Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

RfC concerning WP:ABOUTSELF

There's an RfC about the applicability of WP:ABOUTSELF to an article on a religious organisation happening at Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article, which might interest watchers of this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested on whether usage examples require sources

Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion about usage examples at linguistic articles, and whether they require sources: Talk:Franglais#Are usage examples "original research"? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Responsibility section

Right now, this guide reads Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. But the footnote in that quote reflects very different principles: The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.; ie, this footnote belongs on a sentence that says something like "Any material that is not directly supported by a reliable source may be removed." The change to the base text that set this footnote out of wack is old enough that it doesn't show up in the last 50 edits, but I'm not sure if wider consensus was sought for it beforehand. If there was, it's evidently the footnote that needs updating. -- asilvering (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The change was made by WhatamIdoing in June 2021,[1] in a change to standardise the language between BURDEN and CHALLENGE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The footnote is trying to provide a definition of what it means if a source Wikipedia:Directly supports the material.

We have had editors mistakenly think that the location of the little blue clicky number is what determines whether the source directly supports the material. In this error, they mistakenly believe that:

• Born in 1927, Alice Expert became famous for her interest in expertise.

has a citation that "directly supports" the birth year, even if the cited source is all about elephants and does not mention either Alice or 1927 at all.

What we're trying to tell them is that "directly supports" means that if the CHALLENGED fact is about Alice's birth year, then citing a source about elephants is no good, even if the little blue clicky number is actually touching the year. The cited source only "directly supports" the claim if the cited source contains words like "Alice was born in 1927" – and if it does that, then that cited source "directly supports" the claim even if it's at the end of the paragraph (or, technically, if it's not yet cited in the article – though a CHALLENGE requires that it actually be cited). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not what the footnote is saying. If that's what we want the footnote to say, it should say that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering,

The footnote says "The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material."

I'm telling you that the meaning of the footnote is that the location of the citation is irrelevant to whether the source directly supports the material. What's relevant to the question of whether the citation WP:Directly supports the material in the Wikipedia article is whether the material in the source matches the material in the Wikipedia article.

It seems to me that my explanation is exactly "what the footnote is saying". What do you think the footnote is saying? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What the footnote currently says is, including whether one is present in the article at all. It is telling you that a sentence may indeed be directly supported by a reliable source, even if that source is not cited in the article. That is, an article may have zero references at all, but it is in principle possible to find a source that contains the same information; this is a statement about what makes a fact verifiable or not. That is irrelevant to the sentence the footnote is attached to, since that sentence is saying material should not be restored without an inline citation; it is a statement about what to do once a fact has been challenged and needs to be verified.

Since you've clarified what this is supposed to mean, I can fix it by removing the "including whether one is present in the article at all" bit, so I'll do that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you've understood the sentence, but you don't believe it.

Fact: A source directly supports the content when the content of the source matches the contents of the article.

Where the citation is placed is irrelevant to whether the source directly supports the content.

Obviously logical conclusions, given a source that says the same thing as the article:

• If the citation is placed at the end of the sentence, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation is placed at the end of the paragraph, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation is placed at the end of the section, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation is placed at the end of the article, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation is placed in the ==External links== section, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation is placed in an edit summary, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation is placed on the talk page, then the source directly supports the material.
• If the citation hasn't been typed into Wikipedia yet, then the source still directly supports the material.

Naturally, that last case isn't useful to any other editor, and it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BURDEN (which requires the citation to be formatted as an inline citation, implicitly in the article itself and [for practical reasons, as a means of communicating the relationship between the source and the material to whichever editor complained about the absence of an inline citation] plausibly near that material), but directly supports itself, strictly speaking, is about whether the source matches the article content. It's not about where the citation is located, or even whether the citation has been typed up yet.

I think what you might want is to add a sentence that says something like "Of course, in case of a CHALLENGE, you really do have to have an inline citation to that source" – though I'd consider that to be redundant with the main text of the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed after all these years?

"Naturally, that last case isn't useful to any other editor" applies to any placement of the citation that is removed from the content supported by the citation. The citation should be close to the content it supports. (How close can be discussed, but not further than the end of the sentence. You reveal you understand this point. The citations is not about the whole article, but about a specific piece of information in the article, and it should be located adjacent to that piece of information.) Your long repetitions border on a rather silly WP:POINT violation, so we won't take it too seriously. We understand your point, and it is (still) not valid. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason it's being discussed is because an editor appears to have misunderstood which words in the sentence provide him with an excuse to object about the location of the citation, and which words provide him with an excuse to object about the contents of the cited source.

The first sentence using this says:

"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material."

• The words "an inline citation" are the words that say the citation has to be close to the CHALLENGED material.
• The words "directly supports the material" are the words that say the contents of the article must match what's in the source.

If your complaint is that the citation is 'physically' in the wrong place, including that it's not in the article at all, then say something like "That's not a proper inline citation, which is required by WP:V."

If your complaint is that the citation is 'physically' in the right place, but the Wikipedia article is talking about when Alice was born and the cited source is talking about elephants, then say something like "That source does not directly support the claim. According to WP:V, a source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, and no amount of rearranging deckchairs changing the location of the ref tags is going to change the fact that the cited source doesn't directly support the material."

Getting editors to use the right words helps people understand each other. This isn't necessarily popular (for example, a couple of years ago, we had a high-volume editor claiming that all uncited material is automatically a NOR violation, even though the second paragraph of NOR contradicts that), but it is important, especially for editors who are trying to change policies. WP:Policy writing is hard, and it's almost impossible if you don't pay attention to the differences like which words indicate the location of the citation and which words, in the same sentence, tell you something about the nature of the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

! agree with your statement. I have always understood that a cited source needed to directly support content in the article, but when I first started editing WP more than 18 years ago, I did not understand the importance of having the citation as close to the supported content as possible (nor, it would appear, did many other editors at the time). Having seen how often well-intentioned edits move citations away from the content they support, I now support citing individual sentences within paragraphs, when applicable. We have {{Failed verification}} for a source that does not support the content, but if a citation supporting some specific content is not close to that content, then, if an editor does not have the time and patience to search for the displaced citation, {{Citation needed}} may be added. These are distinct problems, and policies and guidelines need to make that distinction clear. Donald Albury 14:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and Donald Albury, thanks for the clarifications. I agree. The location of the citation should be close enough to the relevant content that a reader will logically make a connection between the content and its citation. If the citation gets moved or is otherwise located too far away, then placement of {{Failed verification}} or {{Citation needed}} tags is appropriate. That's why I object to the practice of moving all citations to the end of a sentence or paragraph. Some citations need to be placed exactly right after a specific word or phrase and should not be moved, especially for sensitive BLP matters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you've understood the sentence, but you don't believe it. is not true, and I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to speculate. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, do you? Do you actually believe that the source I'm going to cite later today "directly supports" the contents that I'll be citing it for? Or do you believe that since there's no citation in the Wikipedia article yet, that it can't possibly "directly support" that material? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't placed logically close to the content, it doesn't "directly" support the material. The cite's placement somewhere in the universe does mean it "supports" that material, but that is irrelevant for our purposes. We need it "directly", IOW located "closely", to support the material, hence the need for it to be located "inline". That's pretty close. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No. That's not what's intended.

If it isn't placed logically close to the content, then the content is uncited. Uncited is not the same thing as "directly supports".

We need the source both logically close to the content ("inline" with that content) and for the source to directly support the content ("source and Wikipedia article say the same thing").

Maybe we need to use other words for this. @Valjean, can you imagine a source that indirectly supports content, so that (to reverse the requirement in the policy) "using this source to support the material is not would be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research"?

For example: Imagine a pair of tweets saying "I got married today" and "I'm in London today". It would be a violation of NOR to turn those into "Chris Celebrity got married in London today", right? It's a violation because no source directly says that the wedding was in London – they only indirectly imply it, right?

I know we agree that this problem can't be solved by moving the refs around. Even if you format it as "Chris Celebrity got married in London today", that pair of tweets is still a NOR violation, because they only indirectly support the claim. This would be a violation of the requirement for the source to WP:Directly support the content, even though those ref tags are literally touching every single significant word in the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a SYNTH violation to use them that way? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely would violate SYNTH.

And SYNTH, as every experienced editor knows, is part of NOR.

And this footnote says that if the only way your source (NB: not "location of ref tags") could be said to "support" your content is a NOR violation, then your source (NB: not "location of ref tags") does not "directly support" the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That wording really confuses me. There are too many different elements for me to be sure how to parse it. Is there a word missing somewhere in all that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a missing word.

What's difficult about saying that sources that don't say Chris got married in London don't support a claim that Chris got married in London? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing difficult about that at all. This is about SYNTH violations. Is that really your main point in this thread? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That is the main point, not "in this thread", but "in the policy itself". A source does not "directly support" content if it's a NOR violation for that content. The definition of "directly supports" is given in that footnote. The definition is: When you compare the source to the article's contents, it wouldn't be a NOR violation to claim that the source and the article are saying the same thing.

I think the main point from other editors is "I want a sentence in an actual policy that will let me insist that the location of the citations be changed". Some editors have gotten into the habit of claiming (and genuinely believing) that "directly supports" is about the location of the citation, rather than the contents of the source. I've no objection to them having such a sentence. I only object to them using words about source–text integrity ("a reliable source that directly supports") when talking about formatting (e.g., the location of the ref tags). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What I believe about the statement in question, ie the note, is irrelevant to the question I raised in my initial post, which is that the two statements we have (the sentence in the main text, and the sentences in the note) introduce an unnecessarily confusing discrepancy. I understand both statements perfectly fine. What I am saying is that it is unhelpful to add "including whether one is present in the article at all" in the note when we are talking about what to do when "material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material" has been challenged in the main text. Indeed, the location of the inline source is irrelevant when it comes to whether information is verifiable or not. However, once material is challenged, it is in fact very relevant that sources are present in the article.

