Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tryptofish (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 11 June 2012 (→Expand?: dominos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.

If you want to discuss the concept of "Verifiability, not truth" or wish to modify the first sentence of the policy, you may prefer to read and use the sub-talk page Wikipedia_Talk:Verifiability/First sentence, which contains detailed discussion on those topics (and has access to many archives of previous discussions.)

This page, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, is currently the subject of informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal. The mediation discussion is located here. Please read "suggestions for mediators" to get an understanding of what to expect from mediation. Please assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette. Links: Mediation Cabal case page • Mediation Cabal case talk page

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011 First sentence (April–August 2011)​

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Replacements for VnT

Jehochman:

One standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Material in Misplaced Pages must have been published by a reliable source. Editors may not include content merely because they think it is true.

Becritical:

Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, and only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information. Whether editors personally believe the information is true or false should never determine Misplaced Pages content. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Misplaced Pages has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Misplaced Pages has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citations. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed without further discussion, and unsourced contentious material about about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

Blueboar: (This is a re-working of the entire lede section)

Verifiability is one of the core concepts of Misplaced Pages. Our readers must be able to verify that the information presented in an article has been presented accurately. This is achieved by citing reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable. Editors should not add unverifiable material, even if they are convinced that the material is true. In this context, the initial threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth.

However, Verifiability is not the only threshold for inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines that influence what information may be included in an article. The fact that information is verifiability does not guarantee its inclusion.

Note that the policy requirement is for verifiability, not actual verification. It must be possible to attribute the information in a Misplaced Pages article to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged (see below).

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Misplaced Pages's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

1. Also see the section Using sources of the policy No original research, that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources. Appropriate citations demonstrate that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

A problem with BURDEN

For several months now editors have been telling me that, after I have sourced material, they do not have to tell me what is wrong with the sourced material. They only have to vaguely wave their hands at a section with many sources and say there is OR or SYNTH, and it is up to me to prove them wrong. Yes, this is exactly what they do, they don't tell me where I may have gone wrong and they point to BURDEN to support their position. I wish BURDEN could have some text or a footnote added to prevent this. "However, the burden of proving the verifiability of text is met by the provision of reliable sources, and it then becomes the burden of the editors who wish to exclude material to state reasons why the sourcing and text does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion." B——C_ritical 02:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern especially after my recent experience with Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Why_We_Fight_series_reliable_source_for_views_of_US_1942-1945.3F.

Three hours is nowhere long enough for a reasonable discussion to determine if Prelude for War (produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government) is a reliable for the point of view of the US for the time in question (ie 1942-1945) especially when the Sept 18, 1931 date is supported by modern sources such as

• Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

• Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7 ((referenced by Cheng above)

• United State Holocaust Memorial Museum

• Robert Niemi's History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 discussed the overall accuracy of the film and the series in general.

When the the very process of even determining if a source is reliable can IMHO short circuited like this there are problems with not only BURDEN but WP:IRS itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here as to what WP:BURDEN says, and where WP:BURDEN applies and does not apply. WP:BURDEN applies specifically to verifying unsourced material. All it says is that, when unsourced material is challenged, it is the editors who wish to add or retain the material who must "prove" that the material is verifiable by providing a reliable source. Once a reliable source has been provided, WP:BURDEN no longer applies.

WP:BURDEN does not apply to other forms of challenges (examples - WP:BURDEN does not apply to challenges as to whether the material is OR... or to challenges about the POV of the material... etc.). These other forms of challenges carry no "burden of evidence" on anyone (neither those who are challenging, nor those who are responding to the challenge).

Should the challenger explain clearly what they think the problem is?... Yes, or course... but there is no "burden of evidence" involved in doing so. The discussion might start with a simple statement along the line of "Placing X and Y together like that is a form of WP:Synthesis". The reply might be: "I disagree, I don't think that is what WP:SYNT is talking about"... then everyone discusses the situation, asking for outside opinions if necessary (perhaps taking the dispute to the NORN notice board) until a consensus is reached. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice explanation. I wish we could have a footnote saying that so people can't be beat over the head with it as I have been for months :P B——C_ritical 12:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would solve the problem we are actually talking about as WP:BURDEN states "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." The key word there is "reliable" ie not that whatever is being referenced has a source but that source is "reliable". A key difference.

As Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Why_We_Fight_series_reliable_source_for_views_of_US_1942-1945.3F shows one editor can shut down any reasonable effort at determining if a source is reliable by claiming there is no consensus and archiving the thing even though only three hours of actual discussion has occurred.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In a previous discussion in the archived section Burden of evidence for verifiability there was a simple proposal of adding two words "for verifiability" to WP:BURDEN. The point was that editors were interpreting WP:BURDEN to mean more than it does, which seems to be what is being discussed in this section. Would that simple change help? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary, but I do not object. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just want to end my participation in this thread with a final comment: let's take the following situation... There is an unsourced statement in an article... someone challenges it and demands a citation to a reliable source. You think the statement should be in the article, so in accordance with WP:BURDEN, you go out locate a source and cite it. From your perspective, WP:BURDEN is met. But then the challenger comes back and says "NOPE... WP:BURDEN says you have to provide a reliable source, and the source you gave is not reliable". What do you do?

