Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

	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.

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.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

[edit] conflict of interest causing content removal?

An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content, and that appears to cause a conflict of interest for those editors wishing to increase their association with GA/FA/&c. or for those who are overzealous about WP policy, favouring appearance and style rather than content. This kind of "corrective" editing is likely to repel primary contributors (← please read that), and without their content, WP consumes itself and withers.

A case in point concerns the article Stalker in which a quote of significant relevance and interest was removed (moved to the talk page) by a WP administrator (!?), along with similar content which was tagged as unsourced. The edit summary merely reads "corrections and fixes throughout". (I only discovered it because I returned to the article, several months after reading it, to find the quote again, but it was gone, so I examined the edit history.)

Naturally, primary contributors are likely to be unfamiliar with WP policy (regarding verifiability, &c.), and it seems foolish to expect them to be otherwise.

WP:Verifiability states:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed [...]

[...] you may move the material to the talk page.

however, it also states:

[...] it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

I suggest and request that the policy be changed to support content, primary contributors and readers by explicitly deprecating the removal of unsourced content (assuming it appears to be relevant and useful) unless a thorough search for sources has failed. Further, if content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. Moving content to the talk page has problems because it removes context and the content is likely to be forgotten unless an active discussion is already underway.

It may be difficult for those on the inside, familiar with WP policy, to understand the outer perspectives of primary contributors and readers, but I think that is essential to the healthy development of WP. —Richard Taytor (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is more appropriate in the reliable sources talk, but I largely agree with you. If I see an unsourced statement, I will try to source it. If I don't have time and I think that the statement is probably/possibly true, I will fact tag it. If the statement strikes me as probable rubbish, I will go ahead and remove it, stating in the edit summary that it can be added back in if sourced.

We should not discourage edits from outside of the more policy-knowledgeable wiki community, but neither is it ok for questionable and unsupported statements to stand unchallenged. One of the things that the off-wiki community will need to come to understand is that wikipedia relies heavily upon citation, and that adding unsourced information is inviting it to be removed. To some extent, challenging unsourced info via removal furthers that goal - though I still would not remove what I considered to be a valuable but as-yet-unsourced contribution. Removing unsourced material is also good for Wikipedia's reputation off-wiki, which I estimate to be lower than we would like. Mishlai (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We need people to remove uncited material because that's how we stop people from sneaking all kinds of actually false claims into the article. If someone is being a bit overzealous about removing content that could easily be sourced, discussing it with that person would be a better idea than going to the policy and creating the false impression that editors don't have to add citations for the claims they add to articles. --causa sui ^talk 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to achieve a bit of ballance here... there is a difference between how we deal with unsourced statements in a new article (look for sources ourselves, tag if we can not find one, etc.), and how we deal with unsourced statements in an article that is being considered for GA status (remove to talk page for discussion, or delete completely). We also have to consider how long a statement has remained unsourced after it has been tagged (there comes a point when we can assume it can not be sourced).

There is a happy medium between Inclusion and Exclusion. It is not always easy to achieve, but it does exist. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do essentially as Mishlai--it depends on the article and the material. In my experience, it is possible to destroy an article by insisting on exact citation for even the obvious pieces, word by word through the article--and then challenging the reliability of every source. This is also a common tactic in dealing with a disliked aspect, or portion that contradicts owns own POV. It is equally possible to turn an article or section into pure promotion (or abuse) by inserting multiple pieces of material that don't actually have any sources. DGG (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the following?

Unsourced content, which appears to be otherwise relevant and useful, should not be removed unless a reasonable search for sources has failed. If such content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. —Richard Taytor (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the second sentence, but not the first. We don't want people to think they must search for a source before removing something if it strikes them as wrong and it's unsourced. Especially at GA level, which you mentioned above, an article should definitely be well-sourced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SV here. By all means encourage editors to search for sources rather than just deleting, but the onus needs to be on the person who adds claims. --GenericBob (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my message has been missed by several who have posted here. I am not advocating the protection of content which appears to be incorrect/irrelevant. Rather, I mean to draw attention to a pernicious pattern: the removal of relevant/useful content simply because it lacks citation. Present policy appears to support the removal of unsourced content regardless of its relevance/utility, and regardless of the availability of potential sources. I simply wish to reduce the loss of relevant/useful content (a pattern which I have observed; one case in point cited above).

