Misplaced Pages

talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:52, 16 July 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits Proposal 1 — First sentence should/must: !support← Previous edit Revision as of 15:58, 16 July 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits Proposal 2 — First sentence new footnote: !supportNext edit →
Line 241: Line 241:
*'''Oppose''' Why should we stipulate that the source be included ''in the same edit''? And are we going to accuse editors who belatedly add sourcing of disruptive editing, since doing so is not permitted under this change? If we ''were'' going to get pedantic, and I'm not saying that we ''should'', I might stipulate that the restoration of material without a source being provided within 30 minutes may be considered a violation of this policy. ] (]) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Why should we stipulate that the source be included ''in the same edit''? And are we going to accuse editors who belatedly add sourcing of disruptive editing, since doing so is not permitted under this change? If we ''were'' going to get pedantic, and I'm not saying that we ''should'', I might stipulate that the restoration of material without a source being provided within 30 minutes may be considered a violation of this policy. ] (]) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose'''- IMO it's almost always desirable that the person restoring challenged material cite it immediately (ie same edit). But I recognize that sometimes it's more convenient to do it in a sequence of edits. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC) *'''Weak oppose'''- IMO it's almost always desirable that the person restoring challenged material cite it immediately (ie same edit). But I recognize that sometimes it's more convenient to do it in a sequence of edits. ] <sub>]</sub> 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Content that was deleted under VERIFY shouldn't be restored unless there is actually a source at hand to be added with it. The editor doing the restoration should have done the work of seeing what reliable sources say and re-reading the content to see if it is actually supported by the sources or needs to be modified. To me, just restoring unsourced content without bringing a source is a red flag of advocacy or ownership or other behaviors that we don't encourage. ] (]) 15:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

'''Neutrals/abstains:''' '''Neutrals/abstains:'''



Revision as of 15:58, 16 July 2015

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

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.
The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the lead section of the verifiability policy over the years. If you want to discuss changing its wording, please first read the 2012 request for comments and the previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84

Archives by topic

First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011)
First sentence (April–August 2011)

2012 RfC about the lead section


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Inaccurate translation from official source vs. faithful translation

On the page My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU, a translated title "My Youth Romantic Comedy Was Wrong as Expected" is mentioned as the translation for やはり俺のラブコメは間違ってる. This is mentioned on the cover of the book which would supposedly qualify as a reliable source. However, people in Japan have a habit of attempting to make translations that turn out not to make sense or are inaccurate usages of English due to the relative lack of people who speak good English in Japan. That is, although they are reliable sources for whatever they work on, they tend not to be reliable in providing English translations. In this case, I would like to ask if it is appropriate to provide a more appropriate translation alongside the "official" translation (the official translation would still be mentioned) so that people are able to read what the actual Japanese means without needing to make guesses from an inaccurate or unclear translation.--Tosiaki! (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

At All your base are belong to us we did just that. It's well known that the official texts in that game are broken English, so it was a clear-cut case. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is the governing policy which, lacking a high quality external translation, would explicitly allow an editor to translate the non-english part of the text. Diego (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces primary or secondary?