I posted on this talk page about it because it appeared likely to me that this discrepancy was the result of someone changing the main text and forgetting to change the footnote. If that was the case, it was possible that the change was done without wider consensus. I received my answer; this was not the case. Great! So, I edited the footnote to suit its context. I'm not sure why you reverted that, since my changes did not change the meaning of any of the text. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole note:

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.

The phrase The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. should be removed. It just creates unnecessary confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That depends on whether your goal for the footnote is to make people understand what the words WP:Directly supports mean in this policy, or whether your goal is to explain how to properly place an Wikipedia:Inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is one of grammar; people sometimes incorrectly read it as "must include an inline citation that directly supports (that means 'touches', right?) the material (and by the way, this is WP:V so of course we're only talking about citations to reliable sources, but that's not really relevant here)". Instead, what the policy says is:

• Under specified circumstances, the article "must include an inline citation", and
• that the citation must point "to a reliable source", and
• that the cited reliable source (NB: not the citation itself) "must directly support (i.e., match) the material".

Here's the first sentence about this in the policy and the footnote, with a few adjustments that might make it easier to understand:

−

"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports the material."

+

"All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an [[WP:INCITE|inline citation]] to a reliable source. That cited source must clearly contain the same facts or other information as the relevant part of the Wikipedia article. Inline citations should be placed close enough to the material in question that other editors can figure out which words, facts, sentences, or paragraphs can be verified in the cited source."

The footnote would have to be adjusted to match the new language:

−

"A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present <em >explicitly</em> in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations]], etc."

+

"A source "clearly contains the same facts or other information" about a given piece of material in the Wikipedia article if the facts or other information is present <em >explicitly</em> in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is important for other purposes but is unrelated to whether the source itself actually contains the same facts or other information as the Wikipedia article. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations]], etc."

Alternatively, we could add a sentence such as "Even if the <ref> tags are literally touching the disputed word, if the cited source does not explicitly contain the same facts or other information as the article, then that source does not directly support the material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I take a break from this now. You are writing a whole lot, and it's too complicated to deal with so quickly. I have other things I'd like to deal with for a while that don't give me a headache. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If I can cut to the chase… instead of “directly supports”, what if we said “explicitly supports”? Would that resolve the issue? Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't resolve the initial question I had that prompted this thread. I solved that issue quite simply, with this edit, but was reverted. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of this footnote is to provide a definition of the words "directly supports". The purpose of the footnote is not to redundantly repeat what the main body of the policy already says about inline citations being required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of a dictionary is to define words with no context. The purpose of a footnote is to provide additional relevant information; the context matters. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The footnote is providing additional relevant information. Specifically, it is providing the additional relevant information that the words "directly supports" has nothing to do with the location of the citation. The case of "whether the citation is present in the article at all" is merely the most extreme version of where the citation is located. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Blueboar, that should reduce (but probably not eliminate) the misuse, but would not solve the problem that the policy does not have a clear sentence that says a citation at the end of a paragraph (or section, or article) isn't always good enough. Editors want a sentence that lets them demand, over the objections of others, that the little blue clicky numbers be placed right next to disputed word(s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not even a little bit what I am talking about. You are fencing with strawmen. -- asilvering (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You aren't the only person who has struggled to figure out what "directly supports" means. The footnote was created (by me) in 2018 because of prior confusion; it has helped, but apparently it is still not clear enough. Therefore, we should look for ways to make it clearer. There are several possibilities for making it clearer.

One possibility is to put a statement in the policy that says "Contrary to what you may have been told, this policy does not actually require that every article contain any sources, and it definitely does not require inline citations except for the four specified types". If the policy had such a statement, then newer editors (a category that I'd put you in, since you've "only" been around for 2.5 years and have "only" made more edits than 99.5% of editors) would not be quite as surprised to see a phrase indicating that an uncited source can support article content. (Personally, I'd like to change the policy to require a minimum of one independent source per article, but so far, I haven't gotten my way on that point.)

Another possibility is to change the "directly supports" language to something that sounds like it has less connection to physical proximity. This would probably be wordier.

A third possibility is to add a ==Definitions== section. For example: "directly supports: source matches article content" and "inline citation: NB that 'in some completely different line' doesn't count as an inline citation".

Please understand that your concern is being addressed here not as a single isolated individual, but in the full context of multiple rounds of confusion, by multiple editors, over multiple years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, I've already asked you to stop assuming things about what I do and do not understand. I have not in any way struggled to understand what "directly supports" means, and I presently believe that your insistence that I do misunderstand this is causing you to misunderstand both my edit and my reasoning for it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Before I leave to do some work in my wife's garden, let me drop this here before I forget it. I think we're talking about two aspects: (1) existence of a source and (2) accessibility/location of the source. If those two words were used more frequently, it would help us to stay on-topic for each aspect. They are getting mixed up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean yes, that is exactly the issue I tried to disentangle. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've relied on the footnote clarifying "directly supports", and I think the proposed change worsens the explanation. I'm not sure where the miscommunication is happening, and I'm wary of duplicating the above misunderstandings. I don't see the footnote as reflecting different principles than the body/lead content it's associated with. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers, can you clarify whether you mean WhatamIdoing's proposed change above (which I agree is much worse), or my proposed change? Mine was here but was reverted by WhatamIdoing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying, I meant your proposed change. For the record, I also oppose WAID's change; I suspsect the motivation for her proposal was maybe just a misunderstanding of your and Valjean's concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would you mind explaining why you think my change worsens the explanation? I'm happy to change it or drop it entirely if it has made things more confusing. WhatamIdoing's responses appear to be aimed at someone who wants a sentence that lets them demand, over the objections of others, that the little blue clicky numbers be placed right next to disputed word(s). Since that isn't me, I don't understand them at all. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is the issue perhaps that I'm being perceived as trying to change the meaning of "directly supports" in general? If that is the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and can say that this is not at all my intent. I agree with the text of the footnote as written and I don't think it is confusing as an isolated paragraph explaining the meaning of "directly supports". My only objection is that that full definition, including the "even if there are no sources in the article at all" bit, doesn't make sense to use on the particular statement it's being used on here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do think the purpose of the footnote is to explain the meaning of "directly supports" in general. The part about "including whether one is present in the article at all", is important, since some editors (not you!) miss that content can be verified/directly supported even if a citation isn't present. I would add the footnote to the "directly support" in WP:SOURCE.

  Having re-checked, I missed your comma removal, which was a good one. I would support removing the comma in the first sentence of the footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As suggested by myself and asilvering, the policy will be much easier to understand if we disentangle the two concepts of (1) existence of a source and (2) accessibility/location of the source. Here is my quick and dirty version, which should be improved:

1. Verifiability is satisfied by the existence of a reliable source that directly supports the content. (But that knowledge is useless to readers if we stop there.)
2. That source must then be made accessible to readers in the form of an inline citation placed near the relevant content.

Can we work on using something like that as a replacement for the current wording, where number two is currently just a parenthetical comment? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything approaching site-wide consensus that material that is verifiable, but uncontentious and unchallenged, requires an in-text citation in all cases - which is what your point 2 appears to suggest (at least, as I read it). Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The "sky is blue" cases are the obvious exception. As I wrote, my version is quick and dirty and just to get the bare bones format and point across. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading it the same way you are, I think that could be corrected by prepending "When challenged" to #2. But I don't have any interest in rewording WP:V itself, so I'll leave that to others. I only wanted to remove what I saw as an unnecessarily confusing digression in the footnote that I reworded. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledge that 2 is a quick and dirty version, but it's enough of a departure from the status quo that you should expect a major effort in trying to head in that direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if you read it as not meaning that everything must be cited unless it is unquestionably sky-is-blue (which, since Valjean wrote it, is not entirely a safe assumption), it goes beyond providing a definition of "directly supports". It sounds like it should be in the main body of the policy, rather than in a footnote.

If someone wanted to work on the wording, then I suggest:

• that the focus on "readers" is IMO inappropriate (because readers rarely look at the refs). We don't have a statement anywhere of why we value citations, and it's possible that we don't actually have an agreement on the "why". To be clear, we all agree that citations are desirable; what I'm saying is that if you ask three editors why we should cite sources, you might get three different answers (or four, if "because the rules say so" counts), and
• that phrases like "the existence of a reliable source" and "accessible" will have to be defined, or you'll have avoidable disputes (e.g., "There's no little blue clicky numbers in the article. Verifiability requires 'the existence of a reliable source', and there are no sources in that article. This is a complete violation of the policy!" followed by "The sources exist – one of them is on my bookshelf right now!" for the first, and "I can't access that PAYWALLED source, so it's not 'accessible'.").

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Take a look below at the new section. I have tried to deal with a couple of your concerns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Best sources

A sub-sub-section under Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source says (only) this:

"The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I question whether this belongs on this page. I am thinking that it may be a little WP:CREEPY and redundant (e.g., with NPOV, which it links to). A source can be reliable for a given statement even if it's not a best source, and even if it doesn't have any of these desirable qualities; therefore material can be reliable even if it's not in the "best sources". It doesn't define reliable sources, and it doesn't impinge on verifiability. I wonder, therefore, whether we should remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability, second paragraph

This is my attempt to disentangle two concepts that are confusingly mixed together in the second paragraph. I have also stricken a confusing phrase in the note that becomes extraneous in my version. This is not a fully finalized wording and improvements are welcome.

The current second paragraph states:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

The policy will be much easier to understand if we disentangle the two verifiability concepts related to the (1) existence of a source and the (2) accessibility of the citation for the reader and editor:

1. Verifiability is satisfied by the existence of a reliable source that directly supports the content. (But that knowledge is useless to readers and editors if we stop there.)
2. A citation to that source must then be made accessible to readers and editors in the form of an inline citation placed near the relevant content.

