myself if I did. But I will state the following: If I find any editor consistently carelessly removing unsourced material from our articles (which means that they are consistently ignoring the WP:Preserve policy), I am likely to report it at WP:ANI. And given the cases I've seen at WP:ANI about such reckless removals (I don't mean the vandals, obviously), and given matters seen at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#Restoration of challenged material, I'd have more than enough support on the issue. Challenging unreferenced material is damaging our articles when the content belongs in our articles and the editor(s) recklessly removed it instead of following one of the protocols listed in the WP:Preserve policy. And it's not unnecessary drama to point out or bitch about this reckless behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be unusually certain of your ability to determine whether another person is behaving recklessly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's called having eyes and common sense. You seem to be unusually certain that defending reckless behavior, and criticizing those for pointing out the reckless behavior, is beneficial to this project. It isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

To determine that an action is "reckless", you must make a judgment about the actor's state of mind (to quote Wiktionary: "reckless, adjective: Careless or heedless; headstrong or rash. Indifferent to danger or the consequences.") I don't usually think that editors who spend multiple days asking you to please provide a source to support the material, or one who very promptly provides a source himself, are actually "careless". That sounds like "caring quite a bit" rather than "not caring at all". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Determining reckless behavior is not rocket science. Editors at this site are usually correct about what is and is not reckless behavior, which is why the WP:Vandalism policy and WP:Disruptive editing guideline exist, and why the WP:Competence essay exists. The removal of the content at the Child grooming article was reckless behavior, plain and simple. And why has been thoroughly explained in this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Seraphimblade is only a little off. It's just the way of the wiki and demonstrably true in the real world that as WP:V recognizes, it is possible (and regularly done on and off wiki) to write good encyclopedia content without in-line citation. So, according V policy, ab initio 'all' that is generally required is for RS to exist not that it be cited. For those who lack clue in editing about a topic, it needs to be continually stressed, so they get clue, that the purpose of policy is not to follow policy but to have good encyclopedia articles. (Thus also, V policy actively encourages editors to become educated about the topic they are editing.)Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well said; this is why I pointed to the WP:BURO policy above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not quite... Because information that is "likely to be challenged" does have to be cited ab initio. And ... Even when something might not have to be cited ab initio , a citation becomes required should it actually be challenged. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. Because to state a challenge you need to upon actual consideration, be able to say in good faith (assumed), that you do not think an RS exists (can be found). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Which was, in fact, done in both of these examples. One said (I paraphrase very liberally from edit summaries) "This is wrong, I'm correcting it and citing a source that supports my correction rather than the old text", and the other said "This is original research", the very definition of which is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

So, yes, while it's helpful to be explicit (so that other editors know that you're definitely issuing a CHALLENGE), in these two cases, there can be no reasonable doubt about whether the existence of reliable sources to support the removed content was the main question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Which was, in fact, done in both of these examples."? No, it wasn't. In the Child grooming case, the editor simply stated that the content seems like original research; he was not sure and did not check to see if the content was correct. In no way did he indicate "I don't think reliable sources exist at all for this content." He was simply lazy, reckless and standoffish. In the Human penis case, the editor simply believed he was correct; he did not indicate that he believed that reliable sources could not be found for what I was restoring. He then went on a search; I have no doubt that he came across sources supporting the content he was removing, but it seems he still wanted to find a source to support his text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WAID, it's not about empty formalism, including in the challenge. Where someone misrepresents something is true (eg. an RS does not exist, eg., NOR exists) when it is false, they are at best mistaken, and should review their method. Otherwise, if it continues, where they repeatedly maintain such false assertions about sources and thus subjects, they put their competence and good faith in issue. Occasional mistakes fine, but work to reduce them (the easiest and best way is by learning about the subject you edit). If their concern is another content policy, they should learn how to express and discuss that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow the level of credulity there... Well there is one born every minute, as they say. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your comment makes no sense, if you are responding to my comment. Or are you just trying to make an off-topic personal attack? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy that says "check your common sense at the login page". The radical (!) claim you are made that people accept that every word of some bit of content accurately summarizes accepted knowledge was rather surprising to read. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, your statement about my supposed "radical" claim makes no sense. Central to my comment was 'learn about the topic you edit.' That's not radical, and not requiring anyone's acceptance, it is about making informed judgements in your editing. Do you have something against people knowing the topic they edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has become completely "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". Look the mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. The content of articles must be actually derived from published, reliable sources and if challenged a source must be provided. You completely flipped common sense on its head when you wrote "Where someone misrepresents something is true (eg. an RS does not exist, eg., NOR exists) when it is false..." The baseline in Wikipedia (and in the real world) is not "assume everything you read is true". Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no common sense in not knowing the subject you are editing. If you don't know the subject, you don't know the subject, and are prone to misrepresent knowledge about the topic, including its sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

of course one has to know the subject matter. that is not the part of your radical statement i am reacting to. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not making much sense because practically the entire comment is about knowing your subject, including what sources exist in the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I will reply a last time and then am done here b/c I don't have time to debate angels on pins. You made a very broad statement above. In my experience (both watching and doing), when people who know the subject matter challenge unsourced content, it is a win for encyclopedia most of the time, because most unsourced content is in whole or part OR or unverifiable. I cannot think of the last time I came across unsourced content, wanted to source it, and left the content unchanged after finding a high quality source and citing it. I work in pretty technical areas so maybe others' experience is different. But this whole thing about "Where someone misrepresents something is true (eg. an RS does not exist, eg., NOR exists) when it is false, they are at best mistaken" is just upside down. You are putting all this emphasis on the very rare set of cases where it turns out that that every bit of the unsourced content was actually very high quality, and was just lacking a source. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I made a so-called "broad statement" that you failed to read in context, so you seized upon it out of context. As for your practice, good, that's exactly what I suggested, as for people who don't do that, they should learn, which is also what I suggested. People actually do need to take responsibility for their claims about sources. (and to just put a coda on the rest, you do keep the good stuff, you don't keep the bad but that is not done in wholesale removal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We should probably define what constitutes a valid challenge, because that's what this whole argument is really about.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but no... I doubt we will ever reach consensus on what constitutes "a valid challenge". The best we might be able to achieve is a consensus on a few very limited situations that constitute an invalid challenge ... And even those will be difficult to reach consensus on. Personally, I would call any challenge "valid", as long as the editor who is doing the challenging is acting in good faith... ie he or she believes the challenge is valid. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The policy already says what a valid challenge is, and it pretty closely follows with what the policy expressly says it wants, for there to be an RS (whether cited or not). Thus, a valid challenge is when after due consideration the challenger has real (ie., good faith) reason to think that that an RS does not exist/cannot be found. Perhaps, we could be clearer but really the point and principle is 'make articles better: know/study the topic you edit.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Alan, I'm afraid it doesn't say what a valid challenge is.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does: When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable . . . communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified . . .

If you want it more hard edge than that fine, but it specifically says what the mental and communicative process is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

With my "06:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)" post above, I stated, "no one should be going to our science articles and removing unsourced material simply because, with their limited knowledge, they think the material is implausible. [...] If it was okay to remove material simply because one thinks it's implausible, our articles would be worse off now and the WP:Preserve policy would not exist. Something being challenged does not mean that it was validly challenged. We commonly do not tolerate nonsense." And with his "13:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)" post above, S Marshall stated, "I could spend my whole life going through articles within the scope of, say, WikiProject Mathematics adding citations to paragraphs that are perfectly accurate and have no inline citations whatsoever. And when I'd finished Randy from Boise would still be able to remove random paragraphs under WP:BURDEN to the material detriment of the encyclopaedia."

Those statements are in harmony and yet conflict at the same time. This is because, if other editors chime in, I don't think that "Randy from Boise would still be able to remove random paragraphs under WP:BURDEN to the material detriment of the encyclopaedia." I've seen enough cases where editors blank material because it's unsourced and then get criticized for it, warned for it, or sanctioned for it. Not simply because they removed unsourced material, of course, but rather because they carelessly removed it. They did not take the time to see if the content was correct and/or try to preserve it. This is usually in the case of important content that was removed. Time and again this site has objected to editors going in and downsizing an article with good content to a stub simply because the article was unsourced. Sure, the editor can cite WP:Burden, but another can cite WP:Preserve and ask that the other editor restore the material, or agree to restore the material, because it will soon be cited. WP:Preserve is clear that there is no set time limit; it's something to be worked out between the editors. So, yes, I think that Wikipedia already recognized what a valid challenge is; I see it all the time in WP:Disruptive editing cases, including those of the WP:POINT variety. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG clarification request

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A number of news organizations, such as Forbes and CNN, support columnist blogs, but exercise little, if any, editorial control. I specifically like taxgirl's blog at Forbes. She's a tax expert, but her column should not be considered BLP-reliable. I think this is common enough to justify clarification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

From personal experience, I sportsblogged for Newsweek for a short time, I know that blog submissions are rarely scrutinized. My writing was copy edited but the content was never verified....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm not necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you, but I'd like to hear what exactly that you think needs clarification. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The example in which (IMO) a source has been improperly considered reliable is "taxgirl"s blog in forbes.com being used to support information about the IRS / Tea Party controversy. She's an expert on taxes, not necessarily on internal IRS procedures, and almost certainly not on politics. My recollection is it's been called "reliable" because of WP:NEWSBLOG, even though it doesn't appear to be under Forbes' editorial control. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Sorry about the slow response. I'm traveling and only have a little time to be online each day and some days not at all. Is taxgirl an expert when judged by the definition of expert in WP:SPS? Since a newspaper blog is, in that case, a self-published source, that's the definition of expert which would apply. Whether WP:BLPPRIMARY should apply if she's talking about living persons is a bit trickier. It would seem to me that any source which is self-published is also primary, but that's just off the top of my head. WP:BLPN would be a good place to ask about that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not necessarily primary sources. (For example, if a scientist posted a meta analysis of scientific reports on Facebook, then the source would be "secondary" but "self-published". Also, probably WP:NOTGOODSOURCE.)

However, when it comes to controversial statements about BLPs, the English Wikipedia frequently imposes nearly identical rules on both, so determining the exact classification may not matter much in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Alter wording of footnote on BURDEN?

Latest comment: 7 years ago120 comments13 people in discussion

The footnote that says "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient" seems to turn WP:BURDEN on its head. We are always supposed to assume good faith. This means that every time anyone claims that they "believe" a source verifies the material they must be taken at their word and the burden is then suddenly on the party wishing to remove the unsourced material.

Shouldn't the footnote read "Once an editor has provided any source that sufficiently verifies the material"?

Another option would of course be to change "(e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)" to read "(e.g., the cited source failing to fully verify the material, undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)"

I know it probably seems like I'm being nitpicky, but this is such a massive problem for the project that clarifying it here, or at least not muddying the water here by using wishy-washy wording, is critical.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would think if there is disagreement about the quality of the source then the outcome should be determined by consensus at the talk page. Your version seems to depend on people agreeing on what is sufficient. Can you give an example of this causing a problem? I would imagine that the outcomes are a mix of the source ending up being good enough and the source not being good enough. HighInBC 13:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the quality of the source. The source is fine. It just doesn't say what one or more Wikipedians claim it does. And I don't assume people agree -- my version says that the source must actually be sufficient, rather than simply assuming that if one user says it is sufficient then it must automatically be sufficient. See the recent Wikicology affair for a user with a disastrous tendency to cite "sources" that almost never directly support the claims being made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Setting the standard to actual sufficiency is meaningless if two people can't agree on what is sufficient. If someone is using sources in a deceptive manner then we have other policies to deal with them.

Existing policy also allows us to remove content not supported by the citation, even if a citation exists that does not support it. "...any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". You would justify the exclusion by saying "The source does not support what is being said". If someone believes in good faith that the source supports something, then I think it is reasonable that the person removing it articulate why they disagree.

If there is a genuine disagreement about the sources then I think it should fall back to discussion at the talk page. HighInBC 14:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Per AGF, neither party's interpretation of the source (that it supports the claim or that it doesn't) can be placed above the other. This means that if there is disagreement (between an equal or roughly equal number of editors) over whether a source actually verifies a claim, the burden must remain on the editor wishing to add or maintain the claim. If an editor was asked to find a source for a claim that didn't have any inline citation attached to it and came back with a source that other editors didn't think fully verified the claim, this is actually reason to believe that the claim can't be sourced, as someone who was trying to verify it failed to do so, and this means the burden should if anything be placed even more on the editor wishing to re-add the claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Or it could mean that the person who rejected the profered source was engaged in POV pushing, or misread or misunderstood the source, or doesn't know what a reliable source is (see: any number of claims that blogs/corporate websites/etc. are never, ever reliable for any claim whatsoever) or any number of other things. WP:BURDEN explicitly says that you have to provide exactly one (1) source that you (=not the other editors) believe is reliable for the claim in question. After that, it's everyone's job to figure out what the sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But for the record, of course I agree that the talk page should be used if there is disagreement. I just also think that the burden of verifiability was very intentionally placed where it is, and I think it should stay there pending a consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, the footnote says what is meant. The BURDEN is met (not everything, but specifically and exclusively the burden imposed upon the one editor in the WP:BURDEN section) by providing a single source that the one editor sincerely believes to be reliable. After that, normal consensus processes apply.

The point of the footnote is to stop the "bring me a rock" game, in which an editor provides source after source after source, with no end. The BURDEN ends when you supply exactly one (1) source that you personally believe to be appropriate. We specify that you must have a good-faith belief that the source is reliable for the claim because we needed to get past the stupid "but what if you just cite http://example.com for everything?" objections.

Let's pretend that you and I are in a dispute. I blank something (unsourced, and IMO quite possibly wrong). You restore it, and add a source – a source that you (=not I) believe to be reliable for the claim in question. You have fully met your WP:BURDEN. My remaining options are:

accept your edit,
discuss your edit (e.g., on the talk page or at WP:RSN), and/or
counter with a source that I prefer (e.g., a better source that says the same thing, or a reliable source that says something different).

The only option that's not available to me is: Blank it again and demand that you bring me yet another source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree ... if WAID does not accept the source you provide, she should go to the talk page and discuss her continued concerns. Blanking again is a form of edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure I entirely agree. The entire footnote reads, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." (Emphasis added.) The "e.g." means "for example," thus there can be other reasons than those specifically mentioned and one of those unmentioned reasons can be that the source provided is not adequate (ordinarily, not reliable). Material which is not reliable sourced is unsourced and can be removed. Whether a source is or is not reliable is, of course, a matter over which editors can disagree and talk page discussion or BRD is needed, but there are also many cases in which a source simply is not, by any light, reliable and the source and the material which it supports can be removed. (Which is not, of course, the best practice, but is an acceptable practice.) That such could be the case is made plain by the "or sourcing" and the "before ... added back" in the second sentence. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: But none of those three options should be a requirement if the source provided does not actually support the wording in the article. Whether the user who added the source has a "good faith" belief that it does should be irrelevant. The user could be incompetent, and drawing that conclusion is not a violation of AGF. A claim that has a source attached to it that doesn't actually support the claim is an unsourced claim, and AGF cannot trump this fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If the source truly doesn't support the statement (e.g., it is a claim about the price of pizza and I have provided you with a copy of Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers), then you should have no difficulty getting other editors to articulate a consensus that my source is inadequate, ideally by providing sources that show the opposite (or even by providing sources that show the claim is correct, no matter how inadequate my suggested source was). However, simply "blank it again and demand that I bring you another source" is no longer an option. Once I've met the burden, you have to do a little more work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, WhatamIdoing. In the Arbcom case that has been mentioned here, that was precisely what happened. Getting the consensus that sources which didn't even mention the material didn't support the material proved impossible in the discussions that followed, and a surprisingly large cadre of editors (including arbitrators) supported the proposition that it was legitimate to restore challenged material and source it at one's leisure, so it didn't matter that the sources didn't support the material. Not permitting immediate re-removal leaves us open to bald-face lying and intentional disruption.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: You are right to say that blanking again (after a source, any source, has been provided) is a form of edit-warring. But you would also be right to say that blanking again after no source is provided is a form of edit-warring. This policy is supposed to assume that editors use their brains and prefer the talk page to edit-warring, and bringing (obvious) fact that "it's technically a form of edit-warring to remove an unsourced claim over and over again" into the wording of BURDEN is severely problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, "blanking again if no source is provided" is not edit warring... Because the removed material should not have been restored without a source. Restoring without a source can be equated to vandalism, and may be freely re-removed until a source is provided That is the whole point of BURDEN... Don't restore without a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The entire #Preserving a burden discussion above (meaning including its subsections) and various other discussion similar to it show that removed material can be validly restored without a source. That's a strong point of WP:Preserve. If the content should be in the article because it is important to the article and can be sourced, it is not vandalism in any way to restore it. WP:Vandalism is very clear what is and is not vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

no, no... And again no. If you want to preserve information that has been removed for not being sourced, the way to do so is to provide a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)‎

No, no. And again no. It's not that black and white, and editors have been explicitly clear about this in the Preserving a burden discussion above, and in past matters on this very talk page, including Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#Restoration of challenged material, which led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. WP:Burden currently states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." But it is very often that Wikipedia does not work like that. When an editor goes and removes unsourced material, especially if carelessly removed (meaning without doing their WP:Preserve responsibility), they might be reverted. And it's common for the editors to discuss the matter on the talk page afterward, usually resulting in the unsourced content being sourced. There is no deadline, after all. What this policy's current wording of "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" does is commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business, as if blanking almost an entire article of easily verifiable content is helping Wikipedia. And, like I noted in the Preserving a burden discussion, it's cases like these that have seen such editors reprimanded and/or sanctioned for that behavior.

As for Hijiri88's proposal, I'm not convinced that the wording should be changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, and I believe that you violate this policy every time you do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

And your interpretation is detrimental, since you support disruptive editing every time you argue the way that you argued in the #Preserving a burden discussion. And I reiterate that this line of thinking from you is quite a recent development. Seems to have come on only because of my involvement. And let's be very clear about supposedly violating policies: If going by WP:BURO and WP:Ignore all rules, which are also policies, I violated nothing. We could argue over what cancels what out policy-wise. But to anyone with a shred of common sense, I did the right things in the cases you find so egregious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 you know I love the work you do here, but I am really at a loss as to what is driving this. The Wikipedia you are advocating for here would be a nightmare to me that would fill up with so much garbage. Think about that horrible student content about women having estrus that we moved to the talk page instead of PRESERVING. Think about the argument that student could have made had she taken your position here. Yikes. Please let it go. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I've been clear that I'm not stating that all information should be retained; I was very clear about what information should be retained, and that information should not be carelessly removed. WP:Preserve is policy and it doesn't support retaining everything either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The thing I am struggling with, is that you are making the argument that if content is verifiable on any editor's personal authority, it needs to stay (the only authority available, since we are talking about unsourced content) That is the nightmare part of this; that is the Pandora's box you are opening with this line of policy argument. (I am not talking now about your behavior at the child grooming article. you could ~maybe~ have won an argument about that at ANI.) I am struggling with you elevating this to general policy. It is horrible to consider how this would be deployed. Just yikes. .Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been making a personal authority argument, or suggesting any proposals here, Jytdog. I am always about looking at what the sources state and following them with WP:Due weight. Also, moving the content to the talk page is a form of PRESERVING. That's why I credited you for preserving content in such cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

This discussion is veering off course. Anyway, the current wording says we should "assume good faith" on the part of a user who has added some kind of source that "they honestly believe" supports the material. I didn't bring it up before because I didn't think it was necessary, but this is also turning AGF on its head, as both editors should be expected to assume good faith on the part of the other editor. If you add a source that I genuinely believe, in good faith, doesn't verify the claim made in the article, the burden is still on you to find a new source that actually verifies the content. When I say "unsourced" I don't meant "there is no inline citation attached to it"; I mean "there is no inline citation attached to it that actually verifies its content". If I remove some material that doesn't have any citation attached to it, and you re-add it with a citation that doesn't directly support it, that is a reason to remove it again, as it means someone was actively trying, and failing, to find a source for it.

Flyer22 Reborn's interpretation of this wording, that it enables users who recklessly remove unsourced material, is a radical interpretation, and (I'd be willing to bet) a very rare (among long-time, reputable editors) view of how this policy is supposed to work.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"If you add a source that I genuinely believe, in good faith, doesn't verify the claim made in the article, the burden is still on you to find a new source that actually verifies the content."

No. The main point of this provision is that once you add a source that someone genuinely believes to be unreliable for that claim (e.g., that it {{failed verification}}), then finding a good source (and/or otherwise figuring out how to improve the article) is everyone's problem, not just the original editor's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about two different things here... 1) what happens when someone challenges completely unsourced information; and 2) what happens when someone challenges a cited source that does not actually support the statement. Both are valid challenges, but the manner in which the challenge is conducted changes. WP:BURDEN explains what happens in the first situation. It does not explain what happens in the second situation. In the second situation, the challenger has to explain why the source isn't good enough... So a lot more discussion is required. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I have a lot of experience being misunderstood, so I specified exactly what change(s) I wanted to make to the wording of the policy page in my opening comment (I would be happy with either of the two changes, but would ideally prefer both). Currently, the page misinterprets AGF and directly asserts that if someone re-adds removed material (that had previously not been attributed to any source) with a source (any source) that they claim is sufficient, the burden is then suddenly on the editor wishing to remove the material. It's right there in the footnote, so what you say about WP:BURDEN explains what happens in the first situation. It does not explain what happens in the second situation. is not entirely accurate. This is a misinterpretation of AGF, as AGF is supposed to be a two-way street. I am saying that the burden should still be on the party wishing to re-add the material to convince other Wikipedians that the source is good enough. My assertion (of course!) assumes that the other Wikipedians have outlined "why" they think the source isn't good enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, my statement about the policy's wording "commonly enabl[ing] editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business" was clearly in reference to the "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" wording. I pointed to the #Preserving a burden discussion addressing this and to an AbrCom case addressing it. Such behavior is not a rare occurrence in the least. I also pointed to the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#More Burden stuff example for more documentation on the matter. Really, the "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" part combined with the "and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." part has repeatedly caused problems, in addition to being helpful in other cases. But, as noted, your proposal is not about such behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The ArbCom case to which you are referring has no bearing on this discussion, as the only content policy it cited was BLP. BLP obviously cannot apply to my concerns about the current wording of BURDEN, as under BLP contentious material must be sourced and sourced well (i.e., it cannot be a point of disagreement whether a source directly and fully backs up all the contentious material). This discussion is about (1) whether the burden remains on the party wishing to add the content after they have added a source but the source has been challenged as not directly and fully verifying the content, and (2) whether the current wording accurately reflects the current community consensus on this point. The answer to (1) is always automatically "yes" when BLP applies, so this discussion is only applicable to non-BLP subjects. I actually don't think anyone here is disagreeing with me on (1), but it's difficult to tell when nebulous and peripherally related concepts like the general reliability of this or that source (as opposed to whether a source whose general reliability is not in question verifies the content) and the responsibility to preserve appropriate content (even though BURDEN assumes that the appropriateness of the content, which may not be objectively verifiable in external reliable sources, is already in dispute) keep getting brought up.

ArbCom actually did recently comment on (1) here (they SBANned someone at least partly for adding and/or preserving content and citing sources whose verification of the content was disputed) and I doubt anyone here would disagree with the Arbs on this point. So I can only assume that those of you who haven't supported my proposed wording are disagreeing on (2). So can you let me try to convince you of my view of (2)?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And as I've pointed out, the KWW ArbCom case was about edit warring over BURDEN, not removal of the material per se. Here's the exact findings:

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: [...] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to remove uncited, but uncontroversial, material from List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman (timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman (timeline)

(Emphasis added.) Just like there's no absolute EW exception for BLP violations, there's no edit warring exception — absolute or partial — for enforcing BURDEN, but that doesn't mean that such removals are prohibited in any circumstance, it just means that you can't EW over them. The proper remedy is to report the unsourced restorer to ANI or to seek page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, TransporterMan. Yes, I was confused by Flyer22 Reborn's citing of the Kww ArbCom case, as the general ban on edit-warring is not a content policy but a user conduct one, and so should not be taken as having any baring on how we should and should not encourage removal of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I do think that somewhere on this page, perhaps even in BURDEN, we should specify that reverting back and forth is never encouraged, even when one of the reverters has both BURDEN and BRD on their side and the other reverter is the one refusing to use the talk page. But it is not directly relevant to where the burden lies at any particular point. Indeed, the current wording implicitly encourages edit-warring by making it unnecessarily ambivalent on whom the burden lies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the Arbcom case mentioned above, TRM was making no effort whatsoever to satisfy WP:BURDEN before restoring the material. He was restoring dozens of tables at a time, providing no inline citations at all, and those citations that he was providing supported only sporadic line items in single tables. He clearly stated that he believed it was correct behaviour to restore the material and then search for the sources later, an action which contradicts any reading of WP:BURDEN. The only excuse offered for his misbehaviour was that he was insufficiently competent to format tables or to edit out of article history, neither of which seems plausible. My primary mistake was to not block him for intentional disruption on his second edit: by trying to give him some rope, I wound up with people being under the impression that I was in a content dispute instead of an admin dealing with intentionally disruptive editing. Flyer22's suggested change gives such disruption. There's some case for it when the citation being provided as least mentions the material it purports to source and there's a reasonable dispute over the material's reliability, but any effort to provide some lenience there shouldn't shield editors that restore the material without any sourcing at all.

One way or another, that wasn't a good test case for WP:BURDEN: it's more an extension of the Eric Corbett kind of issue, where an editor becomes sufficiently popular that those that attempt to make him obey the same rules as more lowly editors are punished for doing so.—Kww(talk) 05:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You stated that The Rambling Man "was making no effort whatsoever to satisfy WP:BURDEN before restoring the material. [...] He clearly stated that he believed it was correct behaviour to restore the material and then search for the sources later, an action which contradicts any reading of WP:BURDEN." If he intended to add sources for the information, that is an effort to satisfy WP:Burden. What is the problem if the information was not contentious? We've had enough "What counts as contentious information in our BLPs?" discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, including the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading matter I linked to above. I do think it's reckless to go around blanking material from articles just because it's unsourced and using the WP:Burden policy as justification for that behavior...unless the content is wrong, original research, shows no signs of verification or is a WP:BLP violation. WP:Burden states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." It does not state that the source has to be added to the article. Sure it states "inline citation," but an inline citation can be added to the talk page. If I see that someone has removed easily verifiable, encyclopedic content that belongs in one of our Wikipedia articles, that the article is worse off without it, I will revert without providing a source right then and there; I can source the matter afterward, including on the talk page when noting why the removal was wrong, and I see nothing wrong with that, especially in the aforementioned cases involving me noted at the #Preserving a burden discussion above. WP:Burden states, "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Exactly. My objection will be that revert.