You could spend weeks and weeks engaging in fruitless and frustrating argument in an attempt to "prove" that your source is, in fact, reliable... or... you could simply go and find another reliable source that supports the material. Having to meet BURDEN twice may be annoying... but it tends to be less annoying, far quicker and much less stressful than arguing... and it usually shuts the challenger up. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think adding "for verifiability" would help. I mean yes, they are interpreting BURDEN to mean more than it does, but not in a way those words would fix. What they are doing is waving a hand toward a whole section which has lots of sources, and saying "it contains OR" and then saying I should prove it doesn't by going over each word/sentence. People can use BURDEN as justification for being too lazy or stubborn to even say "This is the statement I think isn't supported by sources." What would help is to make it obvious that BURDEN is the initial starting point of a conversation, where the person who wants to add material gives sources, and then is able to answer whatever specific challenges people come up with about whether those sources are appropriate and support the text. BURDEN shouldn't be a license to sit on one's throne and say "We are unconvinced" without giving any specific challenge or argument. Just as in science, when a new study comes along it's the burden of those who don't believe it to say why they are not convinced in very specific terms. They don't merely state they are unconvinced. B——C_ritical 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If the source isn't reliable then BURDEN still applies, You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. If you believe the source is reliable then argue your case on the talk page and maybe take the issue to WP:RSN and then restore the content once the issues are resolved. If you believe the objections have no substance request more opinions to get a feel for the greater consensus. BURDEN doesn't mean that the content has to be removed that instant, it only indicates that if you don't verify it as the restorer it may be removed at a later date once sufficient time is given. The example of a science study is a bit of a red herring because on[REDACTED] we would ignore typically ignore new studies as being undue unless it is demonstrated that they have been well recieved. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not even that. It's that BURDEN is being used as an excuse not to state why text has been removed or why it is SYNTH or OR. To place all the burden for everything on the person who wants to add text. Literally, they take a passage with many sources and say "It has OR." They then expect me to defend it even though they didn't say what part of the text is OR. They say "It's SYNTH" without stating "The sentence where you put together X and Y" is SYNTH. They are making it my burden to prove the text without any specific challenge, saying it is not their burden to have to state why they think there is a problem. B——C_ritical 14:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, often see BURDEN used in ways for which it wasn't intended, and it can be quite annoying. I just went back and re-read it, to see if I could suggest a revision, and I didn't come up with anything. It seems to me that it already clearly says that it's about material that lacks an inline citation. I would hope that improper invocations of BURDEN could be rebutted by a simple statement that there was an inline cite, although I realize of course that some POV pushers won't be satisfied with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's because it's an absolute statement "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It can be quoted as an absolute without any reference to what comes after... which is after all talking about removal, not the burden of evidence. It should say The burden of providing appropriate citations lies with the editor who adds or restores material. B——C_ritical 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not bad. We can try it for a while and see if it helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool (: If you think so could you put it in? I don't want anyone to be able to say I changed policy in the middle of a dispute. B——C_ritical 17:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be "The burden of providing appropiate reliable inline citations...". IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think "source" is more appropriate than "citations". How about The burden of providing appropriate sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems important that they be inline rather than someone pointing to the sources used in the article generally. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Source" is the general term, so that's better than my version, and "inline" is probably better too. So either "sources" or "inline citations" if it's necessary to be that specific. B——C_ritical 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I think I prefer "sources" to "inline citations" but either works for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources is good. I do think I prefer it to "inline citations" simply because that's how it is most used in the policy. B——C_ritical 21:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand if they say it's a synthesis without providing further details (they may think it is self-evident), but they are required to elaborate on their reasons if you ask for them. I don't think there is anything wrong with WP:BURDEN as it's currently written though, more some editors being unhelpful. I would still advise trying to attract more editors then to get clear consensus as anything else may lead to edit warring if there is a tendentious editor present. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but the phrasing of BURDEN allows it. If we can make a minor change like above which will eliminate the problem without changing the actual meaning we might as well. B——C_ritical 18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note... editing BURDEN will probably not resolve the dispute in question... the challenge apparently isn't a WP:BURDEN issue... but a WP:NOR (WP:SYNT) issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, yeah... B——C_ritical 22:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think this revision is worth a try. (I even remember a fairly recent AfD that was closed as "delete" with the rationale that BURDEN applied to comments in the AfD.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we please stay focused? The suggested text is The burden of providing appropriate sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material.. This seems like a minor change in wording that might help minimize editors taking this sentence out of context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That particular language strikes me as ill-advised. There are already too many editors who believe any source is allowed until proved unreliable; this will only reinforce that bad idea. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How is "providing appropriate sources" an invitation to provide bad sources? In any case, how is it worse than "burden of evidence" in that respect? In any case, the immediate following sentence talks about "inline citation to a reliable source" so the suggested wording is consistent with the actual policy text. I support changing the text. Diego (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said, rather plainy. As written, the burden of evidence applies, across the board, to the editor seeking to add/restore material. That includes the burden to show that the claimed sources are reliable. The proposed revision doesn't say that, and there will be editors who deny they have any burden to show their sources reliable, even more than there are now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would favor keeping "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." in that it is somewhat more emphatic, and general. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Regarding your comment "As written, the burden of evidence applies, across the board, to the editor seeking to add/restore material. That includes the burden to show that the claimed sources are reliable." — What do you mean by "across the board", i.e. what else do you think that includes in addition to showing that claimed sources are reliable? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If the sources are "appropriate" then they necessarily must be reliable. If they weren't reliable, they wouldn't be appropriate. Remember we're writing this inside the V policy. But we could just say The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The policy is being abused in such a way that editors refuse to say what they think is wrong with proposed text/sourcing, instead saying that they see problems and it is the BURDEN of the proposing editor to prove no problems exist... even though they didn't say what they thought was wrong. So you propose something and give it a reliable source, but the other guy reverts you and when you ask why they say that there are problems but it's not their burden to list them, it's just your burden to fix them. So you don't know what to do. That's what's happening, to me anyway. B——C_ritical 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So if that last suggestion, The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material meets all the potential problems people have foreseen, shall we request it be put in? B——C_ritical 04:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support It looks good to me. The goal here it to prevent misuse/misunderstaning in case this sentence is taken out of context. The proposed change doesn't change the policy meaning. It's a slight verbiage change to clarify that the evidence that we're looking for is reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:24, May 23, 2012
• I Support it too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clarifies and does not change the intended meaning. Prevents wikilawyering. LK (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is the job of the original editor to provide citations, not irrefutable evidence. If we truly put the "burden of evidence" on an editor we would require him or her to defend claims as if they were his or her own and thus engage in original research. Ultimately the "burden of evidence" falls on researchers and scholars outside of Misplaced Pages, anyways. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — You're almost there with a correct change, but not quite. For example, if an editor supplies an irrelevant reliable source, then the burden has been satisfied, according to the proposed version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because part of the definition from the lead is "Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article." If it doesn't directly support, it isn't an RS. Also, you have WP:OR. In other words, yes a completely disruptive editor could argue that, but the argument is easily and simply refuted, and I don't think that needs addressing here. We aren't writing a legal document, we're giving direction. While it takes some discernment to notice that the current version of BURDEN doesn't mean there is no burden on an editor who is critical, it takes a true malice to say "I provided an RS on ice cream to source an assertion about physics." B——C_ritical 03:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the same type of arguments you are using can be used to keep the original wording. Also, the counter example that I gave seems to have held up since your response that no one would be that malicious does not refute it, although I would agree that sometimes it's not worth taking into account very unlikely situations. Anyhow in that regard, we can consider the more likely cases of someone adding a reliable source that is somewhat relevant and close to supporting the info but not quite, or a relevant reliable source that only supports the info through Synth. In both those cases the person adding or restoring material can argue that the burden has been satisfied, according to the proposed version. Why not add something that mitigates this reasonably possible misunderstanding, which is the motivation for the proposal in the first place, i.e. to mitigate a reasonably possible misunderstanding of the section? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to adding something to clarify. But in the case you describe where the source does have something to do with the subject and is reliable, then the original BURDEN has been met. At that point, it's the burden of other editors to point out that the source is not in fact reliable or otherwise flawed. Anyway, I'm interested to hear what tweak you have in mind. I can't think of one myself, partly because the problems you're talking about occur because of violations of other policies, not this one. And it's always going to be the burden of other editors to point out SYNTH and OR etc. But how about adequate reliable sources? B——C_ritical 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not comfortable with it. This is what happens, I'm afraid, when a proposal gets revised after some of us have signed on to the previous version. I've put a strike-through through "adequate" as a rather clumsy way of putting the brakes on for now. The reason "adequate" might not be, well, adequate is that it can be wikilawyered to death. "It's adequate!" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" ad nauseum Maybe there's a better word, but I'm not sure what it is. Can a source that satisfies WP:RS really not be adequate, as we are discussing it here? In other words, Bob's example of an irrelevant source wouldn't really be reliable for the intended use, would it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree really. I took it out below. What I think is that we plugged the main hole in the dyke, but we can't plug every pinhole. But we can afford to leave open some holes because it will be obvious that squeezing through them is disruptive, whereas, if there is an iffy case you can't see the disruption as easily. I think Bob's cases are those pinholes which can be identified as disruptive. B——C_ritical 01:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:RS it looks like you may not even have "some holes" because of the following excerpt from that guideline.