SlimVirgin raised an interesting point to me earlier today when she pointed out that op-eds are generally secondary sources. This is true by a conventional interpretation, but WP:NEWSBLOG has a bluelink from "opinion piece" to WP:PRIMARY, and because of this I have been operating under the assumption that op-eds should be treated as primary sources. So, according to Misplaced Pages, are opinion pieces primary or secondary? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say neither, in that the primary-secondary distinction presupposes an objective recounting of information. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on that? I don't have a concept of how to practically deal with 1.5-ary sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's sort of like saying that primary and secondary are classifications of English-language sources, but op-eds are in Urdu. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:PSTS seems to suggest that {primary, secondary, tertiary} is an exhaustive classification of sources. On a related note I have been in the habit of treating scientific papers as primary sources for their original claims, and as secondary sources for the background stuff, which can be invaluable especially in subjects where review articles are rarely written, but SlimVirgin also criticized me for not applying the classification uniformly to the whole article. Is that accurate? Or does the classification depend on which claims are cited?
I don't know what to make of Urdu op-eds. Is the bluelink to WP:PRIMARY just a misleading oversight? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, reliability of a reference depends on the context where it's used, so it must be evaluated for each sentence supported by a reference. Therefore, a paper might be reliable (and secondary) for some sentences in the Misplaced Pages article, primary for others, and unreliable for some claims. Diego (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ideally an opinion piece is composed of two kind of statements: (II) these are the facts..., and (I) these are my opinions about these facts...
(II) is the secondary source part of the opinion piece, (I) is its primary source part. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense to me - you're saying that the distinction between primary and secondary depends on what claim is cited. So maybe this should be clarified in WP:PSTS? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
See WP:RSOPINION, maybe also WP:WEASEL, which I suppose Misplaced Pages's current way of dealing with this. These are guidelines: giving full detail about what exactly is primary and what exactly is secondary in which circumstances is hardly something we'd write in a policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP:RSOPINION talks about reliability and attribution, which are different issues. Whether a source is primary matters, for example, because it determines whether it is subject to the "extreme caution" required by WP:BLPPRIMARY, whether it counts toward establishing notability in an AfD discussion, and whether a Misplaced Pages article can be mainly based on such sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
In the context of notability (AfD, sufficient basis for Misplaced Pages article,...) opinion pieces count as secondary sources (they contain at least a secondary source part, that part contributes to the notability as much as any other secondary source that is not a mere listing).
In the context of WP:PRIMARY the "caution" provision only applies to the primary source part of the opinion piece. As said the policy doesn't detail for every type of "primary" source what needs to be done. But an advantage is that for opinion pieces the way the caution needs to be applied to the primary source part is a fairly standardized procedure, which is described in the reliable sources guideline under the header WP:RSOPINION (in short: "attribution" is the way to exert "caution" in such context).
Regarding main content of a Misplaced Pages article: start with filling the article with the secondary source content. Possibly add some opinions to it, but don't start with a list of quoted opinions before giving the facts everyone agrees on:
  1. statement "this film was released in year xxxx and directed by xyz, with a cash return of abc,def"
  2. statement "y1 thought it a good movie, y2 thought it a bad movie"
Guess which statement should be used first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, for questions regarding source/article/statement combinations you have in mind, please go to WP:RSN: we can theorize about this all we want, but I sense you have particular questions to resolve in this sense, here is hardly the place to sort that out. If the general answers you received here have helped you out sufficiently, I was happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Opinion pieces play a dual role. In principle they could be secondary sources for facts they assert about the world at large, but because opinion pieces aren't fact-checked the way news pieces are, they usually can't be considered reliable, except perhaps those from a writer well known for his or her reliability. Other than that, they are primary sources for the opinions of their writers (e.g. in an article Smith, we might write "Smith, in an opinion piece for the Morning Bugle, asserted that taxes should never be used for ..." etc.). However, we then run into the usual limitations on primary sources -- we generally wouldn't use such material unless some independent secondary source (e.g. a biography of Smith) discusses Smith's positions on taxes; in this case, we might use one of his opinion pieces to illustrate what the secondary source is saying. EEng (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to ask: does it really matter whether an Op-ed piece is Primary or Secondary? I don't think it does... The important question is whether a specific op-ed piece is being used appropriately. There is a very good essay on the appropriate use of sources... see: WP:NOTGOODSOURCE and its sub-section WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Whether we consider an op-ed piece to be primary or secondary (or some mix of the two)... I would say that there are limited situations in which it is appropriate to use them. We always need to question how much WP:WEIGHT to give an op-ed piece... and when we do use one we should always attribute it to it's author. In essence, they should be treated as self-published works (even though they are not physically published by the "self" who wrote it). Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the primary/secondary thing does matter in two repects:
      • Does the Op-ed count when determining the number of third-party sources in a notability logic (primary sources usually don't add up in that logic)? The answer is YES, the Op-ed counts as a secondary source there.
      • Are a journalist's opinions primary or secondary? Well, they're primary, I chose to explain the primary source precautions mentioned in WP:OR, as applicable to the context, by referring to a guideline – sure the same can be done by referring to an essay, and illustrate it by "don't read the three core content policies in isolation of one another". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as an op-ed counting towards notability goes... I think it is far more nuanced than a dualistic if Secondary = good / if Primary = bad. For one thing, not all op-eds are equal. Sure, an op-ed on some topic written by a nationally known columnistand published in a large circulation, big city newspaper should count positively towards notability of the topic ... but an op-ed piece on the same topic, written by an obscure unknown and only published in a small town, low circulation paper does not have enough of an audience to count towards notability. It's more a function of audience than the primary/secondary nature of the source. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?

I am aware of only one "official" exception to WP:OR, and that is for plot summaries in otherwise notable articles on works of fiction. That exception seems to be detailed in MOS:PLOT, part of the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style guidelines, which is a subsection of the broader guideline WP:MOSFICT.

It reads:

"The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."

However, I find that there is a really massive amount of detailed original research arcana in the article space on Misplaced Pages, generally completely unsourced, on various minor characters from fictional works, or "List of characters in ..." fictional work articles.

