Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Poll without page-refresh

	del.icio.us
	Digg
	Furl
	Reddit
	Rojo
	Add to OnlyWire

On 21 October 2008, Wikipedia:Verifiability was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website.

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Shortcut: WT:V

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.

Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

"Warning" signs on bio. pages and nomination for deletion

Have added a large number of

This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2008)

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (August 2008)

to a large groupe of players in the swedish top league, aka Allsvenskan, i myself is a major fan of Halmstads BK, also a team in Allsvenskan, and have made major contributions to that teams and players articles, i am trying to improve all articles regarding to Swedish top fotball, Allsvenskan and Superettan mainly, and was hopping that some user and IP numbers would help if i added this tags, this however havent happend and i feel that i know to little about some players to writte theire bios on my own. I also added this signs to the articles since i dont feel like they reach the demands on Wikipedia regarding bios. So now i wonder how long i should wait before i put up a bio. page for deletion or if there is something else i should do instead? --> Halmstad, Talk to me 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources on themselves

Someone changed this section in two ways, [1] but it's not clear whether the change was deliberate. It was changed from:

(a) Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

(b) Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if all of the following conditions are true:

The two changes are (i) that self-published sources may only be used in articles about themselves, which isn't true or sensible; and (ii) that they may be used, without further qualification, as sources about themselves in articles not about themselves, which would be a significant change, and would somewhat contradict the rest of the sps section of this policy. I believe it would be a welcome and much-needed change, but we'd need to add that reliable third-party sources must have identified that source as relevant to the subject matter. Otherwise, we're allowing any sps, or any fan of an sps, to decide that his views or actions are notable in relation to any subject.

I've changed it back until we decide whether change (ii) was deliberate and desirable. 19:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

~~I'm sorry ... but how are (i) and (ii) not contradictory?~~ Nevermind, I see the difference. Anyway, there's a lot of confusion regarding self-published sources, not the least because WP:SELFPUB redirects to the wrong place -- it should direct to the "Self-published sources" section, which provides an overview and introduction to the policy regarding self-published sources. The section you edited is more directed at sources which don't meet the bar of experts published in reliable publications on the issue at hand. And yes, I think (ii) is obviously quite reasonable, especially when you consider things like politicians or people under attack from someone. II | (t - c) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your last point -- yes, exactly. We would just need to build in a qualification that would disallow e.g. self-published astrologers from being used in Astronomy. 19:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a crack at this. The grammar probably needs to be worked on if this sticks, but I have realized that policy edits have to be taken slowly. This addition should also help clarify that you can't simply pick any old website as a primary source (not understanding this caused me some trouble.) PSWG1920 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed some rather awkward wording, here is my cumulative change. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed that the material shouldn't be contentious, because it's precisely for contentious material that we sometimes want to use an SPS for information about itself. For example, someone has accused X of something bad, and it's widely accepted that X did it. X responds on his website saying he didn't do it, and offers a convoluted, unconvincing defense that no other source has bothered to publish. We might want to cite that defense, even though we know it's contentious. 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that removal. The one part of your edit that I'm not sure about is your addition of "reliable" here: "the source has been specifically mentioned in relation to the article's subject by an independent reliable source". I deliberately left that word out because of issues addressed by WP:PARITY. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, a "convoluted, unconvincing defense that no other source has bothered to publish" could be seen as unduly self-serving, so perhaps that restriction should also be lifted or further qualified. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about WP:PARITY. It's problematic, and it could end up allowing a self-published astrologer to comment on astronomy, so long as other astrologers had written about her in relaton to astronomy. Also, it's a guideline and this is a policy, so it should be guided by this page, not vice versa.