You stated, "Flyer22's suggested change gives such disruption." I made no suggested change. Also, linking my old username doesn't result in a ping for me. I don't need to be pinged to this talk page anyway...since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kww: Flyer is right insofar as that the proposed change is mine. Flyer has been somewhat counterproductively claiming that my proposed change goes the wrong way and suggesting that if anything it should be altered in the opposite direction, but has not made a concrete proposal. I have to say I don't know quite how to proceed when a solid proposal for an amendment to a policy page recieves no serious opposition but is hijacked with discussion of a largely unrelated dispute. Can I assume you support my proposed amendment, anyway? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that I have been "somewhat counterproductively claiming that [your] proposed change goes the wrong way and suggesting that if anything it should be altered in the opposite direction" is incorrect. The only thing I stated about your proposal is that "I'm not convinced that the wording should be changed." And when someone makes a comment that I disagree with, I am likely to respond to it. Blueboar made a comment I disagreed with here in this section; I responded here in this section, regardless of that aspect not being about your proposal. Things like that happen on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I support your change, and find Flyer22 Reborn's contributions to the discussion hilarious. An "inline citation" cannot be added to a talk page, as such a citation could not possibly be considered "inline", and an "intention" to add a source "later" does not in any way, shape or form satisfy a policy that states that the material has to be cited before being restored, as "before" and "after" are distinct concepts.—Kww(talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Kww, I couldn't care less that you are now angry with me per my above commentary and are now trying to get a rise out of me. Not angry or annoyed? I don't believe you. You may find my comments about carelessly blanking hilarious, but, as you well know, many others do not. I knew that someone would nitpick my "inline citation" comment. By "but an inline citation can be added to the talk page," I was referring to Template:Reflist-talk. I do not define "inline" as strictly as you do, obviously. Either way, many do not agree with your interpretation of WP:Burden. You have always been overzealous when it comes to citing WP:Burden, and that caught up with you. Keep WP:BURO in mind in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And to be clearer on taking matters to the talk page, when I add text and sources (via Template:Reflist-talk) to the talk page, I consider those inline citations there on the talk page; they are inline citations for that content, and it is how the content will appear in the article. To me, it is hardly any different than using a WP:Sandbox. I see no strict "only articles have inline citations" interpretation at WP:Inline citation either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, don't misquote yourself; that,s almost as bad and misquoting someone else. Your exact words were What this policy's current wording of "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" does is commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business, as if blanking almost an entire article of easily verifiable content is helping Wikipedia. That is saying that you think my proposal goes in the wrong direction and that you think in fact an even greater burden of proof should be placed on the party wishing to remove the unsourced or poorly sourced material. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't misquote myself; my excellent memory doesn't allow for that. My "02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)" post above shows that I indeed stated the following: "As for Hijiri88's proposal, I'm not convinced that the wording should be changed." So no misquote. As for your interpretation of what I meant by my "commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content" wording, you are wrong. Plain and simple. My "02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)" and "02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)" posts show that I did not address your proposal until after my replies to Blueboar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong. You didn't "misquote yourself"; you quoted yourself out of context and misrepresented the rest of what you said. My mistake. But now that you have admitted that the majority of what you wrote in this thread was off-topic commentary not directly about my proposal but about how the current wording encourages users such as Kww to recklessly remove content I am satisfied. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you were wrong about all of it; your "09:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)" comment is a part of your incorrect commentary. Like I implied below, the way you misinterpret and take things out of context is something I cannot be bothered with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "getting a rise out of you", Flyer22 Reborn: I consider the addition of unsourced material to be something we tolerate from new and inexperienced editors, and that the waffle room we leave in our policies is to allow them to grow into the job: it's why we tolerate the original insertion of unsourced material. An experienced editor that restores unsourced material without providing an inline citation that supports the material is simply being disruptive. WP:BURDEN doesn't have exception cases, and trying to make up new definitions of words in order to justify the misbehaviour is also disruptive.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And I've already pointed to a past discussion where I thought like you did (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#The "provide an inline citation yourself" wording should be changed back to the original wording), but never in the extreme way that you did. My opinion on the WP:Burden policy has changed precisely because of cases like those noted in the #Preserving a burden discussion. Your claim that "An experienced editor that restores unsourced material without providing an inline citation that supports the material is simply being disruptive." is proven wrong by the initial case noted in the #Preserving a burden discussion. I restored vital information in that case, and the article was not harmed whatsoever by that restoration; it was harmed by the careless removal of vital information, information that was removed simply because it was unsourced and suspected of being original research. I reverted first, and sourced later. Not a thing wrong with that. I'm not going to repeat what is wrong with the kind of behavior that the editor who removed the content displayed since I and others made our points in that above discussion, and very clearly, but any kind of support for that behavior is severely misguided. Our experienced and well-meaning editors usually know that it is not a good thing to go around removing content solely because it is unsourced. Restoring unsourced content that belongs in a Wikipedia article is not being disruptive. Vital information should be retained, and the WP:Preserve policy is explicitly clear about that. There is nothing in the least disruptive about restoring vital information to an article. WP:BURDEN is not as strict as you interpret it to be, and when it gets in the way of the right thing to do for our articles, the WP:BURO and WP:Ignore all rules policies apply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Knock it off

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Also, I've been clear that there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Those are wasted pings, and annoying to boot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)`

Actually, your example simply proves my point. You decided that your personal opinion about the criticality of the information trumped the need for sourcing, and did so without taking any effort to justify your position beyond "this material belongs in this article because I say so". It also demonstrated the absolute futility of those moronic "citation needed" tags: if a citation is needed, the material shouldn't be in the article until that citation is provided. That's the crux of WP:BURDEN, and weakening it enables editors that we would be far better off without. It's far better to treat it more akin to 3RR, with blocks being the normal consequence of intentional violations.—Kww(talk) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reply to me on that incident proves my point: You are so caught up in your idea of WP:Burden that you would support careless editing like that. There was no personal opinion when it comes to the vital nature of the information I restored. Why is it not a personal opinion, you ask? Because the vital nature of that information is reflected in the literature. WP:Due weight and all that. There isn't a scholar in that field who would state that the information that was removed is not vital to that topic. And I was very clear in the above discussion that I fully intended to source the information. I was also clear on the article page that I would be sourcing it. I clearly did source it, after addressing the matter on the talk page and noting how careless that removal was. Removals like that should be highlighted and criticized. Your "if a citation is needed, the material shouldn't be in the article until that citation is provided" take is not realistic for any number of our articles. Do feel free to go blank them, or vital portions of them, and see what happens. Yes, we differ on how fast I should have sourced the content in the Child grooming case, and we will continue to differ on such matters. I am going to protect an article first and foremost, and if that means not blindly following a rule that causes harm to an article, so be it. I highly doubt that you would find consensus that Wikipedia is better off without me because of how I acted in the Child grooming and Human penis cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What I support is booting people that force unsourced material into articles off the project. It's a shame that you have sufficient support that eliminating you is unlikely to occur.—Kww(talk) 13:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, you've become a bit of a running joke. You get all uppity and abuse your position over some obscure unsourced awards, but when directed to some unsourced text claiming someone to be a child molester, you couldn't care less and do nothing. Try to focus. Your hypocrisy is sadly visible for all of us to see, probably best to take your leave from this kind of discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits we're actually discussing here are this removal of unsourced, but easily-sourceable, content, followed by Flyer22's revert, followed by edit warring over whether it was appropriate to restore the content without an immediate source. Note please: (1) Flyer22 was objectively correct and her edits are widely agreed to have improved the encyclopaedia in this case; and (2) Nobody was called a child-molester.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Knock it off

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry, you missed the point. In reference to the case where Kww was disgraced and desysopped for the abject abuse of his position, I had already directed Kww to an article in which someone was called a child molester and a rapist. Without referencing. As an example of something to which he could more usefully (for all of us) apply his vigour. He was content to let it stay on Wikipedia while getting all hot under the collar about a few award articles. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As memory serves, you were simply using the old "why are you bothering with me when there are real criminals to worry about?" argument, and the issue you were attempting to distract me with was already on the way to resolution. As I explained to you then, problems with other articles and other editors did not excuse your misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 23:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your "13:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)" response to me shows exactly why you shouldn't be editing our articles and why it's a good thing you were desysopped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As memory serves, you were rightly desysoped for flagrant abuse of your position. Your delusional and poorly focused crusade on sourcing award articles led to your downfall, and despite being directed to other, far more important and significant verification issues, you decided to destroy anything you had ever achieved by edit warring and abusing your tools. And you still haven't got over it. The shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When you're done ripping on each other, I'd like to close this talk page discussion topic. I see no further benefit for the WP:V policy (which strictly speaking should be the only topic of this talk page), with the current walls of text on other topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do so. I will be pleased to see the end of yet another pathetic chapter of Kww and his inability to get over things and accept his flagrant abuse of his position led to a justifiable desysop and shaming. In future he should learn to talk to people, not about them. Cheers Francis! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I think this is relevant stuff, though. We're discussing the interaction between PRESERVE and BURDEN. In the Flyer22 case on Child grooming, she was factually correct and her edits improved the encyclopaedia, and nobody has contended otherwise. It triggered this whole wall of text because editors felt that she was procedurally wrong. I've tried to defend her actions. The TRM/Kww case went a whole lot higher and got a whole lot more complicated, involving as it did a pissing contest between two of Wikipedia's sysops who had... well, let's say my experience of both is that they have a great deal of faith in their own judgment and aren't afraid to express their opinions at length. Not surprised it went to Arbcom. I've found Kww helpful in the past and I recall some good calls he made as a sysop, but my view is that the restorations of text involved in the runup to the Arbcom case were probably justified. I don't see removing accurate but unsourced text as improving the encyclopaedia. And that point is central to this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, some of the material was demonstrably false, and other parts of it couldn't be verified one way or the other by people that put considerable effort into it. Somewhere around 80% accurate overall, which is fairly typical for these unsourced "list of awards and nominations" articles: not a total crapshoot, but well shy of what a reference work should aim for. The whole point was that verification and correction was mandated by WP:V prior to restoration, not after.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I take it that you are referring to "The TRM/Kww case" when you stated that "some of the material was demonstrably false" and "other parts of it couldn't be verified one way or the other by people that put considerable effort into it."

S Marshall, the only editors, other than Kww, who explicitly made it clear that they felt that I was procedurally wrong are WhatamIdoing and the editor I reverted in the Child grooming case. No other editor stated that I was at all wrong in the Child grooming and Human penis cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Given that he explicitly stated in the following sentence that such a situation was "fairly typical for ... list[s] of awards and nominations", it seems kind of disingenuous to say you take it as him talking about the grooming and penis questions. I haven't looked at those prior disputes (they are at best two of about a thousand potentially relevant precedent cases, if they are even relevant precedents) so I don't know if what you are saying about no one but Kww and WhatamIdoing (and S Marshall[?] -- sorry, the grammar of what you wrote is confusing) being the only ones who disagreed with you, but if it is true then this looks like you trying to "prove" you were right in one dispute by claiming others agreed with you in a completely separate dispute. This is, at the very best, a fallacious argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've already been clear with you, above and below, that I do not like the way you interpret my posts and the way you assign your views to them. I was clear that I cannot discuss anything with people who do that. So do stop addressing me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I've already made it clear that I don't like the way you interpret my posts and the way you assign different meanings to them than intended. I am sure User:Kww feels the same way about your doing the same thing to him/her directly above, and so that is why I called you out on it. If you do not want me responding to your making bizarre arguments and putting words in people's mouths, kindly stop posting in a thread I started. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you weren't clear that you "don't like the way [I] interpret [your] posts and the way [I] assign different meanings to them than intended." That's because I never did that. Putting words in people's mouths is what you've repeatedly done to me and to others in this thread. This is on full display above and below; for example, do revisit your "07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)" post regarding The Rambling Man. You are looking for a fight. Look elsewhere. No one wants to read this bickering. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And it's quite clear from your posts in this discussion, with all its arbitrary breaks, that your arguments are viewed as bizarre by a number of editors. The only one you should even attempt at calling out is yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Go on believing what you want, I guess. Good bye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22, where I said "editors felt she was procedurally wrong", I intended that to mean "some editors felt she was procedurally wrong" rather than "most editors felt she was procedurally wrong". It doesn't so much matter who felt what --- I think what matters is that with the policies as currently written their position was tenable. It would be appropriate to put some limits on WP:BURDEN that prevent it from being used by Randy in Boise to waste more competent editors' time, but that involves distinguishing incompetent editors from competent ones. It is therefore impossible on Wikipedia. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, including those who have special needs such as ignorance, stupidity and bad judgment. Elitism is against our core principles, so you, and anyone else who watchlists a lot of important articles and defends them against asinine edits, should understand that your behaviour is oppressive towards asinine people. Sarcasm, of course, is oppressive towards editors who are too stupid to detect it, so I'll be adding a templated warning to my own talk page in a few moments.—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured what you meant, S Marshall; I simply wanted note of it to be clearer. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this discussion. It is typical of Kww that he has failed to get over being desysopped for abusing his tools, it is typical of his behavioural deficiencies that he would talk about me rather than to me. Now, back to your regular program. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now even someone on Flyer's side has called Flyer out for continuously derailing this discussion. We are not, to quote Flyer, talking about TRM, or Kww, or ArbCom and desysopping. We are talking about whether the BURDEN remains on the party wishing to add material after they add a source whose verifiabity has been challenged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Also incorrect. The Rambling Man made no such statement or implication, and seemingly appreciated the ping. It's better not to talk about people behind their backs. A ping is commonly a courtesy in such cases. I was done with your proposal when I stated "But, as noted, your proposal is not about such behavior." That others chose to talk about the ArbCom case is their decision; I will take no such blame for the actions of others in this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you brought an ArbCom case from last summer that had absolutely nothing to do with my proposal up completely out of the blue, needlessly badmouthing one of the parties to said case in the process, and then when said user came along and posted an opposing opinion to your own you pinged the other party to that case and claimed that you were doing so because people were talking about him. If Kww had posted on a noticeboard or an admin's talk page explicitly or even implicitly requesting that TRM be blocked, informing him would have been justified and I would have applauded you for it; in this case, you just clouded a discussion you had already hijacked enough with your off-topic ArbCom commentary by claiming this was a discussion "about" TRM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I brought up the ArbCom case, and that is the only thing you are correct about with regard to me. I did not badmouth Kww. Yes, I pinged The Rambling Man, and I noted why. And that ping was not a WP:CANVASS violation in any way; if you cannot understand that about one of our guidelines, I don't have much confidence that you understand the WP:Burden policy. The Rambling Man was indeed appreciative of the ping. You decided to go on about what you consider off-topic. Others decided to comment on it. Like I stated, "That others chose to talk about the ArbCom case is their decision; I will take no such blame for the actions of others in this matter." Furthermore, you are continuing to derail your own proposal discussion by debating me on all of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't Kww you were badmouthing, who were you accusing of being "commonly enable[d] ... to recklessly remove content and then go about their business" "without doing their WP:Preserve responsibility"? Were you badmouthing a whole bunch of people? Whom else should we ping to allow them to respond to you talking about them? Kww was the only one you explicitly named. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you misinterpret a lot of things, don't you? I cannot have a discussion with people who do that. I stated, "What this policy's current wording of 'should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source' does is commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business, as if blanking almost an entire article of easily verifiable content is helping Wikipedia. And, like I noted in the Preserving a burden discussion, it's cases like these that have seen such editors reprimanded and/or sanctioned for that behavior." That was a comment about anyone recklessly removing content and using the WP:Burden policy to justify it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

We're talking about this footnote, right:
Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
This seems quite reasonable. It's obviously the person with objections that has to articulate them by starting discussion. This seems quite sensible and the current wording says it well enough. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: An objection as simple as That source doesn't verify the content can be articulated in an edit summary, and in many cases is a perfectly reasonable objection and not at all a failure to assume good faith. The current wording discourages such objections as though they were AGF-violations, implicitly placing it below ‘‘undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content’’, and places the BURDEN on the party wishing to remove the potentially unsourced material. Do we really need to ask ArbCom to SBAN a user who misquotes sources before we allowed say those sources are being misquoted without this objection being shouted down as an AGF-violation? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAICS you systematically quote the footnote wrong. It is only a detail, the word "the", I'll bold it to show where you render the content and intent of the foortnote wrong, IMHO: "... and places the BURDEN ...". No, it is not the WP:BURDEN that is shifted from one party to the other. There's another, definitely smaller, burden after a good-faith reference is given: if you want to revert it while you think it is not a sufficient/correct/appropriate/... reference: EXPLAIN YOURSELF. That's all. No burden to find another source or whatever (as has been implied above). Of course all this in good faith on both sides, that's why it is often safer to use the talk page than just revert with a quirky explanation. So, please don't quote that footnote again with only half a sentence, always include at least the second half of the sentence "...has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". That part of the sentence can not be abbreviated to "BURDEN", while it is not WP:BURDEN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: The footnote implicitly rejects the rationale that "the source provided still doesn't verify the material", as it says any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). Under the current wording, their must be a content-based problem with the material, and we can't reject the source on verifiability grounds because an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient (my emphasis); this also turns WP:AGF on its head, because under AGF we should also be assuming that the editor removing the material believes "in good faith" that the source is insufficient.

As I stated in my OP comment, I would be content with just clarifying in parentheses that a sourcing-based rationale for removal is valid, i.e. replacing "(e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)" with "(e.g., the cited source failing to fully verify the material, undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)".

Anyone who is seriously opposing this proposal would appear to believe that "the cited source failing to fully verify the material" is not a valid rationale. The only other reason I can think of is that this is too much clarification on an already byte-heavy page, which is pretty ridiculous. Can someone explain to me what I am missing if indeed I am missing something?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're reading things that aren't there. Has been explained to you many times above. "...articulate specific problem(s)...", that's all, there's no limitation on what kind of problems you can articulate. In good faith. There's also no turning AGF on its head. Both editors need to do their edits in good faith (obviously). Both should start with AGF on each other. Obviously. If you can't assume good faith because of obvious intent to disrupt, I suppose the WP:AGF guidance will tell you wat to do (~~WP:ANI, or whatever~~ I checked: the link in Wikipedia:Assume good faith#Dealing with bad faith goes to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which offers several possibilities of what to do next). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The current wording assumes good faith on the part of User A but assumes bad faith on the part of User B. A traditional interpretation of AGF demands that we assume both that User A sincerely believes that their source is adequate and that User B sincerely believes the opposite. Discussion should then take place on the talk page, and the user who can convince others of their sincerely held belief would usually get consensus on their side. During this discussion, the contested material should stay out, as the burden is on User A to get consensus for their view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "The current wording assumes good faith on the part of User A but assumes bad faith on the part of User B": no it doesn't. Has been explained above. An obvious newbie can assume in good faith that a blog is a sufficient source. A more experienced editor can in good faith know that that is not the case. And explain that on the newbie's talk page. So, please stop reading things that aren't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

So if you don't disagree with me on the substance, why can't we add the text " the cited source failing to fully verify the material" to the parenthetical list of good rationales? And (like I told HighInBC at the top of the thread) this isn't about the objective reliability of such-and-such source -- it's about the muddier problem of Wikipedians misinterpreting/misrepresenting/misquoting apparently reliable sources. So bringing up "newbies" and "blogs" out of nowhere is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you as almost anyone else before. No, the addition is unnecessary IMHO (my main rationale: WP:BEANS). The formulation is clear as it stands, and doesn't need further cluttering with examples. If my examples weren't helpful (as you contend), then we don't agree. Obviously. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We could add that example, although I recommend against it on grounds of WP:CREEP and the experience of past abuse. We have had some editors (and especially some POV pushers) who have taken the stance that if it's not plagiarism, then it {{failed verification}}. While it is true that an edit summary that says "not in the cited source" is an articulation of a specific problem, offering that as an example might tend to inflame disputes rather than resolving them. (Specifically endorsing communication by edit summaries has its own problems.)

Also, the choice of non-verification examples was deliberate; I wanted to make sure that editors remembered that verification does not guarantee inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not pushing this any more (more because of the grief Francis was giving me than because of anyone actually convincing me that my proposal was a bad idea), but I should clarify that I agree communication via edit summaries is a bad idea, and my proposal would not have promoted doing so any more than the current wording already does. If 'an edit summary that says "not in the cited source" is an articulation of a specific problem' 'might tend to inflame disputes rather than resolving them', the same is probably true of an edit summary that says "unencyclopedic", and adding one to a list that already includes the other suggests they be used in the same manner, rather than suddenly endorsing the use of edit summaries to communicate. As for your CREEP concern, if I hadn't already dropped the proposal I would have responded by saying we could remove the "unencyclopedic" example and replace it with my proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

Per WP:REVTALK, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" Editors should be engaging in discussion to avoid edit-warring. The onus is on the person with the objections to start such discussion on the talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are right, of course, and when I am in a content dispute I usually try to be the first to open a talk page discussion as I hate to edit war, even when BURDEN is on my side. But this is about whether it is my responsibility to open such a discussion even when I am trying to remove unsourced material. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The "onus" discussion doesn't help very much. If you're sure the other party will understand I can imagine that an edit summary in this sense might suffise to clear the air: "That source is based on Wikipedia and is not sufficient per WP:CIRCULAR" (or whatever applicable that articulates the issues without unduly aggravating the other party). But as said above "...it is often safer to use the talk page than just revert with a quirky explanation", yes, that would most often work best to clear the air. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It may help to explore the issue from a different angle - one that does not involve BURDEN.... Suppose editor A adds material to an article - and includes a citation at that time. In this situation, BURDEN is not an issue, since the material has never been unsourced. Now... suppose editor B comes along and contends that the citation does not actually support the material. What should B do? A) remove both the material and the flawed source? B) keep the material, but remove the source? C) raise the issue on the talk page and request a new source? D) something else? Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- None of these as a fixed rule. The WP:V policy doesn't oblige to choose one and only one of these options, applicable for every case. So we shouldn't be steering it towards a fixed rule. I think I have applied all of these, depending on case, trying to use as much of my common sense as possible. For example, if the contention is a WP:REDFLAG, I'd remove both contention and inadequate source. If nonetheless in doubt whether it might be true I'd ask on talk. Sometimes my curiosity was tickled enough by the unlikely contention, that I went on a search for a source myself, sometimes finding one that I thought in good faith to be sufficient. If the contention is "Mozart was a composer" referenced to a blog, I'd remove the blog source without further thinking, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. What to do really depends on the nature of the specific material and why the specific source is flawed. Now... Whatever you end up doing, would you say that you have an obligation to go to the talk page and explain what the problem is? Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion to have, but I would say it depends entirely on the material whether we do (A), (B), (C) or (D). In my case if I'm reading an article and I see a claim with a citation attached, and the claim isn't intrinsically dubious to my eyes, nine times out of ten I will gloss over it without checking the source. A claim is intrinsically dubious if it appears to be contradicted by a source I have already consulted. If I happened across a claim with a source that didn't verify it I would do (A) if I found the claim intrinsically dubious, and probably leave a note on the talk page; I would do (B) if the claim was not intrinsically dubious, and usually try to find and add a more appropriate source. If I found an entire article filled with such problems I would post on the talk page, and probably on a relevant WikiProject or noticeboard, and maybe if the article was irredeemable and there were, for example, GNG concerns, I might start an AFD.

(Obviously with the Wikicology problem it's a bit cloudier as the community has been explicitly mandated to systematically hunt down and source-check claims that we already know probably have sourcing problems. The community already knew about these problems before the ArbCom decision -- would we have encouraged systematically fixing the problem before ArbCom explicitly did so? Most such cases never come before ArbCom, and many users of Wikicology's disposition never get blocked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)n

OK... so would you agree that there are at least some cases where you (as the person challenging the source) have an obligation to go to the talk page and explain what the problem is (ie that the source does not support the information)? Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite convinced there's no obligation in that sense, as I said above. So let's not invent more rules. WP:V is very strict, but that's not in it. The only situation where I can imagine that it is really as good as unavoidable to go to the talk page is when the "A" editor's edit summary reads "see talk page", then if you are "B" and want to challenge the edit nonetheless I can't see how you can proceed with a revert without writing something in the talk page section where the edit and/or source is discussed. Most of the rest follows from WP:CIVIL I suppose: if an edit summary would be rudely short or filled with acronyms to get explained why you remove content and/or ref, then too a talk page comment would be more or less unavoidable I suppose. Or when the situation is getting tense, with a risk to go off in an edit war, then too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's kind of an aside, but what about if User B is right on the substance (that User A's cited source does not verify the material, nor it seems does any other source) and users C, D and E all agree, but User A continues to argue and refuses to recognize 4-1 as a consensus? "Dispute resolution" is all very well and good but that would seem to be either TE or CIR issues at play and ANI would be the better venue. Then what if it is 3-1? The whole thing is very murky, and my attitude is that anything that makes it clearer (and we are seemingly all in agreement here that "the cited source failing to fully verify the material" is a valid reason for removing a claim that has been re-added) should be implemented. Then when User A says "but I added a source, and WP:V says any source I add is automatically good enough", users B, C, D and E can simply respond "no, it doesn't -- read the footnote more closely"; at present it is more likely to be B, C, D or E saying "your source isn't good enough, as it clearly doesn't verify the claim" and A responding "but WP:V says that if I added any source that is good enough -- read the footnote more closely". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute, so WP:DR would be a first option I suppose. TE and CIR are essays. When the policy says it is a content dispute that's the first route to explore. So now. I don't like to discuss on the basis of hypothetical problems. Either you have a problem/situation you would like to get help with, or I think you've gotten sizeable portions of clarification on the policy so that you know how to handle almost any situation where it would be involved. If you're just waiting for the quote to fall that you could use elsewhere, please tell us where that elsewhere is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

First, no where does WP:V say "any source added is good enough"... you can always challenge a source. However, you often need to explain why a source isn't good enough. That's where the talk page comes in.

And this is why I support the footnote. The footnote does not require us to accept "any source added"... it simply requires us to open a talk page discussion should an added source be flawed - to explain why it is unacceptable. This is especially important to do when someone has attempted to comply with BURDEN and failed. Opening a talk page discussion helps everyone shift gears... and move from dealing with a no source situation to dealing with a flawed source situation. That shift of gears is important to highlight. The editor who added the flawed source has attempted to comply with BURDEN... and we need to acknowledge that attempt. Now we need to explain why that attempt was (unfortunately) not good enough.