So my question is, are there other exceptions of WP:V and WP:OR. Places where, by policy, the community has decided that fictional work OR is okay, and verifiability is not important?

Thanks. N2e (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No - there is no exception to WP:OR. If not sourced to third parties, any plot summaries / commentaries/ character descriptions must abide by WP:OR and be merely summaries or uncontested condensations of the primary source - policy does not allow any interpretation or commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I get your point about "summaries or uncontested condensations of the primary source"; but I believe that is only applicable on (as I quoted MOS:PLOT above) a "a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations". So I get that plot summaries must not include additional sythesis. So I may have asked my question poorly. Let me try to clarify.
My question is really then, given that, how many other articles get this "plot summary" exception and don't need to be sourced to published, third party reliable sources? Can the exception to WP:RS, once allowed for a plot summary for a work of fiction, be allowed to then be extended to other articles? For example, to an unending list of minor characters? I occasionally run into editors who assert that the plot summary exception can be applied to a fair amount of arcana about particular characters in other articles, way beyond the original article on the named work of fiction. Here's one example:

"It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF. It's not original research to give a summary of a work of fiction using the work of fiction as the source itself. It's the primary source. You just don't know the rules when it comes to writing fiction and how EVERY page on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing."

I agree with that editor that a (very) large number of article pages "on TV shows, film series, comic books, and book series all do the same thing." They have LOTS of unsourced OR detailed plot-related arcana about obscure characters in the show/book/etc. I'm just trying to find out if it is okay to extend the plot summary exception to WP:RS to all of that? N2e (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, there's no exception to WP:RS, nor to WP:V. "Third party" sources ("..independent of the subject..") is a WP:GNG concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Expanding (ec):
  • (GNG:) if there isn't significant coverage of the subject in reliable third-party sources, you haven't got enough base material for a Misplaced Pages article on the subject (article can be deleted by AfD, PROD, or in extreme cases speedied).
  • (OR/V/RS:) once there is a viable article its content and its sourcing should comply to NOR/V/RS (et.al., like NPOV), none of which make the exclusive use of third party sources obligatory. Not for any subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. "It's sourced TO THE TV SHOW ITSELF" – WP:V is only complied to when the TV-show is obtainable (unedited at least for the part on which the Misplaced Pages content is based) after such information is added to the article (and no interpretative claims etc.). Very detailed Misplaced Pages content not covered by secondary sources may however present WP:BALASPS problems; on the other hand, a basic description of any subject based on available primary sources (when other reliable sources only have other content on the subject) is never a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Plot summaries are not "an exemption" to WP:NOR... they are explicitly allowed by that policy: "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Blueboar. N2e, are you interpreting the WP:OR policy to simply mean "unsourced"? Something can be unsourced, or without an inline citation, in an article and still not be WP:OR. Like the reference in the WP:OR policy states after the word exist for its second lead sentence, "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."
The play, book, television show, or movie is the source, just like you've been told. I've told the same thing to editors who've insisted that the plot section is unsourced and/or WP:OR because it lacks inline citations. If an editor engages in WP:OR with that plot summary, then that's obviously a problem. I understand that you are wondering how you can know if the plot section is true unless you've read the book or watched the show or film. Well, like I've stated on such matters, when it's not true, an editor usually comes along and corrects it. It's also commonly easy to Google the matter and see what's true and what is not; at least for some of the plot material. One area where this is difficult, though, is soap operas because daytime soap operas commonly air five days a week with a new episode each day, and usually don't play reruns (if the reruns happen, it's usually on holidays); that's how it usually is for American daytime soap operas anyway. See the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5#Storylines sections lack references 2011 discussion about this. Recently, American soap operas have been dying off, though, with occasional resurgences. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That was a very helpful response, Flyer22, and Blueboar. So I see now that I was confused as to exactly which actions in this sort of description of fiction is OR vs. Notability vs. etc. OR is not the same thing as just putting in a plot summary, in a named article on the work of fiction, without any source, etc. And, yes, definite problem is it is very challenging to insure Misplaced Pages keeps an NPOV in these cases were first-person research (but not OR) is done from viewing/reading the work of fiction. N2e (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue may be a conflation of several concepts. While WP:V , WP:OR , WP:NPOV (and its subsection WP:UNDUE ) and WP:N have inter-relations and impact how the others are applied, they are distinct concepts on their own, and how they apply depends upon the question being asked.

For example, "Do the policies allow me to put into an article the statement 'Marge Simpson's hair is blue' based upon the TV show itself?"