Based on those principles, we can tweak and rearrange the current wording (above) to this:

Version 1 All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. Verifiable implies both existence and access. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation is not immediately accessible to readers and editors, all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

That is a bit longer, but it is also more comprehensive by providing one important reason (especially for editors) behind the requirement to provide an inline citation. There is a difference between a source and citation. The citation must be accessible inline. The location of the source, even if behind a paywall, is beyond our scope, but the location of the citation is something we do care about and can control.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

The only type of "access" that will make sense to readers is the ability to read a source, which we don't require for all readers. For this reason, "existence and access" will be misunderstood as a requirement that any reader can read the source. Calling a citation "provided" or "included" would be less confusing. However, I agree that the current sentence "The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material." has no point and should go. It was added in 2018 with essentially no discussion. Zero^talk 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Zero, you make excellent points. Below I have changed "existence and access" to "existence of a source and access to a citation to that source." Would it work better for you if I went a bit further and said something like "existence of a source and provision of access to a citation to that source."? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"Access" is confusing, because with respect to policy, I think it generally refers to whether the source is freely accessible, and many sources are not for most readers, they have to pay for the book, pay for the article, or go to a library (and it has to be a very good library, and many don't have access to a library at all), Occasionally, I have seen some argue we only should cite what's accessible for free on the internet, which would be bad in many ways, including the fact that the internet deletes and changes addresses, and later it is not accessible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, below I have changed "existence and access" to "existence of a source and access to a citation to that source." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I have a bias as I already understand the intent of the paragraph in question but I don't see that the change is an improvement. It makes the text longer but I'm not sure it makes it any more clear. Springee (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

An important point… a source does not have to be accessible by “you”. It merely has to be accessible by “the public”. For example, a book written in french that is in a public library in Paris is accessible to anyone in Paris, but not (easily) accessible to an english speaker in New York. But, the information in that book is still verifiable, because the person in New York could ask someone in Paris to verify what it says. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! Blueboar, below I have changed "existence and access" to "existence of a source and access to a citation to that source." It is only the citation that must be accessible to readers and editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Springee, it would be helpful if you would provide exact quotes of wording that is vague, unnecessary, confusing, or whatever. Place yourself in the position of a relative newbie editor trying to understand and apply WP:V. Experienced users (all of us in this thread) may not need as much, but we also take a lot of things for granted based on our experience and knowledge of PAG. Newbies need it spelled out. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions and concerns. Here is a revised version based on those concerns (note content focused on "access"):

Version 2 All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. Verifiable implies both existence of a source and access to a citation to that source. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation to that source is not immediately accessible to readers and editors, all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

I have changed "existence and access" to "existence of a source and access to a citation to that source." It is only the citation that must be accessible to readers and editors. I have also split the long paragraph. The last part is unchanged. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This new version proposes to change what is meant by "Verifiable" from existence to include "access to a citation". This would be a huge change to enwiki terminology, at the very least, and is not something I can see becoming legitimate without a welll-publicized discussion with wide participation. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, that part can just be deleted as it's not essential to say it out loud. I just thought I was voicing what is already implicit, as two sides of the same coin, in our application of WP:Verifiability: (1) that we already require most content to be verifiable in a RS and (2) that we also should provide an inline citation to that source. Below is the version with that part deleted:

Version 3 All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation to that source is not immediately accessible to readers and editors, all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Will that work better for you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, it does work better. I don’t like the any material...must include language because I think it encourages bad-faith challenges to obviously verifiable statements (which we already see without such language) and in doing so, makes it more difficult to write a good encyclopaedia article. In particular, since lead sections are especially susceptible to challenges in questionable faith and since citations for challenged material should be placed near the relevant content, the proposal will predictably result in ref-bombing of lead sections.

So while I can't say I support the proposed language, it no longer changes the meaning of "verifiability" and is therefore an improvement over the earlier proposal. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the matter of refs in the lead is beyond, and separate from, this discussion. That issue exists already with the current policy, and my suggested changes won't have any impact on it. If we wish to make it easier to not use refs in the lead, we could add "in the body" so it reads "should be placed near the relevant content in the body". (I think that's too controversial a change right now, so this is just to show how it would look.)

The any material...must include language is original policy, not my change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about the existing text, but because you are proposing to add placed mear the relevant content, the revision will in fact create additional incentives for ref-bombing, especially in the article lead.

(You are quite right that I placed my parenthetical, "which we already see...", in a misleading place in my comment above, but unfortunately that doesn't really affect my assessment of the impact of your proposed change.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, "It should be placed near the relevant content." is not essential here and can be removed. Do we address placement of citations anywhere else in this policy? No, only in the footnote by directing readers elsewhere to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags, where we write: "The citation should be added close to the material it supports,". So my wording here is fully in line with our Wikipedia:Citing sources content guideline. Knowing that, is it wrong or negative to just say it here? It seems relevant to do so, but we can also leave it out.

I added that sentence because it bears on the concept of this policy. (Verifiable and "to verify" are fully on-topic here.) Whether content is "verifiable" is one thing, but whether we can easily "verify" it is a step further, and that's the purpose of this policy, and why we even have a "no verification" tag. We want editors and readers to be able to use the provided citation to verify the content's and citation's validity. If the citation is not placed near the relevant content, then it is difficult or impossible for editors to access the citation for its intended purpose. So, since we mention this in a totally different place, isn't it an improvement to mention it here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

About my striking that "confusing phrase in the note" (The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material.)... It became extraneous in my version because I gave a nod to it with the words "exists somewhere". When practical, it's better to say in the text what one might otherwise say in a note. In this case, it was easy to do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

For the same reason as before, I recommend replacing "is not immediately accessible to readers and editors" by "is not present". Simpler too. Zero^talk 02:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! Here it is:

Version 4 All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation to that source is not present, all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Will that work better for you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a comparison of the current second paragraph and version 4. My additions/changes are highlighted:

ORIGINAL

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Version 4

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation to that source is not present, all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Unhelpful" seems unwarranted. It's not as helpful as a clearly-cited source, but it's a hell of a lot more helpful than a source that doesn't exist. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that part of the sentence could be removed, as the value of having a citation is obvious. Zero^talk 12:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Joe and Zero, so you're suggesting I delete this part? As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation to that source is not present, It's certainly obvious to experienced editors, but not necessarily to newbies. If we discount the value of helping them, then I can delete that. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If we discount the value of helping them – yes, of course, that's what we want...

No, the point is that the statement is not true and exceeds current consensus. In general, I prefer WhatamIdoing's version below. – Joe (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So, now to apply these changes (removing As the mere existence of that source is unhelpful if a citation to that source is not present,) and (removing "It should be placed near the relevant content." for Newimpartial):

Version 4A

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable using reliable sources. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify the source is used properly.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer this question (and the prior question you directed to me above), I regard this version as an improvement. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also categories

I propose that this is an opportunity to spell out the verification requirements for categories. At the moment categories are not mentioned in the body of the text; they are only mentioned in a footnote that says "For a disputed category, you may use {{unreferenced category}}" with no help as to what "unreferenced" means and what can be done about it other than tagging. At WP:CATV there is a little more: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So I propose a new version:

Version 5

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, captions, and categorization must be verifiable using reliable sources. The material is considered verifiable if a reliable source exists somewhere that directly supports the material. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to such a reliable source so readers and editors can verify that the source is used properly. It should be placed near the relevant content. All categories applied to an article which have been challenged or are likely to be challenged must be supported by sourced content in the article.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Zero^talk 12:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Zero, I love your suggestion and will support it. I should point out that you, and others, have opposed me doing exactly what you are doing. We have bits and pieces of valuable information, like what you mention here, that are mentioned in other places, and that it would be good to mention here, but I have been opposed at nearly every such attempt. Most of my improvements of this nature are opposed. I'm surprised to discover how conservative so many editors are, and how they are opposed to progressive ideas that can improve content, but that's the way it seems to be here. If your conscience will still allow you to do this without reciprocating the favor to me, I will still support you. That's how I role. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

WhatamIdoing's suggestion

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Material is considered verifiable if a reliable source, containing the same information, has been published and is accessible to the general public. Additionally, four types of information are required to be followed by an inline citation to a reliable source containing that information. These four types are:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living people.

Any material that is required to have an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

I have highlighted the main change; the rest is mostly formatting.

This version deals with the "directly supports" problem by eliminating the language and therefore being able to eliminate the entire footnote defining that language. It also provides the complete list in an easy-to-read format. (Our current version lists the first three, and then leaves the BLP item as an afterthought.)

This version does not deal with the question of whether the same fact must be repeatedly cited (e.g., in the lead, the infobox, and the four different times the fact gets mentioned in the body of the article). I will say that in my experience we prefer redundant citations for repeated direct quotations, but that those are rare, and that we require redundant citations only for the most contentious BLP material. If that's a significant concern

I have no firm opinion about categorization, so I've tentatively left it out. It should probably be a separate decision, with suitable notice to Wikipedia talk:Categorization and similar pages.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It is tempting to add something like ...to the general public, even if that reliable source is not cited in the article and Material that does not fit into any of these four categories is not required to have a citation in the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I like it, very clear. I wouldn't bother with the "even if..." bit; it's implied clearly enough. The second addition makes sense given repeated misunderstandings of this point, but to more accurately describe the current status quo I'd make it, Material that does not fit into any of these four categories is not required to have a citation in the Wikipedia article, though ideally it should have one. – Joe (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not technically required? not officially required?

(I'm not sure that it's actually "ideal" for non-required material to have an inline citation, especially if someone is interpreting "material" in a Least publishable unit system, à la WP:REPCITE or looking for a rule that can be interpreted as requiring a little blue clicky number at the end of each sentence. We want to encourage citations, but we don't want to encourage reverters who are treating contributing content as a game of Mother, May I?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, all the exceptions to that statement came into my mind as soon as I hit save and if we tried to list them all the section will be twice as long. What about something like ...in the Wikipedia article, but adding one may still be an improvement? Otherwise I think the simple "not required" is fine. – Joe (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I like that. I agree that a simple "not required" is acceptable, but if we want to say more, then I like your "but adding one may still be an improvement" better than any of the others we've thought of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm all for adding such clarifications that make this stuff easier to understand, especially for newbie editors. That's what I have tried to do above, but for some reason, my suggested improvements have largely been rejected, even by you, and they are the same types of improvements you are now suggesting. Think about that for a bit. BTW, I will still support your effort.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I like having the list itemized, but I have other problems:

(1) The phrase "accessible to the general public" is problematic since "accessible" has two distinct common meanings. To paraphrase my dictionary, it can mean "able to be reached or obtained" or "easily understood or appreciated". The ambiguity is not resolved by context since both meanings make perfect sense. I assume that the first meaning is the one intended, but some will assume it has the second meaning since it is similar to some wording at WP:PRIMARY. As a possible hint towards fixing this, note that the verb "to access" does not have the same ambiguity as the adjective "accessible".