Context makes a difference

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. ...

So this may satisfy my previous concern and your change may be OK in that regard, and I would tend to join you in agreeing with Tryptofish's remark, "Can a source that satisfies WP:RS really not be adequate, as we are discussing it here? In other words, Bob's example of an irrelevant source wouldn't really be reliable for the intended use, would it?" --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Change to BURDEN

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

Per the above discussion, please change

This

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

to This:

The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material

• Strongly oppose per my comments in the discussion above, which reached no consensus. The burden of evidence for demonstrating a contested source is reliable should remain on the editor who asserts the source is reliable. A change of this significance to a core policy should not be made without a full community discussion, rather than comments from a handful of editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's used for disruption and needs to be fixed. A full community discussion is possible but this is not a change to the policy but a clarification of existing policy. It would be better not to make such a fuss over a clarification. B——C_ritical 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's rather clearly a policy change, and it doesn't reflect community consensus as expressed in the many, many discussions over sourcing that have taken place over years. It's equivalent to changing the policy language to "All sources are presumed to be reliable unless a consensus otherwise can be established". It conflicts with BLP requirements. Your definition of "disruption" seems to be "keeping me from making edits that I want to make." There's much more disruption out there from editors who add poorly sourced, but published, claims to articles, then insist that their sources be proved unreliable or that a consensus from removal in contested content is necessary. This change would be disastrous in terms of fringe science, of politics, and similar matters. Consensus is always going to be imperfect, but it's obviously better to be a shade too strict in terms of contested sourcing than to open the door to a wide range of dubiously sourced material. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh what nonsense, how could you misread it like that? You expect extreme wikilawyer behavior, but that cannot be changed by changing policy. What I'm suggesting is to correct a misunderstanding, what you are suggesting is trying to make policy airtight. People have tried to do that with laws to little avail, and WP policy isn't law. B——C_ritical 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that this is helpful but: the basic burden is bringing the source when challenged unsourced. The secondary burden is establishing or consensing toward reliability for that source; in bigger disputes we have WP:RSN. If your insertion is ganged up on and RSN is ambivalent, do you still carry the burden through WP:DR? Maybe as being the first party to speak, but the gang doesn't get to stonewall forever; at some point the burden is met, or failed, in the eyes of consensus. BURDEN is used for "disruption", meaning greater presumptive protection for the deleter (who, it's true, should have slightly greater protection) leading to systemic risk and abuse of that protection. I'm not sure that BURDEN carries all this meaning and sufficient protection for the inserter yet; maybe more focus on RSN would help.