We seem to agree that how we deal with a flawed source is somewhat different from how we deal with no source. Both are problems, but they are different problems. Requiring the challenger to open a talk page discussion helps to separate these two problems and keep them distinct - a talk page discussion helps everyone shift mental gears. It tells the person who added the source: "Thank you for providing a source... but, now we have a different problem to deal with: the source you provided does not support the information. Let's talk about that." Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I wish you were right in saying that ‘no where does WP:V say "any source added is good enough"’, but at present I don’t think you are. At present it says that if a user believes their source (the exact words are ‘any source’) to be good enough ‘in good faith’ then the party wishing to remove the claim needs a different reason, and it gives a list of good but pretty obscure, nebulous and usually difficult-to-prove reasons. Since we are always supposed to assume good faith, this places a pretty heavy burden of proof on the party wishing to remove the claim. Unless we explicitly state that ‘the source doesn't verify the claim -- it says something else’ is a valid reason. This is what my proposal does. By excluding this reason we implicitly place down the list, below nebulous concepts like ‘unencyclopedic’ and leave it open to good-faith but incompetent users like Wikicology to indefinitely place the burden on others. Of course I agree with you that such reasons should be elaborated on the talk page, but once this has been done the claim can be removed and should not be re-added unless consensus is established to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Example: Diff; Didn't go to talk page on that one. I see very little fuss, nothing of the heaviness Hijiri88 implies for someone applying the footnote reasoning in practical editing. If things aren't clear for the other editor of course the next step would be to give a broader explanation on talk, but until anything happens the issue seems solved. For clarity: didn't check who the user was; also didn't open the proposed source on this one (just knowing what should be in the source, or if not: it would probably be an unreliable source). Again, if any unclarity remains after this revert, the next step would be talk page. But I didn't go to talk page in advance for such a routine-like revert. If not using the burden-footnote reasoning in the edit summary of this revert, I'd have to have said something like "reverting good faith error" or something like that, but I assume that would have been less clear (and less to the point) for the other editor. Also using the word "error" in the edit summary may have come accross harsher to the other editor, than pointing out it is probably not said thus in the source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5

Hijiri 88, I think that you are misunderstanding the overall meaning of the words and to an extent wiki-lawering over the details. If I see what I see as something that I believe PROVEIT is applicable, then if it is old text I will in the first instance slap on a {{citation needed}}, if the citation needed has been there for a reasonable time or if it is new uncited text added to what is otherwise a fully cited article, I will remove the text under PROVEIT (usually including one of the links to the section in WP:V in the edit history. If an editor restores it with what I think is an inappropriate citation, or it is to a source that I do not have access, then I will start a discussion on the talk page (a may also add a relevant tag from {{Inline cleanup tags}} to the new inline citation). The problem is that if the citation has been added in good faith then not unreasonably an editor, particularly an inexperienced one, who believes that they have met the criteria for the request will probably feel aggrieved if it is promptly removed without a discussion as to why. That is not the way to build a consensus -- I have not infrequently had to explain to editors why popular geological websites are not reliable sources. Usually a good faith discussion over these things on the talk page resolves them. If not then just like other content disputes it is time to escalate it and involved others. However just deleting text after it has been restored with what one believes to be a poor citation is a tactic likely to turn a content dispute into a behavioural dispute, with the PROVIT/delete editor superficially looking the more aggressive party. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PBS's analysis, especially the behavioral aspects. There is simply nothing about the two items listed as non-exclusive examples that means "if the claim failed verification in the cited source, and nobody can find a reliable source that actually does verify this, then there is no valid reason to remove the content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PBS as well, particularly when it comes to using {{citation needed}} on old text rather than removing it.—S Marshall T/C 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much that I am "misunderstanding" the overall meaning or wiki-lawyering over the details. I know that the wording doesn't actually mean what I am saying it could be interpreted as meaning, and I know the two examples are not meant to be exhaustive. I also know that, since the list is not exhaustive, the two examples were probably not chosen because of any sinister "We should assume that any source is good enough as long as someone says it is" agenda and there is no particular reason other than brevity that "the source is not good enough" was left out of the non-exhaustive list of arguments.

I know everyone here agrees with me that the wording is not meant to be interpreted the way I am interpreting it. But users will interpret it this way, presumably in good faith; they already have been interpreting it this way.

I not only agree with PBS's analysis, especially the last sentence, but I think it should probably be inscribed in the policy itself.

My argument, though, has assumed throughout that it is not "what one [my emphasis] believes to be a poor citation"; the removal was made, a note was left on the talk page, the "add" party disagreed and re-added the material, and two or three other users all agreed with the "delete" party, but the lone "add" user doesn't recognize 3-1 as a "consensus to delete" and considers the current wording of V to be on their side (that a "consensus to delete" is what is required, rather than a "consensus to add"). Obviously this is not quite as common a problem as a newbie editor adding a citation that doesn't verify the material in general, but it does happen quite a bit. In such cases AGF can only reasonably be taken so far, but with only a slight tweak to the wording of this policy page, to make it say more directly what we all agree it actually means, we might be able to avoid it from the start.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: could you now please give the link(s)/diff(s) to the casus you describe? I don't think we should continue discussing this as a hypothetical example. Doesn't help us one step in any direction.

Also your assumptions on how much problem would be remedied by your proposed addition is tenuous. I don't think it would. "Source doesn't cover mainspace addition" would in most cases be handled without any reference to WP:V, leave alone the footnote: "Source doesn't cover mainspace addition" is understandable easy enough by experienced and non-experienced editors alike. So if we have one editor trying to make a case out of it, I'd like to see that example (not just your summary of it). Yes some editors are Wikilawyering away against common sense, while applicable guidance is clear enough. Adding more detail to the highest level of content policies is, however, something that would rather be adding another point to wikilawyer about, so there's no remedy in that direction to be expected of your proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

...

Per an email I just received from Hijiri88, the only example they appear to be able to produce of an editor wikilawyering about this point appears to be skirting the edges of their topic ban. Where to go from here? A few options:

Close the thread, which to me seems most sensible: we're being taken on a wild goose chase here with no demonstrable abuse of the WP:V footnote apart from something already settled elsewhere. There seems to be not enough indication in the wider scale of things that a modification of the WP:V footnote would be a meaningful improvement of the policy.
Hijiri88 or someone else produces another example that can be freely discussed here. Failing such example, see previous point (and what I said above about more guidance = more fodder for wikilawyering).
Hijiri88 withdraws from the discussion: I suppose, reading comments by others, that the issue raised in this section would soon be settled as "no addition to the policy necessary", which also brings us back to point 1 above.
... (other ideas on how to proceed from here?)

Please let us know which of the above courses of action can be taken (or propose other ones if you can think of more useful steps). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I emailed you a bunch of examples. If you want to copy-paste my email in here feel free to do so, but I don't frankly see the value of using this page to discuss specific instances of disruption caused by dubious interpretations of the current wording of the policy. That's what the noticeboards are for. The mere fact that it has been interpreted thus is evidence enough that it can be interpreted thus, which would justify my proposed (very small) amendment. Heck, you don't even need to read my email -- you need look no further than this very thread to see someone actually try to argue that if a single user thinks any source is good enough, or even thinks a source can be located, that is enough to ‘preserve’ the material. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You sent me one link, which is not "a bunch of examples". I ask you to give us examples that would illustrate the merits of a potential change to a top level content policy. Or link us to whatever discussion elsewhere where we can read some sort of conclusion in the sense of such policy update being recommended or "wrongdoing could have been avoided if the policy had been clearer", or whatever. Too me this all much seems like you trying to get a side-entrance to your prior trouble. Please stop it. Either provide an example that can be discussed freely, or let others decide whether there are significant examples of this or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri... I think most of us are agreeing that the addition of a source (yes, even a flawed source) is enough to temporarily "preserve" the material - pending further discussion... I don't think anyone is arguing that the addition of a flawed source is enough to permanently "preserve" the material. It is looking to me like there is a consensus on this. Can you accept this as being consensus (even if you don't agree with it)? Blueboar (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but only because I don't consider this to be that big a deal, and therefore not worth the amount of grief it has caused me over the last coupla days. There clearly is not a consensus that if three users on the talk page agree that the cited source does not support the material and one user thinks it does and after days of discussion has failed to convince anyone then the material should stay in indefinitely, until some arbitrary "consensus" threshold can be met to remove it, so if it's okay with everyone else I will go on interpreting the ambiguous wording as I always have. This section can be closed, I guess. My apologies to Kww and WhatAmIDoing, who did appear to support not only my interpretation of the policy but also my proposal to amend the wording to reflect this interpretation, where the rest of you only appear to be taking my side on the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thus, the actual topic was in fact "consensus" (and how to find it), not a difficulty with the "verifiability" policy. See WP:CONSENSUS. Next time, as one among many possible suggestions: launch an RfC, and list at WP:ANRFC a few weeks later. It may take some time (more than a month), but in the end you'll have a consensus determined, not by the disagreeing parties, but by an outsider. And enough rules to make sure everyone lives by the thus determined outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (NB saying pretty much the same thing!) Hijiri88 that is the situation that drove all this, I have two things to say. The first is that this sounds awful. The second is that is sounds all four editors failed to use WP:DR to resolve the issue. There are all kinds of ways that a dogged opposition of one can be overcome but you have to use DR cluefully to do it. A different policy statement would not have helped that situation. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A note, mostly for anyone reading this later: if we have problems with people adding irrelevant sources and claiming that they can keep the content forever under BURDEN, and these problems aren't getting resolved fairly quickly through usual channels (WP:RSN should be your first stop if a quick chat on the talk page doesn't work), then we need to consider changes. Fixing real problems and stopping disputes is never WP:CREEP, even if editors "shouldn't" need to be told something (or told the same thing multiple times on the same page, which has been necessary in for at least one guideline). Links to examples are very helpful when we're trying to fix real problems, so that we can tailor the guidance to reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Live example

BLP variety, sideways involving human penises (but not the example higher on this page), and just launched on a content-related noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Thiel. Maybe something may be learnt from this example w.r.t. the topics discussed in this talk page section? But maybe let's see how it devolves first. Disregard this message if the BLP factor makes this an unclear example for our current purposes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Thiel issues were soon settled.
This example thus, in my view, illustrates once again that following dispute resolution recommendations (in this case, bringing to an appropriate content-related noticeboard) works best for resolving the kind of issues discussed in this section. None of that seems indicative for a change to WP:V.
Does anyone have an example where applying appropriate content-related dispute resolution to the kind of WP:V issues discussed in this section did not get the matter solved? Or where framing it as a conduct issue from early on in the discussion led to a swifter solution? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's only way of escalating a content dispute to a higher authority is to go to RfC, so in any content dispute you're always dealing with a self-selecting group of people. If you find yourself dealing with intransigent editors, your realistic choices are (1) give up, or (2) frame it as a conduct issue. My experience is that framing it as a conduct issue can get rid of specific problem editors, but where the self-selecting group contains many problem editors you won't catch them all and the content issues remain insoluble.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You have omitted the many content-oriented noticeboards in your statement. You can escalate some content disputes to NPOVN, NORN, and RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Method #1:

Mainspace edits
→ Talk page discussion
(→ involve relevant WikiProjects)
→ other steps in dispute resolution:
- content-related noticeboard(s)
- Mediation
- ...
- RfC
Failing to reach a consensus where all editors can live with:
- take a temporary step back (WP:CCC!), and raise the issue again in a later stage
- look at possible conduct issues, and take appropriate steps

Method #2:

Mainspace edits
(→Talk page discussion)
(maybe there was some incivility in the talk page discussions, a few mainspace reverts, or whatever) → let's frame the content issue as a conduct issue from the earliest perceived difficulty (ideally even step two can be skipped): involve dramaboards ASAP, ArbCom, and whatnot

I'm still asking for an example that illustrates that Method #2 works better and/or faster for the issue sketched in the OP. My stance is that if the matter is WP:Urgent Method #1 will in practice work faster, as illustrated by the example with which I started this subsection. Even when dealing with intransigent editors: e.g. when one-sided instransigence is the root of the problem you'll hardly ever have to go beyond the content noticeboard (again illustrated by the example with which I started this subsection). For clarity: we're discussing WP:V-related issues here, in particular where the interpretation and application of WP:BURDEN is involved. Not run-of-the-mill vandalism (other policy/guideline), not WP:3RR (other policy/guideline), etc. (such issues are indeed what WP:ANI and other conduct noticeboards are for, and it apparently works very well for such issues: there's hardly ever any drama involved for issues that are not of the mixed conduct/content variety).

So again, I'd be happy to see a WP:BURDEN-related example that shows otherwise: but even then it remains to be discussed whether an update to this policy would address the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that Hijiri has now accepted that there was no consensus for his proposed changes... I don't think there is any point to finding an example. We can all drop our respective sticks, and end the debate. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx, exactly my sentiment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

adding a quote

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'd like to add the following quote to the SPS section:

And then of course, you have this great rise since 2000 of self-published books and books that to all intents and purposes should not be self-published because they are not good enough to published and therefore shouldn’t be self-published.

Tom Holland, BBC's History Extra podcast "Writing history in the 21st century (at the 28 minute mark)

Does anyone oppose this? It doesn't change the meaning of that section, just illustrates the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, but I think it's a non sequitur and I don't know what makes Tom Holland an authority on self-publication. (Personal interest disclosure: I self-published a book in 2006, which sold a couple thousand copies on Lulu before being picked up by a proper publisher in 2008. I feel as if I see both sides of this.)—S Marshall T/C 01:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose adding this because, in my opinion, the rise of low-quality self-published books is not so much their existence, but the ability to find them with search engines. There were plenty of abysmal self-published vanity press books in the 20th century, but the only way to find them was to find them in somebody's attic. So the wording of the proposed addition would just be confusing. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether your quotation might find a more friendly home in an essay. Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#The problem with self-published sources would be an option to consider. There might be even better ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks; I was unaware of that essay. I think I'll pursue that, instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

British Rail Class 58 update

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Collapse off-topic post. This page is for discussing how to improve this policy. Changes to specific pages should be discussed at the article talk page. If you are uncertain how to make the edit yourself, seek how-to assistance at the Wikipedia teahouse. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As a preferred update is needed for the page, two Class 58s got secured no's 58012 and 58023 for preservation and it says only 58023 is to be restored and its at the Battlefield Line, and also about 58022 it needs to be told because it's chassis it to help in the replica of the LMS 10000 project, Trooper201 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: should "excessive examples" be added to WP:INDISCRIMINATE ?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

~~I have started a Request for Comment on WT:INDISCRIMINATE. I ask whether WP:INDISCRIMINATE should have a fifth category, "excessive examples". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)~~ Closed in order to amend the RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: should the "self-sourcing" condition apply to examples of any type?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a Request for Comment on WT:INDISCRIMINATE on whether the previous consensus on "self-sourcing" examples in popular culture should be expanded to any type of examples. Most of my recent edits have been based on a misinterpretation of that consensus and I really boned myself with that one. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Are tabloids a reliable source?

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Hopefully this would be yes or no question, and not become a yes or no "except when" answer. I searched the archive and couldn't find a clear answer, not one good enough to avoid edit wars. Here's my understanding from the guidelines:

From V: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, ... or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves..."

A tabloid relies on tabloid journalism: "Tabloid journalism is a style of journalism that tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news."

There are a number of well-known tabloids. In their articles they are described as being tabloids.

Tabloid journalism has been criticized by some, such as Ewan McGregor.

Encyc. Britannica states that the "Sun focused on the weird and bizarre, featuring (largely) faked news stories of aliens and supernatural powers, religious prophecies, curious mysteries, juicy scandals, and political conspiracies." And The Sun, for one, "had the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, but in late 2013 slipped to second largest Saturday newspaper behind the Daily Mail."

Tabloids are free to lie without recourse. A story in the New York Times, "How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court, said, "Even though newspapers like The National Enquirer, The Star and The Globe regularly leave famous people fuming about what those people consider to be lies, half-truths and innuendo, the tabloids face few lawsuits and almost never lose trials." That's partly because, they write, "The celebrity will have to prove 'actual malice' -- that the tabloid was not just negligent, but rather knew that the item was false and nonetheless displayed a reckless disregard for the truth."

Personally, I don't think allowing exceptions under certain conditions in order to use tabloids will ever work, since those exceptions will always be subjective. In fact, by not stating outright that "tabloids" can never be a RS, one of the key WP pillars gets undermined. IMO, if even one article in any of the 5 million is allowed to rely on a tabloid for a source per guidelines, then it sets a precedence for all articles. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A tabloid refers to a size, not a standard, so a 'one-size-fits-all' rule will not work. In some circumstances a tabloid newspaper may well be the best source (a direct interview, for example), which is why these are better off described as potentially unreliable. – SchroCat (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case it would be simple to make the distinction between reliable newspapers using tabloid format and papers which are known for tabloid journalism. It just means expanding the list of unreliable ones, as they did partially in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources:

"The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes. In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used."

Heck, for the largest encyclopedia on the planet, making up a list of a few dozen of those unusable sources should be simple, and essential. Otherwise we'll cross over into citing publications like The Onion.

And direct quotes are as often made up as are the stories: "Former child star Aaron Carter is considering taking legal action against a U.S. tabloid after he was quoted suggesting Michael Jackson had offered him cocaine when he was a teenager."[1] And repeating a misquote, even innocently, can make a publication like an encyclopedia also potentially liable: ie. "How I sued the Daily Mail – and won".[2] --Light show (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think a blanket ban, such as you are suggesting, is beneficial. Yes, you can point to examples that we should not be using, but WP:PUS strikes an acceptable balance of 'use with care', because there are circumstances where the use is both justified and beneficial. – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That just redefines the problem, since it's impossible to use an unreliable source "with care." That would require backing it up with a reliable source. And using it "with care" implies that an editor has some way of knowing if the tabloid fact is truthful. In any case, the term "potentially unreliable" still means "unreliable," in essence. The suggestion that "potentially unreliable" sources could be "used with care" is just a word dance around the issue. If allowed, anyone can start sourcing junk facts from almost anywhere under the excuse that the source was only "potentially" bad, but they at least took "care" in using it. Supermarket tabloids are unreliable sources. How can we ever use them? --Light show (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "supermarket tabloid" as that is a concept that hasn't reached the UK. The PUS guideline, which says tabloids "generally" shouldn't be used is just fine. A blanket ban is a step too far, as there is sometimes information in there that can be used if one is careful—quotes from an interview that are not used out of context, for example. As long as the newspaper (or we) do not try and analyse the meaning, or use it in an inappropriate manner, then they are fine. — SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Supermarket tabloid is a synonym for tabloid, like the one's were discussing. You seem unaware that tabloids, via their papparazzi-like celebrity-stalking reporters, will misquote or create quotes out of thin air, to sell papers to the gullible. Remember when George Harrison sued The Globe for $600 million since it misquoted his manager? Or when Ted Cruz planned to sue the National Enquirer for similar reasons? Or when George Clooney made headlines by saying the Daily Mail intentionally lied?[3] Whether quotes or facts, they're still unreliable and should never be used in an encyclopedia. --Light show (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course you can point to examples that we should not be using, but a blanket ban is something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I'm not talking about fabricated quotes in a "news" report: I am talking about an interview given to a newspaper. Tabloids are reliable for that material and some other types of reportage too: sports, consumer affairs, film and television reviews and a few other points. We would not be acting in the best interests of the encyclopaedia if we attempt a blanket ban solely on the basis of the shape of the newspaper. – SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The shape issue is off-topic. Repeating from above: "It would be simple to make the distinction between reliable newspapers using tabloid format and papers which are known for tabloid journalism." We just list them.

But what you're implying is that these "potentially unreliable" sources, "that have a poor reputation for checking the facts [and] lack meaningful editorial oversight," are really only "potentially reliable." Which would contradict guidelines: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

I wonder if Honda will use that "potentially unreliable" factor in its defense? But in any case, letting editors cherry pick from these recognized "unreliable" sources is worse than OR, since readers then see that the text is sourced and may assume the facts are true. --Light show (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well you are free not to use them if you don't want, but you will not necessarily be doing the readers a service by completely ignoring a source of information that can be used if dealt with properly by people who know what they are doing. – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I should point that per WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The key term there "reliable source". Just because it can be cited doesn't mean it is from a reliable source. And even if the source is reliable it may fail WP:NOTE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want a simple yes or no as a guideline for yourself, then it si simple - it is no, that is stay away from tabloid journalism as source.

If you want to assess the sourcing by somebody else, then unfortunately it becomes more complicated than a simple yes or no and the phrase "potentially unreliable" is somewhat appropriate. Generally tabloid contains lotsa unreliable and questionable information, however on occasion or in particular context they may reliable nevertheless, so you can't avoid looking at the specific context and see whether the general or common unreliability really applies in your given context. For instance using some tabloid article on global warming or most other scientific, political, historical topics is pretty much a no-go. On the other if the pm/president/chancellor gives an (authorized) interview to a tabloid, you probably can safely use that as a source for stating the pm/president/chancellor's opinion/attitude on some issue. Overall it boils down to a "mostly no, but occasionally yes"-thing. And it requires some common sense to assess whether the use as source in a specific context is ok or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTRS combined with WP:NOTE is a good thumbnail for this. WP:NOTRS: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." If a statement is truly noteworthy then odds are there is a reliable source for it. Never mind that WP:ALIVE would curb stomp any use of tabloid journalism per WP:BLPREMOVE. Finally, I would ask what pm/president/chancellor would got to an (authorized) interview to a tabloid (journalist) when there are far more reputable outlets out there?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there is a serious cultural disconnect going on in this discussion because the term "tabloid" has such dramatically different connotations between American English and British English. Actually, in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister and his family sometimes do grant interviews to tabloid publications like the Daily Mail (see this example and this example), while in the United States, it is simply unheard of for the President of the United States, state governors, presidents or chancellors of prestigious universities or other distinguished persons to grant interviews to supermarket tabloids. Indeed, it would probably be a major news story in and of itself if a sitting President or the First Lady were to ever grant an interview on the record with the National Enquirer or any other supermarket tabloid publication. That is, the typical supermarket tabloid in the United States is a far cry from a tabloid newspaper in the United Kingdom. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Collapse off-topic post. This page is for the purpose of discussing changes in this policy. You probably want articles for deletion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a fake page put up by people lying about this paper. Furlong has no involvement with it. I am the editor and can be verified bey simply looking in the paper. I ask that this page be removed as malicious

188.28.131.9 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nutshell summary

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Currently the "This page in a nutshell" summary reads:

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

This is a very poor summary of the policy. It actually doesn't summarize the policy at all! What it does instead is mention just the special case of quotations and challenged or likely to be challenged material. Further, the "This means" sentence reads like a logical error because is oddly specific compared to the scope of the first sentence.

An actual short version of the policy is just "All material must be attributable to a reliable, published source." This is what verifiability means. As for the present wording of the summary, I like the sentence "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up" because it explains why we need the policy in an way that's immediately clear to new readers and editors. A better version of the nutshell summary would be

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation.

I intend to make this change at some point. Discussion welcome if you see a problem. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Readers must be able to check that information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up." DonIago (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! You are right, that should be fixed. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I went and made a change. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Some editors have made some grammar improvements to the wording above. The current version now reads

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

Hopefully this caught all issues with the text. It seems like the idea behind the change will stick. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to the concept.

I'd prefer to change "Readers" to "Other people" (meaning: people who are not the editor that adds the material). "Readers must be able to check" has been misunderstood as "every single reader, including those who refuse to pay for PAYWALLed material". We don't actually mean that; we mean that "some people, specifically those willing to go to enough work and expense".

Also, rather than "This means all material must be attributable to...", it might be simpler to say "It must be possible for all material to be verified in...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

existing groups ???

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups"

Where the feck this came from? WP:BLP says nothing about groups. It reminds me a curious application of hate crime laws in Russia: "Inciting hatred against the social group comprised of Russian police officers". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is motivated by a desire to avoid lawsuits. But really we shouldn't include unsourced or poorly sourced material about anything, whether it's a living person, a group, a dead person, a group of dead people, muskrats, trains or whatever. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It also more or less correctly implements the groups section of the BLP policy, at least broadly speaking. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Question: Where should I post a proposal regarding WP:V and PROD?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think I am about to open a giant can of worms by proposing that the same standard currently applied to new BLPs requiring at least one reliable source be extended to all newly created articles. Should I post this as a proposal here or at the Village Pump? As far as possible I want to be sure that anyone who might be interested has a chance to comment. Yes, I know this is going to be controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd post it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion if you want to test the waters first, or at the pump if you want to just plunge in.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to aligning PRESERVE and BURDEN

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

So in the wake of the last huge discussion, on Wikipedia talk:Editing policy we've thrashed out an addendum to WP:PRESERVE which reads:-

If you restore unsourced information that was removed because of concerns that the material might be original research or unverifiable in any published reliable source, then normally you should provide an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the information being restored shortly afterwards.

I feel that this is pretty obvious stuff but we've had ample evidence that it was causing difficulty. The edit we've agreed goes, I think, halfway towards aligning any perceived conflict between the two policies. Now I propose adding a footnote to WP:BURDEN which specifies when it shouldn't apply. These would include:- (1) vandalistic removals of content; (2) repeated removals of content that are reasonably attributable to a COI or to an attempt to steer an article towards a particular POV; (3) vexatious behaviour, such as a series of content removals that target a particular editor; (4) any content removal that's part of a pattern of disruptive, POINTY or retaliatory behaviour; (5) content removals in articles subject to discretionary sanctions or by editors subject to active Arbcom remedies. The intention behind (4) is to encompass the situation that led to the Arbcom ruling in KWW -v- The Rambling Man. I hope, and think, this should be an uncontroversial clarification and would welcome wording suggestions.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've objected to and reverted that change for reasons I've stated on the talk page there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove "normally" and replace it with "absolutely and without exception" and you've got something.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a few small exceptions. Obviously bad-faith challenges can be ignored (think "But I CHALLENGEd the verifiability of 'Humans normally have four fingers and a thumb'!"). However, about #2 in particular, I tend to disagree that my (possibly wrong, possibly COI-motivated, possibly POV-pushing) belief that you have a COI or are POV pushing is a functional exception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an improvement - the "long standing" language currently in the policy is clear and fairly unambiguous. This proposal adds ambiguity that will cause far more arguments than it would resolve. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an improvement - it doesn't address situations like what is going on with the Chick tract where I want to add something from a web page that has been used as reference in the article for something else for SEVEN YEARS and yet other editors hit the revert button and say the reference is unreliable and yet keep that very same reference in the article. In fact my issues with editors removing my edits has not been with "original research or unverifiable in any published reliable source" but with the misunderstand of what "original research" and "citation to a reliable source" mean (see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence#The_REAL_problem_with_.22not_truth.22_.28Verifiability_vs_belief.29 and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_55#Lead for examples of how silly it can get. (Looking for a reliable source is OR according to one editor)--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[improperly attributed allegation removed 23:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)]

RfC

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither change is warranted

Latest comment: 7 years ago62 comments11 people in discussion

Here. Bbb23, please could you elaborate on your reasons.—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I gotta go out. I'll try to comment later today. BTW, my edit should have probably said something more like "not warranted without discussion".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In your first edit, you changed the text from "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." to "If the material is plausible, you should look for sources yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." First, the word "plausible" is ambiguous and not the same as verifiable. Second, changing "encouraged" to "should" is a higher burden for the person who wants to revert because the material is unsourced.