(2) WP:SOURCEACCESS, says "Some reliable sources are not easily accessible." Only the word "easily" stops this being a direct contradiction; is that enough?

(3) Some research libraries are not open to the "general public", but I don't think we should ban the sources they contain. Anyway, this would be a policy change requiring a separate consensus.

(4) The requirement that categories also have to be sourced, though in a different way, should be included. Zero^talk 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

1. See the linked page: Wikipedia:Published#Accessible. It's not enough for it to have been published; it must still exist, and other people have to be able to get their hands on it. A Lost literary work has been published but is not a valid source for Wikipedia.
2. I'm not sure which problem you're trying to solve here. Sources must be accessible to the general public. It can be expensive and difficult for them to do it, but it has to be possible. It is not possible for "other people using the encyclopedia [to] check that the information comes from a reliable source" if the only RS is not available to them under any circumstances.
3. If the only copies of the work are in closed archives, then it's already not acceptable under WP:V. WP:V approves of "documents in publicly accessible archives", including those "available only in special museum collections and archives", but not those that are restricted to only people who work for a particular employer, who have particular professional qualifications, who have a particular security clearance, who are enrolled in a particular school, or – in a highly relevant case – who follow a particular religion.
4. Nobody has actually proposed that categories must be sourced. The proposals are only that categories must be verifiable. That's "able to be verified, including through the expedient of finding a reliable source yourself". The distinction between "don't ever put any stuff in Wikipedia if no RS has ever published it before" and "this specific, narrower set of stuff requires little blue clicky numbers" is important for this paragraph. The proposal to add the cats is in the former bit, not the latter.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I also share the concern about the "is accessible to the general public" wording. It goes a step too far. The thing that must be accessible is the citation for editors and readers here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What about ...has been published and which it is possible for the general public to access? This removes the potentially ambiguous "accessible" (although that word is also used in WP:SOURCEACCESS) and does not imply that access should be free or easy, only theoretically possible. I think the "general public" bit is helpful and within the bounds of current policy, per WAID. – Joe (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What does "possible for the general public to access" add to "published"? Do we have classes of sources in mind that are published but the general public cannot access them even with difficulty? If we can't think of such sources, what's the point of going beyond "published"? A document in a closed archive is not "published" so that's eliminated already. Zero^talk 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Squadron Leader X was published in 1943. Using the definition in this policy, it was "made available to the public". Specifically, anyone in a city in England with a couple of shillings was very welcome to pay the admission price and watch the film. That's Wikipedia:Published.

However, to the best of anyone's knowledge, no copy of the film exists any longer. The loss of all known copies does not magically become "unpublished" (though respondents on the wrong end of a libel case wish that were possible); once the genie is out of the publishing bottle, the source stays "published". But it's not accessible any longer, so it's no longer a valid source for Wikipedia's purposes.

The most common problem for us is a website that's gone offline without a useful archive copy. Consider, e.g., the very first article I created, or the first that you wrote. We added URLs, but the websites are long gone. The source was "made available to the public", but it is no longer a valid source. A URL to a long-dead, unarchived website does not let other people "check that the information comes from a reliable source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are fine examples, and I agree with both of them. We should definitely exclude sources that are not known to be available anywhere. I was thinking more of this: many university libraries do not admit the general public. One has to be an employee or student to get in. However, we have many editors who are perfectly well able to check books in such libraries, so I don't think we should exclude them. Do you agree? Zero^talk 06:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

“The general public” might not be able to just walk in off the street, but every university library will have a process that grants access to non-students/employees. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"is accessible to the general public" wording. It goes a step too far.

This is already the policy. There is no policy that says I can cite a source that nobody else is allowed to read. The options are:

• Sources do have to be available, at least in principle, to other people. They might have to spend a lot of time, effort, and money to make it happen, but if they're willing and able to do that, then it doesn't matter who they are. For example, anyone with the money to travel to the British Museum can read the signage there to check whether the source says what the article says.
• Sources don't have to be available to others. We should go back to that editor from years ago, apologize for going "too far", and tell him it's okay to re-write the articles about his religion based on the rare 19th-century books that are only available at his religion's library, which only allows people belonging to that religion to use the library. If someone wants to check whether he's correctly representing the books' contents in the articles, we'll smile and tell them to assume good faith, or, if they're really serious, to join his religion in the hope that they, too, might get admitted to the secret library some day.

This is "X and not-X"; there is no third option. I know which I pick. I know which you'll pick. Sources must not only have been made available to the public, they must still be available to the public. That's "published" and (in our traditional wording) "accessible". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should treat the category issue separately, since it's adding a new guideline (even if transplanted from elsewhere), rather than improving the wording of what's in WP:V now. – Joe (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We seen to have gotten stalled here, so I have semi-boldly made about half the changes I suggested. Specifically, I have added the bullet list format, so that the lead now clearly states that contentious matter about BLPs is required to have an inline citation.

I didn't, however, deal with the "directly supports" language, as I'm not sure that I have a good sense of what people want to do. Do we want to replace that? Or keep trying to define it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the required to be followed by language, since it seems to provide ammunition for the "citations within sentences, and at least every sentence" camp - I don't think the discussion here had actually endorsed thqt position. The bullet format is an improvement, though. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Must have", perhaps? (If you think that's an improvement, then please just implement it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I still don't like this wording. "Likely to be challenged" is too vague; it gives room for editors to bicker back and forth to no conclusion. Now, Wikipedians like bickering back and forth, but we have to draw the line somewhere. All material should be backed by a RS. Cremastra (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The "likely" language has been in this policy since the 22nd of October 2006. If it was going to cause endless problems, I think we "likely" would have noticed the problem sometime in the last 17 years and 7 months. I did, in 2010, provide a definition at WP:LIKELY, after an editor seemed confused because we were using the ordinary dictionary definition (unlike, e.g., notable, neutral, personal attack, etc.), but overall it doesn't seem to have been a problem. Editors should preëmptively supply inline citations for anything they think has a >50% change of getting a genuine WP:CHALLENGE, but there's nothing to fight over: if you have a genuine, non-WP:POINTY belief that no reliable source said something in an article, then issue a CHALLENGE, and whether it's "likely" becomes irrelevant.

If you haven't endured enough discussions about the difference between WP:Glossary#verifiable and WP:Glossary#cited before (everything must be possible to verify; only some [read: "most"] things have to already be cited), then feel free to leave a note on my talk page, and I'll give you the usual speech. Alternatively, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Verifiable, not verified for a summary of the policy and Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited for an essay arguing that the policy should require a greater density of little blue clicky numbers (though not necessarily a greater number of sources in total for an article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor may believe that something has a '<50%' chance of being challenged, but any other editor can disagree with that. That there is (good faith) contention would show that it is likely to be challenged. Of all the bickering I've seen none has been on how likely a challenge is.
All content does require an RS as all content must be verifiable, that's already in WP:Glossary#verifiable. That's a separate issue from there being an inline citation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with WhatamIdoing and ActivelyDisinterested on this. "Likely to be challenged" provides good general guidance. And if an issue/question regarding "likely" comes up, the question automatically resolves itself. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I support and like the changes that WhatamIdoing made. I'm neutral on the "required to be followed by" wording; that could be reviewed as a potential "tweak of the tweak" North8000 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

With WAID's encouragement, I tweaked the tweak and came up with "must be accompanied by". I am curious to see what will stick. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I like your tweak. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm interested in the limit of "general public" because it seems that reasonable people can disagree on what that entails. If for example access to a collection is by vetted appointment then it is not open to the general public... But that describes most university and college campuses in the post-COVID world. Likewise a plaque in a museum has traditionally been considered reliable in the context of describing the object on display, but if that museum charges an admission fee then it is no longer available to the general public but only to the paying public... And to make it even more confusing what if that museum offers free admission to residents of the city or country its in but charges foreigners? Is that the general public or just a subset of it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don't regard paywalled publications online to he no longer available to the general public, so I'm not sure why we would treat physical resources any differently. Inconvenience doesn't typically make a source "unavailable". Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Available to the general public is not a standard we currently use. The current standard is made available to the public in some form. General public =/= public. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  "General public" does not mean "freely available at all times and with no cost".

  General public is a redirect to Public. The opening sentence of that article says "In public relations and communication science, publics are groups of individual people, and the public (a.k.a. the general public) is the totality of such groupings." They are drawing a distinction between specific groups that can be differentiated from others (e.g., the meat-eating public, the Scottish-speaking public), and we care about all of them ("the general public").

  I think the Canadian Oxford Dictionary's definition of general public is particularly apt: "the people of a community collectively, esp. those not enjoying special privileges." It's that "not enjoying special privileges" part that we're driving at. Maybe you have to buy the book to be able to check whether the cited source says the same thing as the Wikipedia article, but access to the source cannot be restricted to people with "special privileges", (e.g., being employed by a particular agency, being in good standing with a particular religious organization, having a particular security clearance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, if its a strict synonym then why the are we using the long form and not the concise one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Correct… ease of access is not part of the equation. As long as one of our editors could gain access (regardless of travel, expense, the need for an appointment, or other hoops to jump through) then it is accessible enough for our purposes. Also “Being accessible” includes situations where you might not be able to access it, but someone else can access it on your behalf. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Now that I really don't agree with... One of our editors could undoubtably gain access to my private journal (hypothetical, I do not keep one) given the appropriate time, expense, and indulgences (there are some very wealthy, attractive, and powerful Wikipedians despite the stereotypes)... But that would not make my journal available to the general public because I would not have made it available to the general public, I would have made it available to a single individual and nobody else... Showing a friend, partner, or lover something is not publishing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your private journal isn't published, and they can't legally access it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Given that on the page we define published as made available to the public in some form this is getting weirdly circular. If that one wikipedia counts as the public then making it available to them is publishing, that is how illogical an argument it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm neutral on that as well and open to a tweak of the tweak. What simplifies this otherwise-nuanced question is that we are setting the accessibility bar for categorical rejection based on accessibility and for that the accessibility bar can/should be set pretty low. By "Otherwise nuanced" I mean that the less accessible the source is, the less convincing it is when questions arise. But again, my point is that that is not relevant here. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  "has been published and is accessible to the general public." could just be "has been published" given that we elsewhere say "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form." so at best its unnecessarily redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Didn't we go over this last week?