Objections?

Unsourced content, which appears to be correct, relevant and useful, should not be removed simply because it lacks citation, unless a reasonable search for sources has failed. If such content is removed (or moved to the talk page), the edit summary should clearly indicate that. —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is usually the right way to go, but I'd still be uncomfortable making it a general rule. I have run into bad-faith editors who take advantage of the fact that it takes less time to make up a 'source' than it does to check it, especially if you make the source inconvenient (e.g. "The British House of Lords, Hansard, Question to Lord Irvine by Lord Spens 2000 April 16", no URL provided); requiring editors to treat unsourced material as innocent until proven guilty would give them even more of an advantage (since you can always find somebody who thinks it looks correct, relevant, and useful, even if that somebody is a sock). 'Assume good faith' should be the default, but there are times when we need to be able to ditch that assumption and limit how far a malicious editor can waste people's time. There's also the question of what to do when unsourced comment looks correct, relevant, and useful, but could also be construed as defamatory - do we really want to default to 'keep'? --GenericBob (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no benefit to adding this. It's also arguably pointless in the sense that any editor wanting to remove unsourced material will simply claim he looked for a source, even if he didn't. And with BLP, unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately. The bottom line is that if editors want to increase the chances of their edits surviving, they need to cite their sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any change in policy, I think the edit page should include an explicit warning that content must attributed to reliable published sources (external to Wikipedia); otherwise, it is likely to be removed. Presently it reads: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." which is likely to be of little use to primary contributors, especially when it's embedded in text about legal issues. SlimVirgin has proposed that Verifiability be changed to Attribution (and that change seems inevitable; so, it may as well happen sooner rather than later). —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there are no objections to this suggestion to change the edit form? —Richard Taytor (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Taytor, I object, because the proposal is unclear. Please state the exact exact wording before and after the proposed change. It is hard to pull out of this rambling discussion exactly what the proposal is. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed proposal:

Remove the following sentence from the paragraph located immediately below the edit textarea:

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

Prepend the following paragraph (to the paragraph located immediately below the edit textarea); alternatively, Attribution can be changed to Verifiability:

Content must include citations to reliable published sources (otherwise, it may be removed). Please read Attribution for more information.

I don't know how to edit the edit page; please advise on appropriate procedure. —Richard Taytor (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two basic objections, now that I understand the proposed change. First, at the beginning of this section, Mr. Taytor gave a description of what is required in good articles that is not quite accurate. Mr. Taytor wrote "An article can't be a GA if it has unsourced content" but what the WP:Good article criteria actually say is "[a good article] provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. So neither the verifiability policy nor the good article criteria require uncontroversial statements that are unlikely to be challenged to be sourced.

Like Mr. Taytor, I don't know how to change the text that appears on the edit page. This discussion is meaningless until the correct forum for discussing changes to the edit page is identified and this discussion is either moved there, or a notice of this discussion is placed there. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At least one WP administrator apparently believes that the bulk removal of fact-tagged content is correct and appropriate.

A primary contributor adds content, an editor fact-tags it, another editor removes it (neither attempts to find sources; why?...). Primary contributors are not likely to be familiar with WP policy. Editors (who are) ought to recognise that, and I suggest that over-zealous fact-tagging and unsourced-content removal be tempered by explicit statements in WP policy. It may be easier for editors to tag and strip content rather than to locate and cite sources, but an attempt at the latter ought to preceed the former. —Richard Taytor (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MusicMight

Musicmight is a reliable source? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

JoaquimMetalhead, please take this inquiry to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Using Wikipedia articles as sources

The Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia section says:

Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources. In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing.