  • Does the statement pass WP:V? Yes, it is verifiable by looking at the show that Marge's hair is blue.
  • Does the statement pass WP:OR by not making any claim or analysis or implication that is not directly supported by the source? Yes, it passes WP:OR in that any person watching the show will agree that Marge's hair is blue.
  • Does it pass WP:NPOV? In this case the answer is "It depends". If the article is about the Simpsons, then in many cases "yes". If the article is about hair salons in China, then probably no, talking about Marge Simpson's hair color would be WP:UNDUE.
  • Does the claim and the source establish or help establish that the article the sentence is in meets WP:GNG? No. The TV show is a primary source for the color of Marge's hair and does not establish that third parties have discussed the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very helpful response TPoD! I've been conflating some of the core policies, for sure. Your delineation of the policies and issues is quite helpful. Moreover, now I realize I may even be confusing some of the good people trying to help me as the Talk page section title is "How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?", but we are really talking about a larger issue, and what WP core policy says with respect to that, and what are the implications for the quality of the encyclopedia, and particular articles, as a result. Should I perhaps change the section title now, to make it more clear? Or start a new section??? N2e (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@N2e: I wouldn't change the section header name at this point because it would change the context of other people's comments. You may wish to insert a subsection header. Or if the conversation below is heading in the direction that answers your question, just let it roll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article the OP is talking about is List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters. When the editor arrived at the article, it had no sources at all (see this version)
    • On the Talk page, at one point they seem to make the error applying NOTABILITY to specific bits of article content (e.g. whether to discuss a particular character at all, and perhaps how much) which is a mistake - NOTABILITY only applies to articles as a whole. I think the WP-appropriate policy question is whether the mention of the character (or weight given to the description) is UNDUE, which you can generally only settle via independent, secondary sources. That is a good question.
    • IP editors arguing with the OP on the Talk were making the point that the descriptions of the characters didn't need any sourcing per MOS:PLOT - in other words, the whole article didn't need sourcing at all. That seems to be a bad argument to me, as nothing showed NOTABILITY for the article as a whole (but List articles are generally a nightmare to me)
    • The OP seems to making the claim that this article, List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters, is not the article on the show, which is Power Rangers Dino Charge and so MOS:PLOT does not apply anyway. That seems kind of wiki-lawyer-y to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As an aside, the article has all kinds of interpretative language in it, cited only to the show:
    • "Tyler Navarro is the enthusiastic and adventurous leader of the team, "
    • "Shelby Watkins is a clumsy, slightly ditzy tomboy who works as a waitress at the Dino Bite Cafe inside the Amber Beach Dinosaur Museum. Shelby also has a vast knowledge of dinosaurs, "
    • "Chase Randall is the suave laid-back member of the group from New Zealand with a cat and mouse personality. He is a skateboarder and likes to flirt with pretty girls."
    • "Wrench is another of Sledge's generals who has a whining personality if he is badly hurt. "
  • The "color" in these description is WP:OR I believe, as we cannot interpret primary sources. Seems like a fan-blog, not a wikipedia article. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
OK... here is my advice on the article... first is the issue of WP:Notability ... the lead of the article needs to establish that the characters of "Power Rangers Dino Charge" are notable enough as a group for Misplaced Pages to have a separate list article about them. For that, we need reliable secondary sources that are independent of the TV show ... sources that discuss these characters as a group. If this can not be established, the list should probably be merged into the article on the show (as a sub-section).
Assuming we can establish notability, we then move to the issue of content... which characters to include and exclude. This is a function of WP:Due Weight... It may be that some of the characters are worth mentioning while others are not. Characters that appear in every episode would appropriately be given more weight than those that only appear occasionally, and those that have only appeared in one or two episodes are probably too marginal to be worth mentioning at all. Characters that have been discussed by reliable sources should be given weight... those that have not been discussed by reliable sources should not.
Finally, once we determine which characters are worth mentioning, we have to determine what to say about them. This information needs to be Verifiable. VERY BASIC description ("Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode nineteen that he is gay") can be verified by the show itself. Character analysis and evaluation (such as "Fred is likable and kind, but overly trusting") requires an external source. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes.Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Slight persnickety: "Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode nineteen that he is gay when he came out to his parents" => OK - content of the show directly establishes claim. "Fred Smith is the Taupe Ranger - it was established in episode eighteen that he is gay when he said he likes to arrange flowers and listen to kd lang and admires Harvey Milk" =>Not OK - evaluative interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the spirit of Blueboar's comment, but I believe the implied line described here is too tight. Broad aspects of character that any reasonably competent reader/viewer will notice is not OR. (I am too old for the Power Rangers, so I will switch examples.) "Scooby-Doo is easily scared and not too bright." Do we really need to source the fact that he is definitely no Einstein? If you insist. Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
How dare you! scooby doo is a genius! see here.  :) pop culture articles in WP give me hives.Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Can I point out that WP:PRIMARY, which is part of the no original research policy, says in one of the strongest statements in Misplaced Pages policy: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Note the word "evaluate." I would suggest to TRPoD that his statements about the color of Marge Simpson's hair and that about Fred Smith aren't necessarily consistent, though as I'm about to say I generally agree with the end result. That is: I agree entirely with TRPoD's statement about Fred Smith, but I'm uncomfortable with the one about evaluating Marge Simpson's hair color as blue, at least in Wikitheory. On the other hand, I'm okay with evaluating her hair as blue as one of those kinds of local exception to policy which stand because no one reverts it and which thus weakly implies that no one disagrees with it. But like all of those exceptions, if someone objects to it (either because they disagree with the evaluation — is Scooby Doo's coat tan or brown? — or merely because it violates the no-evaluation rule), then a "positive" consensus has to be formed to support the exception or a reliable source has to be found to support it. Choor monster, yes, indeed, we do need to source that fact and if it's that important to the character it's certainly been discussed in some episode or third party source.Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say that I greatly appreciate the help in clarifying and interpreting the Misplaced Pages policy(ies) that have emerged to make this such a great, and very useful, encyclopedia. I've learned much, including that the presumption I had in my original question in the Talk page section header above ("How wide is the "original research" exception for articles on Fictional works?") was incorrect. While OR does not allow synthesis, it is fairly clear that WP:GNG and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE are probably more of the problem in the sorts of articles with excessive (often unsourced) fancruft in articles on works of fiction that brought me here to ask the question.