In my wikiyouth I argued at this talk that after providing RS the burden should shift; but I was (in part) rightly told that I don't get to judge it's RS by myself. I still favor some inserter assistance along the lines of this OP but less blatant, but I don't know what would work. Here is the first such thread for historical note. JJB 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Followed by this. JJB 17:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed change does not change the burden to source properly. But it does make it clear that once sourced, it is the burden of others to find any problems. This is not a policy change, but does correct a misunderstanding.

Do people want to do a community wide RfC on this? It's a lot of trouble for something that does not make a material change. Hopefully people won't try to do too much, as with Hullaballoo, or misunderstand it as a change. B——C_ritical 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think I've got your finesse now. Later in the policy, after "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement," insert "as when there is not consensus whether the burden of evidence has been carried by reliable sources,". This makes the reliance on RSN an explicit result of nonconsensus about RS, rather than a generic recommendation, and indicates the inserter's faster track to resolution in ticklish cases.

Beyond RS, BURDEN does also apply to OR/SYN, because editors commonly appeal to BURDEN by saying (their interpretation of) the material doesn't appear in the source therefore the burden was not met. (There's also "I can't find it, quote it for me" as a stall tactic.) To prevent stall tactics, going back to BURDEN, a second change might be, after "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references", insert "or if you neglect to explain why the burden has not been carried". Some dose of Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing is necessary. Both these can be tweaked, but I think they're headed in the right direction of reining in the status-quo sticks-in-the-mud without giving inserters any advantage or unnecessary leeway. Add: Looks like we have critical mass to get a consensus version without RFC. JJB 21:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone back and re-read Hullaballoo W's concerns carefully, and I want to take those concerns seriously. To me it comes down to whether the proposed new language could open the door to misuse of WP:RS, which, by the way, I think we should blue-link in the proposed new language, as I am doing now. It seems to me that establishing what is or is not appropriate sourcing is not the role of WP:V, only that the sourcing is verifiable. The sourcing must be verifiable, but, once it is established to be verifiable, it still has to satisfy WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and various other policies and guidelines. It seems to me that consensus has long been that WP:V should reference those other policies and guidelines, rather than attempt to restate them. For that reason, I actually think that the old wording of "evidence" is too vague, whereas a specification linking to WP:RS makes for an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is,

It's the burden of the adding editor to

provide sourcing which meets all our policy criteria

and

respond to/correct any criticism of the way those sources are used

but

It is not the burden of the adding editor to anticipate all possible problems or to do a perfect job.

Those opposed to the addition have the burden to at the least give explicit criticism so the sourcing or text can be corrected, or explain why it cannot work. Or better they should collaboratively edit the addition till it works within policy. This is a significant and sometimes onerous burden, but it's necessary for WP to be able to work.

So it's wrong to try and put all the burden of "evidence" on the editor who adds material. The burden of the adding editor is to do their best and improve anything that needs improving, but the adding editor doesn't bear the entire burden. "Evidence" was meant to mean "sources," but has been corrupted sometimes to mean that the adding editor has all the burden. JJB, "might object" isn't strong enough: it is the burden of editors who don't want material inserted to say why. It isn't an option. B——C_ritical 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Added "by RS" above. "Might object" is a polite way because not giving editors time to reference is "not an option" either, so I think it carries the meaning; we could change this to "are free to object" or "have objected when material is removed" or something, but that would be a bigger change. JJB 22:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you can remove material till it is properly sourced and problems are fixed. Anyway, what about this version?

The burden of providing reliable sources lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The editor wishing to add the material has the additional burden of correcting any violations of Misplaced Pages policy which other editors point out, although in Misplaced Pages's collaborative editing environment those who object to material may choose to simply fix it themselves.