  Tell me, @Horse Eye's Back:

  • If a website existed in 2004, was it "made available to the public"?
  • If that website was removed (without any archive, etc.), is it "accessible to the public"?

  These are simple yes/no questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't a response to you, that was a response to North8000. What do these questions have to do with whether or not its redundant (and if they do then kindly answer them in that context with something more constructive than yes or no although you may also include a yes/no response in addition if you feel it enlightening). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  If your answers to these two questions are different, then these phrases are not redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  They're two different questions... One is "was it "made available to the public"" and one is "is it "accessible to the public"" The only way that could prove a point was if they were both the same question, but they've been tailored to create an outcome which is frankly misleading. If you ask the same question ("was it "made available to the public"") which is actually in the policy and not a truncated version you get the same answer "yes" for both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok… let me give an example: a book is published and sold in 1620. Over the years every copy except one is lost destroyed. That one copy is in the collection of a private individual who will not show it to anyone he does not know personally.

  That book qualifies as “published” but does not qualify as to “accessible”.

  Now, let us change the situation slightly… suppose that the owner is willing to show it, but wants to meet you personally first. Iffy… He is making it “accessible” but with limitations. Judgement call, but I would say “not accessible enough”

  OK… third version: he is happy to show it to anyone by appointment… and because it is fragile you have to let him handle it and turn the pages. It is both “published” and “accessible”.

  Finally… same as the third… but the owner lives in Zurich, while you live in rural Montana… and due to mobility issues you can not travel to see the book yourself. You have no “access” to it yourself. However, a fellow Wikipedian says “I live in Zurich, perhaps I could go over to the guy’s house and verify it for you?” … that also qualifies as being “accessible”. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think that such cases are so rare and unique that they should be decided on a case-by-case basis... I would also note that we should almost certainly not be using a completely unreproduced or researched source from the 1620s for much of anything at all (that is as long as we aren't doing OR)... Works which we should be using will have been remarked on or reproduced by more recent scholarship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that this is not a rare or unique circumstance, as it applies to far more than just antique books. Consider the internet version of the same story:

  A website is published in 2004, and it got cited in a Wikipedia article at the time. Before anyone thought to make an archived copy, it was taken off the web. However, one person who used to work for the company has a copy on an old hard drive. That private individual will not show it to anyone he does not know personally.

  That website qualifies as "published" but does not qualify as "accessible".

  Now, let us change the situation slightly… suppose that the owner is willing to show it, but wants to meet you personally first. Iffy… He is making it "accessible" but with limitations. Judgement call, but perhaps we would say "not accessible enough".

  Third version: he is happy to show it to anyone by appointment… and because he doesn't want people touching his computer equipment, you have to let him do the scrolling and click the links. It is both "published" and "accessible". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Same question... Why would something apparently uniquely published on a website which can't be accessed be due for inclusion? This seems like expanding verifiability beyond where it needs to go... Tons of things are technically verifiable but are not due for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Tons of things are appropriate for inclusion but not known to multiple sources, or not of importance to non-encyclopedic sources. Consider, e.g., the number of biographies for which we don't have birth dates or birth places or organizations for which we don't have founding dates. Category:Wikipedia articles with missing information lists thousands of articles. We don't ever say "Well, unless you can find multiple sources making a really big deal out of that ordinary datapoint, then that's just not DUE, and we don't want it in Wikipedia."

  This can also become a problem for direct quotations and attributed responses. Sometimes our goal of brilliant prose is best achieved if it includes a particularly well-written quotation – but all quotations must come from a source that someone can still check, not just one that was published once upon a time and is no longer available to anyone. Sometimes NPOV requires us to include a response from a particular person ("The accused denied everything on Twitter"), even if only one source mentioned it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thats all fine and good for a high quality reliable source... The website is presumably not that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why would you presume that it's not? More to the point, why would that matter?

  For a direct quotation, the original source is always a high-quality source, because the original never misquotes itself. For routine facts, the source only needs to be strong enough to support the individual claim. No experienced editor has ever said "Oh, that's only a reasonably good source for that date, so let's not include that information; we should only include normal encyclopedic information if it's available in a high-quality source."

  Consider the case of a business: we use corporate "About us" pages to support founding dates for that business all the time. Nobody thinks a corporate website is a high-quality source, but everybody is satisfied that they're good enough for that purpose, especially if it's uncontested.

  Even if the business founding date is "apparently uniquely published on" the corporate website, it's still appropriate for inclusion, because that's basic encyclopedic content. Every subject needs to be placed in context, which for businesses means time (e.g., dates of operation), place (e.g., headquarters location), and purpose (e.g., manufactured widgets). Excluding that basic information results in something that's not an encyclopedia article. (DUE is about "viewpoints"; this is really a question of WP:BALASP in the NPOV policy.)

  The question for this sentence in WP:V is:

  • Given that an encyclopedia article should include information about when the business existed;
  • Given that this fact was published on the corporate website;
  • Given our belief that this fact was never published anywhere else (but we have no reason to doubt its veracity);
  • Does it matter if that website goes permanently offline with no archive copies?

  If the policy says "Material is considered verifiable if a reliable source, containing the same information, has been published (which means that it was made available to the public in some form – NB the absence of any statement about whether this once-published source is still available to the public)", then it doesn't matter whether the reliable source for that fact is no longer available. We are, in effect, saying just trust me; I'm sure I got it right back when I added the content, and nobody needs to be able to check that now.

  If, on the other hand, you say "Material is considered verifiable if a reliable source, containing the same information, has been published and is still accessible to the general public", and the website goes offline (permanently), then WP:DEADREF applies. We would be saying that people need to be able to check that information now, not in the past, when the website still worked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  That all seems like a due weight issue, I have no idea why you're trying to shoehorn verifiability in there. Please keep your responses brief, you are not being respectful of other editor's time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why you're trying to shoehorn WP:DUE in here. DUE is about what to do when multiple reliable sources hold differing Point of view (philosophy). The year that a business was founded is not a matter of points of view.

  The basic question here is: If it is impossible for any person to check that fact against any reliable source, then is that fact actually verifiable in a reliable source?

  The specific question here is: If the reason that it's impossible for any person to check that fact against any reliable source is specifically because the only known source (a) once was published, but (b) is no longer accessible, then is that fact still verifiable in a reliable source?

  It's obvious to me that the answer to both questions is no. Is the answer obvious to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't this already covered, if a source is inaccessible (rather than just difficult to access) then it can't be verified. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, if it is impossible for anyone to access the source than it can't be verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why sources must be both "published" (a one-time event) and still "accessible" (an ongoing and potentially changeable status). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  That seems a somewhat problematic construction, depending on the situation and would suggest that the Wikipedia writer has a duty to predict the future. Assume that it really is good and true information, you cite to where you got it from (you should not cite where you did not get it from) and it is an RS, but that becomes inaccessible for whatever degree of inaccessible you are referring to, 1) the info itself has not become automatically unverifiable, unless one absolutely supposes that source is the only place in the world that has that info (which is an not on average a fair assumption); and that's besides the fact that 2) some things are published in more than one form or kept in more than one form, but you happened to cite where you got it from, and although that's no longer accessible, it has not stopped being verifiable, you have to search out the other form, even though the citation is not correct anymore (but you will likely still use that now wrong citation to help you find the other form). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Material must be verifiable (that is, someone else has to be able to determine that the material matches what's in a reliable source). Material must always be verifiable. It is not good enough for it to be verifiable on the day it was added and then be uncheckable afterwards.

  Material does not, however, have to be verifiable in the exact source (if any) that is cited in the article. This is why it is IMO so important for editors, especially those who are talking about the policy, to be mindful of the distinction between "cited" and "verifiable". Material that is uncited or badly cited may still be verifiable.

  This is all pretty basic WP:DEADREF stuff. If you got the material from a reliable source, and your reliable source is no longer available, then first make sure that it's really, truly no longer available. If it's really not available, then step 5 is "Find a replacement source", and if that doesn't work, step 6 is "Remove hopelessly-lost web-only sources", which makes the now-uncited content eligible for a CHALLENGE and removal.

  When it's really the case that nobody can find a source, then the material actually has stopped being verifiable. I give you the example of a source I cited in my very first article. I cited a website for a fun fact. That website is long gone and unarchived. No other source (that I can find) made the same claim. That claim is no longer verifiable, because no source in the whole world that still exists makes that claim.

  We're not saying that I'm lying. We're not saying that the claim isn't true. We're saying that in 2007 you could have verified that the fun fact matched what was said on the cited website, so it was verifiable in 2007. We're also saying that in 2024 you can't verify that the fun fact exists in any source anywhere in the world (as far as anyone can tell), so it is unverifiable now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  You don't have to write a long explanation, I already drew the distinction between cited and verifiable. Later-inaccessible does not mean unverifiable, and it may never have meant unverifiable (indeed if we assume good faith, we assume it was at least verifiable then). What to do flows from that, and having the cite makes the what to do easier. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Assume, for simplicity, that the source in question is the only reliable source in the world that ever said that.

  Our definition is: "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."

  If the only RS in the world is available, then "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source".

  If the only RS in the world is not available, then I say that "other people using the encyclopedia can not check that the information comes from a reliable source". Do you think actually that "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source"?