The "Therefore" is not at all obvious, since this section immediately follows two other sections that describe some cases where self-published sources may in some circumstances be acceptable.

I also suggest that the de facto standard in Wikipedia is that embedded links in non-controversial statements serve to verify statements.

For example, the Wikipedia Good Article Brown v. Board of Education says in its Background section, "For much of the ninety years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the U.S. had been dominated by racial segregation." The date of this case combined with the Wikipedia article on racial segregation easily verifies the statement.

Similarly in the same article, the next statement has no citation but is easily verified by reference to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of citationless statements in Good Articles are easily verified by reference to Wikipedia articles.

I suggest the policy be reworded to something like the following.

Wikipedia is self-published. Therefore, when using Wikipedia articles as sources, great care must be taken to ensure reliability and avoid circular sourcing. Toward this end, a Wikipedia article must never be used as a referenced citation. This supports the reputation referenced citations have for reliability and lack of circular sourcing. Embedded links to Wikipedia articles may be the verification for citationless statements, provided the linked article relies on external citations for its sources, and the citationless statement is not controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree: Wikipedia or mirrors should never be used as sources. If a Wikipedia article has sources, which hopefully it does, then those sources can be used. In the example given above, the first google hit I found was {http://brownvboard.org/summary/} which looks like a pretty good source to me. Using Wikipedia as a source would just be plain laziness. If good sources can't be found then the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems (especially from my experience reviewing Good articles) that far too many editors can't be bothered to get out and find sources, preferring blogs, wiki mirrors, fan sites, etc.. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How to resolve theory versus practice? If Wikipedia articles should never be used as sources, why do so many Good Articles have so many citationless statements? I do see that verifiability is a requirement in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I perceive a conflict between theory and practice. DavidForthoffer (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, currently all GAs passed before September 2007 are undergoing review at GA Sweeps - you could always help out there. Otherwise if you find such article, you can search out citations, put tags on, take them to WP:GAR. You don't have to just pass on by. In answr to your question, How to resolve theory versus practice?, the answer is simple. Get stuck in - this is a collaborative project. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements that are unlikely to be challenged, and which in fact have not been challenged, do not require a citation. At the same time, there is no reason not to include a wikilink in such a statement for the benefit of readers who want to learn more about it. DavidFortoffer's presumption that such links are for verification rather than further information is not necessarily correct. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, this issue came up when I added "Furthermore, arresting citizens are not protected by qualified immunity, so if they are mistaken, they may face a civil lawsuit or charges of battery or false imprisonment" to the Fourth Amendment article. That statement seemed unlikely to be challenged, and easily verified by following the Wikipedia links to other articles that cited several relevant cases. However, it was challenged. Note: I was not presuming that such links were for verification rather than further information. I was presuming both, since I thought all statements should be verifiable. DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) All statements should be verifiable, but in the case of statements that have not been challenged, and are unlikely to be challenged, verification is so easy that readers can be left to their own devices to verify them, without the aid of any citation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. So for the case of statements that ought not be challenged and verification is so easy that readers can be left to their own devices to verify them without the aid of any citation (though perhaps with the aid of a linked Wikipedia article), yet are challenged, I'll go ahead and add (external) citations. DavidForthoffer (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy of Peer Reviewed Journals

Eventually I could probably rediscover the source, but for the moment you'll just have to trust me. I am not making this up.

In late 1980s I was digging around MIT/Sloan for research on software maintenance. I found an article abstract that sounded spot-on. I paid the $15. When the full article arrived, the full abstract said that while the original intent of the research was to study software maintenance issues, they found there was such a low incidence of peer reviewed articles about software maintenance that their article was going to describe how object oriented programming would eliminate/greatly reduce the need for software maintenance. Total fantasy, but spot on for how the academic world looks at software.

So much for peer reviewed articles being the ultimate source of truth.

Personally I file this under: "Since my eyes can see visible light, this is PROOF that x-rays, gamma rays, & all sorts of non-visible light do not exist." DEddy (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - you found an early abstact that did not agree with the published article? This is why people don't cite abstracts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He found a peer-reviewed article that argued for a position of wild-eyed optimism, and which some Wikidiot would cite as proof (Proof, do you hear me? PROOF) of the wild-eyed fantasy.

