Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:09, 21 December 2012

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.

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

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 1 section is present.

NPOV & verifiability

I'd like to call attention to this little section of the article that deals with the relationship between verifiability and NPOV:

Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.

If a reliable source is indeed not neutral, does that mean that we should present it in a non-neutral POV? Is "our job as editors" to still report it with a biased POV? Or, if this is the case, should we report it with the POV, and then be sure to use quotations or the name of the author? Charles35 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

( The above excerpt is from Misplaced Pages:V#Neutrality. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC) )

Balance requires reporting the different substantial points of view. Honesty requires letting the reader know that we've done that. Neither requires the wp:OR step of characterizing them as biased. We need only make it clear that X says Sx and Y says Sy. We don't compare their points of view, the intelligent reader can do that without our help. If neutral Z has published comments on the differences (Sx vs. Sy), we can further report Sz. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand. If it is clearly a biased view, you should present it as if it weren't? You shouldn't quote it or attribute it? And you said the intelligent reader - what about the fact that some, if not most, readers are not all that intelligent. Shouldn't we keep in mind wikipedia's audience and write for them? Lastly, I'm really interested to hear what you mean with "honesty". Would you be able to elaborate on that? Thanks Charles35 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, if it is clearly biased, first we ask if it is worth using at all. If despite being biased, it represents a widely held viewpoint that needs to be represented in order for the articles coverage to be balanced then we make it clear whose viewpoint it is by in-text attribution, but we do not ghettoize the authors by describing them as "advocates", "opponents", etc. We provide balance by similarly covering the opposing viewpoints. However, if an objective secondary source discusses both of the biased viewpoints, then we are far better to look to that objective secondary source than to draw our own conclusions on which aspects of the slanted coverage deserve inclusion. See wp:BALANCE. It is not our job to form opinions for our readers. We simply report (in an encyclopedically structured fashion) the best of what others have already published on a topic. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The simple principle is that the Misplaced Pages article should be neutral, regardless of its sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's an example for the OP. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he believes that Barack Obama's birth location is in doubt (a stance popularly known as the birthers). Now, Trump has written about this. His own writing is a reliable source for what he has to say: We can trust him to state his own beliefs, so his own writing on the matter is reliable for us to use in the Donald Trump article to note his position. However, is own writings on Barack Obama's birth status are NOT themselves neutral. That doesn't mean we can use them nowhere on Misplaced Pages. The fact that Trump is a "birther" is reliably sourced to his own writings on the fact, and that's OK to cite is writings for that purpose. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, sort of. I don't think it's that I don't get your explanation. I think the rules aren't as complete as we like to think and that there is a lot that is ambiguous. Or maybe it's just impossible to make a perfect set of rules for general cases. This is why I made this section. I thought that maybe it might be a good idea to add something between Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral and our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. I thought it might be helpful to say how we should summarize sources that aren't neutral. ie should we attribute? How should we attribute? In-line citation or saying the actual person's name in the text? Should we quote? Most importantly: in the case where we are not in-material attributing (we can be parenthetically citing, however) or quoting, and are presenting the data as fact, or the opinion as a factual one (ie not saying anything like "it has been said" or "many believe") should we modify the material to make it more reasonable or less biased without removing all bias in an effort to make it more appropriate for wikipedia? For example:

Ensuring of the proper feeling rules of the breast cancer culture is encouraged, including remaining optimistic of a full cure, rationalizing the selfishness of treatment as a temporary measure and feeling guilty that it forces her to put her needs momentarily above the needs of others or due to her perceived inadequacy in caring her family or other women with cancer (Sulik 2010, pages 225–272, 277).

This material is presented as fact. It is cited but not attributed in the material (ie it doesn't say "Sulik says that..."). It is reflective of the source, but in my opinion, it is way to extreme. Is it really worth it to include all of this bias? Or should this be summarized into a lesser biased form that effectively conveys the idea in a less harsh and inappropriate manner? Charles35 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The decision of whether to quote in full or to summarize is really a matter of WP:Undue weight... not one of WP:Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In a case like this it's also a matter of WP:V, that the references must justify the conclusions. It is improper use of a source to use it as a general statement unless it's a recognized tertiary authority. Sulik's book is intended to argue a point,not present a neutral summary. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sulik's viewpoint seems to be the dominant one among published reliable sources. It just doesn't say what the general public (e.g., Charles) thinks it should say.

Or, to put it another way, if you want to say that a given source is non-neutral, you have to demonstrate that some other published, reliable source holds a different opinion, not merely that you personally disagree with the source (e.g., because you believe that society shouldn't make women with cancer feel guilty, even though the fact that they actually do appears in multiple sources from websites like cancer.gov through popular books to peer-reviewed journal articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatamidoing, please do not watch my recent contributions. Thank you. And as usual you know nothing about my personal opinion and I would prefer if you kept your assumptions to yourself. My personal opinion is not congruent with the opinion of the general public (whatever that means). It is also irrelevant here. We might be talking about our "personal opinions" on wikipedia policies and the correct way to construct an encyclopedia, but please do not divert the conversation to a false assumption about my personal opinion on the subject matter. It would be much obliged.