B——C_ritical 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we need that additional language. The added sentence is sufficiently circular that it doesn't really add anything, and I'm not convinced that it's a problem to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Eek... I'm trying to please everyone... The added sentence adds the burden of responding to claims of OR and SYNTH, and also makes it clear that other editors have a burden too. I think it adds a lot. B——C_ritical 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a solution to a nonexistent problem. I'm yet to see a use case where an inappropriate definition of "evidence" has worsened our articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Evidence is the right way of putting it. Reliable sources are not a full answer because they can have mistakes in them.< seem below for my thought out reason and reaffirmation. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, I'm interested in what you think the current sentence in policy means. For example, do you think the sentence means something more than the burden of evidence for showing that the added information complies with the Verifiability policy? Here's the sentence for reference.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it through properly but I can see that the proposal is to put more hurdles in front of people sticking stuff into Misplaced Pages. Personally I am very happy indeed if some ip sticks in something and actually gives a citation even if it doesn't eventually turn out to be a reliable source. The original complaint was of OR and SYNTH problems which have nothing to do with this at all and don't show a problem with BURDEN. What actually happens is someone sticks something into Misplaced Pages. If it is uncited and seems wrong we're totally in our rights to delete it straight away under BURDEN. However if they have provided a citation our next step is to check it really is a reliable source and the text summarizes it reasonably. I think we've gone beyond BURDEN then. If the cite doesn't seem to be a reliable source but what is said seems of weight and is what is said we might just stick in citation needed after removing the citation. Is BURDEN really in fact saying again that any text which is uncited may be removed or is it really talking about the insertion of text? If it is about insertion of text I cannot support putting reliable sources into the statement and therefore reaffirm my oppose. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be having a problem with people not understanding the problem. Here is the problem I'm trying to fix: BURDEN puts all the burden of evidence on people who want to include. As interpreted by disruptive editors, that means they don't have ANY burden besides to say thumbs up or down. That's as simple as I can express it, and yes it's unreasonable. We need to make it so BURDEN can't be interpreted that way. This IS a problem, one I've been having, and one that editors stick to because of the phrasing of BURDEN. I don't care how this is fixed. A footnote explaining the process of editing and when the burden shifts would be fine. But let's get the problem understood first okay, because I think the opposing editors here don't get it. That's mainly because they're reasonable and expect the same of others, so they don't see how the problem could arise. B——C_ritical 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is 'It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.' which does not really apply for newly inserted material that isn't obviously verifiable and has no sort of citation which is where I think BURDEN was intended to apply. We need a different name or separate paragraph for anything that has been there a little while where the editor should do a google before removing it or should stick in citation needed. Dmcq (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's yet another problem. I've seen it too. What do you think about doing footnotes? It seems impossible to actually change the text of this article, but the Talmudic approach might work- creating footnotes that explain the text. B——C_ritical 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong direction, sorry Becritical. Any comments on my two recommendations above or should they be better presented? JJB 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

See above... my comment was that it wasn't strong enough. I edit controversial articles, maybe I get more exposure to disruptive editors? See post just above yours here. B——C_ritical 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

One reason for my apology was that I was typing it too fast. Saw your comments and was angling for more. I do know what you're going through editing controversial articles. But if mine is a step in the right direction it might gain consensus as a partial solution. Your last proposal above I felt created a new, unpracticed burden, that of "correcting any violations of Misplaced Pages policy which other editors point out", which is even worse for letting people thumb down from the bleachers. The footnote idea has merit and I think something should be done, but I don't know that I'll have enough time to analyze fully and assist with full resolution. JJB 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote

Okay... how about a new direction here: it's hard to suggest changes to the actual text of policy. But it might be easier to suggest a footnote which explains various misinterpretations of policy. This could be added to as needed. If this seems like a good idea to people, I could suggest text which addresses the misinterpretation I want to fix, and others could suggest fixes for theirs. Is that a good idea? B——C_ritical 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea, and I also want to thank Becritical for raising the issue – I think it just needed more discussion before being ready for an edit request. But the footnote idea is, in my opinion, a good one. As I see it, the problem is when people over-interpret BURDEN to mean more than what it is intended to mean, and to mean what they want it to mean. An explanation of what these misinterpretations look like (sort of reminds me of WP:ATA) would be helpful, and would avoid the issues that come with actually changing the wording of the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(: B——C_ritical 21:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Tryptofish's remark, "As I see it, the problem is when people over-interpret BURDEN to mean more than what it is intended to mean, and to mean what they want it to mean." — Yes, although it can all be in good faith. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I really do realize that it usually is good faith. But it still would be constructive to explain how to understand BURDEN correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote: The burden of evidence is the initial obligation of an editor to provide reliable sources which are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being added. If a good-faith effort has been made to provide such sources, it is then the obligation of editors who do not wish to include the material to articulate problems which would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages. This begins a consensus-building dialogue wherein potential problems with the text or sourcing are expressed, and the problems are fixed prior to inclusion of the disputed text.

B——C_ritical 16:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A minor comment: there are a couple of places where "which" should be "that". A more substantive comment: it seems to me that this simply elaborates on what the main text of BURDEN already says. I think it would accomplish more in terms of clearing up misunderstandings if, instead, we make a footnote about what the "burden" is not. I'll give some thought to how to say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, this would have saved me weeks of trouble (; But this is only intended to be one of several footnotes or one part of the footnote. B——C_ritical 05:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A splitting proposal for BURDEN

With this wording BURDEN more obviously applies to newly inserted or reinstated material. I have inserted the bit " Any new material is liable to be deleted without further checks if it is not obviously verifiable and has no indication of verifiability. Otherwise"

Does that conform more to what people want? Dmcq (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You can make any edits to this text which you think improve it somehow. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

{{policy shortcut|WP:BURDEN|WP:UNSOURCED}}

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.