Quite seriously, we do have a problem with people who cite journal articles as evidence that some argument is the Truth, ignoring the academic incentive to write a one-sided article for a novel position. (That way you get cited, even if the position is radically unsound.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps journals like this should also be used as sources, then? Count Iblis (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While probably a useful project for those who can discount exaggerated claims, I would expect it to be more tendentious than normal journals (consider the clause on squaring the circle in the mission statement).

No, this is an inherent problem with many of our sources; we need to be aware of it, and do more to discourage the POV-pushers, who take advantage of the situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Journal articles? There are whole books of that sort, e.g. Super-recursive algorithm. It's just another reason editors need to know the topics they write about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the reliance by some editors on peer-reviewed articles, which is often primary-source material, because they can contain nonsense just as anything else can. As with anything contentious, relying on secondary sources often fixes the problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Relying on a poor secondary source is just as bad as relying on a poor primary source. It may be worse, if one is more trusting of the bad secondary source. Wikipedia is not an exercise in writing fifth-grade book reports, in which one copies material one does not understand. Editors here need to know the areas they write in well enough to be able to evaluate which opinions are broadly held in the literature and which are not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a question of whether the source is poor. Relying on good primary sources is problematic too for people who don't know what they're doing. I agree with your final point, but there's nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion regarding "Questionable Sources"

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking" would be more accurate/explicit/clearly defined if it was tweaked to "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation, or no reputation, for fact-checking". Just a suggestion. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the change, sans commas. Implicit in "poor reputation for fact checking" is that there is a reputation in existence, and it is poor, which is probably not true for most unreliable sources. I think many people will take the correct meaning from the present language even if we don't make this change, but why make people read into something when we can say it explicitly and with economy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought too. I also agree that we could go with or without the commas, either way works fine. So leave this here for a few days, if no objections, I'll make the change? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that, but it could be worst. I undertand that some people could read this sentence and understand "bad reputation" instead of poor. This can lead to misundertanding I agree. But most of us probably read it like "poor, but still positive, reputation and under". On a -10 to 10 scale, this would be a 5 and under. The true threshold vary : "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", but it still prety much over zero reputation in any case. By insisting on "no reputation", people will probably understand "any not bad reputation" (more then 0 on my scale). Which is not what this sentence is meant for. This will remove the 0 reputation from the misintepretation, but in the same way, will create more misinterpretation about the scale 1,2,3,4 reputation which is, amho, not quite enought in most cases. Iluvalar (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed a key part of that sentence: "or with no editorial oversight." The sentence ought to read: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight." I've restored it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that the sentence wasn't quite right, by the way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And I like that version of the sentence much better now, thanks for repairing it. I guess that's why we pay you the big bucks huh? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Verified or verifiable?

I am party to an ongoing dispute here. Following advice found at WP:DR, I am seeking opinions about some questions raised.

1) The section in the article being discussed includes a citation to a published paper. After asking several times, no editor admits to actually having read this paper. The question is: Does a citation need to be "verified" or is simply being "verifiable" enough?

The reason I ask is that it looks like it might be a case of having an idea, then doing a Google search to find a source to confirm your personal idea, a sort of WP:SYN. Notice that the point being made is taken from the opening sentence of the abstract of the paper. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that the citation was added by someone not currently active in the article? In other words, perhaps it was added by someone who did read enough of the paper to ensure that the information in the article accurately reflected what is said in the source? Just a thought.