In your second edit, you added a footnote to challenged material: "Please keep your text removals to a reasonable size. This clause is not a license to blank large sections of established articles. Removing large amounts of text is normally only allowed if it was added quite recently. Otherwise, seek consensus on the talk page or use the AfD process." I'm not sure what you're referring to in your edit summary (in light of recent events), but your footnote is pure opinion and could cause significant problems for editors who need to revert because some of the material is unsourced and some may not be, but it's too difficult and too unfair to force the reverter to go through all of the material if the editor inserting the material did "too much" at once. The burden should be on the editor who is allegedly violating policy. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with the added statement "Removing large amounts of text is normally only allowed if it was added quite recently." If a large chunk of text sits unreferenced for 10 years in an obscure article, I would remove it right away. I do it all the time for various Indian villages. And on the contrary, if the text is added "quite recently", it is quite possible it was done by a newbie, and tagging it is a much less disruptive idea (if it is not an pretty evident speculation). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As I've said here before, I think that there may — or may not — be an unspoken exception to V for removals of large amounts of material from a single article. Part of my uncertainty is when and where that exception applies, if it does at all. (For example, it's not infrequent for an article to survive AFD but to then have all the unsourced material, sometimes the vast bulk of the article, removed.) While I applaud, without supporting, SMarshall's good faith attempt here, I don't think that it is, or will end up being, that simple. As for the other change, I think that "encouraged to provide" is strong enough and less ambiguous than "should." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it would probably help if I explained myself.
1) "If you think the material is verifiable" is poor phrasing. If you, as an editor, "think the material is verifiable" then of course you're not going to remove it. No reasonable editor would remove something they thought was verifiable from a Wikipedia article under WP:BURDEN. Clearly, what this clause is actually about is material that could be verifiable. In other words, clearly, the key concept here is uncertainty. The material's in the article. It might be correct, it might not. You don't know. So I was looking for a single word that encapsulates that idea, and I went with "plausible" because I thought it captured the idea that something could be, but isn't necessarily, verifiable. I'm not strongly attached to the word "plausible", but I do think the current phrasing is poor.
2) I was looking for a shorter, clearer way of saying "are encouraged to". In my view "should" is an accurate and appropriate word. Yes, you should be looking for sources before you edit the mainspace, irrespective of whether your edit adds or removes material. It's irresponsible to edit the mainspace without reading the sources first.
3) The second edit, about removing large amounts of text: The "recent event" was here, where an editor had misunderstood WP:BURDEN to mean that he could go around removing so much text that he was effectively blanking the article, or blanking whole sections. That misunderstanding is reasonable, because a literal reading of WP:BURDEN as currently phrased doesn't put any kind of limit on how much text an editor can remove. I was trying to capture the idea that if someone adds, say, 2,000 words of unsourced, implausible text to an article, then you can immediately revert them under WP:BURDEN, but going up to an old, often-viewed article and taking out the same amount of text is stretching WP:BURDEN farther than it was ever intended to go. BURDEN isn't for doing an end-run around the AfD process. So it's not an abstract or theoretical concern. It's a preventive response to something that's recently happened, and it's enacting an AN/I consensus.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My problem with big chunks of unsourced text is that I often hit on "walled gardens" (Indian villages I mentioned is but one case), which seem to be frequently edited and viewed, but are in a horrible state (i.e., "often-viewed article" is a dubious criterion). Since I have no interest in most of these obscure topics, I don't want to put them on my watch list. Therefore slapping a tag and coming back in, say, a month, to see if it was fixed, will not work. Therefore I would rather do "drive-by butchering" and go away. (And I have indications that not only me is doing this). IMO today reliability of wikipedia is of higher concern than the amount of text, especially keeping mind that average "eyeball per article" is steadily going down. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Which is fine by me, as long as you're excising text that isn't verifiable. My only beef is with editors who recklessly or negligently remove text that is verifiable from articles. But the community takes a different view. Or at least, it did at that AN/I, and Arbcom did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. The community's view as expressed in those discussions is that you can take WP:BURDEN too far.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles and the recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy, it's clear to me what S Marshall was going for with these edits and that he's on the right track. But given that the aforementioned discussions at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy are going in circles, I don't have much hope for this latest one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, a wide-scale RfC is needed on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

On a side note: We sometimes remove things that are verifiable for reasons such as WP:Due and/or WP:BLP, but removing them under WP:Burden is another matter, which is what S Marshall is focusing on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

How about the following suggestion, in the spirit of WP:BURDEN:

If the deleted swath text was tagged for a long time, then it may be restored only after addressing the concern
If the deleted swath text was untagged, then the restoration revert is allowed, provided that:
1. the restorer tags the text,
2. and what is most important, pledges to fix the problem in the nearest future.

In this way the restorer is both encouraged to "fix it", as well as invites others to lend a hand. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note... This is a pet peeve... The short cut term "BURDEN" should not be used to discuss removal (as there is no "burden" to remove)... It really only applies to the restoration of material that has been removed (when there is a burden ... The burden to provide a reliable source to support restoration). Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with the definitional problem: What's a "big chunk" (my term) or a "swath" Staszek Lem's term? A word, a sentence, 3 sentences, a paragraph, 3 paragraphs, a section, a percentage of the article, a I-know-it-when-I-see-it, something else? And if you choose one of them, why is the exception justified as to that level but not the one just below it? If you don't define it, however, there will be endless drama as to which deletions to which the exception should apply. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did think about that, yes. I feel that there are two excellent responses:-

1) The discussions I've previously linked amount to a consensus that editors can overuse WP:CHALLENGE. But they don't define what constitutes overuse. So my edit to the policy which said editors can overuse this clause stood four-square on the bedrock of consensus, and I'm very confident in it. But any edit defining "overuse" would not stand on such firm ground and it would amount to nothing more than a statement of my opinion. This is a significant point in my view, but I feel that the key one is the second:-

2) Wikipedia policy never defines misbehaviour in any objective terms. WP:CIVIL contains no useful definition of incivility. (It defines incivility in terms of "disrespect", "aggressiveness" and "conflict", which would be helpful if those terms were themselves defined.) WP:VANDAL contains no useful definition of vandalism. (It describes a problem behaviour as "illegitimately blanking pages", which would be helpful if "illegitimate was itself defined.)

Why is there no definition of misbehaviour? Because if you define misbehaviour you enable it. If, for example, we said "a big chunk" is "more than 500 words or more than 50% of the article in the same week", then what you'd predictably get from editors of a certain stripe is removing 498 words in one edit and then 233 words in the second using edits 170 hours apart. So we don't define misbehaviour. Instead we go to a drama board such as AN/I and have discussions about whether this edit or that edit breached the bounds of WP:CIVIL or WP:VANDAL and if so, how egregiously. These wrangles are an inherent part of the consensus model of governance and I think it's a mistake to try to avoid them.

So overall my position is that we have no basis on which to define "overuse" of WP:CHALLENGE and even if we did, it would be a mistake to write it down. Did you also have other objections?—S Marshall T/C 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that blanking whole sections without providing a reason is considered disruptive, and that BURDEN prompts editors removing the content to state their concern that such content is not merely unsourced, but unverifiable. If you don't know whether the content is easy or hard to verify, a simple remove-and-forget is the wrong approach.

If you're doing drive-by reviews and are not planning to come back to a particular article, you should be prepared to perform at least a cursory search of references before removing such material (akin to a WP:BEFORE search for article deletion). If you consider that search to be too demanding, you should tag the content instead.

A fully removed content is out-of-sight, out-of-mind, so no one will be able to review such removal because they won't know that content was there; while a section tagged for cleanup could be reviewed and salvaged by a more dedicated editor. This is the course of action that provides the highest accountability, and should satisfy both the inclusionist and deletionist instincts in us. Diego (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, it's also worth recalling that per WP:PRESERVE, moving the content to the talk page is also encouraged as an alternative. The point is that, if you want to remove large chunks of content under BURDEN, you should leave a trail that other editors can step unto and review your actions - in special when you're admittedly in drive-by mode. Diego (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Diego, for that. I wonder if this doesn't already provide the exception we've been discussing here. The exception is simply this: blanking of entire sections without providing an explanation is unacceptable. Per PRESERVE and V, one acceptable explanation (among others) is that the material is unsourced, but you've got to say that (and if you want to be in full compliance with the best practices of V also express a good faith concern that it cannot be reliably sourced). Again, let me reiterate as I have here many times before that V permits unsourced content to merely be removed without any obligation to search for sources and no obligation to do or say anything more (not that there are not better, but non-mandatory practices recommended here as well), but I now see that Vandalism requires an explanation when the removal is at the full-section level. And I'm okay with that exception. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC) I've subsequently decided I was wrong about this, see my post below with the same date/time stamp as this. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If that is indeed the consensus then it neatly solves all of my concerns. All I need to do is go through all the articles I watchlist dividing them into very short sections, which will nicely WP:RANDY-proof most of the content I care about the most. Shall we add it to the policy?—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't judge the appropriate removal of large text simply on formal reasons, but you need to consider the specific content and context well. If you have some obscure or questionable unsourced text, then you should be able to remove it, no matter how old it is. One the other hand if you have a large correct or most likely correct but unsourced (older) text, then it is not acceptable to simply delete it based on a formal policy argument, but instead if want to do anything at all simply tag it for better sourcing. Also note that a lack of footnotes does not automatically imply no sourcing (check the references and external links sections). The important thing however is, that you cannot a make sensible decision about removal or keeping without assessing the content itself. Simply checking the age of the text and the (non-)existence of sources is often not cutting it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the nuance we're missing in the policies is that of accountability. Editors do have a right to remove unverifiable content, and the burden to reference it does belong to those willing to include the content. But the assessment of whether the content is unverifiable or not is not trivial, requiring an editorial judgement call.

Therefore, performing such call should not be left to the single editor that performs the cleanup - somehow there must be a guarantee that some other editors may find about the removal and assess it independently. Theoretically that could be done by going through the whole article history looking for content removals, but that's utterly impractical. For old articles with low watch counts, you may not even think about the possibility that the article was much larger once upon a time, but it was gutted three years and 200 edits ago. That's why WP:PRESERVE advises us to add cleanup tags or leaving a comment at the talk page; I would like to see such process enforced, so that no cleanup act of unsourced content went unreviewed. Diego (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

But removal is itself a form of accountability. Let's take Diego's "there must be a review" idea a step further... If an edit that removes unsourced information needs to be reviewed, then we also need a review of edits that add unsourced information (or any other edit). To paraphrase your statement: "Somehow there must be a guarantee that some other editors may find about the addition of unsourced information and assess it independently".

Oh wait... that's assessment is called WP:CHALLENGE. When someone adds unsourced information, it is assessed by other editors... and that assessment may result in a removal. Given this, what it seems Diego is really asking for is a review of the review. When does this review process stop? Shall we also have a review of the review of the review (etc.)? Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm being utterly unable to explain my point, or you're deliberately failing to hear it. An edit that adds information to the article lets that information right there, in plain sight in the article. Any editor who reads the article can see it. Not so for information that has been removed, which by definition can't be seen, unless you leave a trace that it has been removed in the talk page, or tag it with a maintenance tag instead of removing it. Those are not symmetric situations, with respect to the point of accessing the information, i.e. discovering that there's a need to perform a review. Diego (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Diego, thanks for your "13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)" post on this; that's what S Marshall and I have been arguing at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. Kendrick7 has argued similarly as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Like you, I've also made the WP:BEFORE comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And I've noted the "move to the talk page" approach. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

re: "...plain sight <...> unless you leave a trace that it has been removed in the talk page" - what trace? If you mean article history, it is not "in plain sight" either. If you mean talk page, then it is "under the carpet" as well, and even more so, it may be further removed "to the attic" (archived). That said, how does your argument serve to improve WP:PRESERVE? Unless we have a specific proposal, the talk is going in circles, repeating same things again and again (example: "...you should leave a trail..." and later on "...unless you leave a trace..."; - why are you preaching this? WP:PRESERVE says this already.) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Because people who invoke BURDEN don't bother to follow PRESERVE, thinking it is optional. If BURDEN spelled it out that same requirement to leave a trace for accountability, they couldn't simply ignore it, they'd have to follow it on order to make the challenge.

So I'm proposing that we add that requirement to leave a trace for accountability here at BURDEN. A message at the talk page is much better than a silent edit at history, since talk pages have less content, they are chunked and organised through section titles, and have a much better search function that can search by arbitrary words. Diego (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 - Please don't inappropriately personalize this. You don't decide who's allowed to edit the policy. State an objection to the edit, rather than the editor, please.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not deciding who gets to change policy. The community decides. Policy isn't changed generally without an RfC or a very strong consensus in favor of it. It certainly shouldn't be changed by the person whose changes were challenged in the first instance. You don't have a consensus to change the policy at this point, let alone a strong or well-commented consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are. You're still completely focused on the editor rather than the substance of the edit, and it's inappropriate. Most of the edits to this policy have not involved an Rfc, and I have linked the Arbcom case and the AN/I discussion that reached the consensus I now seek to enact. It would be appropriate for you to reconsider your position.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Do I have something against you I'm unaware of? If I do, I don't even recall it. So why should my actions be about you? The ANI cite is not a consensus for a change to the policy but a discussion of a particular instance, which you've then blown up into a policy change. As for the Arbcom decision, please help me out there. What part of the decision supports your policy interpretation?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we've ever clashed, which is why I'm mystified. If I understand your position correctly, it's that I'm not allowed to edit the policy because I started the discussion. This is not normal, and I do not think it's based on policy or normal practice. As far as I can see you have no substantive objection to my edit. Every objection you've raised including your last one has been purely procedural. If you have a substantive objection I'd like to hear it.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're mystified, which is also why I don't understand why you think I'm "personalizing" this. I stated my substantive objection at the outset. Your changes to the footnote haven't eliminated my original objections. If I want to delete a section - and, mind you, sections vary considerably in size and quality, which makes a difference - you're adding a hurdle I have to overcome to do that. Also, "larger amounts" is ambiguous. You didn't answer my Arbcom question.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the reason I think you're personalising this is:- first, a revert telling me I'm not allowed to change the policy. There's no way to interpret that as anything other than an objection to me, personally, editing the policy on the basis of the discussion above.

For your interest the actual rules about editing policy pages are at WP:PGBOLD and I would like to draw your attention to the bit that says: Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views.

Then there was two, an edit that said ...it certainly shouldn't be changed by the person whose changes were challenged in the first instance. You don't have a consensus to change the policy... and again, there's no way to interpret that as anything other than an objection to me, personally, editing the policy. You remained completely focused on the identity of the changer rather than the nature of the change, and on procedural issues rather than substantive ones, until your most recent answer which is actually substantive. All in all, yes, I'll stand by my statement that your approach up until that most recent edit was inappropriately personalised.

The AN/I discussion and the Arbcom case are both authority for my basic position that it's possible to overreach WP:BURDEN's intended scope. I presume you can see that, and I hope you agree hat there have been recent incidents when editors have taken WP:BURDEN too far. Are you with me so far?—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that those are issues with those editors, not necessarily an indication that WP:BURDEN should be revised. I would recommend that you propose your specific changes here to see whether they meet with approval. If not as an RfC, then at least as a hopefully clear-cut straw poll to get a sense of the room, as it were. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

In both incidents Kww and Spacecowboy420 were removing unsourced content. There's nothing in WP:CHALLENGE to say you can remove too much unsourced content at once ---- so how is the problem with the editors? If we say the problem is with the editors, then we're saying they're at fault for breaking a rule that we don't actually have, or at least, a rule that isn't written down anywhere. This seems harsh, to say the very least.
Since there's a consensus that these editors were overreaching the intended scope of WP:CHALLENGE, we need to tell people in WP:CHALLENGE that there are some limits on the amount of content you can remove at once (even though we can't say what those limits are). Otherwise we're leaving a trap for people who remove unsourced content to fall into. Do you see?
From my point of view it's simply a case of finding a form of words to enact this consensus which is acceptable to other editors who watchlist the policy. I'm afraid I intend to persist until this is achieved, and bold edits to the policy (at reasonable intervals) are an effective way of finding the substantive objections.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought that I was going to be able to support S Marshall's most recent edit, which was a very good try, but I've reread it and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate several times now and, contrary to the position I took about the vandalism issue above (which I've struck out), I don't think that the vandalism subsection actually addresses the possible exception which S Marshall is attempting to address. Here's why: The vandalism section says "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself..." Note that "Removing encyclopedic content" links back to WP:PRESERVE which says that material should only be preserved if it is in compliance with WP:V and, thus, in general it is not required (though it is the best practice) to preserve wholly-unsourced otherwise-encyclopedic material. When unsourced material is removed without explanation it is readily apparent why it happened. (Is that the best practice? Not even close, but it's permissible.) And nothing in the vandalism section specifically limits or applies its "unexplained removal" rule to large-scale removals in particular. I initially misread that section and thought that it did, but now I've read it more carefully I see that it does not and, indeed, excepts unsourced removals from its application. Whether we should articulate the large-amount removal exception here in V and, if so, whether we can come up with a succinct, rational definition of it is another matter. Again, good try S Marshall, and I'm sorry for contributing to confusion about it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Approaching the issue from a different direction

The section is really trying to address two different questions at the same time: 1) What should you do when you come across unsourced information (a question which has several sub-questions) .... and 2) What should you do when someone else challenges unsourced information? I think it might help to break the section up... and deal with each question and sub-question more clearly. I would re-organize as follows:

1) What should you do when you come across unsourced information...
- 1a) if you think the unsourced information is Verifiable?
- 1b) if you are unsure whether the unsourced information is Verifiable or not?
- 1c) if you think the unsourced information is not Verifiable?
2) What should you do when someone else challenges (and either tags or removes unsourced information)?

Note that I am not really talking about the language of the policy at this point... rather I am talking about how best to organize the section. (Yes, a re-organization will likely require some changes to language, and if so we can discuss that... but as a second step... for now please focus on organization). Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should separate the instructions for the removal and restoration of content, so that it's clear that both acts have requirements for improving the article. Make the CHALLENGE a formal process, so that when it is properly followed, there is no doubt that BURDEN needs to be met when restoring the content. This would kill two birds with one shot:

People couldn't complaint that the removal is invalid and revert it on that ground.
It would show that the editor removing the content knows the policy and is trying to fix the problem in the best way. If such editor performs a large number of challenges that turn out to be invalid for not being the best course of action for the article (i.e. removing pieces of content that time and again are later shown to be easy to verify), concerns of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE could be raised against them. Diego (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether it is felt that there should be a differentiation in the handling of newly-added unsourced material versus material that's become "stable" within the article. I know I approach those situations in different manners. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Making CHALLENGE a formal process won't work. It'd literally take years for editors to even notice that we established a formal process (because WP:Nobody reads the directions, especially if they think they already know what the 'rules' are). And in the meantime, we'd have drama over "BURDEN doesn't apply, because you didn't say Mother, May I? before removing the content, so it's not a true CHALLENGE". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibility I contemplated. But we already have complaints that burden doesn't apply because the content is actually verifiable; by making a formal challenge, now there would be a way to stop those complaints ("I didn't make a proper CHALLENGE? Well now I'm making one!"). And think of the inverse: if a proper CHALLENGE has been issued, it would be forbidden to include the content back without a reference, no matter the quality of the article or how well-established is the content. People wanting to preserve the content would have to either include the inline reference, moving it to the talk page, or whatever applies. The upshot is that formal challenges would only be made when there are true concerns of verifiability, and thus BURDEN would only be used in such cases where it really applies. Diego (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In theory, if material is removed as part of a WP:Verifiability challenge (e.g., with an edit summary that says "Removing WP:OR"), then restoring the content without a reference is already forbidden, no matter the quality of the article or how long that material has been on the page – or how misguided the removal is, or how easy it would be provide sources, or anything else. Where's the new value here? It feels like we'd be moving from "The BURDEN is on you, if you want that content back in the article" to "I double-dare you to add a source for that content if you want it back in the article". Since the problem that concerns me the most is trying to use PRESERVE to increase the burden on the removing editor, I don't think this will help at all. (But perhaps you have a different primary issue in mind?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In theory, if material is removed as part of a WP:Verifiability challenge, restoring the content without a reference is already forbidden Sure, but how do you know that the content is removed as part of a verifiable challenge, and not merely because WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Writing "Removing WP:OR" is making a formal challenge, but writing "I'm getting rid of this crap" is not. If the content is removed with the latter comment, there's a reasonable argument that BURDEN has not been invoked and the removal can be reverted. BURDEN already requires that the editor expresses such concern, so this interpretation is a valid one.

I didn't know the WP:Verifiability challenge essay, but my proposal equates to turning something like that into a guideline. "A verifiability challenge is any good-faith claim that unsourced material cannot be verified in any reliable source. If the dispute's primary locus is something other than a good-faith question about whether a published reliable source contains this information, then it is not a verifiability challenge. The added emphasis would be that, by following the formal process, the removing editor knows that s/he is making a strong claim about the (lack of) existence of sources, not merely a request than someone else does all the work to find them if they exist. If the editor is not confident enough to make the challenge, either reverting the removal would be allowed, or the editor should be forced by the process to preserve or tag the content instead of removing it. And we could require as part of the process that such challenge is made at the talk page, in a place where other editors may stumble upon in, rather than being lost in the edit history.

In short, my concern is that for editors who want to use BURDEN, forcing them to always follow PRESERVE is never going to be accepted. Thus my position is "OK, you are always allowed to remove the content without a requirement for preserving or sourcing it, but you must take responsibility for that removal - don't make it lightly".Diego (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think DonIago's distinction is a useful one to make. As a basis for discussion, how about:-
1) In case of well-established content--
1a) You find unsourced information that's verifiable --> You add an inline citation to a reliable source.
1b) You find unsourced information and you don't know whether it's verifiable --> You check. If it's verifiable, see 1a. If it isn't verifiable, see 1c. If there's some genuine reason why you can't check (e.g. source behind paywall, source in a language you don't speak) then you refer to the appropriate discussion board where editors who can help might be expected to congregate, and you put a pointer to the discussion on the article talk page.
1c) You find unsourced information that's not verifiable --> You remove it under our reworded WP:CHALLENGE.
2) In case of well-established content when someone else challenges:-
2a) They challenge and the information is verifiable --> You look for the COI, POV-pushing agenda, history of vandalism, or other behavioural issue. If someone's removing verifiable information under WP:CHALLENGE, then there's a better than even chance that you'll find some kind of bad faith. If you find that evidence, revert and refer to the appropriate drama board. ---- If they challenge and the information is verifiable but the challenge does appear to be, or must be assumed to be, in good faith, then you revert, add an inline citation to a reliable source, and post on their talk page pointing at WP:PRESERVE and asking them to be more careful in future.
2b) They challenge and the information is not verifiable --> Click thanks for the edit and move on.
3) In case of new content--
3a) A new editor adds verifiable, but unverified content --> Click thanks for the edit, add welcome template to their talk page, begin discussion about the importance of citations, show them how to use citation syntax.
3b) An experienced editor adds verifiable, but unverified content --> Wait a reasonable interval after the edit to see if a citation appears. They may be in the process of working out syntax for a complex citation or something. Give them time. If it doesn't, revert and {{minnow}} if the content's uncontroversial, {{trout}} if it's potentially controversial, or {{whale}} if it's actually controversial or a quote.
3c) Any editor adds unverifiable content --> Revert and add {{uw-error1}} to their talk page.
Suggestions for improvement very welcome.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of uncertain about the "should" and the "you" in Blueboar's question. The standards I set for myself may be quite higher than those which ought to be required or even best practice for all editors, and should doesn't differentiate between mandatory and best practices. I think that we already have it right, both as to the mandatory and the best practice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts: 1) What should you do when you come across unsourced information...

1a) if you think the unsourced information is Verifiable?

Add a source or leave it alone.

1b) if you are unsure whether the unsourced information is Verifiable or not?

Add a source or tag it as needing a source or leave it alone.

1c) if you think the unsourced information is not Verifiable?

Remove it or tag it – with or without any effort to find sources (depending, e.g., upon the nature of the content [unsourced contentious matter about BLP = kill it now], your own familiarity with the subject matter [subject matter experts should not be pushed to do a web search when they firmly believe that the material is wrong], and the importance of the content to the article [minor importance = greater chance that wholesale removal will do no harm, and may be a net improvement in NPOV terms]).

2) What should you do when someone else challenges (and either tags or removes unsourced information)?

Add a source and restore it (or remove the tag), or don't add a source and don't restore it (or remove the tag).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I like that overall direction. My proposal would be for the case of 1c) - empathizing that the "think the unsourced information is not verifiable" shouldn't be based on gut feeling, by making the challenger responsible for taking that position. Diego (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

My thinking is exactly in line with what WhatamIdoing just stated. I also think his take on it matches current policy (meshing both what is stated here at WP:V and what is stated at WP:PRESERVE). His take on 1a and 1b are fully in line with what is said in WP:PRESERVE (note 1a and 1b are missing from WP:V, and I think we should add them). His take on 1c is also in line with WP:PRESERVE (since a challenger who tags the information obviously believes that the material "belongs in a finished articles", while a challenger who removes the information obviously does not believe that the material "belongs in a finished article") and it is also in line with WP:CHALLENGE.

Now... 1c is where the potential for conflict arises... a second editor may disagree with a decision to remove under 1c... but that's where 2 comes in. If the second editor wishes to restore (ie preserve) the information, he/she can do so... however, there is a condition to that restoration - in order to restore the second editor must provide a source (WP:BURDEN). Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have one concern for which no one has provided a solution. How does the second editor detect that the first one removed content under 1c? If nobody notices, there's no possibility to preserve nor source the removed content - i.e. no chance to accept the challenge. For important articles with lots of watching people, finding about the removal is easy. But for old articles that nobody is watching, a removal would be lost in the article history.

IMO that is the number one reason why so many people like me are so vocal against removing large swaths of content without leaving a trace; not for a desire to keep collecting unverified content everywhere (we all agree that having it referenced is better), but because when it is out of sight, it is out of mind; and there will be no chance to fix it even if it is possible. Thus my requirement for the challenger to leave a trace. (And no, the edit comment is unfortunately not enough). Diego (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't cover any distinction between newly-added material and "stable" material, assuming that we consider that a relevant distinction. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A record of the edit is in the atricle's "edit history". If you want to see if anything on a page has been removed (or added) since you last viewed the page, just click the handy button at the top of your screen and you can see what activity has occurred.

More immediately, anyone who has the page on their watchlist will receive a change notification alerting them that an edit has occurred. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar, is that reply intended for me? I've specifically stated that the largest problem exists with those articles that nobody have in their watchlists.

@DonIago, the stable material is the most likely to be removed for such reason. At least new content is watched by the New Pages patrol. Diego (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that an article will not be on anyone's watchlist (at a minimum it will probably be on the article creator's watchlist). For those who might stumble upon the article at a later date... If we want to see whether any material was ever removed, we can easily check the difs in the edit history. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I expect that the situation in 2016 is probably that the majority of content creators are inactive. Certainly a very large subset of them are inactive, and we cannot assume that someone active watches articles.—S Marshall T/C 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

^This. Thanks Marshall, that's the point I'm trying to get through.

we can easily check the difs in the edit history We can check the difs, but there's no way in hell you'll convince me that it's easy. In an article with an edit history ranging over a decade, and with tens of thousands of edits, looking for the content removed on the basis of a challenge because the content was not readily verifiable, is looking for a needle in a haystack. The search tool does not allow looking for the words "verify" or "Original Research" (assuming they were even put there when removing the content), and looking at the size of removed content is at best a tedious exercise ridden by false positives - the removal could have taken place in several steps, or the reduction in size could be due to an article re-structuring, a change to follow new style guidelines for references, or content moved and merged to a different article, not removed.