Newly-added material is liable to be deleted if it is not obviously verifiable and has no indication of verifiability. Otherwise whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Notes

1. It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}.
2. Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Yes, I think it is helpful, and it also is not mutually exclusive with the footnote idea just above. (Note that they address two slightly different issues: overuse of BURDEN, versus distinction between new and old material.) Suggestion: revise "Any new material is liable to be deleted without further checks if..." to "Newly-added material is liable to be deleted if...". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just made that revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is good. At the least, we are accumulating a list of problems that people have found, and we'll know what needs to be addressed. With the distinction between newly added and longstanding material, wouldn't you also have to consider how much traffic the article has? If it has hardly any traffic, then the idea that you give longstanding material more respect doesn't apply? B——C_ritical 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the person who wrote the stuff is probably still around they can be told they should try and provide a reference when they stick stuff in. And in fact that can help with improving their later editing rather than always searching for references after them. If the material has been around a bit longer though I don't think we should have an automatic presumption it is liable to be removed without some extra checking like a google lookup. So I'd have counted new as being within a couple of days. Dmcq (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The current wording of this splitting proposal seems to have some support as far as I can see. Anyone against me requesting an admin sticking it in? Or would someone like to add in something from the footnotes idea above first? Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No objection from me (but just wait – someone else will). I still would like to look further at the footnote side of this (apologies for not having gotten to it yet). But there is no reason why we couldn't start with this, and edit footnotes later. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I object to the proposed change. It is not just new stuff added to an article. Let us suppose that an editor comes across an old article that contains lots of unsupported stuff, most of which is probably true then it can be tagged with {{citation needed}} or whatever. But the article also contains controversial statements based on OR. There is no reason why those should not be removed immediately in which case the burden lies on those wishing to restore the text. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This policy is about verifiability not OR. But even so I would have though exactly the same applied, if someone stuck in something new that seemed OR you'd remove it if you had reasonable doubt, if it had been in there for a while then unless it really was very obviously wrong you'd put in a tag as a first step or check your facts further. That's covered by 'Otherwise whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article;' Similar considerations apply too in that the original editor is probably there if you remove stuff soon after they put it in and they can learn to put in the evidence properly. After a while though really there is more of a burden on the person removing stuff, saying the burden was on the part of the person putting it in and not checking properly is just unconstructive. Dmcq (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OR is relevant here, a major reason for removing un-cited text is because it is suspected of being unverifiable which often means OR. It is up to the person who wishes to restore the text to show that it is not OR by including inline citations. The point of the sentence is that when there is a disparagement over content that this gives us a fail safe position as it is better to have no information on a subject than wrong information. Over time the requirement for verification has grown. There are lots of articles that have been around for years that do not contain any references or if they do they are only general references. I spend quite a lot of time looking at articles with a {{1911}} template without any parameters (there are about 10,000 of them). These articles started out as a copy of an EB1911 article but often over time text has been added to them. Once the EB1911 article has been identified, it is possible to place inline citations against the 1911 text (and any other general reference that is there). But for the additional text if I judge it to be likely to be correct I place a {{citation needed}} marker on it. But if I judge the text to be OR or unlikely to be true, I remove it with WP:PROVEIT as justification. It burden is then up to the person who wishes to restore the text. As we are talking about text in addition to the original EB1911 text it is likely to be peripheral to the main content of the article. I disagree that "After a while though really there is more of a burden on the person removing stuff", as this type of checking is what I would do with an article whether it was on my watch list or is one I have found through the error category like Category:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that may need Attribution. The only difference is that if it is on my watch list the aricle will already have inline citations previously added by me or by others, it is only old articles (but new to me) where I come across cases where there no inline citations. In such cases WP:PROVEIT is as useful as it is with new additions of uncited text to an article on my watch list. -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What the change to BURDEN would affect is newly inserted text. It makes absolutely no change to the stuff you are looking through. The new clause if before the 'Otherwise'. For newly inserted text it means people can remove it with fairly cursory checks whereas for older stuff one should do more checks. This is in line with what people do anyway. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"This is in line with what people do anyway" Speak for yourself! I take the same care over both. The major difference is that the articles on my watch list tend to carry lots of in-line citations (and where necessary {{fact}} templates), while those I find thorough the 10,000 do not. At the moment the paragraph is simple to understand and follow, every qualification such as "otherwise" brings complexity and that complexity brings wriggle room for wiki-lawyering. For example this proposed change is wrong for two reasons. The first is that there are times when {{citation needed}} is more appropriate than intimidate removal, and secondly someone can argue that immediate removal only applies to new material (otherwise why highlight it in policy)" REVERT. "no it does not" REVERT ... editors are now arguing about the meaning of the policy not the content of the edit, it is an unnecessary distraction. Much better the the rule in the policy is kept simple, as guidelines can be used to expand on the meaning if necessary. WP:PROVIT is more useful for the removal of old information than new as the speedy removal of new information is covered by WP:BRD, while WP:PROVIT turns WP:BRD on its head:

• Insertion of new material, REVERT (BRD)... material remains removed while discussions take place and there is a consensus for insertion.
• Removal of old information REVERT (BRD), REVERT (PROVIT) ... without the second revert using PROVIT the information would remain in the article unless there was a consensus to remove it.

-- PBS (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you seem to have taken against it so it will have to wait for whatever RfC comes by on this whole business instead of just going in. You have said that you take care over both, I really think that is a bit of a waste - one should take more trouble over something that has been in for some time, and for stuff that has just gone in the editor is probably still around and should be prompted to stick in basic require information in the first place rather than doing all the work for them. There's no point wasting time on silliness and peoples own ideas they stick in, but we should take more care if stuff has been in for a while. As to wikilawyering this is already subject to wikilawyering and it should be phrased in a straightforward way that reflects reality. Anyway I will not be pressing any futther with doing anything immediate as I see no prospect of changing your mind. Dmcq (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

In case this is still a live discussion. I am against the changes. I think "evidence" is better than more specific "reliable sources". This is because there are other non OR ways to provide evidence than just using reliable sources: Eg. the size of a billiard ball is 52.5 mm (source provided) conversion to inches done through a routine calculation (actually using {{convert}}). Evidence for this conversion does not have to be provided through a reliable source, but can be provided on the talk page of the article to meet OR requirements.