  It sounds like you believe that this material was verifiable. But the policy requires more than that; the policy requires that all material is verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I told you from the beginning, your assumption of the only source is a poor assumption (although maybe it speaks to a your reality of how bad Wikipedia generally is). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you can find a different source , then great! But that's not always possible.

  The first article I wrote was Iowa Highway 330. Here's what I wrote.[2] Here's the source I cited.[3] The source is offline. It is not archived. I have not been able to find that "fun fact" about a legislative Pork barrel project in any source since then.

  Is that source verifiable? In my opinion, it's not. At this point in time, other people using the encyclopedia can not check that the information comes from a reliable source. Ergo, I say it's unverifiable, even though it was verifiable in in 2007. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  IMO a vague concept (which should get codified more) is that the more the veracity of the statement is challenged the stronger the sourcing needs to be and vice versa. IMO this could also include (in)accessibility. So under this if the veracity if the statement is challenged, it's not enough, if not, it's enough.North8000 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's in WP:REPUTABLE (see the "spectrum" image) and used to be in WP:QUESTIONABLEas well, until an editor removed it. The removed caption said "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim."

  When nobody can actually check that the information came from a reliable source, I don't think that meets the basic definition of verifiability, even if nobody has CHALLENGED it yet. All material must be verifiable; it must be possible for all material to be checked against a reliable source. All includes material that is unlikely to be challenged. Four types of material must not both be verifiable and also have inline citations; all the other material must be verifiable in some reliable source (including sources not cited) even though an inline citation is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that there is a process issue that has become compounded. WhatamIdoing's OP did not explicitly say what the proposed changes are and so would need more analysis to see exactly what they are. Then WhatamIdoing made a smaller (I think excellent) semi-bold change which included parts of the OP. But at this point it is less clear what any additional proposed changes are. IMO any additional proposed changes should be explicitly defined at this point. Regarding "accessibility of the source" I don't think that anyone is saying that we have a specific reason for a change in this area......if not, maybe it would be simpler to stay with the existing "accessibility" wording. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I like what we have now and if this isn't a change from what we have now I don't see the point of using so many more words to say the same thing (especially when the make the page as a whole less and not more clear). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Other people

User:Bob K31416, about this: "Other people" means not counting the editor who put that material in the article in the first place. (I don't object to its removal.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG

Should this section cover Liveblogging? Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume that it does, even if it's not explicitly mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Aren't they two different things? Blog hosted by newsorg, Liveblog by same newsorg

where the first is what I assume is meant by newsblog and the second is live reporting of news, two different things, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

In both cases, it's still bona fide journalists posting things on their newspaper's website without going through the full editorial process. Live blogging presumably has more of an element of Breaking news, so it's not identical, but it's still the same kind of thing as far as we're concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will set about adding that, because we are all the time adding NYT, WAPO, NBC, BBC, etc, liveblogging as if they were normal RS. If that's not the case, needs to be flagged up so there is a point of reference specifically.

Btw, its not bona fide journalists in the first case, that's anyone at all, which might include one or two bona fide journalists but the hosting newsorg explicitly disowns them as their POV. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it really anyone at all? Including you and me?

I don't think we need to say anything specifically about this in this policy. Generally, I recommend avoiding adding something like this to the policy unless we have experienced at least two disputes over this question that were significant, independent of each other, and actually difficult for the community to resolve. That would mean something that goes beyond "Gee, I wish someone else replaced these weak primary sources with better ones" and into disputes that usually end in no consensus, or need long discussions with many editors to reach a consensus. Have you seen any such disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I have seen one and given Horse Eye's Back comment below, that's two. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it really anyone at all? Including you and me? Did you not look at the link I gave, click on "Apply for a blog". Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, including this convo, it's three. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that the non-liveblog has an "Apply for a blog" link. I do not understand why the non-liveblog page is supposed to tell us anything about what happens on the liveblog page. Every single name on the liveblog page is the newspaper's own staff.
• Nothing on this page is a content dispute. So you've seen one dispute. Would you please post a link to it?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Every single name on the liveblog page is the newspaper's own staff. That's what I am saying, yet you keep saying that hosted = live? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No. I keep saying that when a blog of any kind is (a) on the newspaper's website and (b) written by the newspaper's own journalists, then it is already covered by NEWSBLOG, and we do not need to add any WP:CREEPY text to NEWSBLOG to say "BTW, this also includes liveblogs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

K, I don't agree with your interpretation here. You are making the equation live news reporting by qualified journalists = a blog. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not a fair or accurate representation of what I have written. There are multiple types of live news reporting by qualified journalists. There is the old 'CNN model' of "it's news because I can stand in front of it with a portable television camera rolling", which is live news but not a blog. There is traditional breaking news, in which television shows get interrupted for an announcement. There is also the traditional Newspaper extra, which is as close to live news reporting as paper-based publication allows. But when a webpage actually says 'liveblog' on it, and the contents of the page are the sorts of content one would expect after reading a dictionary definition of liveblogging, or from reading our article Liveblogging, then yes, you're right, I do happen to call that a liveblog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"liveblog" is just a buzzword, some say blog others don't (like the BBC example below). But they are the same regardless. Live reporting of news, "breaking" for all practical purposes, so subject to WP:RECENT. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that one should not exclude news blogs solely because the marketing department picked a different buzzword, just like one should not classify a source like Science-Based Medicine, or press releases from corporations, as being a blog merely because the IT departments chose to use a type of blogging software for the publishing process. But in the case of Times of Israel, both the facts and the label align, and it appears to be obvious to everyone that their professional liveblog falls under NEWSBLOG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe another example will clarify, do you assert that https://www.bbc.com/live is a blog? Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I assert that it is covered by NEWSBLOG. It is a type of "online column" which "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", and Wikipedia editors should "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

K, so what is your objection to writing that up so it is clear? Because that is certainly not clear to me at the moment and I think it would not be clear to a lot of people. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My objection is:

You have not demonstrated that there is an actual, significant need for a clarification.

AFAICT all the editors in this discussion agree that the Times of Israel's liveblog contents are covered by NEWSBLOG. You have shown zero evidence that anyone in the world disagrees with the three of us.

Therefore I ask, again: Please give us links to discussions in which editors say things like "No way, dude, everybody knows a liveblog is totally not covered by NEWSBLOG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Why is Al-Jazeera green? (and there other discussions leading up to this one). Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You have linked to a discussion that says Al-Jazeera's liveblog should be treated under NEWSBLOG. Where is the discussion in which editors can't decide whether a newspaper's liveblog counts as a NEWSBLOG? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

To avoid going around in circles, I have added a clarification to WP:NEWSBLOG. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. Your clarification contained a factual error. Also, it's redundant to WP:RSAGE and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted, I clicked on column which is what you referred to above and copied the sentence from there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly in WP:PRIMARY does it say that breaking news is a type of column? Because that's what you wrote: "breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources (columns)". That means that that breaking news are written by columnists. This not true, and it is not in PRIMARY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It says For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. I added columns in paren because columns is actually easter egged to primary so that needed to be clarified as well. Maybe word it differently, I'm easy about that as long as the "breaking news" thing is in there because I can assure you that many are treating it (live, liveblog, breaking) as RS regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote is a factual error. Regardless what you intended, what you actually wrote is that breaking news is a column. This is false, and you need to remove this factual error from the policy.

Consensus is really important in policy editing, and re-reverting your own additions in, over direct opposition, is a bad idea. The usual standard for major policies is no edit warring at all: if your change gets reverted, you should not revert back within minutes.

In terms of consensus, here's where we stand:

• We do not have a consensus for copying the accurate parts of this sentence from the other policy and into this policy. You have not even attempted to explain why this particular sentence needs to be in multiple policies. Is there something defective about the other policy, so if you quote it in a discussion, people tell you that it's not a True™ policy and so doesn't matter?
• We additionally do not have a consensus for copying the accurate parts of this sentence into this particular section. The accurate parts of this sentence apply to far more than just NEWSBLOG, so why should it be minimized and relegated to this sub-section?

I suggest that you self-revert immediately, at least until you have one other editor explicitly agreeing that this duplication should be an exception to the policy that policies should not be redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If we agree it's just the two of us, I will go with WP:3PO Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing There have been confusion around this and it seems to have contributed to an arbitration case dispute found in the link below. Personally I think a news liveblog is different from what Wikipedia defined in the NEWSBLOG section. Maybe need to clarify that a news liveblog is not the same thing, or if it is a similar concept that should be under the NEWSBLOG section. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Peleio Aquiles Wafflefrites (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Does it really, @Wafflefrites? I see comments from three different editors there:

• @Selfstudier (the editor who started this discussion) asserting that live blogs on news websites aren't WP:NEWSBLOGS.
• XDanielx pointing out that WP:ALJAZEERA at WP:RSP explicitly names the Al-Jazeera liveblog as falling under NEWSBLOG. (RSP says "Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs".)
• Red-tailed hawk, in the admin section, saying it's okay that someone "tagged an Al-Jazeera liveblog for an improvement in line with WP:NEWSBLOG's guidance", which indicates that liveblogs fall under NEWSBLOG.

Nobody here, or anywhere else, has suggested that liveblogs from news sites are exempt from the rule in NEWSBLOG that editors can only "use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."

BTW, I looked through all 13 of the discussions about Al-Jazeera linked in RSP, including the one in which you asked whether their live blog falls under NEWSBLOG, and were told that it does. I did not notice a single comment suggesting that it's exempt from NEWSBLOG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I actually agree with Selfstudier that blog columns hosted by news sources are not the same as liveblogs, which is rolling text. Maybe “rolling text” should be added for clarification? Wafflefrites (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem controversial to me to add a few additional words for clarification: “Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns or rolling text they call blogs.”

Columns are not the same as rolling text. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all blog posts in an ordinary news blog are technically columns, either, but we seem to be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing What about ““Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs.”? Wafflefrites (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The original problem was basically that this policy says "Hey, WP:BLOGS are bad, so don't cite them", and then an editor says, "Okay, so these things written by actual bona fide journalists and published by an actual bona fide newspaper that they call a blog are bad sources?" And they're not bad sources, so we tried to say "Well, okay, personal blogs are still bad, but things 'they call blogs' aren't True™ blogs within the meaning of this policy. They're, um, we'll call them WP:NEWSBLOGS. News blogs are okay."