I've learned a lot, and am still learning, from the discussion here. Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of challenged material

WP:V contains this text:

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

while WP:BLP contains this text:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

Given these policy statements, once material has been challenged and removed, under what circumstances can an editor restore it without providing an inline citation in the same edit? Any? Or is the editor obligated to find the source prior to restoring the material? If there's an acceptable lag between restoration and sourcing, what is it?—Kww(talk) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The restoring editor might be putting the disputed statement back in one edit, then intend to provide the source in a subsequent edit. I think a suitable lag would be the time it takes to find and fill in a CITET template. I'd give it an hour, tops, assuming the restoring editor isn't explaining why it might take longer than that. Reyk YO! 14:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
And, politely, without intending to hound: why don't we demand that the editor find and fill in that template before saving?—Kww(talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
In purely practical terms, and with sometimes mildly demanding wikitable markup, it's much easier to add the citations alone rather than re-insert sections into tables along with their refs. Plus, it's easier to work with a crib sheet of "missing answers". As long as it's not controversial, there shouldn't be a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Some articles have the list of references in a section the the bottom, such as this one. It's not unreasonable for someone to edit one section to add the info, put the citet template in the references section in a second edit, then come back to do the inline thing in a third edit. I think an hour is generous enough for someone who's slow about it. I don't think waiting forever on the off chance they might come back to source their stuff is required. Generally if you've got a reason for breaking the process up into multiple edits you'd want to communicate why in edit summaries. Reyk YO! 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC template as the question is answered in great detail on the policy page, both in general for WP:V (see WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations, third paragraph of the section) as in particular for WP:BLP (WP:BLP#Challenged or likely to be challenged, and subsequent subsections). I oppose calling an RfC for a question that basically comes down to: can you point me to the appropriate section in the guidance?