If there was a consensus to change the burden of evidence statement then if a link is to be provided for "reliable sources" it should be to WP:SOURCES not WP:RS. This is because SOURCES is a policy and RS is not: "In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.", linking to RS under reliable sources in Burden is likely to muddy the waters. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you interpret "evidence" to mean more than evidence that the material complies with the Verifiabilty policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have made that clear, but to supplement it I refer you to the last paragraph of the lead into this policy. --- PBS (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you haven't the foggiest idea what it means. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what's clear here is that we are not going to be able to change the text. But we should be able to explain it. For myself, I want to write a short description of the proper process, which makes it clear that only the initial burden is on the shoulders of the person adding, and it is the burden of those who don't want to include the text to say why they don't want to include it. Dmcq and others may want to write their own short explanations. I don't see why that kind of thing couldn't find consensus, but changing the text is pretty much out per WP:POLICYBIBLE (lol) B——C_ritical 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just put a header called "Discussion" here, because the "splitting proposal" is not about changing "evidence" to "reliable sources". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ability and the first sentence

This is a continuation of the discussion in an archived section Opening sentence is a nonsense. That discussion ended essentially because it was thought that it should be discussed at the mediation first. The discussion at the mediation has been completed. We can now consider whether the change from mediation should be made in the first sentence of WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Change first sentence from

"Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

to

"Verifiability on Misplaced Pages means that readers can check reliable sources that directly support the information in an article."

Comments

• I do not have time to read through the long details, but my guess is that 99% of the readers (mysellf included) will not notice a difference. Is there a one paragraph "what is the difference?" item that can be added above before asking for comments? History2007 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The text appears to remove the focus on inline citations which I think is a fundamental part of verifiability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I went back to look at the edit history of "cited" versus "reliable". In fact, it was I who originally made the edit that made it "cited", as you prefer (although I have to admit that I didn't remember having done it!), and it was pretty recent , so that language hasn't been long-standing. However, subsequent discussion here came to the conclusion that it needs to be "reliable". I think that discussion reflects the most recent consensus, although the full-protection of the page prevented it from being implemented; instead, it has been followed at the current mediation discussion. For what it's worth, it's a link to WP:IRS, not WP:INCITE, and inline citations are discussed a few sentences later. Can't fit everything into the first sentence! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bob K, you can see from the comments just above that what stands out to people, when you pose the question this way, is not the critical point that you actually intended. It's probably best not to try to get this edit done now, but rather to wait for the upcoming RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The version of the lead that is in WP:V at the time of the upcoming RfC will be one of the choices for the RfC. The present first sentence has been criticized as nonsense. (See Opening sentence is a nonsense.) BTW, Tryptofish was the one at the mediation that proposed the same version that is being proposed here. Not having the present version of the lead of WP:V corrected before the RfC, will put the version of the lead of WP:V at the time of the RfC at a disadvantage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually I do support this proposal. I was just pointing out why the initial reaction has been rather unsupportive. People are objecting to it for reasons unrelated to what it actually proposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people such as yours truly are still trying to figure out what it proposes. This sounds vague and risky to me. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Yes the change does describe what verifiability means. The inline citation bit is what to do if people dispute verifiability, not whether the stuff actually is verifiable. What's there at the moment just causes a horrible mess with 'All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable'. I think everything has to be verifiable, that does not mean I think everything has to have an inline citation. Dmcq (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the confusion over this sentence is with the word "information"... what has to be verifiable is the exact statement we (Wikipedians) write and include in our articles, not the underlying information within that statement. For example, the statement "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is not a verifiable statement... however the statement "According to Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is a verifiable statement (since we can point to sources that say this is Christian doctrine). Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification is needed: Please let me try to understand this again now, in view of the above.

• Does "can check reliable sources" require that said reliable sources be already cited? Would it not have been better to have said: "can check the cited reliable sources"? The way I read this, it could also mean that "can check reliable sources" by going to a library. This seems vague to me.

• If we have to discuss what this means, have we not lost already? If there is any need for discussion on what it means, then it is not clear.

In any case, I think the "can check reliable sources" part is quite risky because it does not explicitly require said sources to be cited. Does it cost more to make it explicit? I do not think so. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not require that statements have inline citations unless the verifiability is disputed and is not obvious. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, where does it say that "We do not require that statements have inline citations unless the verifiability is disputed and is not obvious"? And in that case, say good bye to verifiability. That would be a "huge mistake". If it is totally obvious, it does not have much place in an encyclopedia. If it can just be entered without inline citations this will be a serious quality degradation and I would strongly object to it, in the name of encyclopedic quality. In any case, if we have to clarify it in this discussion, it is far too vague to be used. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see second paragraph of WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I know the 2nd paragraph. The point is that the word "obvious" does not appear on the page and verifiability has already been defined in the current 1st paragraph. Again, after the discussion I see this as one more possible step to a "weaker encyclopedia". I will be upfront with you, for the life of me I can not understand why verifiability has to be weakened. And I do not see what this change buys at all. What does it buy for the encyclopedia? Nothing that I can see, apart from increasing debate and diluting verifiability. It buys nothing of value in my view, and I must strongly oppose it. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If people keep sticking in tags asking for citations where unnecessary because it is obvious they don't fulfil the 'likely to be challenged' as far as normal sensible people are concerned they get banned. The policies describe good practice as generally done in Misplaced Pages. Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, please let me try to understand this new issue. Are you stating that a side effect of this will be to discourage the placement of "citation needed" tags? Is that so? History2007 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the discussion that led to this proposal, and I'm very sympathetic to you and other users who are now confused because you weren't familiar with the same information. Unfortunately, the proposal above is complicated by the fact that those discussions in the mediation included all kinds of stuff unrelated to the change proposed here, because the change proposed here is in relation to what WP:V says now. So, let's start with what WP:V says now:

"Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

Now I'll reformulate the proposed new sentence, in order to not change anything from what the page says now, except for the change that is actually being proposed, and nothing else:

"Verifiability on Misplaced Pages means that readers can check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

Does that help clarify what is being proposed? It's actually a small change, I think, one that is directed at the illogic of saying that verifiability is an "ability" possessed by readers, when it's actually an attribute of the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That helps in two ways:

• One it is becoming clear that the original proposal was vague, because we had to have this discussion to clarify it.

• I had actually had suggested "can check the cited reliable sources" saying it would not have cost any more to print that on the page. So that seems much better to me.

But by virtue of the fact that I have now received explanations, it is not certain that I would not have found it vague as a start. But, be that as it may, the clarification "can check the cited reliable sources" will certainly help. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As for your first point, yes indeed, sorry. As for your second, I can point to the last time this issue was discussed here, for whatever it's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed how you remember all these archives. But this page should really be within WikiProject archeology, there is so much buried in the archives and so much is dug up all the time. But in any case, I think we agree that the initial statement was just too vague, given the discussion. History2007 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I try to be amazing. ;-) Actually, I'm just repeating a link from my comment to IRWolfie above, but I spent an obscene amount of time finding it the other day. I'm doing that because I have good wishes for the mediation process that's going on, and I'm trying to put out potential forest fires before they ignite. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

History2007, Just so I know where you're coming from, would your criticism regarding removal of "ability" and not using"cited", also apply to the following familiar first sentence that was previously in the Verfiability policy.

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

which, like the proposed sentence says "readers" instead of "reader's ability", and also doesn't refer to "cited". For convenience, here again is the proposed sentence for comparison.

"Verifiability on Misplaced Pages means that readers can check reliable sources that directly support the information in an article."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But what you have is again missing the "cited" element. That was/is the source of the ambiguity that resulted in the long discussion above. I do not know how many versions you guys have permuted now, but I have stated the problems with the vagueness and weakness of this directly above. History2007 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to argue but rather to make sure I understand your point, according to you does verifiability mean that there is an inline citation in the text to support the material, and if there isn't an inline citation in the text then the material is not verifiable?

For example, an inline citation in the text would look like this, "The earliest known butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, between 40–50 million years ago." And if instead the sentence was without the inline citation, i.e. "The earliest known butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, between 40–50 million years ago." then, according to your understanding, this material would not be verifiable? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the "according to me/you" part assumes that me/you are somehow experts on something. The problem here came up, again, because I actually could not even understand what it meant, so I asked and after discussion it became clear that ambiguity existed. What I do not understand, really do not, is the reason why this new item is an improvement. What is gained by avoiding the "cited" word? As I said, it does not cost anything. Does it? And Dmcq's point that this may have the side effect of this will be to discourage the placement of "citation needed" tags has really complicated the matter. Again, what I am not getting is what the deletion of the "cited" part buys apart from diluting the reliability of the encyclopedia. What does it buy for Misplaced Pages apart from Weakening its content? And again, given that we have had this long discussion by default the item is vague. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From your response, you don't seem to understand what verifiability means and you don't want to know. I tried to help with my last message but you chose not to directly respond. I think a direct response from you would have helped bring our views closer together. Talk pages are not just a place for intransigent arguing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That was utterly kind of you. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Expand?

If we really want to be clear, and spell all this out in full... perhaps we should expand it into more than one sentence. I would suggest something like:

• "Verifiability, on Misplaced Pages, means that any statement included in an article is able to be verified by our readers. Our readers should be able to check that what is stated in Misplaced Pages accurately reflects what is stated in reliable sources. Where necessary, editors should assist the reader by providing citations to reliable sources that directly support the statment."

Yes, this is more "wordy"... but sometimes it takes more words to make what we mean clear. Something like this whould clarify what needs to be verified (the statements we include in the article), who needs to be able to verify it (the reader), why (so they know that the statement is accurate... or at least accurately reflects what is said in the sources), and finishes up with what editors must do to assist in the process (provide citations to sources - when necessary). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is already expanded by the second paragraph of WP:V. If anything, your comment is a digression into rewriting the second paragraph.--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK... so think of my suggestion as a way to combine and clarify what is currently said disjointedly, in several paragraphs - and restructure/rewrite it into one coherent opening paragraph. The point being, we are currently struggling to come up with a one sentence "definition" of verifiability to use in the first paragraph... and I am suggesting that things might be easier and clearer if we try for a multi-sentence "definition". If clarifying the definition in the first paragraph means we end up also re-writing the second paragraph... well, what is wrong with that? If it clarifies the policy that is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a domino effect issue here? History2007 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Hall J.P.W., Robbins R.K., Harvey D.J. (2004). "Extinction and biogeography in the Caribbean: new evidence from a fossil riodinid butterfly in Dominican amber". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 271: 797–801. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2691.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)