Do you have reason to doubt that what is said in the article does not reflect what is said in the source? Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No it was added[1] by a current active editor. The problem is that the source speaks of the "right to arms". It is controversial to assert that the "right to arms" (meaning individuals having weapons) is synonymous with the "right to bear arms" (meaning collective militia rights). The author is the senior attorney for the National Rifle Association, and I don't dispute that their viewpoint must be included, what I dispute is that neutrality policy calls for their hypothesis to be described as one viewpoint, not as universal fact. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation in question was discussed at the end of May, here, and SaltyBoatr was involved in that discussion. Of course editors read the paper.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course? No editor to my knowledge has made that claim in spite of being asked the question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You have also asked about other editors' educational background and reading habits. You'd have much better luck if you would just stick to what's in the article, why it may not be appropriate, and what can be done to improve it.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Educational background and reading habits? Not true. To be clear, I have simply asked what reliable sources have been read behind the statement of opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is true, as there has been badgering of multiple editors on this very point, here. Yaf (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Yaf doesn't point to a specific diff, and instead uses innuendo. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The Wikipedia article presently says: "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations. In no particular order, they viewed this right as important for: (1) deterring undemocratic government; (2) auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; and (3) maintaining an organized militia system."

The cited source says: "Professor Saul Cornell's recent book, A Well-Regulated Militia, represents the latest addition to the ongoing debate over the nature of the Second Amendment and the American right to arms. Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxilliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."

Notice that neither the source nor the Wikipedia article uses the term "bear arms", and thus obviously neither the source nor the Wikipedia article asserts here that "bear arms" is synonymous with anything. Why should the article verify something that the article does not state?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does use the term "bear arms". The source says "right to arms" which is synonymous with "bear arms" according to one POV and not synonymous according to another. This POV distinction needs to be neutrally explained. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... given that this is a very controvercial topic, I think Salty does have a point when it comes to statements of fact vs. statements of opinion. It is important to make it clear who says what and holds what opinion. As for verifiability, it seems clear to me that the statement is verifiable... as a statement of opinion. Does that help resolve the issue? Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Salty ought to give us some verification that this is opinion rather than fact. Is there anyone who contradicts what's now in the article? The article now says: "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations. In no particular order, they viewed this right as important for: (1) deterring undemocratic government; (2) auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; and (3) maintaining an organized militia system."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Early Americans also agreed that baked beans were tasty food. What is the relevance to the article? There is a POV push of one of the advocacy groups, and not the other, that having individual weapons is linked to bearing arms. I have no problem with stating this dichotomy of views in the article. Right to arms is relevant to the second amendment according to gun rights advocates like Mr. Hardy and his organization, the NRA. And, right to arms is not relevant to the second amendment, depending on your POV. I do have a problem of just describing 'right to arms' was important while implying that it is "of course" relevant. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Saltyboatr's point, with respect to verifiability, seems to be that instead of citing the book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, a review of that book is cited. Saltyboatr obscures his point by describing the work as a book rather than an article. Saltyboatr's point 1, "the section in the article being discussed includes a citation to a published paper. After asking several times, no editor admits to actually having read this paper" is fatally flawed because in the talk page he or she asked if other editors actually read the article, not if they read the book. Since his/her question to other editors was gibberish, the responses to the question (if any) are meaningless.