When you're challenging the guidance, first ask, before calling an RfC. Or go straight to a dramaboard (which this talkpage isn't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Francis Schonken I've restored the RFC template, for the reason that the interpretation of those sentences is being disputed to the point that I am risking being desysopped for enforcing my interpretation (which is that the source must be provided in the same edit). I was hoping to get an interpretation divorced from that conflict, and I guess that opportunity is shot to hell now, but it is apparent that there is some community disagreement about the timing and sequence of when the source must be supplied vs. when the material is restored.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, then go read the policies. You'll have your answer. Sorry to hear about the challenging of your sysop bit. Calling an RfC for something that is plain in the guidance is however not how a sysop should behave (and would incline me to support removing the sysop bit if I were interested enough to have my voice heard in this). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've read the policies, Francis Schonken. Can you point at any piece of them that supports the restoration of challenged material while unaccompanied by an inline citation?—Kww(talk) 15:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Not every removal of unsourced material is "challenging" – it may e.g. be plain vandalism. BLP has a few conditions built in, e.g. that the removed material is "contentious", if you can't make the judgement call whether material is contentious or not, you shouldn't be "enforcing" anything. Removals of non-contentious material can often be reverted with the addition of a {{cn}} notice (which WP:V describes), but that also is a judgement call, e.g. countering plain vandalism removals with a {{cn}} may be heavy-handed. So the answer to your question, when material without an inline citation is removed can it only be reinserted with a citation is: IT DEPENDS, and requires a judgement call more often than not. Trying to shortcut the judgement call part goes against policy, and editors acting without the judgement call part would probably better not be enforcing anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
How could there possibly be any GREATER "challenge" to content than outright removal????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Really, is that the level of this discussion? I'm not going to see a removal like this one as a "challenge" to the validity of the removed content. ever. whether there are refs in it or not, no difference: removal, but no "challenging" of material. Repeating my proposal to fold this discussion with a link where the discussion was (and still is) going on before this forumshopping began. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, Francis Schonken, {{cn}} is only discussed in terms of what an editor can do before removing challenged material. There's no mention at all about using in when restoring text.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Again, if you can't distinguish between "removed material" and "contentious material", and think "challenged" applies to both in the same degree, getting better acquaintance with the actual policy would probably be more beneficial than fighting the desysopping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Your comments center exclusively upon what practices policy indicates should be addressed in the context of removing material, and do not address the question I attempted to start an RFC over at all.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Your question was about "challenged" material. "Challenging" is not a mechanical concept (we'd have bots to handle it if it were). The policies explain the nuances, depending on circumstances, of what challenging is. No RfC is needed to explain "hey, don't interpret challenging as if it were a mechanical concept, for example by enforcing that no removed content would be brought back without an inline citation". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
              • We're not talking about undoing a vandal's section blanking and in the process restoring an unsourced paragraph. We're talking about material removed specifically because it is unsourced and, yes, that is a bright line rule, just like 3RR. It is never OK to restore it without a supporting citation. The only question is whether there's a bit of wiggle room about the sourcing and the restoration being in the same edit. Reyk YO! 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                • A vandal removing a single unsourced sentence and writing "challenging unsourced statement" in the edit summary would still be a vandal. So "unless the challenged statement is vandalism or potentially libellous" (as it was in the answer already given to kww before coming here) the editwarring is a far brighter line than the judgement call needed to assess whether a removal is a WP:V challenging that supersedes WP:BITE and whatnot (as carefully explained to kww before coming here with the same question he had already gotten an answer to). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • "A vandal removing a single unsourced sentence and writing "challenging unsourced statement" in the edit summary would still be a vandal."- nope, you are wrong. That is not vandalism, ever. Reyk YO! 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                  Note: WP:FORUMSHOP is also a very bright line, and I'm inclined to fold this discussion with a link to where the original discussion is taking place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The BURDEN section of this policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (Emphasis added.) I would ordinarily argue that the "should" makes that a best practice, not a requirement, but the language first quoted by Kww, above, says "must" so I think that this is merely a re-emphasis of that requirement, not a new rule, and is therefore mandatory. Moreover, any unsourced material can be removed, whether it's a restoration or a new edit, so in some ways it doesn't matter. However, it should be noted that there's no exception to 3RR or the edit war policies for removing restoration of unsourced edits. On the "same edit" question, I agree with Reyk. Heck, though I'm absolutely committed to previewing and providing edit summaries on every edit I make, I still sometimes hit the save page button before I remember to do so. Editors are human and instantaneously reverting a restoration fails to AGF. Give them some time and then remind them of their obligation and give them another chance before reverting. If they still revert after that, take them to ANI or seek dispute resolution, don't edit war. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To the above I would add, the BURDEN section of this policy says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Right there is the answer to the question of whether the citation must be added at the same time the material is restored. And, I might add, a claim that X won Y award followed by or tells the reader not to trust the claim. Deleting it when you have no real reason to think it is false harms the LP (slightly) if it turns out to be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, Guy, that tells you that the speed of the removal depends on numerous factors. It pretty clearly states that restoration should not occur without an inline citation.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Imho this highlights the problem: picking one ore two policies while ignoring the broader context of other, as applicable, guidance. Thinking that taking half a paragraph of this policy is a token with which to smash all other relevant guidance including WP:BITE, WP:AGF etc., even when the second half of that same paragraph clearly indicates limits with which this can be enforced.
    It is clear why kww wants to have this discussion on this talk page: in order to maximise ignorance of behavioral constraints (note that ArbCom cases generally judge behavior, not content) – so, repeating my proposal to hat this discussion here to take it back, with an appropriate link, to where the discussion is taking place since before the forumshopping began. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • First, this discussion ignores the possibility that the restoring editor has provided a valid reason for not providing an additional citation. Instances I've seen of editors failing to recognize a valid pre-existing citation include:
  1. Substantially the same claim, with a valid citation, appears elsewhere in the article.
  2. The article contains a valid citation that is not in the form of a footnote, like "Jones explains in chapter 6 of his autobiography.... (where the autobiography is in the reference list of the article).
Second, it is often convenient to make a change in a few edits rather than one edit. This would apply if short footnotes are being added to the body of the article, and a new source to the reference list. It would also apply if named references are being used and some adjustments are needed so that the named reference applies correctly to each spot where the named reference is used. If an editor is trying to do a good job by using these more sophisticated citation systems, and gets reverted in the middle of the process, the editor is justified in being angry at the reverter. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who say that the citation may be provided after the text is, so long as this is done in a reasonably prompt manner, i would say up to several hours. If the current policy and guideline pages don't provide for this, then they should be changed to clearly and explicitly do so. Addingf a CN tag promptly seems not unreasonable, it documents the request for a citation. Reverting, much less blocking, does not, and I think it is clear that the community consensus does not support such action, and so any policy page that says otherwise is in error. DES 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have this wonderful history feature which provides all prior versions of the article. There is absolutely no need to return challenged material before verifiability is established even for a little while. There is no need for a partially completed edit to sit in the public article. You can use your user space, you can use a text editor. The burden of verifiability was very intentionally placed where it is, and I think it is a good idea. How many times has someone said they were going to fix an article and did not? Chillum 16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's the practical side of this: Unless there is something else going on, no one is ever going to be blocked for either restoring unsourced material (even if they never provide a source) or for deleting that unsourced restoration just one or two times. Trying to parse out whether the sources have to be provided in the same edit or can be provided later is a colossal waste of time. Would anyone here want to go to ANI with the complaint that an editor restored unsourced information but X minutes/hours/days late provided a source for it but ought to be blocked anyway only because he/she didn't do it in the same edit? Yes, of course it ought to be in the same edit, but on a practical level — again without something else going on — it's irrelevant other than, perhaps, something to use to try to bluff someone (usually a newcomer) into capitulation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) PS: I wrote the foregoing before the subsection about the Arbcom Case, below, was added and got an edit conflict because of it. I strongly predict that what I've said here will be proven true in that case, as is already appearing to be the case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