Moreover, following your suggestion would imply checking through the whole history of every article I'd ever visit. Certainly you'll agree that it's possible to think of more efficient ways to discover that a challenge has been made? Diego (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not going to the issues being raised by Diego, but to the question asked by Blueboar. I'd like to point out that the standard today is not whether or not one thinks or doesn't think that the material is verifiable, it's whether one has a concern that it may not be verifiable (and even having that is only included in a non-mandatory statement about saying that you have a concern). Having a "concern" is different than thinking that is is or is not verifiable, it's thinking that it may or may not be verifiable or, in other words, having a suspicion that it may not be verifiable. While the difference is subtle, it is also substantial. With that in mind, I'm going to restate the premises and answer them:

My thoughts: 1) What ~~should you~~ can an editor do when ~~you~~ they comes across unsourced information...

1a) if ~~you think~~ they do not have a concern the unsourced information is Verifiable?

Add a source or leave it or {{cn}} tag it or remove it/challenge it on the talk page.

1b) if ~~you~~ they are unsure (i.e. have a concern) whether the unsourced information is Verifiable or not?

Search for and add a source if they find one or tag it as needing a source or remove it or leave it alone. No editor should be required to search for sources before doing any of those things. Neither should an editor be required to do anything with unsourced material that he or she did not add or restore.

1c) if you think the unsourced information is not Verifiable?

Same as 1b)

What we're really talking about here, I think, is whether or not there ought to be a requirement that an editor believe or at least suspect that material is unverifiable before removing it (and thereby challenging it). Up until now there's not been: material could be removed merely because it was unsourced and we would AGF that the removing editor thought that it was unverifiable. To assuage some who had trouble extending that assumption of good faith, we recommended that the editor state that they had a concern that it was unverifiable. I oppose moving away from that standard.

As for the length of time unsourced material has been in an article, the only time I think that should be relevant is when the material has been tagged as unsourced for a reasonable period of time (generally about a month, in my opinion), in which case it should never be considered to be disruptive to delete the material even if it is a large amount or if the editor is doing it as a routine practice (and to Diego's point, I'd be fine in that situation to require that the material be copied to the talkpage). In all other situations, I think that the rule should be the same whether the material has been there for two nanoseconds (by which I do not mean to re-raise the "sourced in the same edit" debate, giving a few minute's grace for that is fine) or two decades. (I might be willing to consider adjusting the tagging period based on whether the article is being actively edited or not, with a longer period for an article not receiving substantial active edits.)

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree to require that material be copied or the diff linked at the talk page when removing material as a challenge, in special when the editor doesn't have time or a desire to look for sources. Removing content without either first checking for sources or keeping it around is already against WP:PRESERVE, which only allows you to remove material when you can't fix it, not when you don't even try. For your case 1b), simply removing the content without doing anything else is not currently an available option. Per CHALLENGE you always can remove unsourced content, but if you do so then PRESERVE "triggers" and you must fulfill its requirements as well.

Neither should an editor be required to do anything with unsourced material that he or she did not add or restore.... as long as they don't remove it. If your remove it, you're already required to "preserve appropriate content". WP:CANTFIX is for "material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published", not for material without current known sources. If you don't have the time to check for references, you can't know whether they're "facts or ideas that would belong in an encyclopedia, and should be retained in Wikipedia", so if you remove them from the article (which you're allowed to do), you're required to keep them around somewhere else. Diego (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Diego and I have a very different understanding of WP:PRESERVE. As I see it, PRESERVE is an excellent statement of best practice... but it is not a statement of what is or is not "allowed". It repeatedly encourages editors to consider doing X, Y or Z instead of removing... but at no point does it require editors to do X, Y or Z. Nor should it. Best practice does not equate to only practice. I fully support encouraging editors to follow best practice... but I strongly oppose mandating it. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Blueboar. Moreover, the second paragraph of PRESERVE makes it quite clear that PRESERVE is conditioned upon compliance with V and compliance with V allows removal of material merely because it is unsourced. So long as material is unsourced, it may be removed without preserving, subject to the exception being discussed by S Marshall, below, and perhaps a routine-removal exception (but even those exceptions only affect PRESERVE indirectly, they're exceptions to BURDEN). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC) PS: By "Neither should an editor be required to do anything with unsourced material that he or she did not add or restore" I meant that if an editor comes across unsourced information that they didn't add or restore that they should not have any obligation whatsoever to do anything at all with it. They can just say "hm..." and move along. There's no obligation to try to find a source for it, to tag it, to remove it, to post a notice on the talk page, anything at all. That statement does not address, at all, the issue of what their obligations or best practices should be if they choose to do something about the unsourced information, it just says that they have the absolute right to do nothing at all. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diego some years ago I spent a long time making sure that the little known WP:EDIT policy could not be used to contradict the three content polices. My preferred solution was to re-designate it as a guideline. The history of all this is available in the history of the policy and its talk pages. When that failed, I then spent a considerable amount of time making sure that the wording in WP:EDIT could not be used to contradict the three content policies. This is done the sentence that contains "they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies:" unless the requirements of WP:BURDEN is met then it can not be retained. If you do not think this is clear, then WP:EDIT needs another malleting. -- PBS (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Footnoteful of a policy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find it rather weird that nearly half of this policy text is in footnotes. This makes it difficult to quickly scan the policy for a guideline and makes reading jarred. I didn't see this in other policies. IMO this is rather clumsy and must be rewritten into a smooth flow. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Wikipedia:Verifiability has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please make the following grammatical change to the second paragraph of the lead:

Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.
to
Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

It seems poor style to have so much distance between the verb and the adverb modifying it, and to have the adverb follow an unrelated verb.

67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, fairly straightforward change. Diego (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: What is the scope of WP:CHALLENGE?

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Collapse RfC draft that users found unsatisfactory.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this RfC. It is about WP:CHALLENGE, which is the part of WP:V that says editors can remove unsourced content from the encyclopaedia, and it was started by me, S Marshall. The RfC is divided into three parts. —S Marshall T/C 17:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

1: Are there any limits on WP:CHALLENGE at all?

A recent discussion on AN/I decided that blanking articles, or large parts of articles, can be disruptive and this applies even when the blanking is done under WP:CHALLENGE. Do you agree?

Yes, there are limits on WP:CHALLENGE

Users editing this section do not feel it's legitimate for editors to use WP:CHALLENGE to blank articles, or substantially blank them. If an article is unsourced or virtually unsourced, editors should generally use AfD rather than blanking it under CHALLENGE.

If you have edited this section, please consider going on to question #2.

—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree that there are limits... alternative statements

I agree that there are limits... but I can not put my name down as agreeing to the specific limit S Marshal states above... so I have created this section as a place to outline what I think (others may use it to do the same).

I feel it can sometimes be disruptive to remove large sections of an article under WP:CHALLENGE... however, it is not always disruptive to do so. (Indeed, I question whether it is disruptive even most of the time... there are many situations when blanking the current content of an article, and starting over, is the most appropriate way to deal with it's problems). Whether a "blank" is disruptive or not depends on the specifics of the content that is being removed. In other words, a blanking might be legitimate or it might not be "legitimate"... depending on the situation.

Something else to consider: I strongly suspect that in most cases where someone might blank a large (unsourced) part of an article (and cite WP:CHALLENGE as justification), the underlying problem is that the article or section is based on original research. We remove OR all the time. In other words, the blank itself might well be appropriate... however, the editor who did the blanking simply pointed to the wrong policy to justify the removal.

As for AfD - this is not the sort of thing that AfD deals with. AfD focuses on the topic of an article - asking whether the topic is WP:Notable or not, and does not address content issues. So, no... blanking should not be raised at AfD. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, there are no limits on WP:CHALLENGE

Users editing this section feel that it's legitimate to remove any amount of text under WP:CHALLENGE.

If you have edited this section, then there is no need to answer question #2.

Threaded discussion

2: Should the limits on WP:CHALLENGE be mentioned in the policy?

At the moment WP:CHALLENGE doesn't say there are any limits on it. Do you think it should?

Yes, the policy should say there are limits

It's not clear from a reading of WP:CHALLENGE that you can't use it to blank whole articles. Users editing this section feel that there should be a footnote, or possibly a phrase, in WP:CHALLENGE that makes clear that a challenge has reasonable limits.

If you have edited this section, please consider going on to question #3.

—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the policy need not say there are limits

Users editing this section said "yes", there are reasonable limits to WP:CHALLENGE. However, they either do not feel that it's necessary to bloat WP:V by mentioning this explicitly, or else have some other objection which they will make clear in the threaded discussion below.

Threaded discussion

3: What should WP:CHALLENGE say?

This is the free-text part of the RfC for coming up with suggestions on how the policy should read. Your drafts and suggestions are welcome.

I'm not sure where to add these comments, so I'm picking here. Although I appreciate the fact that S Marshall has finally started an RfC, there are two significant, related problems with the RfC itself. First, it's too complicated. Second, it assumes things as part of the questions. For example, in the first question, S Marshall interprets the results of a topic at ANI. In the second question, S Marshall says the policy has no limits on WP:CHALLNGE, but that's not completely true, just not the extra limit that S Marshall wants to add. The following language currently in the policy is a limit: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." The central point here is that S Marshall wants to add a footnote in the CHALLENGE section of the policy. Wouldn't the RfC be a helluva lot easier if they just asked whether editors agree with the latest language for their proposed footnote?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

One more assumed fact. In Question #1, S Marshall says "If an article is unsourced or virtually unsourced, editors should generally use AfD rather than blanking it under CHALLENGE" as if that's the only alternative to removing the unsourced material. Questions at RfC shouldn't be loaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Since this isn't an attempt to answer the RfC but an attempt to torpedo it, I'll answer on your talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but Bbb23 raises some valid points... This RFC is very confusingly set up. At first it seems like it is asking about whether there should be some sort of generic "limits" to WP:CHALLENGE... but it is really about whether we should adopt a specific limit to WP:CHALLENGE (that it should not be used a justification for blanking large sections of unsourced text).

I had to amend the RFC in several places, and create my own sub-sections in order to state my opinions, because my views did not fit into any of the pre-determined options that S Marshal provided when he set up the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a pity. It seemed so simple to me. Start from the simplest questions: (1) Are there limits on WP:CHALLENGE at all? Available answers include "yes" or "no". (2) If there are limits, should we say there are limits in the policy? Available answers include "yes" or "no". (3) If we should say there are limits, then what should we say specifically? Free text. But the very first thing that happens is users start adding extra options because they can't fit their views into that structure. Very well, I shall remove the RfC tag, and we can have a whole discussion about what the RfC should say.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, RfC collapsed and closed.
I'm really unhappy about this, ladies and gentlemen, because it's shades of the whole "Verifiability not truth" business that we had a few years ago. You'll recall that we never had consensus to change the policy. A certain slender and sexually inexperienced editor decided first that we needed an RfC, and then that we had to have an RfC where she controlled the questions, and then she edited the questions again after the RfC started, and then she extended the timescales, and then she wanted a watchlist notice, and then I complained (which, I seem to recall, was an "attack" on her); and if I hadn't she'd have had us visiting the talk pages of everyone who'd ever edited Wikipedia and individually getting their agreement. Because, in my rather considerable experience, that's what it takes to get a consensus to change a policy when a sysop doesn't want you to. ;-) I take solace from the fact that the good guys won in the end.
This time I'm going to do it differently, from first principles:- Does the problem exist? (Editors will deny this.) Then, if so do we need to address it by editing the policy? (Editors will deny this.) If so how are we going to edit the policy? Because if I don't establish those things now then, I've learned, I'll have to do it at some point in the future anyway.
Bbb23 and Blueboar, could you please design an RfC that you find satisfactory and not too confusing? Or at least suggest the questions and structure? Because I don't want to play bring me a rock for you.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really my show. I don't want to change this part of the policy at all. But in all fairness I have been pushing for you to create an RfC. In general, I prefer smaller changes over larger ones. The more ambitious the change, the more extended and confusing the discussion is and the more difficult it is to understand what people support and what they oppose. You wanted to add a footnote. A simple RfC would be should we add a footnote that says x in this spot. People can still comment in the discussion and in their votes whatever they want, even if it goes beyond the scope of the RfC, but the outcome should be much clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

But I don't "want to add a footnote". I tried a footnote, but that's not what I want to achieve. What I want is to find some mutually agreeable way of putting the consensus from AN/I into the policy. Footnote, rewrite, extra sentence, I don't care how we get there.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

S Marshal, correct me if I misunderstand your intent, but it appears that the question you are trying to ask is: "Is the WP:CHALLENGE section of the policy a legitimate justification for blanking articles, or large parts of articles?" If this is in fact what you are trying to ask, then I would suggest that for the RFC. If this wasn't what you were trying to ask, then please explain further. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I was trying to ask, because AN/I has already reached consensus that it's not a legitimate justification. I was trying to ask several separate questions.
The first question I was trying to ask was whether the wider community agrees with the consensus that AN/I has already reached. I specifically want to link that AN/I discussion as part of the first RfC question. This is important because the AN/I discussion illustrates the kind of edits that I want the community to consider during the RfC. It also shows that this is a real issue and editors really are misunderstanding the policy in this way and it really is creating drama. (If I don't show this editors will wonder why we need to have a RfC).
The second question is only for people who said "yes" to the first one. I was trying to ask was whether the community feels that the policy should be edited because of this issue.
The third question is only for people who think the policy should be edited. It asks for suggestions about how it should be edited.
As I understand your position, Blueboar, you think:- "Yes", there are circumstances in which it's possible to misuse or overuse WP:CHALLENGE, but you have yet to answer the second or third questions. I find Bbb23's position on all three questions utterly unintelligible.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I have to quibble with your interpretation of what AN/I "decided". AN/I does not set policy. At best, it interprets policy, and applies it to a very specific instance. Yes, that AN/I discussion did "decided" that a specific editor had acted in a disruptive manner. But the disruption was far more complex than simply blanking a page... half the comments focused on the fact that the editor had been UNCIVIL. Those that did focus on the blanking concentrated on the fact that the editor had essentially gone on a WP:POINTy crusade, blanking multiple pages. That is an important distinction. Our community has long agreed that POINTy enforcement of policy can be disruptive. It's not the enforcement alone that is disruptive... it is doing it in a POINTy way. This is similar to "tag bombing" an article with tons of {{cn}} tags. Tag a few carefully selected problematic sentences, and you are not being disruptive... POINTily mass tag every sentence that does not have an in-line citation and you clearly cross the line into disruption. Tagging isn't disruptive... being POINTY is.

And that is why I have difficulty answering the questions you pose in your RfC... Yes, blanking a page under CHALLENGE is sometimes disruptive... but it isn't always disruptive. Whether it is disruptive or not depends on the specific article... the specific content being removed from that article... whether there is a POINTY pattern of behavior... and a host of other factors. Your RFC asked a dualistic "YES/NO" question... but I don't think the issue has a dualistic answer... it has a far more nuanced "SOMETIMES/SOMETIMES NOT/IT DEPENDS" answer. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

While I think that Blueboar's suggestion, above, comes closer to being the right one for the initial question in an RFC, let me say that after seeing Bbb23's and Blueboar's objections (with which I agreed) I gave a couple of hours yesterday to trying to create an alternative RFC and couldn't come up with one which didn't suffer from the problem — as does Blueboar's — that there are going to be a considerable number of people who react to the question of whether it's acceptable to remove large amounts of material simply because it is unsourced with the response that it's not acceptable to remove any amount of material simply because it is unsourced. While they may !vote "no" on the first question of whether CHALLENGE justifies removing large amounts of unsourced material, they are thus likely to vote against any particular language implementing that principle because saying that it's not acceptable to remove large amounts of unsourced material implies that it is acceptable to remove smaller amounts. That's likely to result in a great deal of drama with no clear result. Since there does seem to be an accepted exception to BURDEN for large removals, I sympathize with S Marshall's idea that it ought to be explicit in the policy but frankly I'm just not sure that it's possible to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop there a second. We know that when editors use WP:CHALLENGE exactly as written, they sometimes get told by AN/I consensus that they're being disruptive by doing so. But we're not allowed to edit the policy without an RfC, and it's not possible to come up with workable wording for the RfC? This talk page is starting to read like Catch-22.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Timestamp prevents premature archiving, as this is not resolved.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. I do not think that the wording here needs changing, because whatever changes are made we will run into the problem of people arguing at the margin. The current wording is fit for purpose if we expect it to be read by the man on the Clapham omnibus. -- PBS (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Needs English sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I see that a sentence was added to this policy encouraging editors to add this template to articles. What is the purpose of that other than to disfigure articles with a meaningless template? The policy is clear that no article needs English sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. That's a recently-created template that's not in line with policy. I've nominated it for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it from this page, as there is clearly on consensus for its addition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Needs English sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I see that a sentence was added to this policy encouraging editors to add this template to articles. What is the purpose of that other than to disfigure articles with a meaningless template? The policy is clear that no article needs English sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. That's a recently-created template that's not in line with policy. I've nominated it for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it from this page, as there is clearly on consensus for its addition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Another request for clarification on WP:NEWSBLOG

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

WP:NEWSBLOG states "These (newsblogs) may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."

1. A professional what? Professional journalist? Or professional expert on the topic being discussed?

2. Does it mean "use them only if the blog is subject to a fact-checking process", or does it mean "use them with caution if the blog is not subject to a fact-checking process"? I assume WP:SPS trumps WP:NEWSBLOG for the typical news blog, where the blogger clicks 'publish' without even a second pair of eyes being required. If so, what (if any) news blogs exist in the world that WP:NEWSBLOG rather than WP:SPS applies to? It might be good to include a couple of examples that are "generally admissible", and a couple of examples that are "generally inadmissable".

3. I assume letters to the editor, as well as something like the Guardian's "Comment is free", is generally inadmissible, even though they are not completely self-published ([4]); however, this is not clear from WP:NEWSBLOG.

It seems to me the main issue with newsblogs is not whether the writer is a professional or even whether they get paid by the news organization, but instead that they're not generally fact-checked, and that the content is second-rate compared with the articles published in non-blog space. I would propose replacing the above sentence with something like this, if this is what the intent is:

...that they call blogs. For typical newsblogs that lack fact-checking, see WP:SPS. If the newsblog is fact-checked, then WP:SPS does not apply, but be cautious because newsblogs, like "letters to the editor", are often quietly exempted from the news organization's fact-checking process. Some examples of fact-checked newsblogs are (example 1) and (example 2). Even fact-checked newsblogs tend to be lower quality, and generally carry less WP:WEIGHT, compared with fact-checked non-blog articles in the same source. Note that some newsblogs are poorly labeled; for example, Forbes articles with "/sites/" in the URL are non-fact-checked^[1] blogs to which WP:SPS applies, despite not being clearly labeled as blogs by Forbes. If a news organization publishes... Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I especially like that you're proposing to include descriptive information like "quietly exempted from the … fact-checking process" and the sourced example of poor labeling. Descriptive information provides a much richer basis for reasoning about particular cases than purely abstract rules. I'm hesitant about equating non-fact-checked newsblogs with WP:SPS, since a blog published by a skilled, professional reporter is a more reliable source of information than just any self-published source. One reasonably presumes that there is at least some indirect vetting in the hiring process, and that the owning organization takes some interest in whether they're hosting false news reports.

To answer your questions—at least, here are my interpretations of the current text: 1. Professional journalists. 2. We reasonably assume that a professional exercises due care and self-restraint even in the absence of a second pair of eyes, so even a newsblog that isn't "fact-checked" might be admissible. For example, a reporter might "blog" first-hand observations at a convention, perhaps providing quotations from speakers not elsewhere available. Such observations are probably reliable, though of course you have to consider the reputation of the reporter. I think your suggestion of providing a couple examples is great, though. 3. Letters to the editor are not self-published: the editor vets them. Sometimes important facts or results are reported in "letters" to newspapers and even to _Nature._ This editorial vetting says that the report really came from the source, and that the editor, presumed familiar with the field, judges that the information is important and relevant enough to publish—an important consideration for Wikipedia editors. But this kind of thing is rare.

Bottom line, it's hard to make general rules for this kind of thing. Common sense has to play the leading role in every application of policy. And that's why I like the descriptive approach that you're proposing: it informs common sense rather than trying to substitute for it.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How about this (note I would be happy to add an exemplar of valid newsblog use, if such can be provided; I couldn't find anything great in a brief search of the RS noticeboard archives):

...that they call blogs. Typical newsblogs that lack fact-checking are often unsuitable for inclusion; while mainstream newsblogs are on average better sources than self-published WP:BLOGS, most newsblogs, like most op-eds and most "letters to the editor", are quietly exempted from the news organization's fact-checking process. In addition to being frequently non-fact-checked, newsblogs tend on average to be lower quality, and their opinions generally carry less WP:WEIGHT, compared with non-blog articles in the same source. Note that some newsblogs are poorly labeled; for example, Forbes articles with "/sites/" in the URL are non-fact-checked^[2] blogs to which WP:SPS applies, despite not being clearly labeled as blogs by Forbes. If a news organization publishes... Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...
^ Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...

WP:RS has some information about this subject, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Another request for clarification on WP:NEWSBLOG

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

WP:NEWSBLOG states "These (newsblogs) may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."

1. A professional what? Professional journalist? Or professional expert on the topic being discussed?

2. Does it mean "use them only if the blog is subject to a fact-checking process", or does it mean "use them with caution if the blog is not subject to a fact-checking process"? I assume WP:SPS trumps WP:NEWSBLOG for the typical news blog, where the blogger clicks 'publish' without even a second pair of eyes being required. If so, what (if any) news blogs exist in the world that WP:NEWSBLOG rather than WP:SPS applies to? It might be good to include a couple of examples that are "generally admissible", and a couple of examples that are "generally inadmissable".

3. I assume letters to the editor, as well as something like the Guardian's "Comment is free", is generally inadmissible, even though they are not completely self-published ([5]); however, this is not clear from WP:NEWSBLOG.

It seems to me the main issue with newsblogs is not whether the writer is a professional or even whether they get paid by the news organization, but instead that they're not generally fact-checked, and that the content is second-rate compared with the articles published in non-blog space. I would propose replacing the above sentence with something like this, if this is what the intent is:

...that they call blogs. For typical newsblogs that lack fact-checking, see WP:SPS. If the newsblog is fact-checked, then WP:SPS does not apply, but be cautious because newsblogs, like "letters to the editor", are often quietly exempted from the news organization's fact-checking process. Some examples of fact-checked newsblogs are (example 1) and (example 2). Even fact-checked newsblogs tend to be lower quality, and generally carry less WP:WEIGHT, compared with fact-checked non-blog articles in the same source. Note that some newsblogs are poorly labeled; for example, Forbes articles with "/sites/" in the URL are non-fact-checked^[1] blogs to which WP:SPS applies, despite not being clearly labeled as blogs by Forbes. If a news organization publishes... Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I especially like that you're proposing to include descriptive information like "quietly exempted from the … fact-checking process" and the sourced example of poor labeling. Descriptive information provides a much richer basis for reasoning about particular cases than purely abstract rules. I'm hesitant about equating non-fact-checked newsblogs with WP:SPS, since a blog published by a skilled, professional reporter is a more reliable source of information than just any self-published source. One reasonably presumes that there is at least some indirect vetting in the hiring process, and that the owning organization takes some interest in whether they're hosting false news reports.

To answer your questions—at least, here are my interpretations of the current text: 1. Professional journalists. 2. We reasonably assume that a professional exercises due care and self-restraint even in the absence of a second pair of eyes, so even a newsblog that isn't "fact-checked" might be admissible. For example, a reporter might "blog" first-hand observations at a convention, perhaps providing quotations from speakers not elsewhere available. Such observations are probably reliable, though of course you have to consider the reputation of the reporter. I think your suggestion of providing a couple examples is great, though. 3. Letters to the editor are not self-published: the editor vets them. Sometimes important facts or results are reported in "letters" to newspapers and even to _Nature._ This editorial vetting says that the report really came from the source, and that the editor, presumed familiar with the field, judges that the information is important and relevant enough to publish—an important consideration for Wikipedia editors. But this kind of thing is rare.

Bottom line, it's hard to make general rules for this kind of thing. Common sense has to play the leading role in every application of policy. And that's why I like the descriptive approach that you're proposing: it informs common sense rather than trying to substitute for it.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How about this (note I would be happy to add an exemplar of valid newsblog use, if such can be provided; I couldn't find anything great in a brief search of the RS noticeboard archives):

...that they call blogs. Typical newsblogs that lack fact-checking are often unsuitable for inclusion; while mainstream newsblogs are on average better sources than self-published WP:BLOGS, most newsblogs, like most op-eds and most "letters to the editor", are quietly exempted from the news organization's fact-checking process. In addition to being frequently non-fact-checked, newsblogs tend on average to be lower quality, and their opinions generally carry less WP:WEIGHT, compared with non-blog articles in the same source. Note that some newsblogs are poorly labeled; for example, Forbes articles with "/sites/" in the URL are non-fact-checked^[2] blogs to which WP:SPS applies, despite not being clearly labeled as blogs by Forbes. If a news organization publishes... Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...
^ Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...

WP:RS has some information about this subject, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Necessity of inline citations for statements of "general knowledge", and mixed sourced and unsourced blocks of text

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

United States (or at least the "History" section thereof) currently includes (or recently included) at least some material ("African Americans were the victims of segregation and disenfranchisement following the end of Reconstruction", etc.) that is considered "general knowledge" among American editors, readers, and a lot of people outside the US who are interested in US history. The relevant sentences are followed by citations of reliable sources, but those sources only actually verify the portions of text that aren't so widely-known.

If this were any old Wikipedia article, I would chock it up to "dem articles be unsourced", but the article is a GA, and I think it probably wouldn't have that status if all the sourced material was put into its own section and all the unsourced material was tagged as needing citations.

I know that technically the policy is that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be supported by inline citations, but what is the policy on complex sentences that are unlikely to be challenged on their face, and have inline citations anyway, but those inline citations only support part of what appears to be attributed to them?

In the past (most recent example that comes to mind is Ariwara no Narihira from over a year ago, mind you) when I have done this myself I added a comment stating exactly what could and couldn't be attributed to the cited source, but is there a better way of dealing with it? Should it just be ignored?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"and a lot of people outside the US who are interested in US history." So what about those people outside the US who are not interested in US history? By your own words such statements are not the same as the "sun rises in the east" type of general knowledge. For example do you know the name of Cook's most famous ship? Any child in New Zealand or Australia could tell you, but that does not make it the same as the "sky is blue" type of fact. I find it amusing and interesting to see what type of questions are included and excluded in the game "Trivial Pursuits". What is a trivial piece of information to an American is not the same as that for a Brit. See the Monty Python's Communist Quiz for examples of what different people know as obvious facts. -- PBS (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: "Content tags should not be removed based on lack of consensus to add them"

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION is insufficient for its purpose, IMO.

This has come up a bunch of times. Some (a lot of?) editors seem to think that addition of tags is covered under the same rule as addition of content, and have removed tags based on "no consensus" to add them. Ask @Curly Turkey: for some pretty solid examples (my own recent edit history is not what I'm referring to -- it just reminded me of similar, but more problematic, behaviour). It's been my interpretation that content tags need consensus to be removed, not added.