One of Saltyboatr's other points, "the reason I ask is that it looks like it might be a case of having an idea, then doing a Google search to find a source to confirm your personal idea" could have some merit if a person uses out-of-context quotes or biased sources to back up a personal opinion. However, we must recognize that the human mind naturally retains facts and conclusions better than it retains sources. So we cannot demand that an editor may not edit an article unless the editor remembers the source of every bit of knowledge the editor has relevant to the article. It is only natural that editors will often look for references to verify their personal knowledge. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Another subtly of this is that a small group of gun rights advocates, David Kopel, Alan Gottlieb, etc.. over the last two decades have endeavored to place online as much pro-gun rights documentation as possible. There is no equivalent push for the "non-gun rights" second amendment published reliable sourcing. Hence, doing Google searches returns a disproportionate ratio of gun-rights documentation, a form of systemic bias. A specific example of this is the recent edit[2] to this article of an very obscure 1986 book review. Almost with certainty this "Google research" was skewed by the David Kopel bibliography and the online archive availability[3] of the gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb. Not that I oppose presenting both points of view, my objection is to the bias and disproportionate advocacy being violation of WP:NPOV. The policy is that the article should reflect the balance of reliable sourcing on the topic, not the balance of reliable sourcing accessible via Google searches on the topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this page's discussion focused on verifiability and leave NPOV discussions for the NPOV page. Salty, do you agree or disagree with the contention that the statement about early American views is verifiable from the cited source? If so, then there is nothing more to be said on this page (discussions can continue elsewhere)... If not, why not? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have answered my question then, thanks. Your standard is 'verifiable'. I don't dispute that it likely is verifiable (future tense) from the cited source. My question here is whether it is required to be verified (past tense). So far, no one claims to have done that. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard is verifiable rather than verified (although we certainly prefer both). Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course if the assertion is "liable to be challenged", the onus is on the editor adding the assertion to provide a citation, and intellectual honesty requires that they read it before claiming that it supports the assertion. So there's little reason for disputes to arise over whether the source backs the assertion, except in the interpretation of an ambiguous reference or in outright error. Any editor is justified in adding a {{cn}} tag to any assertion they find improbable, or even removing it outright.LeadSongDog come howl 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LeadSong... In this case, a citation was provided... the questions raised here related to checking whether the source was valid or not. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess my concern hinges on "intellectual honesty requires that they read it", and when I asked, no one would come forward claiming they have read it, including the editor who inserted it. This is seeming more like a civility question than a WP:V question now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The cite for the review was clearly verified by a number of editors, (and, of course, remains verifiable by anyone else, including SaltyBoatr, even now). Badgered editors, though, tend not to respond to endless questions from SaltyBoatr regarding their educational backgrounds, what books they have read, what books they plan to read, where they have lived, their hobbies, and other personal topics, such as exhibited here. It is difficult to respond to such endless drama except through an analogy of WP:DENY or WP:RBI. The lack of badgered editors responses is not surprising. An Assumption of Good Faith would have prevented this whole Wiki-Drama from occurring in the first place. Yaf (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This also could have been prevented if someone would have answered my simple question. A question which remains unanswered even today. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I daresay someone read the review of the book; it is the book itself that might not have been read. Certainly it would be better if the book had been read, but I don't think the verifiability policy disallows the use of book reviews to support claims. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to double check something... is the review cited or is the book cited? If the no one actually checked the book, but someone did read the review, then the review should be cited (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) and not the book. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out the elephant in the room here. Yes, it is a book review written by the senior attorney of the National Rifle Association, which is a critical attack on a book deemed 'bad' according to the NRA point of view. Another issue is whether it is appropriate to call attention to the affiliation of the author of the book review. I think that mentioning the advocacy position of the author of the book review is prudent per WP:NPOV policy. A group of editors, with a pattern of pro-gun editing, disagree with me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's got the right question. Of course, we have a systemic deficiency on [[:en:]] in that we don't track the verification of sources used. We really need a standard way to tag citations to effectively say "editor joeblow sighted and confirms that this cited reference is credible and supports the text as cited in this version". All it would need is an edit timestamp hidden comment added to the citation, the rest is in the history. Still, it appears this discussion is more about civility than anything else. Much progress could be made by the simple policy of criticizing edits instead of editors.LeadSongDog come howl 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reality check

The material in question is as follows:

Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations. In no particular order, they viewed this right as important for: (1) deterring undemocratic government; (2) auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; and (3) maintaining an organized militia system.[1][2]

[1]Hardy, David. “Book Review: A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America”, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 15, p. 1237 (2007). Abstract: “Professor Saul Cornell's recent book, A Well-Regulated Militia, represents the latest addition to the ongoing debate over the nature of the Second Amendment and the American right to arms. Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system.”