I find it quite interesting that editors are expressing widely different and frequently contradictory opinions as to what the policy says in respect to this issue, yet it is so obvious to some that an RFC is unnecessary. So obvious to one that he was even willing to remove the RFC tag twice in order to make certain that no RFC was held.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom Case

This posting at talk:Verifiability is clearly an attempt to gain support for the assertion he made at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop#Fundamental policies cannot be violated based on local consensus. In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

I will copy here the opinion of arbitrator Thryduulf on that page, which I fully agree with:

"@Kww: As noted by others, you must give people a reasonable time to add the citation. How long "reasonable" is will vary, in my personal view it will depend on things like how contentious the challenged statement is (more contentious = less time), how plausible it is (more plausible = longer time), whether it has been discussed on the talk page (previously rejected = shorter time, source just requires copying from the talk page = shorter time, agreed it's not contentious = longer time), who the editor restoring it is (users with a history of vandalism should be accorded a lesser time than someone with a reputation for good edits; a new user unfamiliar with adding references will take longer to add one than someone who does it every day), how many sources are being added (e.g. if someone is sourcing a list they should be given time to source all the entries, either in one edit or in several, rather than be required to restore each item individually), the nature of the source (e.g. it will probably take longer to add a reference to a book than to a website), and any statements given about time (e.g. if someone has indicated they'll source something in the next 5-10 minutes, they should in most cases be given at least that long) and possibly other factors too. In all cases policies regarding edit warring remain in effect, and unless the challenged statement is vandalism or potentially libellous then people should be given sufficient time, at minimum, to add the source in their next edit. "