As for unduly self-serving, I've always liked that qualification. It's there to stop self-published sources from adding a lot of vanity stuff to their websites then adding it to their WP bio. It means we can consider using it, but have a good reason to turn it down if it's over the top. 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think "reliable" is a bit too strong in the above context. For example, the original material on Quackwatch is self-published, and by my understanding is not considered reliable in a strict sense by Wikipedia (I think I remember hearing about an ArbCom case which decided that), but nonetheless is highly notable and presumably could establish the notability of another source. "Source independent of the subject" would prevent your example of a self-published astrologer from happening, but I suppose it still might not be strong enough. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Given SlimVirgin's above reasoning, should "it is not contentious" be removed from here as well? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I remember correctly, it was the inclusion of the "it is not contentious" language at BLP that caused us to include it here. It was an attempt clear up confusion between two policies. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we concerned about individuals or groups as "self-published sources"? For example, the material published by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is "self-published". Should it be excluded? Jayjg 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-published always meant by one individual or a very small, informal group, with no professional oversight. Amnesty is a huge organization with lots of employees, including lawyers and professional writers, so it doesn't count as an SPS. 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the policy makes that clear enough. Can you provide an example or two of a self-published individual we'd like to be able to cite in an article not about the individual? Jayjg 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just self-published sources, but questionable ones too. An example would be citing material from Mein Kampf in The Holocaust (not self-published, but definitely a questionable source). As the policy stood, we wouldn't have been able to do that, though of course people did where appropriate. 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've definitely had to explain the difference between selfpubs by experts and selfpubs by nonexperts. Selfpubs by nonexperts are generally limited to biographies of themselves. Selfpubs by experts can be cited in their area of expertise, but not BLPs and not to establish notability. And I'm of the opinion that publications by political watchdog groups, etc, fall in between secondary sources and primary sources; "self-published" to me implies by individuals. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of distinguishing between recognized experts and non-experts. However, I disagree with the idea that self-published should only aply to individuals. Organizations can certainly self-publish. I would say that the reliability of organizational self-published sources rises along with the reputation of the organization, no different than for an individual. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about using self-published experts; something an expert publishes in a peer-reviewed journal is quite different from something he/she publishes on his/her blog. Jayjg 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I read it again, WP:SPS is a bit unclear on this. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Was this originally intended to mean that such could be treated as reliable in a strict sense, or just that such a source could be used to cite opinions of said expert? If it's the latter, then that is now covered by WP:SELFANDQUEST, thus that part of WP:SPS can be removed. Or if we really can treat an expert's self-published work as being reliable for more than just his/her opinions, then that needs to be made more clear. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, it seems like quite enough to say that so-and-so is an expert in this field (cite independent source), and here is what they have said in a self-published work. WP:SELFQUEST currently would cover that, just as it would cover a non-expert who is nonetheless notable in the field, the difference being that you note in-text the credentials or lack thereof. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the change unacceptable. The older version was perfectly sensible. "Not contentious" cop-outs don't work either. We only look to policy when things are contentious anyway. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB #7

The qualification reads: "the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source." This is a bit confusing/redundant when the sps is used in an article about the sps. Obviously independent, reliable sources have mentioned the sps in relation to the article's subject or there wouldn't be an article in the first place. It may make things clearer to differentiate between sps in articles specifically about themselves, and sps in an article about another subject. 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't really see the need at this point for the clause "including in articles about themselves" in the first sentence, and in fact I think that wording is potentially misleading. I have realized that even in an article about a Fringe theory, you can't simply choose whatever proponent of it you see fit to reference for their opinions, but until recently this was not made clear by any policy. What is now qualification #7 fixes that and makes clear that even if a questionable source is notable in itself, a connection to the article's subject (whatever that happens to be) must be recognized by an independent source. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifying unpublished information

Why does this policy persist with excluding independent and unpublisised material and information? There are many significant, important, notable, influential and even popular, writings, musicians, films, etc that may not have the financial means to gain mas media attention to be publisised in order to comply with this policy and as such WP inevitably excluse vital information of encyclopedic importance. Nick carson (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have posted similar querries at NOR, and at RS. You have recieved answers on those talk pages, so I will not repeat them here. All I can say is that I am sorry that you don't like the fundamental principles behind Wikipedia. Perhaps you would be happier editing at some other wiki that has different rules and philosophy. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be apathetic of me to avoid such problems by leaving Wikipedia. I wouldn't be asking these questions if I didn't genuinely think there were better ways these policies could be structured. What I would like to see is some discussion regarding these questions rather than witness the acceptance of these policies as absolute. Surely they are subject to progression and amendment? Nick carson (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, in this case our policies are not open to "progression and amendment", at least not in the way you want. The idea that information in Wikipedia must be verifiable to reliable published sources is one of the fundamental core policies of the project. We can discuss how to improve the wording of these core policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR), but the basic concepts they impart are considered absolute. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's somewhat of a contradiction there. I'm not arguing against these "core principles", rather I'm requesting that they be amended. Altering their wording constitutes amendment, so you see where this contradiction lies. Nick carson (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not call allowing unpublished (and thus unverifiable) sources an "amendendment"... I would call that a change of core principle. It changes the policy in a substantial way - to the extent that it would be a complete reversal of what it now says. Blueboar (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be achieved, but there is information that is notable as per WP notability policy that is excluded based on the V & RS policies. Nick carson (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example? 07:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, an example would help. Even more so, a specifically worded proposed amendment would be even more helpful. NPOV is absolute, while other polices can be tweaked, but I would strongly advise you not to attempt to do so. Start with a new section (or a subsection here) and show us your proposed improvement. Then it can be discussed. -- / 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to give that a bit more of a think. Hasn't anyone ever raised the question of notable unpublished informaton in the past? If so, has this been adressed in the current policy? Nick carson (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people have raised the question... usually because they "know" some fact is true, but have no source to support it. They were all given the same answer we have given you so far: Facts in Wikipedia need to be verifiable, and the only way for that to happen is to have the fact stated in a reliable published source. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating for primary sources