What do people think about adding this clarification somewhere, if it isn't already?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are talking about inline tags. Because hatnote tags, such as {{refimprove}} etc. already have a link "Learn how and when to remove this template message". IMO a similar link may be added to WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION rule. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who adds a template ought to have a good reason for adding it and be able to explain why. Same goes for anyone removing maintenance templates. It isn't helpful to argue over whether you need consensus to remove it, or whether you needed consensus to add it in the first place. That kind of wonkery does not deal with the main point- the content of the article. That said, I do think a lone editor noticing a problem in an article should be able to flag that problem without having to get consensus first. Imagine how hard it would be to flag an article for fancruft if you first had to get permission from the fanboys who curate it. Reyk _YO! 05:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if this isn't handled by the guidelines already. I assume you're talking about CurtisNaito and TH1980 wrt your ping. Theyre TBANned now (finally), but I get the feeling that they got away with their horseshit because they were tricky enough to fool the people who should have handled them, rather than any failure with the guidelines. The real problem is enforcement—rig a bunch of politically-tinged articles for years, and if you're congenial enough you'll get away with it; say "fuck" while trying to fix it and they'll call the cavalry on your ass. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Curly, I hope you don't mind that I moved your post from the section below. I meant for you to comment on whether consensus is needed to add or remove content tags, and this appears to be what you are actually talking about. (Yes, Curtis did remove WP:COMMENTs that were meant to explain the rationale for tags and say that tag rationales belong on the article talk page before, but that isn't really the point.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Explain your rationale"

On an unrelated note,

it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page

is in error.

Unless it is part of an ongoing discussion on the talk page (or, worse, and ongoing edit war), explaining the rationale in the edit summary is not very helpful in the long term, as no one is going to notice it, and the same is essentially true of the talk page, unless the rationale is very carefully worded to allow "Ctrl+F"ing of the article wording itself. Adding the rationale "in the template" is good, when the template allows for a "reason=" parameter. I have no earthly idea why some of them do not, but apparently this is the case.

And what about WP:COMMENTs immediately before or after the template? I was doing this for months before I discovered the "reason=" parameter (apparently not many people use it), and it seems like a pretty reasonable alternative. I think if we are going to list ineffectual options like "edit summary" and "talk page", we should also list invisible inline comments. "edit summary" and "talk page" are helpful in addition to some form of inline rationale, of course, but they are not viable alternatives to it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did find the "reason=" parameter. Why do you need WP:COMMENTS? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I found it (I forget how, but I think I was really bored one day and happened to be reading a template page), but I rarely see it used in articles. And there are some (no idea how many) templates that don't include a "reason=" parameter, and (as I linked above) I have seen tags removed because I accidentally invoked the "reason=" parameter where it was not recognized.

But my concern with the current wording of FAILEDVERIFICATION is not so much that it doesn't explicitly encourage the effective method of invisible inline comments, but that it does encourage the ineffectual use of edit summaries and talk page comments as viable alternatives to the "reason=" parameter.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you a re suggesting the guideline to recommend the addition of inline comments, then how is it better than the advice to use the "reason=" parameter? Not all templates require "reason" parameter. If you think some of them need it, make the suggestion or add it yourself, if the template syntax is simple. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't better. In most cases it's functionally the same, except where the template doesn't have "reason=" parameter, where it's ... still functionally the same, but doesn't make one look stupid. But both are inherently superior to giving a rationale "in the [...] edit summary, or on the talk page". My point is that the second and third methods should be either (a) removed or (b) downgraded and given as possible supplements to an inline rationale. The (implicit) claim that they are superior to an inline WP:COMMENT is inappropriate, but it's not the main problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The most appropriate place for an explanation is on the talk page, because that is the only place where others can discuss the tag and how to resolve it. It is not possible to discuss the perceived issue using inline comments or parameters to the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@CBM: No, that is the most appropriate place for discussion, not the most appropriate place for a rationale. You appear to be assuming some kind of ongoing content dispute with multiple users actively watching both the article and the talk page. Under those circumstances, a maintenance tag isn't even necessary -- simply opening a new section on the talk page will allow discussion and possibly bring sources that verify the material to light. But the policy page should be assuming the editing circumstances under which users would most likely need to consult the policy page for advice on how to proceed (i.e., reading some random article, noticing something questionable, and tagging it). Under those circumstances, leaving a comment on the talk page in order to explain one's addition of a maintenance template is not likely to encourage discussion, and as an explanation for the tag to be left their for future editors is far less likely to be noticed than something placed next to or within the template itself. Tagging something in the article with only the template name and the date and then posting a reason on the talk page, is essentially useless to future editors, as they would need to check who added the tag and when, and then check to see if they had also edited the talk page at the same time, but going back to find out who added a maintenance template should not be a necessary prerequisite to finding the rationale for it, as once one does that one can simply contact that user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see such a big gap between "rationale" and "discussion". The talk page is the most useful place for comments, because it allows others to follow up and it allows others to discuss how to remedy the situation. I think that comments on the talk page generally are noticed, particularly because most articles do not have much activity on their talk page, so new posts usually stand out. It is not at all useless, and indeed templates are sometimes removed because the person who placed them did not comment on the talk page after a reasonable amount of time. We should encourage editors to use the talk page more, rather than less. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"new posts usually stand out" How are you not getting this? The point of explaining the rationale for a maintenance tag is so editors can address it later, not so it can be "discussed" immediately -- it almost certainly will not be noticed immediately. The preponderance of maintenance tags that have survived for years supports this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The preponderance of maintenance tags has several causes; one is that some editors don't leave a rationale in any form, so nobody knows why the tag was added. A comment on the talk page would certainly allow editors to address the issue later. To be frank for a moment, comments such as "How are you not getting this" will not help move the discussion forward here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

But where is the evidence that a comment left on the talk page would be more effective than (or even as effective as) a WP:COMMENT placed right beside the tag? That's certainly not intuitive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree—there's no reason to believe an editor would examine the talk page before editing the article. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not before leaving the tag certainly - but when trying to figure out what a tag was left, editors who respond to the tag are likely to look at the talk page, because that is where discussion about how to improve the article is meant to take place, and where comments about how to improve the article are supposed to be left. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If I see a citation that doesn't verify the material to which it is attached, but I think the material itself might be verifiable and encyclopedic, I will remove the citation and add a "Citation needed" tag. Of course I will include an explanation of why I thought it was not in the source but still merited inclusion in the article in my edit summary, and if it's too long and complicated say "See talk" in the edit summary and post on the talk page. In theory, adding "See talk" to the reason parameter or as a WP:COMMENT is just as good as writing one's reason there, but there's no good reason not to give the latter option preference. Again, CBM, you are assuming discussion is actively taking place on every article that might need tagging, but this simply is not the case. Not leaving an explanation inline would leave the door open for the unverifiable source to just be re-added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Content tags are not covered by WP:V other than the few mentioned in WP:V, which are there for the reasons stated in WP:V. "Not leaving an explanation inline would leave the door open for the unverifiable source to just be re-added." What do you mean by "unverifiable source"? -- PBS (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that he meant "unreliable source", although perhaps he meant one that "failed verification" (e.g., citing Einstein's physics papers on who won the 1988 Olympics marathon). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

AFAIU "unverifiable" may mean either "not immediately reachable" (paywall, obscure book, foreign lang, etc.), or the source that seem not to support the footnoted text (e.g., misinterpreted by editor), or the source seems to support the text, but itself questionable/disputed. I agree that if there is no comment right at the tag, then in a year all traces of reasons are buried deep (talk page archived, history 7 feet long, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A few comments on the above:

explaining the rationale in the edit summary is not very helpful... as no one is going to notice it – except for people who see your edit in RecentChanges or their watchlists or at the top of the diff, which is most of us highly active editors.
Talk pages are good options if the rationale exceeds a sentence or two. An edit summary of "see talk page" is helpful in such cases.
- It does feel odd to have the same editor arguing that nobody sees edit summaries and nobody reads talk pages, and yet giving the (IMO very good and appropriate) example of putting the rationale on the talk page and using an edit summary of "See talk" to encourage editors to look there.
- The reason to prefer the talk page to a hidden HTML comment is because other editors might want to talk to you/disagree with your rationale/ask you a question/etc. We want all of that conversation in the same place, and we don't want it hidden in the article.
The |reason= parameter "works" in all templates, in the sense that even if the template doesn't technically support it, the wikitext is still visible (as visible to editors as a hidden HTML comment).

Based on this discussion, we might want to find a place (or several) to advertise the existence of |reason=. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Minimum third-party sources in an article, below which the content fails WP:DEL7

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

WP:V#What counts as a reliable source states, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
WP:V#Notability states, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

The #1 has nothing to do with "What counts as a reliable source", nor does it contain metrics. Why is this here? #2 I believe means one third-party source, but I can see that it could also be interpreted to require two sources. Is there a precedent for how to interpret this? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Some comments:

WP:NOT says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources", so that the requirement that it be possible to verify the topic of the article with a source not published by the subject is actually "policy", not just a "guideline", for those who think there is a critical distinction between policies and guidelines. This means, for example, that a school website asserting that said school exists and is a high school is not sufficient; it must be possible for a dedicated and skilled researcher to find, say, a local newspaper article that says the same thing.
The statement at "What counts as a reliable source" is setting general context of the sort of that helps people understand the kind of reliable sources that they should be searching for (when starting research for an article, as opposed to when evaluating a source against a specific statement). Properly, the need for an article to be based more on what third-party reliable sources say (e.g., news media) than what the subject says (e.g., the politician's campaign website) is a matter for WP:DUE, but when searching for sources in general, it is well to be reminded of this issue.
Because of what the WP:GNG says about the requirement for multiple sources, the minimum number is generally held to be two sources. (Mind the gap between "possible to verify in third-party sources" and "someone already listed citations to third-party sources".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that "...it is well [for readers of the policy] to be reminded..." is the same as material that does not belong in a policy. Maybe this would make more sense as a footnote. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- The overlap between the two policies' subject areas has to go somewhere, and since this is some of our best advice about sources, then it makes sense to include it in this policy. You'd recommend this page to someone who's looking for general advice on what kind of sources to find, right? So all the important points about what kind of sources to look for should be here, at least with a brief mention. (Footnotes are still "in the policy"; the main difference is that they're less likely to get read – i.e., less helpful to the person you're trying to advise.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for new DEL-REASON

Comment Review of WP:DEL7 shows that WP:IAR must be added to argue to delete an article for having no sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's basketball team for an article with no sources that survived AfD. I've made a subsequent bold move to draft space. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of adjusting WP:DEL7 it would be possible to add another WP:DEL-REASON, "Insufficient sources to write an article that meets the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV.", as this would not only include "no sources in the article", it would include both failure of WP:NPOV and failure of WP:V#Notability. An example of an article kept that fails NPOV (IMO) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Waynesville Baptist Church. A possible example of failure of WP:V#Notability is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Cheerleading Championships (2nd nomination). Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment East Waynesville Baptist Church The article is WP:NPOV and complies with WP:GNG. 20 Sources. "Don't like" is not a delete reason and shouldn't be. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- does not WP:V already take care of this? I've seen articles deleted (at least once) for not having any sources listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it probably "takes care of" it in the sense that it prohibits deletion on the grounds that source could be cited even though nobody has already cited them. "No sources listed in the current version" is not the same thing as "it's impossible to cite sources". WP:V requires that someone (with nearly infinite resources, including time and interest) would be able to cite sources. It does not require that someone has already done so.
  If you're trying to get an article deleted on the grounds that it's actually impossible to find WP:Independent sources to verify the article's topic (e.g., no newspaper has ever mentioned the alleged high school, no magazine has ever written about the product being touted, etc.), then you want to cite WP:NOT instead: "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". (But again, that's verifiABLE, not already verifiED.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Placing films in the Category:Films about hebephilia

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Category talk:Films about hebephilia#RfC: Should films be removed if not based on reliable sources or not fitting the hebephilia definition?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The "when available and of equal quality and relevance" part of "Citing non-English sources"

Latest comment: 7 years ago48 comments11 people in discussion

It states, "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."

Is the "when available and of equal quality and relevance" part really a good addition? I mean, if the source has no English counterpart, is it truly reliable for a matter on the English Wikipedia? In the case of medicine, for example, the United States often has advanced medical research and some countries lag behind. In this case, why would it be fine to go with a medical source from one of the non-English language countries simply because it passes the reliable sources criteria and/or WP:MEDRS if there is no English counterpart for the source affirming the same thing? Furthermore, if we can't read the source, how do we even know it's reliable? And I don't mean trusting the editor who added and/or translated the material. What counts as a reliable source from non-English language countries? The Lina Medina matter seen here has me thinking about this. Didn't the policy simply used to state that "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones" and not include the "when available and of equal quality and relevance" part? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Medicine might be an exception... but in most other academic fields there are very high quality sources written in languages other than English. Would we discard a high quality history of the medieval Bishopric of Saltzburg just because it was written in German and not English... I don't think so. But if a better one is written in English... sure use that instead (or best yet... use both). As a project, we want to cite the best, most reliable sources possible - in whatever language they are written. Remember that while one individual editor ("you") may not be able to read a cited non-English language, other editors can... and those other editors can help us determine whether a non-English source is high quality or not. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Even Medicine is no exception and I find frankly an extremely arrogant assumption reeking a bit of American exceptionalism. The primary guide for picking sources is the quality of the publication and not the language and of rather obviously not all research or breaktroughs take place in the US. It is is true however that in most fields and in medicine in particular all important results will eventually be published in English, hence in practice there is little need to almost none for resorting to non-English sources, but that doesn't that we can't use a reputable source in another language in the mean time. One thing to keep in mind here is that our (international) authors writing articles don't have all existing sources available at there fingertips and one might a reputable Spanish or French publication available but not an English one, then rather than not writing at all, he/she should use that French or Spanish source. Now a later editor having access to an English source of similar reputation/quality about the same result might replace the Spanish/French by the English one. In fact that is exactly what the current guideline suggests.

Also the fact that you or me can't read a source is not the same as we (as in the Wikipedia community) not being able to read it. The community comprises editors speaking those languages and if you have reason to mistrust the judgement of one, you can ask for a third opinions or translation help from other Wikipedians or even consult google translate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is an exception because English is the lingua franca of science. Had it been 100 years ago we would have used mainly German sources, and 200 years ago mostly French. This is simply down to the way the world works, and whether or not you find that objectionable is frankly irrelevant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

That English is the lingua franca is not in dispute and the "exception" above refers to something else, namely that we don't need a special exception with regard to the medical field.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:Flyer22 Reborn. There are many situations where there are minimally reliable sources in other languages (that would seem to pass WP:RS at a superficial glance) but no reliable sources in English, so with no "more reliable" source to turn to in English to override a foreign language source, the result is a gaping loophole for rumors, hoaxes, quack theories, conspiracy theories, complete fiction and other garbage to enter the English Wikipedia. We had exactly that situation with University of California a few years ago, where Spanish newspapers were falling for a rather obvious hoax that UC was interested in opening its first overseas campus in Spain. Of course, no respectable American newspaper ever would (or did) fall for such a hoax. The false statement supported by citations to the false articles are still present in the equivalent Spanish Wikipedia article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The point here however isn't really the language but a false assessment of the reliability and reputation of the foreign language publication. And the falling for hoaxes by sources works in both directions.

The problems of rumours, hoaxes, conspiracy theories and complete fictions are due to using unreliable sources of low reputation no matter whether they are in English or a foreign language. The only difference here is that for most Wikipedians unreliability or low reputation are easier to spot in English sources and for that reason among others we have a preference of English sources. We won't however switch a source of high reputation in foreign language for a source of low reputation in English, just because more people can read it. There are plenty of cases where foreign language sources are clearly better in terms of quality, reliability and reputation, Blueboar outlined some examples above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. A high quality source is high quality, no matter the language... and a low quality source is low quality, no matter the language... The language does not reduce or improve the source's quality. If "you" can't determine which is which (because "you" can't read the language) call on those who can read it to help you out. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of nuances to this and it does depend on the subject. And, I'm very much afraid to say, the language, which is not very politically correct but there you go. A history of the Eiffel Tower would be much improved if it was based on French-language sources as well as English ones, because there's quite a bit of material that was simply never translated. But if the article is a history of warfare on the Korean peninsula, then Chinese-language sources are, with all due respect for that ancient culture, probably less helpful. Still relevant to consult for the Chinese perspective, of course, but shouldn't be the sole source for any statement of fact.
My experience is that German-language sources are slightly more reliable than the English ones because the Germans as a people have a great respect for the truth and are less prone to engage in commercially-motivated, err, creative exaggeration to help them sell products. Almost any article about hard sciences (and particularly chemistry), engineering, Europe etc. benefits from German-language sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but then again, the examples you describe aren't really a language issue but an issue of reputation/reliability/quality of the source. Crudely speaking sources on political or historical topics published in an totalitarian states tend to be less reliable, so the issue here is lower reliability/reputation due to being published in a totalitarian state but not due to being in Chinese. A reputable publication from recent years in Chinese stemming Taiwan or some oversea Chinese on the Korean conflict might be just as good as many American sources.

I might even be fair to say that in certain topic sources academic sources in language X (say Chinese) tend to be less reliable than academic sources, but that is is statement about averages and one still need to look whether it is actually true for the concrete publications in question.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

All of the above said... the primary reason to keep the clause is that it tells us what to do when some bit of information can be supported by both an English language source and a non-English language source (of equal reliability) ... we use the one in English. This is just common sense. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, there was no "extremely arrogant assumption reeking a bit of American exceptionalism" on my part. The United States often has advanced medical research and some countries lag behind. That is a fact that editors of WP:Med and WP:MEDRS would agree with. I've seen this sourcing issue be a matter for a number of medical fields I work in on Wikipedia, including pedophilia and the biology of sexual orientation, or sexual orientation topics in general. In fact, it's hard finding literature review research on pedophilia and the biology of sexual orientation in English that is from the latest years rather than from the early or mid 2000s. Trusting an editor branding a non-English source on these matters has proven dubious or a mistake times before. If the content is not supported anywhere in English, why should we trust that medical source, especially since the United States often does lead in medical research? The United States leads the world in cancer treatment, for example. I'm not stating any of this from a biased viewpoint; I'm stating it from a factual and logical viewpoint. If an editor brandishes a non-English source, how are we to know that the source is reliable? What happens when the editor does not translate the material after being asked to? What happens when there is no one available to translate the material? What happens when Google Translate or similar does a terrible translation job? How am I to trust the sources for the aforementioned Lina Medina case? Why should I? In my opinion, the current wording of the policy that I'm questioning can lead to problematic sourcing issues. I'm not going to pursue having it changed, but I do think it's worth questioning. So I did. Thanks for all of your opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning seems crooked, i.e. extrapolating the "proof" that the US has a leading role in cancer treatment to another field, that frankly has little to do with that medical condition. If the US currently have a leading role w.r.t. the other topics you mention... it would be apparent from the publications in that field. You can't prove that despite an apparent lack of significant publications in those fields after the early or mid 2000s, the US still would have a leading role in those fields because they would have a leading role in another field. Medical treatment of cancer is mostly subject to "hard" science, with a limited set of social and psychological extensions (e.g. breast reconstruction, which as such is outside the medical treatment of the cancer itself); medical treatment of sexual orientation, on the other hand, is dominated by its social and psychological implications – which in the US may be subject to more reticence than elsewhere (as one would be tempted to conclude from the lack of prominent updates in medical literature in that country). Making another comparison: if I remember correctly, at a certain point US stem cell research got a major setback... because of a social reality (i.e. society making rules prohibiting certain aspects of that research). Yes it's also "medical", like part of the issues relating to sexual orientation and cancer – but these quite different subdomains of topics under an umbrella called "medical" can't be compared like that.

Any foreign-language source in a field related to sexual orientation has to be judged by its own merits. If you can't figure it out for lack of knowledge of the language, then, in addition to translation possibilities mentioned above, I'd say a few noticeboards may come in handy, e.g. WP:RSN; WP:NORN; WP:FTN; WP:NPOVN;... – all of these (depending on case) can help in figuring out whether a foreign-language publication doesn't get disproportionate coverage in Wikipedia's mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree the reasoning as stated seems large a fallacy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken and Kmhkmh, I don't understand your "crooked" and fallacy sentiments. You are free to challenge the fact that the United States often has advanced medical research and some countries lag behind, but it is a fact. Notice that I stated "some countries." It is a fact that can be supported by a number of reliable sources. The U.S. does lead in all of the aforementioned fields I mentioned. And I've noted why I am unlikely to trust a non-English source from any of the aforementioned medical areas over an English source. There's the matter of the source possibly not being reliable and/or lagging behind up-to-date research, the matter of me not knowing what the source says, and the matter of me possibly trusting a faulty or dishonest translation. I agree with going to the noticeboards you mentioned for help, but I don't see that they are often much help on matters such as these.

On a side note, sexual orientation does not fall into the medical field mainly because of "medical treatment of sexual orientation." What medical treatment of sexual orientation are you speaking of? Sexual orientation change efforts, which is what I think of when I think of " medical treatment of sexual orientation," is mostly a thing of the past. Sexual orientation mainly has to do with the medical field these days because of the biology of sexual orientation (which relates to the biomedical aspect of WP:MEDRS) and counseling people, mainly LGBT people, because of the heteronormative issues in society. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The rules about access to sources are all the same. If it's a print-only source that I have but you don't; whether it's a source behind a paywall that I can read but you can't; whether the "verification" is a calculation that only someone who knows the calculus can understand; or whether the source is in a language that you don't speak; the rules are all consistent. Verifiability means the source has to be checkable by someone. It does not mean that it has to be checkable by you.
If an editor brandishes a non-English source, how are we to know that the source is reliable? ---- I'm sorry, Flyer22, but I'm afraid you have to ask an editor who speaks the language. That's all there is to it. But you don't have to trust the original poster. If the source is in French or German, I'll translate it for you, and if it's not I'll be able to point you in the direction of someone independent who can.
Please do not source anything on Wikipedia to a machine translation such as Google Translate because there are some very serious accuracy concerns there, particularly where the language is colloquial or involves a double-negative. (You can test this easily enough. Run a sentence like "There ain't no way Johnson's a murderer!" through the subroutine and back again. See if it produces a denial or an allegation.) The consensus is that you need to consult someone who actually speaks the language properly.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree. But the real tension, here, is that we as Wikipedia editors are now forced to rely solely on Wikipedia editors for expertise in translation into English (just speaking the language is not enough) because, whatever the source, it must be represented in English prose, and solely relying on expertise of someone on the internet named, ..... is just not easy to swallow. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well strictly you are not forced to relay on the help of some other (unknown) Wikipedian or guy on the internet at all. You ask show the source to professional translator or any professional in the field concerned or any acquaintance familar with the subject. Relying on the help of another Wikipedian is by no means the only options here, just the easiest and most convenient.

Ultimately WP relies on shared work and good faith and you cannot expect to be able to check everything yourself. S Marshall explained further up, why that isn't possible for principle reasons even without the language question, you might have not access to the source or lack the domain knowledge to understand it and so on. In fact you you can see the language issue as part of the domain knowledge. Because in a similar way like foreign language can thwart your understanding, it can thwarted by the academic jargon/technical language of a source that you don't know.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No. That most definitely is not the product. We say it in English to the world - no check done by anyone privately makes any difference to that. It is already said to the world. But what you do say, highlights the tension that exists, and there is no use in denying it exists - original translation is original research, sure more original research can be done but it is just more original research. I get and generally agree with your excuses 'we rely on the good faith, etc., etc.'; so its an inherent limitation of the project and format but it is still there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different things. I described what you as a Wikipedian or any individual can do to check a content with a given source, i.e. you are not forced to rely on the anybody on the internet but you have other albeit less convenient options. As far as our product, that is the actual Wikipedia text, is concerned, for that we always rely on the other Wikipedians having done a proper job no matter, what sources in what languages they have used. In other words we say in English what the sources contains and how/where you can look it up. We do not say however what prerequisites are required to understand that source, in particular not that knowing simple English would be enough (because that wouldn't just exclude foreign languages but pretty much any specialized academic publication).

Original translation is original research if the (original) text is the subject of the article. However summarizing content written in secondary literature is not original research no matter in which language the secondary literature was written.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What's with this shouted "not"? Your argument is someone uses original research to translate into English, and then somehow transforms that original research into not original research by ipsa dixit. That is just not tenable. Or, perhaps your argument is they do not original translate but they just guess at the gist of it in English. Now, there is real limitation. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Shouting would be NOT and not not. The latter is simply a stronger emphasis, since we have a rather different notion of what constitutes original research (within WP), or from my standpoint you misunderstand the policy. So let me state gain, that summarizing secondary academic literature (no matter in which language) is not original research. For instance in an article on the history of Athens, you may use a recent book written by some distinguished Greek historian as a source and summarize its content in the Wikipedia article, even if that book is written in Greek. You are not violating Wikipedia's original research policy by doing so.

However if you have an article on historic bible editions and their translation, then offering your own personal translation of a bible text in (old) Greek may constitute original research.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You've already said that. It did not improve in the elaboration. Your position remains untenable, as you start with the original research of the translation into English, and nothing you argue changes that anywhere along the way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand that concern. But the alternative is to create a tyranny of ignorance where I can't use a perfectly good source because Randy in Boise didn't pay attention in his language lessons, and that's worse.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. The actual skill of translation is many years more than language class. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment on google translate and similar services since i've brought that up earlier. Automatic translations are not a proper source and you can't really cite them. However they are an useful tool to get a first idea of the content of source in a language that you don't speak. So you can use it as a sanity check and for a first superficial assessment whether a foreign source is cited correctly.