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Eh. It's a fair question. It's not like KWW is keeping it a secret that his adminship hangs on the outcome of the arbcom case, and I think his interpretation is more right than wrong. Reyk YO! 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ehh. It's a fair question. And it's a fair answer which kww had been given prior to coming here. Which makes coming here WP:FORUMSHOP. Again sorry to hear kww's adminship being in the balance, but they didn't say "I got an answer to this question which I don't like, so I come here to get a different answer", which again for me (not in the least interested whether kww keeps the adminship or not) is a sure sign adminship is not a way to go for this editor. This is what is called boomerang, and they should've known better before taking other people's time with a question that already has been given a fair answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it is forum shopping and it is a reasonable request by Kww to see if other editors agree with her/his interpretation. I do however agree with Francis Schonken that as no change in policy is proposed there is no need for this section to be an RfC.
I agree with Kww, TransporterMan, and Chillum.
TransporterMan you wrote "I would ordinarily argue that the 'should' makes that a best practice," the great "Men's rights movement" moving debate brought to the for that "should" has different meanings in different dialects of English in some it usually means "ought" in other it is closer to "must". In this case I think the sentence has to be read in the context of the previous sentence "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Ie in this case "should" is closer to "must" than "ought".
Jc3s5h I think you have a point but only for the lead section which is meant to be a summary of the rest of the body of the text. If a sentence in the lead is not a summary of a fact in the body of the text and an in-line citation is requested then it should be provided. In the rest of the text although you have a point in practical terms it is just easier to copy the citation to the sentence where it is requested then argue the toss of over whether the same fact is cited else where. As to the rest of your post Jc3s5h we have sandboxes and so if something had been removed as a challenge, then I don't think that the person who finds it "convenient to make a change in a few edits rather than one edit" is "justified in being angry at the reverter"--unless they have first explained what they are doing on the talk page, or added an appropriate template such as {{Under construction}} and even then they do the work within hours not days--because the reverter could equally argue that they are angry that BURDEN is not being followed.
DESiegel (DES) the boat has long since left harbour. The section "Responsibility for providing citations" (WP:PROVEIT) was introduced about a decade ago to held fix what was then a real problem with Misplaced Pages credibility, and was part of the drive for quality not quantity. At that time it was quite common for journalists to write article about how untrustworthy Wikiepdia was -- because it was easy to find Misplaced Pages articles full of unverifiable text that turned out to be a nonsense. BURDEN and CHALLENGE have been hugely beneficial to Misplaced Pages, because it has forced editors to prove that the content is backed up in reliable sources. As a side benefit it has also over time brought stability to a lot of articles that a decade ago were in a perpetual state of flux due to unsourced POV pushing.
A good example of how challenge and burden improved an article is synchronous motor (as it is now) and how it was before it was challenged in Dec 2012. -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, I wholly agree that "should" in this case is a linguistic gloss, not policy-making. The policy is "must." I also fully agree that the policy at least implies that the provision of the source must be in the same edit, but I also feel that the spirit of collegiality and cooperation lying behind a wiki concept along with the absence of an explicit same-edit requirement requires us to allow some slack to allow at least some time to come along and add the source, unless the restoration is demonstrably tendentious. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC - Restoration of deleted unsourced material clarifications

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I propose the following changes to the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the BURDEN section of the policy. Removed material is struck through and colored red new or replacement material is underlined and colored green. Proposed changes:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should must not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

Notes

  1. And the edit restoring the material must also contain the citation; restoring the material and later providing the citation is not allowed.

Note that there are actually three separate proposals here, each of which is independent of the other two:

1. The change from "should" to "must" in the first sentence.
2. The addition of the clarifying footnote at the end of the first sentence.
3. The clarification in the second sentence that it only applies to initial removals, not to restorations.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Please indicate your support or rejection of each proposal separately. Anyone who chooses to express an opinion here would be well-advised to first familiarize themselves with the discussion taking place in the Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Restoration of challenged material section, immediately above.

Proposal 1 — First sentence should/must

Supports:

Opposes:

Neutrals/abstains:

Proposal 2 — First sentence new footnote

Supports:

Opposes:

  • Weak oppose as proposer. Currently implied by the existing policy, but to make it an express rule by the addition of this footnote seems unnecessarily rigid and opposed to wiki principles of assuming good faith, collaborative editing, and cooperation. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why should we stipulate that the source be included in the same edit? And are we going to accuse editors who belatedly add sourcing of disruptive editing, since doing so is not permitted under this change? If we were going to get pedantic, and I'm not saying that we should, I might stipulate that the restoration of material without a source being provided within 30 minutes may be considered a violation of this policy. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose- IMO it's almost always desirable that the person restoring challenged material cite it immediately (ie same edit). But I recognize that sometimes it's more convenient to do it in a sequence of edits. Reyk YO! 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Content that was deleted under VERIFY shouldn't be restored unless there is actually a source at hand to be added with it. The editor doing the restoration should have done the work of seeing what reliable sources say and re-reading the content to see if it is actually supported by the sources or needs to be modified. To me, just restoring unsourced content without bringing a source is a red flag of advocacy or ownership or other behaviors that we don't encourage. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrals/abstains:

Proposal 3 — Second sentence clarify initial removals only

Supports:

Opposes:

Neutrals/abstains:

Discussion

I don't have a dog in the hunt happening over at ARBCOM, but I'm seeing enough disagreement over how the !rules here are to be interpreted and/or applied, both there and above, that I think it appropriate for the community to have a chance at clarifying them for ongoing purposes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions Add topic