11-Nov-2008: Again - For years, this policy page has omitted the use of primary sources, which are well-explained under WP:NOR. To avoid the typical instant condemnation of primary sources, I propose adding short text under "Reliable Sources" for clarity. A good balance about primary sources would state more than one short sentence, but give details beyond the WP:NOR wording. I suggest the following text be added instead:

(under "Reliable Sources")

"Primary sources can be used to support statements of simple description, such as definition of terms or measurements, but avoid subjective, broad claims, such as about actual effectiveness, marketplace rank or social impact. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

For example, hurricane wind speeds and storm surge levels could be quoted directly from the U.S. National Hurricane Center (NHC) as a primary source using airplane or buoy readings; however, stating, "The storm became more dangerous" must be traced to that source or another reliable source, rather than stated as a conclusion of the Wikipedia writer. Opinions must be traced to reliable ~~independent~~ objective sources.

Articles should also use reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, for statements beyond mere definition about the subject."

(Text not added yet to WP:VERIFY 11Nov08)

In the balance, the combined goal is to state the general use of primary sources, as well as warn about some details (such as avoid marketplace rank: "our product is the industry leader") and include long-term examples, such as hurricane data using NHC as a primary source rather than wait until network news reports. It has been a confusing issue, to state "third-party" and also get people to understand use of primary sources; otherwise, there would not be so many debates about rejecting primary sources. Also, I agree, there is no need to also copy the wording from WP:NOR, since the policies will be used together, regardless of the wording of either. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In the proposed wording, I struck "independent" and put "objective" as the more general term, allowing NHC comment about their hurricane data when acting objectively. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- While I like that, I think independence and objectivity often go hand in hand. NHC is probably a good objective source for opinions regarding hurricanes (such as predictions), since they are independent of the hurricane. On the other hand, if the accounting practices of NHC were criticized, NHC would probably not be an objective source on that matter, since it is not independent. Of course, there are plenty of independent sources which are not objective, such as editorials, but I'm having a hard time thinking of someone or something that could comment objectively on something it's not independent from. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should reitterate that primary sources are allowed, but I think it can be done in even simpler language. I suggest something short and sweet... along the lines of: "Primary sources may be referred to in Wikipedia, however there are limitations as to how they are used. Primary sources must be used with great caution so as to avoid Original Research." Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikid77, our choice of independent is deliberate: that's the legal standard that Wikipedia has to meet in defamation cases. So we must stick to independent (although we can add objective, particularly if you're willing to volunteer to mediate all the POV disputes that will then cite the perceived "non-objectiveness" of a reliable source that happens to disagree with them).

I think that the proposal is much too long for what we need at this particular policy. There is no value in duplicating NOR and always harm (cost of time for keeping things synchronized). Why not say something simple like, "While primary sources may be used in limited ways [link to relevant section of NOR], articles should rely upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not use the words "Primary and Secondary" in one part of the sentence and then "third-party" in another... as it confuses the issue and makes it seem as if they are related. They are not... Both Primary sources and Secondary sources can be third-party.21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that this policy page was the most "natural" and intuitive location for any discussion of the dos and donts of primary sources. I don't think we ought to have the same material in more than one place, but maybe we ought to consider moving what is currently at NOR here, or better yet, moving it here and then replacing it with something less baroque and theoretical, like general "rules of thumb" followed by concrete examples along the lines discussed above. COGDEN 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a primary source that is a third-party document? Classic examples of primary sources include autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, letters -- none of these are third-party documents.