However if that first check with the help of an automatic translation doesn't remove your doubts about an edit and the associated source, then by all request help from other Wikpedians. We have a large diverse community (in fact one of our great assets), so use it. The first thing to do is probably simply asking the author of the edit that raised your concern, maybe he can already resolve your concern by providing more information on source and content. And if he doesn't or you whatever reason feel that you can't trust him, then enlist the help of other Wikipedians. There are several projects sites you can use for that, you can request 3rd opinions or more feedback, you can request help with a translation of source and you can use the reliable sources noticeboard to get help with assessing the reliability of source that appeared questionable to you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to pull out this phrase original translation is original research and ping @Yngvadottir: who I think is likely to have well-informed views to bring in here.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Alanscottwalker on that. However, it is already policy that for quotations, we are to prefer published translations over translations by a Wikipedian. The issue raised in this section, and the issue for verifiability, is not really about translation, it's about evaluating, understanding and summarizing non-English-language sources. It's clear that with the exception of the evaluation of a source's reliability, which may require knowledge of the local publishing market as well as linguistic knowledge, these are the same as for sources in English. We are not building articles out of slabs of text taken from all the sources we can find; we are summarizing what we find in those sources and making editorial judgements about which to cite and how to deal with discrepancies. Translation only comes into play in such cases when providing a translation of a key passage or of a title for the convenience of readers or fellow editors. As Alanscottwalker points out himself, understanding a passage is distinct from translating it, and less demanding. Although relating to the original point—where I disagree with Flyer22 Reborn, partly because I do think there is unexamined bias in his/her reasoning—let me point out that many people, including some Wikipedians, are either functionally or completely bilingual; indeed much medical research in all countries today is performed by people with a mix of native languages. On the whole, my position is that the guideline should not be changed to further discourage the use of non-English-language sources. Issues that have not yet been raised here include the danger of using less reliable sources on any topic simply because they are in English—en.wikipedia includes far too many citations to the Daily Mail for this reason—and the fact that showing global coverage of a topic, including in non-English-language media, is often important to establishing notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

With apologies to all for digressing slightly ---- we do have consensus on the use of the Daily Mail as a source (1, 2, 3) and it is to use in-text attribution ("According to the Daily Mail...").—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My personal take on the Daily Mail is that it is low quality source due to being yellow press and not having a good track record/reputation with regard to accuracy in the past. So overall it is best to be avoided as a source but might be used carefully on occasion depending on the context. Whether an explicit intext attribution is needed also depends on the context. If you want further input on that issue, I'd suggest to bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Although, for the medical literature aspect, I think that any bias I have on this matter is justified due to my experience with the literature, I generally understand the points made here. I understand what Yngvadottir is stating. I don't agree with Alanscottwalker's definition of original research in this case. And I think that the Wikipedia consensus for use of the Daily Mail is to usually not use it, since it has proven unreliable times in the past. I wouldn't even want to state "According to the Daily Mail." I would only use the Daily Mail on Wikipedia for an exclusive interview. It's routinely removed from our articles by editors anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see in fact a "strong disagreement" with the statement "original translation is original research" - we prefer, you say, published translation -- actually it's required by our definition of "reliable sources", which is in this Verifiability policy and which connects to the Original Research policy, an unpublished translation is not a reliable source, an unpublished translation in your head is not a reliable source, it's also original research for that reason and more. Your second point about understanding is not the same as translating fails because, you are translating the ideas, expressions and nuances of the source into English, when writing on English Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's either a forced use of the word "translation" or a misunderstanding of the process of drawing on a source, and as a result I can't accept the validity of your assumption that using non-English-language sources is original research. There is no requirement for a person to go through a translation process in order to read and use a foreign-language source, unless they are at a very basic level of understanding the language. And what you describe as the outcome is close paraphrasing. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Yngvadottir... reading a non-English source and accurately summarizing it is not what we consider OR.

If it were, then we would have to ban any editor who's primary language isn't English from contributing... since they have to "translate" the English language sources into their primary language to understand the source... and then back into written English to write about it. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That is silly, we don't ban anyone for anything like that. As for the claim that you're not rendering a non-English source into English prose so it's not translation - you're just "drawing on the source", that deliberately misses or mistakes more than half of what is going on (also, what an idiotic straw-man, no one ever argued that you need to translate to read or understand - those things are not translation). Moreover, I did not make an assumption, I demonstrated that unpublished translations are not reliable sources, which is a basis for the OR policy. If you want to use your word play, you're drawing on the non-English source to render it meaningful in English, so that, in the words of the policy requirement, it "directly" supports an English sentence in all the nuances English has. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, what? I'm afraid I now have no idea what your position is. Could you say it again in different words please?—S Marshall T/C 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an example will help. "Tarifas" a word used in the context of a foreign language source, translated into tariffs, known as a tax in English. (see,Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Taxing (pulled from Main Page)). To determine the content of English language Wikipedia, reliance on unpublished translation of the source, no matter which way it goes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's certainly clearer. I can see that an editor made a mistake in translation, and I agree that's a problem. Not every editor who tries to translate has proper dual fluency. I can't see how we get from there to "unpublished translations are original research", so it would help me if you could elaborate on this stage of the argument.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. A translation meets the definition of reliable source if it is reliably published, among other things. When a translation is unpublished it is not a reliable source. Translation is an expertise and an art, the subject of a vocation - books and articles containing it are published and sold, valuable awards are given for translations, salaries and fees are paid for it, very important writings are subject to official translation. To render a non-English source's 'true' meaning in English writing, as we see from the above example, translation is the basis for accomplishing that - a shared understanding in English writing. So, going unpublished, we have gone without the reliable source translation of the source, having done so we must perform original research translation to find the proper shared creation of English writing, meaning, and understanding, without the reliable source translation, as we again see in the example. This should not be a surprising idea or analysis, as the exception in policy for translation would be unneeded, otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

When I'm writing an English-language article based on a foreign language source, I don't perform an "original research translation" of any kind. No "translation" takes place because I don't need to translate it. I understand it without translating it. That's what language fluency is. Do you see?

I do translate from a foreign language when I try to render the exact meaning of foreign-language Wikipedia article in English, as I did for example here. But that's still not original research. It's taking someone else's meaning and putting it in my own words ---- which everyone who writes articles does, unless the articles are copyvios ---- but it's not fabricating a new meaning from a source that didn't previously contain that meaning.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As has already been noted, I get that you understand it without translating it, you are thereafter translating its ideas into English, or else you are not following the source. This is made especially evident, when it comes to disagreements one watches all over the pedia from time to time, when they are settled by duelings among various unpublished translations of the source material. As for 'putting it in your own words' those words are translations into English, which requires, as you admit, you to construct the translation without a reliable source (unpublished) translation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I need to close down exactly where this original research is taking place. Can I use as an example Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a biography of a French politician that uses sources in both French and English?
1) In that article we say "She supports having the French government force Twitter to filter out hate speech that is illegal under French law, such as speech that is homophobic", and we source that sentence to The Guardian based on this article in English. As you can see, it's a one-sentence summary of a long article; it's simply a distillation of the source text's meaning. Is this original research?
2) We say that Ms Vallaud-Belkacem grew up in Amiens, and we source that sentence to Jeune Afrique based on this article in French. As you can see, it's one fact plucked from a long article. Is this original research?
Thanks for your patience with this.—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The first is referenced The Guardian, which gives an English summary of her French editorial. Assuming The Guardian is RS, it requires no original research for the English used to convey her ideas. The second would require us to find the proper English way of expression of a French source, without the reliable source (published) translation of the French source - so say, you go to your unpublished knowledge or research and I go to mine - to come to an agreement (or not) about an unpublished translation and convey that idea, originally expressed in French, in English writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so in this view, even when we're dealing with an uncontroversial fact, a source you need a high school knowledge of French to read means it's OR. Thank you for explaining. I profoundly disagree with you, and the clear and longstanding consensus is that foreign-language sources are acceptable.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. However, your restatement actually misses the point. It's not that the sources cannot be used, it's that you have to rely on an exception to the principle, and go to the default for all such exceptions, 'longstanding consensus says you must,' regardless. I, of course, agree with you to the extent that there are different degrees to which the principle is infringed in any given case.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP has no "reliance on [an] unpublished translation of the source", instead it relies on the original untranslated foreign source. As it was pointed out repeatedly above your are confusing (literal) translations with summarizing the content of a foreign language source. That aside even literal translations don't necessarily constitute original research for the reason Diego has posted further below (the WP policy states that explicitly)--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It is you who is confused. The issue there is over the proper translation and that will determine the content of the English Wikipedia. The proper translation is unpublished, so Wikipedia is relying on unpublished translation, by definition an unreliable source. As, I said from the start, the sacrifice to reliable sources (unpublished) and the original research value of publishing the original work of editors is the sacrifice that is made. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason why it's needed

There are some topics, like the list of articles every Wikipedia should have, that generate an universal interest and will likely have related sources at all the major languages, and so all the specific wikipedias may source in their respective languages. Fine. However, the scope of wikipedia is way bigger than just that. An article may be of only regional, national or even sub-national interest, but as long as it meets the notability guideline, it has a place in wikipedia (see also (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Geographic scope). This applies as well to countries where English is not the local language. Foreign sources may talk about the things going on there, but only when the news is internationally noteworthy for them, which leaves a gap of information. Take for example the José López scandal, a national scandal in Argentina, when a former government official was detained in bizarre circumstances. When the detention itself took place, there was coverage at both the local and international media. But what happened the following days? Which other details were revealed by later investigations, how is the judicial case going on? The international press did not continue with that story, and moved on to other things. The local press, on the other hand, kept talking about the case for weeks and months to come. Meaning, for that part of the story, there are only reliable sources in Spanish, likely without some English-speaking equivalent that may be a good replacement. And I mentioned that article simply because it's one I have written recently: just take your newspaper, check the "international" or "world" section, read one of the news, and check back tomorrow or in a couple of days if the newspaper keeps talking about the new developments or simply moved on to something else.

Note that, if Wikipedia sticked only to the things that get covered in English-speaking sources and ignores the rest, it would increase the systemic bias, not reduce it (read in particular "Availability of sources may cause bias" and "English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries dominate"). Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What the OR policy says about translations from a foreign-language source

For some reason, the conversation above makes me feel the need to remind my fellow editors this: faithful translations into English of a source in another language cannot be considered original research, for the reason that the WP:Original Research policy explicitly says that they aren't. The same principle applies to transcriptions of spoken words from a video or audio to text form. There may be concerns at particular cases when there are doubts of the faithfulness of the translation of transcription, but if all agree that it is faithful to the source, it doesn't count as OR. This is no different to any other part of an article that is supported by a source written in English.

We had this discussion back at the Engrish translations at All Your Base Are Belong To Us, and the consensus there was that Wikipedians-provided translations from the original Japanese were OK to show, but they should be replaced with a translation provided by a reliable source should we ever find one. Diego (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Translating bibliographic details

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

In the section "Quoting non-English sources", it says "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." I've always taken that to mean that translations of bibliographic details (author and title especially) should be provided too, and not just a translation of the quoted text. But it doesn't actually say that. Can we change it to "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English of the citation and the quoted text should always accompany the quote."? Zero^talk 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I would also suggest the opposite clarification: it is highly desirable to have both biblio and quite in the original language: biblio - for searchability of the source, quote - for verifiability of translation. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Plus, a number of times I've seen the ref and/or quote cited from an English-language source. I would suggest to invent a template which requests the original language, kind of {{original-language-ref required}} {{original-language-quote required}}. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm completely in agreement with Staszek Lem. I don't want to know that the book's called My fight and published in London by Hurst & Blackett in 1931. I want to know that it's called Mein Kampf and published in Berlin by Eher Verlag in 1925, and the ISBN of the original, please. If someone spoon feeds me a translation then they're depriving me of the opportunity to check that translation for myself.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was not thinking in terms of ad hitlerum :-) but rather to request "Imigranci korzystni dla polskiego PKB?" in addition to "Are Migrants Useful for the GDP of Poland?" Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, how gauche of me! I didn't mean to Godwin the thread. I was trying to make a different point, about translating choices. Most people who speak English but not German know Mein Kampf as either My Struggle or My Battle (being the titles of the English and American translations respectively), and wouldn't necessarily recognise My Fight as the title of the book. That was simply the first example of a translation choice that sprang to mind. I do apologise.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

actually... I suspect that most English speakers know that particular work by its German title "Mein Kampf" ... without knowing (or caring) what it translates to in English. So not a good example. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly support a version that requests both the original title and an English translation. A second question is whether this issue should be raised on a policy page like this one at all, rather than placed somewhere in the style manual. Zero^talk 02:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the intentions here, but will such templates lead to less experienced editors tag bombing or even deleting materials as improperly sourced? (At least if we connect this to WP:V which is a core content policy.) Wording might be important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion belongs on a core content policy talk page. The manual of style is a container for wrangles about em-dashes and the Oxford comma. Decisions that matter belong in core policies or WP:EP.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, suppose a paragraph don't have any inline citation, or whatever, can it be deleted on the spot? The page is dubious if you have to challenge it first. Bertdrunk (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove unsourced text on the spot, and that's usually considered proper for egregious material/obvious vandalism/etc., but it is often considered best practice to tag the material and/or start a discussion on the article's Talk page or otherwise not immediately delete it. If you do opt to delete it, be sure to leave a useful edit summary explaining why you're removing the text, even if it's just something along the lines of "Please provide a source for this". Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is curious cause no one expects to discuss if the sky is blue, but at the same time you're expect to source it. Thx for the help. Bertdrunk (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of perspective. WP:SKYBLUE versus WP:NOTBLUE. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thread of interest

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This may be of interest to folks watching this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How important is verifiability?. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition of WP:NPOV at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article and its relation to article titles and article content

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Will editors here weigh in on an important discussion at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#I have removed "Murder" references? It's about the definition of WP:NPOV and its relation to article titles and article content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's now an RfC; see Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Wikipedia:Verifiability has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request the following change under WP:CHALLENGE:

Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged […]

Without this, it’s unclear what it means for material to be “challenged” when this shortcut is used directly. It seems uncontroversial to use the same wording as in the lead. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC).

"Substantial Challenge" or minimal requirements for a challenge

Latest comment: 7 years ago44 comments14 people in discussion

Wikipedia:CHALLENGED links here, therefore I discuss this here. In the linked section there seems to be no definition on minimal requirements for a suitable or good "challenge". I would propose the definition of some minimal standards for "challenges", especially for challenges in the strong form of "deletions". Due to the impact (too easy) deletions impose on articles breadth and depth, as "deletion" driven editing is in general in conflict with our overarching goal "(becoming) the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth.", are discouraged by WP:PRESERVE, and safer forms of challenges are available in "discussion starting" and "tagging", I suggest: that we define minimal standards for challenges, e.g. giving of specific WP policy reason + argumentation like "copyright violation as XXX" or "not NPOV, misses position YYY". Circular arguments or personal points of view should not substantiate an suitable challenge, like "not sourced" or "I feel such material does not belong in an encyclopedia". Also I would propose that if an authors decides that drastically measures like deletion are suitable here (and not softer forms of challenging),the burden on (source) research should be shifted on the deleting author. Shaddim (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to force editors to jump through hoops to remove content from an article. Removing bad content is just as important as adding good content, and we should not privilege one over the other in a content dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose in the strongest possible terms. If you have a problem with specific material being deleted, you have multiple options. There's nothing circular or personal about removing material for lacking sources, and it's ridiculous to ask an editor to prove that sources don't exist. How on Earth would you formalize that, much less prove that any editor had actually done that research? DonIago (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The other editor could then falsely claim to have seen studies that indisputably prove the sources don’t exist, and then it would be on you to prove that those studies don’t exist… speaking of circular. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a response to me? If so, WP:BURDEN has that covered. It's the adding editor's obligation to provide a source, not the removing editor's obligation to somehow prove they don't exist. As I noted, that's a ridiculous scenario. DonIago (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

More of a followup than a response. Seemed the logical conclusion of the Bad Idea. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

For material to be “challenged” means for an editor to remove it for being unsourced, or to otherwise express doubts as to its verifiability. I agree that this could be better explained here; I had to ask about it myself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean merely to remove it for being unsourced, because content should never be removed only for that reason if there isn't a specific BLP concern. If an editor doesn't actually think it's unverifiable, then their removal of it is not a good faith "challenge" for purposes of WP:BURDEN, it's just blanking, and contra policy at WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant unverifiable here, rather. To be fair, unverifiable content tends to not be supported by a source. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

67.14 did state "or to otherwise express doubts as to its verifiability", and removing something whose verifiability you doubt is undoubtedly within the scope of BURDEN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My scenario is less about adding material (where the burden question is more clear) but about already existing material (legacy material, imported external articles etc): which might exist already happily in the article for years, reviewed by dozen of WP authors as suitable, found useful by readers, and which now got deleted, over-eagerly by an trigger happy author with the quick evaluation "no source" missing that the mark is verfiability, not sources. We have many policies and position essays (WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and especially Wikipedia:Five_pillars) which indicate many situations where no sources, weaker sources or other forms of verifiability are suitable. So, in general "no sources" is an invalid "challenge", additional, to that that such light-hearted deletions are a quite harmful activity. This misbalance in power and requirement between adding and removing we need to address to fulfill our over-arching goal. Therefore, in the cases of "challenging of existing, established material" the deleting author should have the burden of checking if he want to change established article consensus.Shaddim (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@someguy1221:" Removing bad content is just as important as adding good content," indeed, keeping WP articles free of propaganda, vandalism and POV is at least as important as adding content (but not more), but.... "should not privilege one over the other in a content dispute." I absolutely agree, currently there is misbalance in burden between adding material and deleting material. Currently deletion is priviledged by having no burden, not even the burden providing minimal standards for a suitable "challenge". "deletion challenges" ignore often the requirement of verifiability when they take the sloppy short-cut and edit comment: "no sources". this should be changed to restore the balance at least a little bit. Shaddim (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

How? How would you word such a thing, how would you allow for any means to confirm that editors were adhering to such a thing, etc.? I'd like specifics, not vague suggestions. DonIago (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We already have a "balance" for the removal of unsourced (and potentially unverifiable) content... simply return the content with a reliable source (thus demonstrating that the content is in fact verifiable). Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@blueboar: if this activity is so "simple" than there is no problem in adding this burden to the deleting author. Shaddim (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This simple and elegant principle is what solves the problem of "balance", and it happens to be exactly what the policy already says. The more verifiable (the easier sources are to come by) the content is, the easier it is to return it with a reliable source. This will keep verifiable content more readily in the encyclopedia than unverifiable content. For hard to verify information – content that is likely to be challenged – adding the citation initially it not only advised to keep it from being removed, but it is required by WP:MINREF. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem is: once content is (too) easily removed, it is unlikely to be reinstantiated for several reasons: 1.) it's would be a revert, which is per se an "aggressive" activity apposing a previous author, therefore something which is less likely to happen 2.) it has then a significant burden, while the opposite activity is fairly easy, authors don't like to invest work for things which are very likely get removed again 3.) no one is interested in this phase anymore, the contributing authors have already left this article. Overall, this redundant activities of removing and (potentially reading) content, could be optimized by just requesting from removing authors doing minimal verifiability checks (verifiabiltiy is the mark according to other policies in any case, so it would be natural to request it here too) Shaddim (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're mainly talking about articles with little to no traffic, where problematic edits would be unlikely to be quickly reverted. I would say that on such articles, citing your sources to begin with is more important, since there are fewer (if any) eyes reviewing each edit. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as you stated correctly many articles suffer from too little author traffic, and have therefore little author supervision. More generally spoken WP would need more authors, that is the problem. As it was already proven in former times (with less policies), again and again, that the reliability of WP is competitive or even superior to the best comparable encyclopedia, we should not waste our ressources by over-focussing on a non-issue (or of tertiary importance against other goals). The real problem seems missing involvement and development of WP (creation / adding / being abble to contribute for new authors), we should rebalance the burden where suitable to encourage more contribution and collaborative work together. It should be easier to contribute to underdeveloped articles. Just writting more harsh and demanding policies (as you suggest) will not create the authors who will follow them (quite the opposite), but reducing the bar where reasonable might. Shaddim (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No. In fact, there is nothing that can prevent anyone writing to their heart's content - absent page protection. That does not mean the pedia should not require citation, and be downright insistent upon it, quite the opposite, it should insist, cajole, plead for citation because there is no real barrier to writing to one heart's content. Sure citation is a burden, and it should fall on the writer not anyone else, certainly not the reader. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well our policies require "verifibility" not "sources", so the burden will fall on other authors over time for content which is verfiable but without sources. Currently the policy push the burden on the first author alone, which is in many cases not available anymore. This policy doesn't represent the actual editing and article reality good enough anymore. Therefore some minimal adaptions could lead to here to better distributed burden (on more shoulders) and in best case minimizing duplicated work and friction between authors.Shaddim (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Policy does require citation, and not just citation, 'direct' citation - you can get away without citation for the obvious (the unlikely to be challenged), but sometimes you are wrong that something is unlikely to be challenged - that's the problem the writer created, when he or she guessed wrong, or when he or she was just too lazy to 'say where they got it' up front (when they were in a position to do so). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, as you also said our policies literally demand only "verifiability" and not "citations" for many cases. This has then the implication that the "verfiability proof" becomes NOT only the original writers problem alone but the problem and responsibility of all authors interacting with this article and content. If the described situation ("legit verifiable content, but without inline citation") would be not inside our policies I would agree with you, but policies demand only verifiability, not more. Shaddim (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Our policies do literally demand citation (your focus on when they don't, does not carry the implication you describe, quite the opposite - the implication of being an information source is saying where Wikipedia got it, part of being a good reference writer is saying where you got it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with you, that it is beneficial and recommended to give good sources on additions, fact is there there are substantial cases where they aren't demanded ((WP:SKYISBLUE, WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations, and especially Wikipedia:Five_pillars)). We can't say therefore they are demanded in general, in general verifiability alone is the minimal requirement. We have to cope with that, and the resulting spread of "verifiability check" responsibitly beyond the original author. Good thing is, this is not a severe change or burden but just an clarification here, which fits already good editors' practices ("minimal token verifibility check"), so I don't see a problem here. Shaddim (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If it "fits already good editors' practices", as you say, and is simply a clarification in any case, then why do we need to add it to begin with? Can you provide specific examples where you feel this change would have made a practical difference? DonIago (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Appologies, if I use confusing wording, what I mean with good editor practices are not the practices which are commonly applied but are applied by "good" editors. So, which are not the common practice (or minimal standard) but the one which we should encourage with policies and guidelines. Shaddim (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Practical difference would be that we would encourage and guide to better edit behaviour: doing minimal token checks on verifiability and giving better edit comments. Outcome on editting could be less overall work and friction between authors and for WP more verfifiable and verified (!) content. Shaddim (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Good editor" practice - as useful as the fiction may be, everyone is mostly a reader, here - by writing, one makes claim on the reader's trust (and implicitly that the writer has sufficient expertise to convey the information, and integral to reference information is where it comes from) the writer should not impose on the reader to guess. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that transparency on the creation, sources and creation of the information we provide with WP to readers is crucial. I believe we do a very good job here, in general. And I want that we do an even better job here by having more verfiability checks by distributing this work in a reasonable amount on more shoulders. I really believe it is not unreasonable to expect minimal verfiability checks and good edit comments from WP authors who believe to be competent enough to remove content from articles. Shaddim (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

So, remove it, if it actually needs to be back then the "check" must be demonstrated, in fact, provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This is against our "verifiabilty req. (only)" of content. Content which is verifiable but without sources is valid. There is no substantiated reason in our policies to remove it, vice versa via have the overarching goal of expanding the WP and keeping suitable content(WP:PRESERVE). A failed verifiability test would be a good reason. Which is a procedure all good authors should follow already. So no extra burden or problem. Shaddim (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not have a single policy or even an essay that restricts us from demonstrating verifiability. Verifiability is demonstrated by citing supporting reliable sources. Sometimes, a claim is obvious or common-sense enough that we can expect everyone to take our word for it that it’s verifiable. The rest of the time, we ought to prove that it is, by citing supporting reliable sources. No one wants an encyclopedia that makes dubious claims with no backing. This is how we avoid that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, no author is prevented in demonstrating verifiability. I would consider it quite natural process step that authors do the "demonstration of verfiabilty" in the situation of evaluating questionable content. Therefore I believe, demonstrating of verfiabilty should been encouraged, or even made default, also in the situation of an potential content removal. I consider it a duty of all authors in all their activites. As it is also not clear cut what are "obvious facts" and "not obvious facts", the already existing good practice "token check of verfiability" should be applied always in case of doubt. Because, no one wants to have WP articles stripped naked and crippled with the removal of reader valuable content, for no good reason. Shaddim (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Because, no one wants to have WP articles stripped naked and crippled with the removal of reader valuable content, for no good reason. That would not be possible in any halfway decent article without removing supporting citations. Any valuable content on Wikipedia tends to be cited to reliable sources. (You may want to see also WP:VALUABLE and WP:VALINFO.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Tends" does not mean all of it. The short cut "not sourced, not verifiable" might be an intriguing idea due to its simplicity but is not backed by WP's intend and whole of policies. Even you said: Sometimes, a claim is obvious or common-sense enough that we can expect everyone to take our word for it that it’s verifiable. We have significant portions of the WP being verifiable but not with direct sources. And this is fine, inside the policies and a wanted, reasonable situation. When there is the demand to increasing the proportion of verified content, the implementation should be shouldered by all authors, also the ones who demand this, especially the ones "specialized" in questioning/challenging content. I believe this is also a good approach to bring in their motivation and approach separated WP author groups more near together in their actual WP edit experience, synchronize them, bridging some persisting rift. Shaddim (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

What's a valid challenge

We already had a discussion similar to this one regarding WP:CHALLENGE, the result of which was adding the wording "please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable". It has been found that WP:BURDEN does not provide a blanket permission to remove any amount of content without inline citations, in a case where an editor doing so was considered disruptive. In my view, BURDEN already has a definition of a valid challenge with the above sentence; the editor invoking this policy needs to state their good-faith belief that the content is unverifiable (not merely unsourced). Challenges based on other criteria not related to verifiability (WP:Original Research, WP:Due weight...) are not covered by this part of the WP:V policy (although WP:ONUS seems relevant). Diego (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

These arguments would be far less common if people spent as much time and effort actually properly sourcing things as they did trying to dodge WP:V through wikilawyering and arguing about who's allowed to challenge what content. All challenges are valid and if someone's genuinely being a nuisance with them, there's behavioural remedies at WP:ANI. Reyk _YO! 17:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, AN/I never imposes effective behavioural remedies on anyone except a rank newbie, and BURDEN griefing is a real thing that really happens. If it ever happens to you, find an active sysop with no patience for fools and post directly on their talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In respect of WP:V it seems to me that sourcing (in some form, even if not perfect) is an absolute requirement, and a reasonable burden. Someone challenging a lack of sources should not have to demonstrate a likely unverifiability (which is to say, a lack of sources). That would be somewhat like trying to prove a negative. The offence is the lack of citation of a source, and is readily evident.

When someone adds material, they should have it from some source, not simply intuited out of the ether. Providing that source is a reasonable and required burden, and a sufficient remedy. Even if the challenger knows of valid sources, she probably doesn't know where the contributing editor read it; citation is necessarily part of writing.

Where the griefing comes in (in respect of sources) is more in challenges to the adequacy, authority, accuracy, relevancy, etc., of the sources. I don't believe all challenges are valid, but neither do I know of any clear-cut way of distinguishing any particular challenge as "valid" or "invalid". But, I think griefing arises not from any particular challenge, or even several (no matter how frvivolous, or lacking in good-faith), but in repeated challenges of doubtful merit.

I think it would be useful to consider challenges as questions. E.g., it is quite reasonable that an editor whose understanding of a topic is not as broad or deep as mine should ask questions (as one should), and it is civil to assist in others' understanding. (Though beyond a few questions it becomes a matter of tutoring, and I think RTFMsources applies.) But there is a fundamental difference between asking a question, and arguing a point. The former is an inquiry; the latter is inherently disputation, which all too quickly becomes more adversarial than collegial.