Our potential sources include "pages, columns and rolling text" that are called blogs, and "pages, columns and rolling text" that are not called blogs, and so long as they're written by a journalist and published by a newspaper, we don't really care either what it is (e.g., a column or not) or what they call it (e.g., a blog or not): it's not a banned source. We do want editors to treat them like primary sources, but we don't want editors to get hung up on the specific language. This is trying to communicate a general principle, which needs to be generalized. This is not trying to provide an exact or exhaustive list of all the things that the media's various marketing teams have attempted in their ongoing effort to get people to read the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I got it, a personal blog is an unreliable source that should not be used, but a news organization’s publishing of “blogs” published by its employees or contractors is more a situation where a better source might be needed. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, plus it's also a situation in which you need to consider WP:DUE (is this an opinion or point of view? If so, is it worth including in this particular article?) and WP:BALASP (just because a journalist posted something – even if it's strictly factual – about the color of the politician's clothes doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to say what color clothes they were wearing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't they are distinct things, a live blog is equivilent to a twitter feed not a news blog. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged the sentence I find lacks clarity and gave the reasons for that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So, @Selfstudier, your reasons are:

• you don't like the word columns (as in Columnists) linking to WP:PRIMARY, which has a footnote naming "columns" as a type of primary source, and
• you are concerned that not all sources are labeled with the exact word blog.

Are these your actual and only questions, or are there others? I'm asking because I have noticed that they don't actually have any overlap with your original question, which does not mention columns at all and is entirely about something that actually is labeled as a blog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You know the old saw, never assume. Anyhow, no time for this sort of pettifogging, so bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, however, these sources need not themselves be exceptional (extraordinarily reliable, accurate, respected, authoritative, and so on). Therefore, I believe it is misleading to write that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The reader may be mislead into believing that the standards for reliability and verifiability are higher for such sources. ComeAndHear (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing would probably be more accurate, but there are also higher standards for the individual sources when it comes to exceptional claims. That's what "high-quality" refers to in the first sentence and the subsequent bullets clarify that e.g. primary and self-published sources, whilst acceptable elsewhere, are not sufficient for exceptional claims. That's an issue of quality, not number, – Joe (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a change to "sourcing". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a restatement of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but modified to fit Wikipedia reliance on sources. I'd support the change to 'sourcing' as it makes it clearer what is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made this change. I doubt that anyone will object, but if someone reverts it, we can discuss it further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. We just need multiple good, well-known, sources, not borderline or sketchy ones that barely squeeze by as RS for ordinary claims. Many ordinary claims are so uncontroversial we only need one RS. This is a different animal, so we need several (3 or more(?)) to confirm the claim. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the number needed is going to depend on the subject and the nature of the claim in question. One unimpeachable source is better than three ordinary ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNOT

Under what circumstances does WP:VNOT permit us to exclude information from articles? The context to this is that some editors have been arguing that VNOT can override WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, enabling us to exclude views and aspects that are significant as assessed by their prominence in reliable sources.

My interpretation is that all VNOT does is say that verifiability alone is not reason to include information; reasons based in other policies also need to be provided, and if those reasons are provided then VNOT cannot be used as a rebuttal to those reasons.

I interpret it this way because WP:VNOT says Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and WP:CONSENSUS says consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Together these would appear to mean that including or excluding information isn't based on editor opinion, but based on whether other policies support its inclusion or exclusion.

In addition, I believe that interpreting it otherwise would legitimize WP:POVPUSHING; it would empower editors to exclude views and aspects that they disagree with, even when those views and aspects are significant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I interpret VNOT as primarily an admonition against indiscriminate collection of information. Our mission is to write precise summaries of topics, which can mean a few thousand words to cover a subject that entire shelves of libraries are devoted to. VNOT is not intended as an excuse to violate policies like NPOV, but it can be taken as advice that endlessly adding more and more may not be the best way to achieve balance. Finally, taking "editor opinion" out of "consensus building" is wishful thinking since "policy based" arguments can be written for or against all but the most clearcut positions. Zero^talk 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Since some editors appears to be primarily directed at myself as it relates to an ongoing RFC at the NPOV noticeboard, I would add that VNOT is not something that just gets trotted out by itself, it will usually be part and parcel of a larger argument for exclusion, which is the reason why that RFC is being run. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. @ScottishFinnishRadish, your RFC at NPOVN has 399 comments and is a quarter million bytes long – and we're only six days into it. Would you mind splitting it off to a separate page (e.g., WP:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier)? The best time to do that would have been about five and a half days ago, but the second-best time is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea, so I've done so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

On the basic question - it doesn't. It only says that verification alone is not a reason for inclusion, reminds editors to build consensus, and that those seeking to include information should seek that consensus. It doesn't say anything on removing content on the basis of VNOT. Content still needs to be disputed for a valid reason, which VNOT is not -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Although verification alone doesn't require inclusion, there still has to be a valid policy reason for exclusion. VNOT alone is not a valid policy reason for exclusion. Others policy reasons may apply, but I would suggest looking to NPOV instead. (You can't blank the main page and demand that other editors build consensus before putting it back, you would need a valid policy reason for blanking it in the first place). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Since WP:Consensus is policy, reaching a consensus to exclude is itself a valid policy reason to exclude. While discussion of other policies can certainly help a consensus to form, consensus can form due to non-policy based arguments. It doesn’t happen often, but when it happens it is still a valid consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that, but if it's not based on policy then ity also not based on VNOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that, with the exception that NPOV cannot be overridden by consensus, and thus any consensus which does override NPOV is invalid. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty (or one of them at least) is that NPOV is subject to interpretation and consensus as well, it’s not just a question of verifiability. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup… consensus is HOW we determine whether something is NPOV (and whether omitting that something would violate NPOV). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been wondering if that whole "non-negotiable" quote in NPOV needs a re-write or an explanation. The contents of the NPOV policy are subject to negotiation; whether and how a given article complies with NPOV is subject to negotiation. The only thing that you can't decide is to write a non-neutral article on purpose. We ban editors from deciding that (a) replacing Suicide methods with an admonition to please seek help would be non-neutral because it wouldn't be a neutral description of the subject but (b) we're going to do it anyway. We do not ban editors from deciding that an article on that subject is neutral if it describes the subject in the context of suicide prevention, and non-neutral if it doesn't mention suicide prevention efforts repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Another ONUS debate (in VNOT clothes for a change). Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't say I'm a fan on VNOT as a shortcut as it's to close to WP:NOT, which is a separate thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the wp:verifiability aspect could make it clearer and solve a lot of problems by stating the structural reality simply:Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, a necessary but not sufficient condition. Donald Albury 18:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What you said is 100% true (and included in what I wrote) but the way that I wrote it adds to that......emphasizing that it is not a reason/argument for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, there is a finger on the scales in that direction, intentionally it appears. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think that "necessary but not sufficient" is clearer. "Verifiability is not a reason for inclusion" is not immediately clear.

Another clearer option would be "Just because you can verify it doesn't mean that it belongs in the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are both good. I think mine goes a bit further in a needed area (emphasizing that verifiability is not an argument for inclusion) both IMO both of your ideas are good to include. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

North, you suggested your preferred wording when we first created this section of the policy… and you suggest it again every time we discuss this section of policy.

I know some people will say that the horse is dead by now… but do beat it a few more times, just to make sure. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNOT is basically the policy that says that we're an enclyclopedia as distinct from other types of information and content and in addition specifies and forbids some of the more egregious misuses. In some areas an article or content may so-explicitly violate it that it singlehandedly excludes that article or content. In other areas which are not as clear-cut it doesn't singlehandedly exclude the article or material but it influences discussions such as content or wp:notability discussions/decisions. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I once started an essay listing the several cases when something may be left out of the article even if there are sources for it, at User:Cambalachero/Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. So far it's just a draft essay, and I'm currently busy with editing drives, but you can use it as a starting point to propose ideas and sections. Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like it would need a set of books rather than an essay. If something meets the wp:verifiability test, then inclusion/exclusion get based on lots of things.....starting with degree of WP:Relevance, NPOV considerations, usefulness, enclyclopedicness and informativeness of the material to start. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem likely arises in the beginning of the policy because even with the 'you must consult the other policies' at the end of the intro, it seems hyped on, you need one good source (and this is how you determine one good source) to add an article or to an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

SPS prohibition on using experts in BLPs

I saw this part of SPS cited in a deletion discussion recently: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I can't come up with a good rationale for this rule. If someone is a professional researcher, writer, or expert who is presumably relied upon by non-SPS reliable sources, why shouldn't we be allowed to use that author's writings in BLPs? voorts (talk/contributions) 06:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hm, not immediately obvious why WP:BLPSPS has that restriction given that it is permitted (expert opinion) for ordinary articles, overabundance of caution for blps? Perhaps it's more difficult to assess "expert" in such cases. Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that this should be only for "contentious material", which is a phrase that is poorly defined but present in the policy already. Zero^talk 11:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Experts are as prone to petty human emotions as anyone else. Opening the door to permit anything one person posts on social media about another person to be allowed in BLPs is a recipe for disaster. Just because a person is an expert (in something) or a professional writer doesn't mean that what they self-publish about another person is significant or even accurate. Self-publishing means there are no other gatekeepers. Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I can see that the phrase "even if the author is an expert" has been around since 2010 but I can't see what trouble it's caused. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

At minimum, SPS must be presented with in text attribution, as opinion and not as fact presented in wikivoice. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's really the short of it here, which is why the third-party bit is included. An SPS even from an expert shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice for BLP content as an independent secondary source, etc. If it's going to be included, it would need attribution, which isn't very different than if SPS sources are used in cases of WP:PARITY either in science subjects. Functionally, such a source would be treated as part of a dispute or close to the subject as a non-independent source, so it would have to be used much more carefully (even moreso in BLPs).