The 'and secondary' shouldn't have been in that (half of the) statement anyway. Would you be happier with this? "Primary sources may be used in limited ways, but articles should rely upon secondary sources published by reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

I agree that putting these in the same section introduces the possibility for confusion; that's one of the reasons that I oppose having WP:PSTS merged into this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

An autobiography, diary, email etc that is written by somone other than the subject of the article would be a primary source that is third party. Say... a published diary written by Mickey Mouse cited in the article on Donald Duck. In that article, Donald would be the first party... Mickey is a third party. However, Mickey's diary is still a Primary source. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, although that example still fails the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" aspect. We have to meet all of the conditions to defend against libel claims, not just some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but that is a different issue... to give a better example: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a primary source in English history, but it would also be considered a "third-party" source in the aritcle on Alfred the Great (since it was not written by Alfred). What I am getting at is that "primary source" and "first-party" are not synonyms ... there may be overlap, but the terms relate to different concepts. The same goes for "secondary source" and "third party" Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A WP:Guideline or an WP:essay spelling all of this out in readable detail would be useful. A wikilinked-mention of such an essay would be useful in tyhis WP:Policy page. I am not qualified to contribute this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, the sources that an article rely upon must meet all of the criteria, not just some of them. For legal reasons, we need to rely on third-party sources. For scholarly reasons, we prefer secondary sources. This is a "both/and" situation, not an "either/or".

As for your example: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles are not primary sources. Annals aren't diaries; they're much more like encyclopedias. You take information collected elsewhere (read Anglo-Saxon Chronicle#Sources.2C_reliability_and_dating) and summarize it in your "yearbook". I don't know enough about these particular documents to classify them as secondary or tertiary sources, but they really do not seem to be primary sources.

Do you have any objection to the sentence I proposed above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Um... The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is absolutely considered a primary source by historians. But to get back to the question at hand... I agree with your revised wording. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

we need to rely on third party sources for legal reasons only if matters like defamation or other similar controversial matters are an issue. we do not in the least need to rely on them for uncontroversial material about anything at all. Just what legal scenario do you have in mind? Anyway, how can a first party source from an individual defame him? It could defame someone else, but so could a source of any other origin or nature. (Note that this is a different issue from the sources being third party sources to demonstrate notability--there the reason is to avoid self-advertising) DGG (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, Wikipedia does not use the same definition of primary source that historians do. I'm not saying that our definition is the One True™ Definition -- just that we have one, and that according to Wikipedia's definition, any source that reports information taken from other sources isn't considered a primary source for Wikipedia. ASC took information from other publications (including other encyclopedias): it's therefore not a primary source.

DGG, we also rely on third-party sources to give us an idea of whether something is important -- not just whether the article should exist at all, but whether any given fact is generally considered important enough to get (that much) space in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Very old documents are Primary sources

Sure it does... from WP:NOR: "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident written or narrated by the eyewitness is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; audio and video recordings; historical documents such as diaries, census results, ...." The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle would qualify under "historical documents such as diaries". Again, while there is overlap "first person" and "primary" are not exacltly the same thing. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So when the original compiler of ACS copies something out of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, you think that makes ACS the primary source, simply because ACS is a lot closer to the original events than we are? Would you, a thousand years from now, consider today's Wikipedia a primary source?

Personally, I don't think that summarizing some other book makes the summary a primary source for what happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, you can not really talk about the original compiler of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles... the work was written over several hundred years, and had several chroniclers. Secondly, a large portion of the ASC pre-dates Bede, so I doubt there is much that is copied (and in fact, the ASC frequently disagrees with Bede, or vise versa... different POVs). As for Wikipedia... if, in a thousand years time, Wikipedia ended up being one of the few sources that existed, then yes... it would probably be considered a Primary Source by historians of that future time. In any case... we are getting side tracked. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any source that summarizes information from another source should be considered a primary source for the purposes of WP:PSTS. "Very close to the origin (compared to me)" is not the same as "very close to the origin (end of criteria)". If you tell me a story that someone else told you, and then I tell someone else, then you are not a primary source, even though you're closer to the origin of the story than I am. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree... except for the fact that the compilers of the ASC mixed information taken from others and information they knew first hand... thus it is primary. To move the discussion away from the ASC, I think you are taking an overly narrow view of Primary... Age does matter. For example, The Dead Sea Scrolls are considered a primary source, even though parts of them contain material that was copied from older texts. There comes a point when the age of the document moves it from being a mere copy to being a historical or even archeological artifact. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Book Covers

Are book covers, reliable sources? If so, what section of policy does it fall under? If not, should they? (ie: a paperback book cover says that there are over one million copies in print.)--Jojhutton (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be wary of statements taken from a book cover... they are essentially advertizing by the publisher. Thus, I would hesitate to call them reliable for a statement of fact (as in: "The book has sold more than one millian copies"). They are reliable, however, for a statement as to what is stated on the book cover (as in: "According to the cover of the paperback edition, the book has sold more than one million copies"). Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)