It is also useful to consider challenges as a form of statistical quality control. Even where there is no expectation that a widget is out of spec, it can be reasonable to inspect a few (even destructively) to be certain. In that regard I don't mind a few questions (even dumb questions) to show the adequacy of my work. The griefing is where someone expects a right of unlimited challenges. If one cannot provide an adequate response then the challenge was valid, and further testing is likely justified. If one can provide an adequate response, then justification for additional testing is reduced. In this context the validity of additional tests or challenges depends on the degree to which it can make any difference in the result. E.g.: after a single test a single contrary result makes a big difference, but not so much after twenty consistent results. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"Griefing" is when your whole watchlist lights up because someone you've clashed with systematically goes through your contributions tagging and challenging everything you've ever written. It takes them a few minutes to do it and the workload they've handed you will take you months to get through. There are other kinds of challenge which aren't necessarily griefing, but are non-trivial to address ---- the most nuanced ones tend to involve either things that can be logically derived such as calculations or computer programs, or else translations from foreign language sources. The problem comes where you, the author, are well able to do the maths or read the source but the editor who challenges you is not.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

What you describe as “griefing” sounds like WP:HOUNDING. However, what you describe could also be, from the same page: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) […] correcting related problems on multiple articles. It depends wholly on the editor’s intent. If you had a tendency to routinely make some problematic error in your editing, and some other editor noticed this pattern and lit up your watchlist in an attempt to fix (or at least draw attention to) that systemic problem, would you consider that “griefing”? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that in that particular editor's mind, it was that he'd noticed a problem in my editing. He thinks every couple of sentences there needs to be a little superscript number pointing to a reference; whereas I think that as long as I've provided my sources in the bibliography, then I only need the little superscript number for direct quotations or material that's likely to be challenged. Therefore in his opinion my edits were problematic and he was drawing attention to that problem. But there were some red flags for griefing there, such as the fact that it started after I'd challenged one of his non-admin closes and brought it to DRV, or the fact that he was tagging or butchering articles I'd created at the rate of about four a minute, so there was no way he was evaluating the articles before editing. AN/I came to the typical fudge that AN/I comes to when none of the editors involved are newbies; I summarily restored all the removed content and deleted the tags, added a couple of sources where the user did seem to have some basis in fact. This was five years ago and nobody's tagged any of those articles since, so I suppose I was in the right... which is of course part of the definition of griefing: it has to be (a) retaliatory or vexatious, and (b) wrong.—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "griefing" is where those with views variant to mine are allowed to edit Wikipedia? :0 ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is verifiability temporary?

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Given the prevalence of new media kinds of sources, how permanent is verifiability? If an editor verifies a source today, and then that source disappears tomorrow, is the presumption that the source checked out? Or is the statement now no longer verifiable? An example would be (say) an article that appears in a site that is not archived by the wayback machine at archive.org. Is this still "in principle verifiable", because the article must appear on some server somewhere, as well as copies with the original author? Should WP:V favor sources that also have a reputation for permanence, like being in actual physical collections, as opposed to digital ones)? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability and WP:GNG does not 'switch off.' See WP:Linkrot and WP:Dead link. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I get that, but here's an example. Suppose that a YouTube personality made some statements in a YouTube video. That video was cited in some sources, and turned out to be the main reason (under WP:GNG) for the individual's Wikipedia article. Is it still acceptable to refer to the original YouTube video, after it was deleted by the article's subject? (Remember, this is assuming that the person is primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources.) As far as I know, there is no publicly accessible YouTube archive, but archives must exist somewhere, so verifiability still holds "in principle", and those of us who did see what the subject said in the original video would still be justified in summarizing its contents? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reality is that verifiability is sometimes temporary. Archives don't always exist, and if information is removed, it can become impossible to verify it. It is impossible for anyone to be "primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources", because it is only the coverage in secondary sources that makes a subject notable in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

'It is impossible for anyone to be "primarily notable for the statements made in that video, which were not clearly discussed in the secondary sources"' Unfortunately, this is not actually true, as the existence of a certain article clearly demonstrates. Secondary coverage had concluded that the subject disproved the Big Bang, and developed a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's theory of relativity in a YouTube video. None of this was actually the case, per the original video. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from the Video Games project (where the bulk of our sources are only from online works by the nature of the industry) we do worry about topics becoming unverifyable because sites go dark, have not enjoyed archival forms, and otherwise making it impossible, save by questionable means (forums that duplicate the entire text via copy-vio issues, or other questionable archives), to re-verify the work. This often means facts that were verified before can no longer be verified and if it becomes clear there's no way to replace that, that fact has to go. Hence why we generally try to use archive.org/Webcite whenever possible. Fortunately, because of the GNG, the loss of one or two sources rarely means the article topic no longer can be verified, but that could potentially happen. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But presumably things like that might be archived in private collections. I have no doubt, for instance, that Google keeps an archive of all YouTube content. That could, in principle, be recovered, but the bar for verification is rather high. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If that private archive fails aspects that PAYWALL otherwise allows (For example, trying to ask Google to provide a video long since deleted from the public), we should not consider that archive as being able to meet the accessibility aspects of WP:V. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, verifiability cannot be temporary. It is a cornerstone of our content policies. If some video or website disappeared, we don't know why this happened. For example, it may be that it was removed because the information in it was incorrect. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If the only source for a fact disappears and there is no way to access it within legal/reasonable means, that fact now fails verifyability. This is a reality we have to face with digital news sources. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) Verifiability is not and cannot be temporary. It may however in some cases be true that the source used to provide verification at one time is later changed to read in such a way that it no longer provides that needed verification. This can be particularly true in sources which are exclusively available online. In such cases where material is changed in such a way as to remove support for some cited information, I assume that by our policies we would have to accept the reliability of the later, presumably more thoroughly reviewed, version, although it might be useful to have some sort of indicator somewhere of that.

A particular instance of something like this happening is an article in The Atlantic some time ago, which some editors here might remember. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The case of a magazine saying X on Monday, and issuing a correction that says not-X on Tuesday, is exactly what I think many of us would include under a heading of "temporary verifiability". For one day, "X" was verifiable, but it is no longer verifiable.

I'd also add to that list any source that was once WP:Published but is no longer available to the public (e.g., a historic marker that has been removed or destroyed). One hopes that the material supported by such a source will be verifiable through other sources, but if it's not, then that material was only temporarily verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion

This edit request to Wikipedia:Verifiability has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Include a definition or explanation of “challenged.” 67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A specific change has to be proposed before that template should be used, and in the case of a policy, that change should be agreed on here first. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

How’s this? An editor may challenge material simply by removing it for being unsourced, or by otherwise expressing doubts as to its verifiability. (Note: if this is incorrect, that’s all the more reason.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this not already clearly defined under WP:CHALLENGE? "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Granted there's the may there, but that doesn't detract from removal being a form of challenge, only the question of whether it's the best form of challenge to make. DonIago (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn’t really say that’s what it means by “challenge.” The word isn’t even in the same paragraph. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn’t think it’s obvious? That may be the case, but I thought I was smarter than that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the entire section? Other means of challenging material are discussed. DonIago (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concept. My concern is that the use of the term itself may be unclear. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I would like to see the clarification that a "deletion" is the most unsuitable form of a "challenge". A "challenge" should happens if there is doubt or disagreement. If there is doubt, discussion or tagging is the suitable response. If there is not doubt it is not really a challenge but just restoring of the ordered WP status. Deletion should require higher standards & requirements than a "challenge" Shaddim (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that deletion isn't necessarily the most unsuitable form of challenge. If someone puts in an article "Adolf Hitler is still alive", editors shouldn't be required to jump through hoops in order to delete it on the groudns that it's unsourced. DonIago (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a use-case which is fully inside many other edit policies. As this would be a personal, sensitive, and controversial fact, highest standards on fact checking for the inlcuding author for "fresh inclusion" would apply. A "personal, controversial claim without backing, most likely wrong" or plain "vandalism" in your edit as removing author comment would be sufficient. As it is already expected good practice & not an additional hoop. This discussion is more about less controversial content where the strong verifiability standards does not apply & also strong, instant challenges are not required. The current "challenge" formulation requires nothing and allows without good reasons removal of established content which is inside "verifiablility". Here should the principle "benefit of doubt" being applied for the content. If there is no strong case against the content or higher standards required ("controversial, personal etc"), the burden of verifiability should be shifted to the deleting author, when he decides that opening up this question to community with an tag or discussion is not suitable. Shaddim (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like a claim like Star Wars: Rogue One features more Ewoks than any other film would fit your criteria. It’s not controversial, but it’s factually wrong^{[citation needed]} and not backed by anything, and doesn’t use the correct title, besides. I still agree with User:Doniago. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Which begs the question: how would a challenging editor prove that Rogue One doesn't feature more Ewoks than any other films? Do they need to initiate a Talk page discussion and get consensus to remove it?

I'm disinclined to comment on this further without knowing what specific changes editors have in mind, as I feel like this argument is currently bordering on hopelessly abstract. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A challenging author could simply write "couldn't find in a reasonable search any indications backing such claim, doesn't believe this is verifiable." In fact, this is what I expect from an author in anycase if he finds something dubious, doing a minimal research, so not a extra hoop, just a clarification. Shaddim (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So then, you're requesting a change to something like, Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it, where suitable sources cannot be located after a reasonable attempt, may be removed …. Is this correct? —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be: As the overarching theme of WP is verifiabilty for creating a reliable encyclopedia, for the deletion of challenged content it should be checked with reasonable effort if the content is (or most likely is) verifiable. In such cases a deletion should be not be applied but a involvment of more authors, with discussion or tagging the questioned content, should be initiated. In conclusion, this means that direct deletions of content require a higher standard on pre-research and amount of burden (with more elaborated edit comments stating a clear reason and policy which is harmed by the questioned content e.g. VANDALISM, PROPAGANDA, POV etc) than lesser forms of challenges like tagging and discussion initation. For instance "no source" is not a suitable deletion challenge reason, when given as edit comment, but might be good enough for tagging. Shaddim (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(The short-cut of "source" and "verfiability" I consider problematic in your proposal, as according to our policies "verfiabilty != sources". "Reliable" used binary or absolute is problematic too as the required strength of "reliable sources" is content & context dependent, more for controversial & personal stuff, less for others, in many instances primary sources are fine.) Shaddim (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

or a proposal as adaption of the existing text:

All content must be verifiable. When material is added by an editor and got challenged by another editor, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material. A way to satisfy this challenge is by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2] On already existing and established material, with the original author potentially not available anymore, a content challenging author is expected to check verfiablity (or likely verifiablity) with reasonable effort himself. He should give then on removal then his reasoning and cited policy in an elaborated edit comment; e.g. "removed due to PROPAGANDA", "No verfiabilty after reasonable search" are suitable, "no sources" is not. In summary, this means that direct removals of established content require a higher standard on pre-research and amount of burden. If the verifiabilty is unclear or unchecked, the inclusion of more authors with lesser forms of challenges like tagging or discussion initation is strongly encouraged in such cases. Shaddim (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of relativism in the text immediately above this comment. Phrases such as "established" and "potentially not available" would need to be more clearly defined.

Additionally, I'm no longer clear as to what problem this is trying to solve. If we assume that in the majority of cases editors are already making at least a token effort to find a source before removing material, why is it necessary to add this level of instruction creep to address something that we believe to already be occurring in the majority of cases? DonIago (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, in my experience exactly this can't be assumed in the majority of cases. I saw too many to light-hearted content removals, which didn't took the minimal burden of at least token checks on verifiability and giving only unsuitable edit reasons like "removed, can be easily re-added with sources", which then never happened. I agree the formulation might be to detail oriented and chould be streamlined. About "established", "content which survied another authors contribution and didn't challenged and therefore gave his implicte approval"? Or content which is there already for years without challenge? In law there is something like custom (law), should not something similar applied here? If content was considered good enough for years (and is not in conflict with any major policy now), should it have not at least have the benefit and doubt and deserves at least a token check? Shaddim (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're not assuming good faith. Have you discussed your concerns with any of these editors? I would not consider your first definition of "established" acceptable, as editors can edit an article without reviewing changes made by prior editors. Personally I'm more inclined to tag unsourced material which hasn't been newly-added, but I'm also willing to remove it if I think it's unverifiable, and editors who disagree can always a) initiate a discussion about it, or b) source the material and moot the concern. You seem to be assuming that material remaining in an article for years is somehow "good", when it could simply mean nobody's ever taken the time to look at it. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I consider removal of verfiable content a problem. Authors should not do that. And avoiding minimal burden of a token verfiability check I consider indeed "not good faith", if it happens continuously. What it does for some authors, when they impose their own standard of "no sources, not allowed to be in WP" , which is beyond our policy standards. About content: Content could be good then, indeed. If it is in so long propability indeed suggest that the content is less likely SPAM or VANDALISM. But needs still to be checked which should be done by the next author who questions this content or article. If an authors even notices that this article was not touched by no other author in years, is even an stronger indication for burden responsibility distribution to him. The likeliness that the original author will jump out of the bushwork and provide reliability sources on removal is quite low. Shaddim (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you but I'm afraid this is not going to succeed. As you're probably aware the principle that editors should not remove verifiable content is already policy, in WP:PRESERVE. It's one of our oldest rules and it enjoys widespread consensus. I've tried to get this principle enshrined in WP:V on a number of occasions as well. Unfortunately these attempts always go nowhere. I've found that there's a very strongly held view that anyone can remove content ---- no matter how wilfully, recklessly or negligently, no matter how distorted the article is after that content has been removed ---- for any reason or none ---- under WP:BURDEN. No qualification or mitigation of WP:BURDEN is ever permitted on this talk page. And actually there are good reasons why not. WP:V is developed by editors who use it in the most difficult and controversial areas of the encyclopaedia, in articles about pseudoscience and climate change and alternative medicine and so on. In these conflicts WP:BURDEN's role is to give the heavy artillery to the skeptics, and it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to do that.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you very much for the "heads up" ... and for taking the time and offering a broadening of perspective into the history of this policy, motivations of groups and the importance of the "sharpness" of the WP:V in controversial WP articles. While I have to admit I'm not active in these difficult areas (and I'm glad that I don't have to do the stressful work there, kudos to the authors who take this burden!), I'm currently not fully convinced that the humble and reasonable small adaption of the burden distribution I try to encourage would weaken the effectiveness of WP:BURDEN in controversial situations. I believe nothing would there change. Am I wrong? Shaddim (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to try and I would not oppose you. You'll probably need a RFC. BURDEN is so important when dealing with editors who are using Wikipedia to push an agenda that many people are very protective of it. This means that edits to BURDEN are usually reverted if you haven't gone through a full RFC first. At the RFC expect to be asked for:- (1) Several diffs showing clearly and incontrovertibly that there's a problem; (2) Clear reasons why the best answer to the problem is an edit to BURDEN; and (3) A very succinct proposed edit (because editors are very sensitive to policy bloat and WP:CREEP so each word you add diminishes your chances of success). The wording will be scrutinised to see if it can be misunderstood ---- particularly including tactical or wilful misunderstandings by editors with an agenda who are trying to force Wikipedia to include some fringe position they might espouse or wish to promote ---- and, hopefully, refined.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Verifiability challenges, which explains the concept in more practical detail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

How can or should we verify claims of deletion?

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

If an article or blog post or YouTube video has previously been established to exist, but now it can no longer be found, can its unavailability be assumed to verify the claim that it was deleted? Or do we need an RS stating that it was deleted? Would failed attempts (confirming its absence) to find the item ourselves be considered original research? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I expect that this is about Talk:Jacob Barnett, which I've also been following. I think that in those particular circumstances Slawomir Bialy's position is reasonable.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Without specifics, I would say that per policy practically every source needs to be (be shown to be) in a public archive, at the least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's not being used as a source itself. The article simply claims that it was deleted or is no longer available. I'm only asking about the verifiability of this claim, and whether a dead link can verify it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  The lack of availability, or that something has been deleted, would be a fact, and its determination a matter of original research. This is what we need sources for. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  In this particular case, we're dealing with a BLP of a former child prodigy (now an adult) who is undoubtedly notable. His notability rests on some claims made in the popular press about his abilities. These claims were undoubtedly inflated. They included pointers to a series of youtube videos featuring the child, as he then was, talking about obscure and abstruse areas of mathematics and physics at a precocious age. It's germane that these videos have been taken down, because it indicates that the young man is no longer claiming to have made revolutionary discoveries that disprove Einstein. The article needs to say that these videos are no longer available.
  It's verifiable that the youtube videos are no longer available means of a youtube search that gives no results. This is the essence of verifiability ---- we can directly link the evidence that backs up what we say. Whether it's original research is a much tougher question and I do think we're skirting the edges of OR with this, but we're doing it for good reason, on the basis of a consensus, and with the aim of producing an accurate and informative article.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  It is dubious OR because the videos could have been reposted under a different title. Happens all the time with any online sources. Secondary soorces must say that videos came and go. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  This is precisely why I was hesitant about such an uncited claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me you may be inverting verifiability in this case. Normally the lack of a source – non-verifiability – means that something can not be said, whereas the argument here is that something can be said on the basis of such non-verifiability. To say that a source (or in a broader sense, any kind of evidence) does not exist is one thing. But to infer anything beyond this, such as the weakness of a prior claim, gets into SYNTHESIS. Either way, I am quite dubious about any reliance on an absence of something. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

At most, you could say "As of (date), youtube.com/video=1234?whatever is a dead link" on the basis that the URL is a dead link now. You could not make a claim that this URL previously worked or that it previously contained anything (e.g., cat videos, child prodigies, prodigious cats, etc.). You certainly could not make a claim that the author took the video down (e.g., instead of someone claiming copyvios) on the mere basis that a given URL is currently non-functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What if the video was linked in an article in a reliable source like the New York Times, that said something like "see video here"? If the source is actually reliable, then can't it be used for the existence of the video? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with WhatamIdoing insofar as that youtube link verifiably did work, as evidenced by the fact that it was examined discussed by Wikipedians during our deletion processes, and now it doesn't. I think we have good grounds to say so. I agree with her that we can't say the author took it down, but nobody has said this in the article. We say the link doesn't work any more.—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your earlier statement was: "It's germane that these videos have been taken down, because it indicates" (emphasis added) that certain claims are no longer being made. That is an inference made from a fact. What W. and I are saying is that you can state a fact, such as "the link doesn't work" (although the "any more" would require showing that previously it had), but you can't on that basis infer that this amounts to a withdrawl of those claims. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Some years ago the article subject, who was a child at that time, claimed to have disproved the Theory of Relativity in a youtube video. We point out that this claim was made but the link doesn't work any more, and that creationists and intelligent design advocates enthusiastically support what was said, and then we stop talking and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. Policies scrupulously upheld, but truth told.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No. The policy begins "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check" the information according to sources. That's "can, as in, is able to do so during the present time", not "could have, at some point in the past, but now we just expect you to trust the person who added this".

I'm not sure that discussing the instant case is useful. Either you can cite that claim to an independent source (ideally an independent secondary source that discusses why anyone cares what some kid posted on the internet), or the material simply isn't important enough to write about at all. "Child posted something on the internet! The URL doesn't work now, but trust us: we're sure that it was this BLP and the link used to work!" is not exactly the kind of encyclopedic material that Wikipedia strives for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We have many such sources, so I don't see why this continues to be discussed as if there are none. The link to the video, in which the subject is alleged to have disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and secure his slot for a Nobel Prize, is now a dead link. That's verifiable, just by going to any of the dozens of articles with headlines like "Big Bang disproved, 12 year old to collect Nobel Prize", looking at the video at the bottom of the article, where the message "This video no longer exists" is helpfully printed. The very words "This video no longer exists" actually appear in reliable secondary sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: does removal from YouTube mean the video no longer exists anywhere .... or does it simply mean that the video is no longer hosted by YouTube, but might exist elsewhere (say on an archive site, or on some other website)? Also, do we know who removed it from YouTube? This last question goes to the issue of whether we can call the removal a retraction or not. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is an appropriate inference. I'm not even certain I agree with the conclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"This video no longer exists" is a conventional way of saying "this particular URL is dead". It does not mean "The video previously linked here has been deleted from all computers around the world, the backups have been burned, and the poster is ashamed". It is like saying "Good morning" to someone; you are not passing judgment on whether this morning has moral virtues, or whether mornings in general are a desirable thing.

Upon reflection, I've removed the parenthetical claim "no longer available" as needless and UNDUE. The article doesn't benefit from it, and taking such a short-term POV is unencyclopedic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The child in question is notable for disproving relativity theory and establishing a novel theory of astrophysics in the video in question. It is certainly not undue weight to indicate that the video is no longer available. We would say the same thing if a researcher published a paper that was later retracted. I don't see why there should be a double standard here. And the article does not conclude that "The video previously linked here has been deleted from all computers around the world, the backups have been burned, and the poster is ashamed", nor do I believe that this is the case or can in any way be inferred from the text of the article as written. If this sentence were to appear in the article, then I think it would be easy to get consensus to remove it. But saying that things are in the article which are not, during a discussion like this, is not exactly honest and constructive. Pointing our that the video is no longer available is supported by direct quotes to sources. It does not mean that the videos have vanished from every atchive, merely that they are not available. It's hopefully clear enough why that us useful information to a reader wishing to know more about Barnett's new theory if astrophysics, where he proves relativity wrong, and secures his future Nobel prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sławomir Biały (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that taking down a YouTube video that you made as a pre-adolescent 12-year-old kid is equivalent to formally retracting a peer-reviewed paper?!

Taking down a video could mean anything: you accidentally bumped the wrong button, you thought your hair looked funny in the video, you were tired of talking about it, etc. And seriously: if your evidence of a retraction for the academic were only "the URL isn't working any more" (rather than, e.g., a message at Retraction Watch or a press release from the journal), then people would be yelling at you about that SYNTH violation, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're reading way too much into the simple statement that the video is unavailable, and seriously need to have a cup of tea. Come back when you're ready to approach this constructively. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that you need to stop comparing a kid's video to an academic journal article, and I think that you need to stop claiming that we have many sources to verify this claim when so far (AFAICT) you've produced exactly none that in which a human has written two sentences about the fact that this YouTube URL, like millions like it, isn't working. NB that I want actual sentences written by a human that indicate that the dead URL means something, not an automated dead-link indicator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

E-mails vs. Twitter posts regarding immigration matters

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Why are Twitter posts from random authors considered reliable sources when it comes to entry requirements to a country, but not e-mails from that country's head of immigration? I'm genuinely curious. André Devecserii (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@André Devecserii:On the face of it neither of these would normally be considered "reliable sources" in themselves, unless published in a reliable source that endorsed the information. So that others can assess the situation, could you point us to the article(s) or discussion(s) you are concerned with?: Noyster (talk), 10:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute is, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because a tweet is something that that has actually published, whereas an email can only be verified by its recipients. That said, immigration policy is something that should have better sources than a tweet. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources must be WP:Published, and private e-mail messages therefore never qualify. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: This article says "According to Amir Taheri, Iraq plans to sign a freedom of movement agreement with Iran", citing this.

In this article I pointed out that, according to Dominican head of immigration Pellam Jno Baptiste, there are European nationalities other than French that can enter on ID cards. Based on this correspondance

What makes this an issue is that the Timatic team doesn't seem to get their info from Mr. Baptiste, as their source apparently says only French IDs are valid, and thus won't update their info. André Devecserii (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@André Devecserii:Thank you for giving the details of your concern. As stated above, a screenshot of an email would be very unlikely to be accepted as a valid citation. Happily this Timatic (KLM) website has now been updated [6] and lists all EU countries as being exempt from Dominican visa requirement, which agrees with the article itself: Noyster (talk), 00:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: You misunderstood me. This is about passport exemptions, not visa exemptions. It's about who can enter on an ID card, which, according to Timatic and the article, only French can (among Europeans). However, according to Mr. Baptiste, Swedes and Germans are able to as well, which I wrote in the article before it was removed André Devecserii (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that a screenshot of an allegedly authentic (but who knows? Maybe it was completely fabricated) e-mail message isn't considered WP:Published for Wikipedia's verifiability purposes. (Also, if the image of the e-mail message was posted by someone other than the author, then it's a WP:COPYVIO, and shouldn't even be linked here, much less in an article, because that would violate the WP:LINKVIO policy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Other people

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I've been thinking about the use of anyone in the first sentence for some months. It appears that some people (including academic researchers) interpret anyone as meaning everyone, regardless of time, skill, location, available money, etc. As we all understand, this isn't true: to verify something, you might have to understand a different language (|language=Greek to me), go to a particular location ({{cite sign}}), spend your own money ({{Subscription required}}), etc.

So I've been thinking about what we really mean, and what the key component is. I've decided that the key point is that some people who are not me (assuming that I'm the person adding the information to the article) can verify the information. So I have WP:PGBOLDly changed this to say "other people" instead of "anyone". I hope that other editors will agree that this is clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'd be happy to hear other suggestions/improvements. One that I strongly considered was "other editors and readers", but (a) it's longer and (b) there's a chance that someone would interpret it as meaning "other editors and (all) readers", which would not really solve the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree... and hopefully this change will reduce the number of times we have to explain that it does not matter whether any specific editor (ie "you") can verify the information... it's Verifiable if some other editor (not necessarily "you") can verify it. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd really appreciate comments from anyone else, even if it's just to shrug your shoulders and say that you don't care. There's always a risk with changes to policies that someone will come back in a couple of years and claim that there's no consensus for the change because people didn't care enough to vociferously support it on the talk page, and that the lack of objection is proof that nobody noticed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  - I wasn't aware that this was a problem, but if it is, then I agree with this solution. Part of the problem is that "verifiability" on Wikipedia doesn't quite mean what it means in natural language -- by "verifiability" we actually mean "checkability", which is subtly different... and it's important that we're clear on checkable by whom.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  - The change looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I don't like it; it's vague and can make people wonder "What other people?"... Or maybe I'm just not used to the wording. Still, if I can't verify the information and have to jump through hoops to verify it, that is a problem in my eyes. I've seen too many editors fake sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "those reading the encyclopedia"? DonIago (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

But they often can't check, unless they have the sources on their bookshelves and the necessary background knowledge. The content might be verifiable to someone who reads Tagalog, or who can follow lambda calculus. It has to be checkable by someone independent, but it doesn't have to be checkable by any reader.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Can", IMO of course, implies that theoretically they could verify it. I mean, I can't read Tagalog, but I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that there might be information I could verify if I could read Tagalog. I could learn Tagalog and then verify such information... DonIago (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone else will probably have done so

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

That makes no sense due to different reasons. Firstly, one can disguise oneself as someone else, so that it wouldn't be original research. Secondly, someone has to be the first to start writing about it. Many topics can't be written but by the experts themselves because they are simply too complicated. A layman's approach is just insufficient. Moreover, this sentence is offensive and a slap to a face to one's work. No one started out as a renowned publisher. Where are the sources for the first thing ever written? Why is it such a problem to write about oneself? The person could just pass the text to a colleague and click on "save changes". Who will be able to verify this? --188.98.180.142 (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are probably referring to the phrase from the policy "Someone else will probably have done so". Sorry, it looks like it is a bit vague for a newbie, and requires an understanding of another guideline, we must use not only independent, but also reliable sources. I will fix it accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands what is being talked about... The passage in question is in our section about using self-published sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have update the phrase in question as follows: "<if the information in question is really worth reporting,> someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Any objections? 17:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

[1] Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...

[2] Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...

[3] Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...

[4] Indvik, Lauren. "Forbes's Web Expansion Comes With Some Growing Pains". Mashable. Retrieved 1 August 2016. These days, most of the content on Forbes.com is self-published...

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]