[2]Malcolm, Joyce Lee. “Book Review: That Every Man Be Armed,” 54 George Washington Law Review 452, 455 (1986): “The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

This material is obviously verifiable and verified, and no sources have been mentioned (by anyone anywhere) that contradict this material or indicate that this material is opinion rather than fact. We've put excerpts in both of the footnotes, so I don't know what we could do to make it easier to verify this stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ferrylodge... so the citations are correct as far as WP:SAYWHEREYPOGOTIT is concerned (citing [1] Hardy and [2] to Joyce Lee)... I just checked the links and can confirm that these book reviews say what they are quoted as saying. So Salty, you can consider them both verifiable and verified. I think we can call this aspect of your issues concluded. All that remains are your NPOV questions, which I know you have raised at that page. Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the citations don't verify the article text, in that the article text is not an accurate summary. Our article is stating that "Early Americans viewed the right to arms with three considerations." Neither cited source makes this claim, which is actually a synthesis. The actual right as enshrined in the US Constitution is "to keep and bear Arms", not "to arms". That's an important distinction, and it is synthesising if we do not use the actual right that was granted when we discuss that right. This is very much a question of verifiability and synthesis. Neither article verifies the statement that Americans "viewed the right to arms", since, per the Constitution, the right is "to keep and bear Arms", and that is the right discussed in both cited sources. The constitution may or may not grant the "right to arms", that's a semantic debate and using one definition over another in conjunction with the sources provided is synthesising a new interpretation not supported in the sources. The article text should be amended to read either that "Early Americans viewed the right to keep and bear arms" or "Early Americans viewed the Second Amendment right". Hiding T 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the quote in the first footnote. It specifically references a "right to arms." So, the article text is accurate. Please keep in mind that the article text is in a subsection of the article titled, "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution." This is in a background section about stuff that happened before the Second Amendment was written.Ferrylodge (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we quoting the review or the abstract? The text seems to be pulled from the abstract, so we might as well acknowledge that in the citation. The abstract also makes clear that "A Well-Regulated Militia is, in short, an excellent explanation of why the Framers wrote that A well-regulated miltia was necessary to the security of a free state. It omits, or misreads, the reasons why they did not stop there, but added on a right of the people to keep and bear arms." This makes it clear that the three reasons apply to the Second Amendment, and not only to the right to arms. The second quote also make it clear that the reasons apply to the Second Amendment, and that the ambiguity of the text of the Second Amendment is an issue. So the whole thing hinges on the exact text of the Second Amendment, and if we do not make that clear, we are not accurately reflecting the sources, but rather synthesising by utilising a definition of the Second Amendment other than the actual text itself. Hiding T 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not quoting anything in the text of the Wikipedia article. I will go ahead and clarify in the first footnote that the quote in the footnote is taken from the abstract. I'm not sure I understand your other points, but in any event readers can easily go to our footnotes to read exactly what the sources say.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How Does a Contributor Give a Verifiable Source for the "Oral Tradition" of a Story?

I am of Sicilian descent and know full well the oral traditions of the Island, one of which is that Santa Rosalia ended a plague and is therefore now considered the patron saint of Sicily. By definition an oral history is passed from generation to generation and is not "verifiable" in the usual sense of the word. An exception might be when an "esteemed academic" has previously written an article and therein recites the "oral tradition". But really, is the "expert's" recitation any better "sourced" than the contemporaneous writer?Siciliano99 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Siciliano99 7/20/09

You are correct that most oral history is not verifiable... and thus can not be included in Wikipedia. It would indeed need to be recorded (written down, filmed, or audio recording) and published. The author who makes this record is factor in reliability (do we trust the author to record the oral history accurtely)... but for verifiability he/she does not necessarily have to be an expert (or even an "esteemed academic"). Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Siciliano99 asked "but really, is the 'expert's' recitation any better 'sourced' than the contemporaneous writer?" I don't know what you mean by contemporaneous writer. But the esteemed academic is better than Sicilano99 or Jc3s5h because the esteemed academic has established a reputation for honest careful work, and has an incentive to continue to be honest and careful, lest the reputation be ruined. Sicilano99 or Jc3s5h have no reputation, they are just anonymous people from the internet. They have no incentive to be careful and honest; the worst that could happen is they could be banned from Wikipedia, and have to sign up for a new account. That is why all material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)