In practice, if a world renowned cod expert called BLP X a confirmed cod-licker on their blog, it could be included (assuming editors found it WP:DUE) with attribution. If it was more widely reported in non-SPS sources, there's at least the option for not needing in-text for attribution (and more likely DUE for inclusion anyways). It's really just a general caution about using Wikipedia's voice related to BLPs and setting a higher bar for when it is used in part due to legal considerations. KoA (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Are the legal considerations defamation? If so, in many jurisdictions, there's no added protection from relying on a newspaper vs. a SPS expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't really speak to specifics on the legal side, but there's probably a weighting that occurs when it comes to lawsuits of repeating what's in newspapers vs. a personal website when it comes to determining defamation. The key thing is that the degree of care in using Wikipedia's voice increases substantially across the source types. KoA (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not discussing social media posts. The source I'm imagining is an independent website by an expert, who perhaps hires a freelance editor/copy-editor to review their work, where said website is cited by mainstream publications for factual information. For example, say a journalist leaves traditional media and starts a website in a niche industry, interviewing people in that industry and conducting independent, unbiased research and writing. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, if a journalist leaves traditional media and starts an online trade magazine? When the trade rag has developed enough that there's a formal editing/review process, then it'll no longer be "self-published" in our model, and it will become acceptable. While it's still just one guy, who is operating without the safety net of a mandatory second pair of eyes between him and the next round of "Newspaper Typos You Won’t Believe Were Printed", it's not okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI: my understanding has always been that the expert SPS exclusion applies to BLP material, not to BLP articles. Most BLP articles contain information that is not BLP material. (I haven't read the whole discussion, so this might already have been expressed above.)

Also, in the context of a deletion discussion, my understanding has been that SPS material never contributes to article notability, even if the source is independent of the article's subject. That is a separate question from whether the source can be cited in an article. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"about living people" implies that we are talking about material about living people. The only "expert" about a living person is themselves. We should continue to not accept self-published biographical information from third-parties. 146.115.179.2 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. Is the living person, or the university, more expert about whether the person actually graduated? Is the living person, or the person's mother, more expert on the question of what color their first birthday cake was? We accept the living person as an expert on their current lived experience (e.g., "I am gay") but not on other questions (e.g., "I am not a crook"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the bad scenarios mentioned so far would occur if expert SPS were only excluded for "contentious material". Also, I see here one of the most persistent wikimyths in action: the belief that publishers fact-check the things that they publish. This is only true to a very limited extent, even for academic publishers. Zero^talk 03:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice anyone mentioning fact checking. I, at least, am only interested whether the author is the only person who gets a say in whether the document gets shared with the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is all that has been discussed in this section so far. If another eye doesn't improve reliability, it is irrelevant to reliability. Zero^talk 07:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We believe that "another eye" does improve reliability. That's why the criteria for identifying reliable sources include things such as:

• a reputation for fact-checking – fact checking is "another eye".
• published by a reputable publisher instead of self-published by the author – the publisher is "another eye".
• uses editorial oversight or peer review processes – the editor is "another eye".

The idea of preferring sources with "another eye" is fundamental to our concept of a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, the more eyes the better but still, an SPS written by a subject matter expert is ordinarily considered as RS (subject to the usual, extraordinary claims, due weight, etc). But if we want to make that more difficult for blps, I wouldn't object to that, per se. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

My interptetation of this situation has been that our P&Gs specifically make the principle, "don't include self-published material one person says about another person" to override the principle, "recognized experts can be used as reliable sources even when self-published".

Though, as I say, I believe this applies to BLP material wherever it is found, and also that biographical articles contain non-BLP (mostly factual) material. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In actual use isn't "contentious material" a meaningless platitude because its only knowable after the fact? Its only contentious if someone contests it... And if someone in the future is going to contest it then it was contentious all along even if it was impossible to know that. I can say right now that I challege all BLP material added to the site from this moment onwards, now all BLP material is contentious and we're back to square one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more usual to say that it's not actually contentious until someone contests it, or until you have a reasonable belief that it will be (or should be) contested. Consider what happens if we write "Alice Expert is an independent scholar of expertise", and then she gets hired by Big University. Someone might (should!) contest the material, regardless of whether it's already cited, because it's now out of date. That doesn't mean that it was contentious in the past. It only became contentious when someone contested it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Then what is the difference in meaning you get by adding "contentious material"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this a question for @Zero0000, who suggested adding those words to WP:SPS or WP:BLPSPS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You replied to a response to Zero0000. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have suggested "contentious" if this wasn't a concept already in the policy (7 times, in fact). I don't agree that something is only contentious if someone contests it, though that is an important case. In the case of information about a person, I would consider anything negative to be contentious. If an expert SPS says "X faked their qualifications", I would disallow it and require a published source. My position is that only innocuous material self-published by an expert on the subject should be allowed. If there is a better way to do that than adding "contentious", I'd probably agree to it. Zero^talk 02:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In a world in which innocent comments like "I ran into your spouse at the restaurant last night" precipitates divorces, it's hard to know what's truly innocuous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a hundred places in policy where editorial judgement is required, and plenty of opportunities for boundary cases that need discussion. This example is no different. If we forbad everything that might possibly go awry, there would be precious few things still permitted. Zero^talk 08:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The concept in policy when it comes to BLP is agnositic about the character of the information itself... "X faked their qualifications" and "X did not fake their qualifications" are equally contentious as the concept stands in policy. But that is clearly not what you are suggesting... You are suggesting a defintion of contentious in which negative information is given more scrutiny than positive information which would run afoul of WP:NPOV and much of the rest of the alphabet soup... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: I have placed a brief notification of this discussion at WT:BLP. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Contentious" material on BLP's usually doesn't involve contention about the veracity of the material, it's usually about one of these:

1. Applying a value laden term or adjective to the subject of the BLP
2. Including or excluding positive-impression or negative-impression material about the subject where the veracity of the material is not disputed by anybody

IMO the discussed standard should be (and usually is) strictly applied for #1 and for negative-impression material under #2 North8000 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, the inclusion of positive-impression material to which 2. should be applied is one of the largest contributors to NPOV violations in BLPs. I'd like to see *that* applied more strictly. Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well my #2 is for material "where the veracity of the material is not disputed by anybody" Were you referring to that type of material? North8000 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that 'factual puffery' would fall into that category (e.g., calling someone a philanthropist instead of calling them a donor or supporter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen in editors (including, lamentably, sometimes myself) a tendency to interpret "disputed by anybody" as meaning different things depending on our synpathy with the material. If we like the material, we interpet "dispute" as, "does any RS assert the contrary?" and of we don't like the material, we interpret "dispute" as, "does any RS downplay or imply the irrelevance of this material?"

Going forward, it might be more helpful to develop a scale or framing for these disputes, since the current practice of "only partisan sources mention this!" versus "nobody disputes its factual accuracy!" seem fairly sterile. (And the formal elaborarion of "is it positive/puffery, neutral or negative?" to help these decisions doesn't seem promising as a framing, since editors are notoriously bad at recognizing the neutrality of statements with which they disagree - examples available on request. We need something else, preferably something less binary.) Newimpartial (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that less scrutiny is needed when the material doesn't imply/state something negative. Yes, that risks making something to puffy but consider that one of the tenets of BLP is do no harm [4]. Springee (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I expect we can all agree about the "do no harm" principle. I think the more relevant question is whether NPOV can be maintained in BLPs where editors consistently drive to include self-serving, poorly sourced (non-WP:IND), "positive" material. I'd like to see policy provide a handbrake on that, myself. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

First, don’t we need to establish that the “expert exemption” of SPS actually applies? The policy says that for it to apply the source must be: “… produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” OK… let’s apply this to a BLP… say the subject is Ima Blowhard, a Congressman from Iowa who is notable for his controversial stance on agricultural subsidies. What exactly is the subject-matter and relevant field in this context? To be an “expert”, does the SPS author need to be a previously published biographer? Does he need to be published in the field of political science? The history of Iowa? The economics of agricultural subsidies? Does he need to have published material about Congressman Blowhard himself? Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what aspect of the congressman that the SME is writing about. If the SME is writing about the congressman's agricultural policy, an agriculturalist. If the SME is writing about the congressman's campaign, an expert in political science or a journalist on the campaign beat. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would seriously question whether most journalists qualify as “subject-matter experts”. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if its an RS, I would take a journalist sounding off about a lp as opinion (even if it was called "news"). Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The subject is Ima Blowhard, you said so when framing the question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Which appears to mean: If something written by one of Ima's kids "has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" about Ima (e.g., "Why My Family is So Screwed Up" or "Joy and Privilege of Being a Politician's Kid"), then that published author might be considered "an established subject-matter expert" in "the relevant field" of what Ima's family life is like.

Our standard for what constitutes "an established subject-matter expert" has gone up over time, but it's possible that it would be accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary… I think our standards have fallen over the years. We used to be FAR pickier about what constituted an “expert”. And when I first started editing, we didn’t allow any SPS - even from experts. Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In a related question what if the field is one where we typically don't find scholarly works? For example, Ron Dennis is certainly an expert in the design of racing cars even if he has no publications in the field (for argument sake I'm assuming he doesn't). His opinion​ of the cars designed by Adrian Reynard would be very relevant in context of Reynard's work as he might be one of the few people with sufficient expertise to be an expert in that field. I think the status as an "expert" shouldn't be handed out lightly but also shouldn't be restricted to typical academic measures in fields where such measures are very relevant. Springee (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

An example of the "not factually disputed" under my #2 above: John Smith is a political writer and also president of the XYZ garden club. "President of the XYZ garden club" is put in the article, sourced to the XYZ garden club web site. POV warrior editor Larry has politics opposite John Smith's and so wants to minimize any positive material on John Smith in the article and knocks the material out citing the nature of the source. Nobody (including Larry) disputes the veracity of the material, including it's wording. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We usually categorize that as an WP:ABOUTSELF situation, similar to a corporate press release about the newly hired CEO. It might be appropriate to make that a little clearer in policy, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)