Also, I'm not sure if you knew, but This page is for discussions about the Verifiability policy. For questions about the reliability of specific sources, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. We aren't having a discussion about breast cancer awareness. I am trying to make the rule as explicit as I can, and I used an example to do so. I have no interest in bringing other things like cancer.gov into this. Charles35 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Burden of proof

One occasionaly comes across editors who want to delete all unreferenced material regardless of whether they believe it to be unverifiable or not. We already have in policy the statement "When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Going round tagging and deleting in a mechanical bureaucratic fashion is merely makework for editors, or else results in loss of valuable material when no one bothers to respond. I would like to add something stronger to the policy such as,

Removing material solely for lacking citations where you have no real concern that it is unverifiable can be considered disruptive

to make it clear that tagging and deleting should only be happening when there is a genuine belief that the material might be problematic. There does not need to be a time limit to provide sources for material that is entirely uncontroversial and factual. SpinningSpark 22:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support doing that. (By the way, there was just an edit to that section that was reverted, and I agree with the revert.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I support. BTW, I did the revert. I agreed with the spirit of what they are trying to do, but as worded it could be utilized as creating an exception to wp:ver for new articles, IMO that is going too far. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I also support an addition along these lines. NTox · talk 01:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The line is horrible and nothing but instruction creep. "No real concern" can never be proven and would creat FAR MORE drama than what it is proposed to avoid. There have been some recent situations were everyone was already too afraid to touch a BLP that was nothing but unsourced claims. So horrid was this article that Jimbo had to step in and reduce it to a stub. This is not the route to go. It creates massive amounts of issues when entire articles are missing reliable sources. Right now people still believe that a primary source is sufficient to add claims they synthesize from reading between the lines or assuming information and then become even more disruptive the those attempting to remove it. No, we do not need to add this line , or any other to protect unsourced claims on Misplaced Pages. Source it or lose it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support the intent, but that wording needs to be fixed; too easy to be gamed by the wikilaywers. --MASEM (t) 01:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Changing policy to require us to guess what is in the mind of the remover is not going to end well. The current practice also serves neatly to end arguments over whether a claim is sourceable or not, if its not sourced, it can be removed, and the person arguing that it is sourceable can then go source it and restore it. Monty₈₄₅ 02:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We're not requesting to guess what is in mind of the remover. We're requesting that the remover follows the current guidelines and states it explicitly. And "if its not sourced, it can be removed" is not the current policy; there are important nuances that deleters too often ignore but that are important. Diego (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - In most cases, I actually find the complaints about the removal of unsourced information to be more disruptive than the removal itself. By far, the easiest and least disruptive solution to editors who remove unsourced text is to quietly return the material with a citation. Nine times out of ten, doing so will take no more than five minutes of searching the internet (far less time and energy than it takes to complain about the removal in the first place). Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In reply to some of the above: I don't think the intent of the line is to defend unsourced information. Rather, it is to remind us that a "no source?→delete" style of editing is not appropriate. There are a lot of people who do this kind of automaton whitewash; others I think even like to "stick it" to people by removing their content for not being sourced, even though it was verifiable the whole time. The end goal is always verifiability and it's not sources. Sources merely prove verifiability, but again what we care about is verifiability, proof or not. If someone has no doubt that some piece of content is verifiable they should not be removing it simply because it has no source. And for any other person who actually does doubt the content's verifiability, well then it's business as usual and the person can remove it for not having the source. The proposed line would not make removing content any harder. It's only there to remind us why we're removing stuff in the first place. NTox · talk 02:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In reply to those that don't think this is about the removal of unsourced content....then we are fine without the change. Not broken...don't try to fix it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is fine, the problem is that people with your position are not following it as it's written. Diego (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Thats a huge and innacurate assumption.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Trout assimilated :-P I've striked the wording that I thought assertive but sounds offensive. I do have a concern that you seem to miss an important part of WP:BURDEN and WP:V, the bit about due process and using the power of Wiki. I don't have time now to describe its implications, I'll try to elaborate on it tonight. Diego (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reading everything you write so I am sure I will see it when you post, however I should at least mention that I actually understand your concern, but feel you are placing a requirement where none exist. That is my actual concern with the replies you are making about "due process". There is a process and I feel we should let that play out with all situations regarding the removal of content. V does allow (by policy) the removal of unsourced content. Does that mean it should be? Maybe not in some cases, but the majority of content removal is being done in good faith. When it is obvious that it is not, is when we need the process even more. Part of all of this is that editing is part of consensus forming. Placing too many limits or to many suggestions of what is "proper" (but still not required) only confuses editors and makes working on articles more complicated.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to place too many limits, I want the policies and guidelines to explain why placing tags and moving content to talk page is preferred over deleting it and having it lost in the history page. The main concern about what I want to elaborate is that deleted content is "out of sight, out of mind" and this harms the article building process, because editors coming later (maybe years) will not be able to find it and source it. Acting upon this preference to preserve and help is already part of the rules, not an additional requirement. Diego (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Amadscientist wrote above, the bottom line is "source it or lose it", and it should remain that way. The proposed change would effectively invert the burden, by placing the onus on the remover to demonstrate that the material was unverifiable. Proving a negative is very difficult, so this would generate a lot of drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support although Masem has a good point about wording. It is not "source it or lose it" but "if it is contested, you need to source it or lose it", and thus, the lack of sourcing can never be an essential part of whether a statement is contested or not: BURDEN has always required a good-faith belief that something is wrong before removal. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. Burden is clear: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." It then goes on to say: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." These two statements do not mean the same thing. The second line is refering to HOW to meet burden. Only material that is likely to be challenged should be cited. What that means is: unquestionable facts do not need a reference. The very first line makes it clear that returning unsourced material that has been removed, must meet burden as well. So if it is removed and you put it back....you MUST provide a reference. Your claim that: "the lack of sourcing can never be an essential part of whether a statement is contested or not" is beside the point. Removing content is not contesting it. It is just removing it as unsourced and "questionable". It is not required (nor should it be) that an editor formally "contest" the information. That is wikilawyering. Our current policy is to remove uncourced information.......not create a discussion to contest the validity of said information. Would that be nice in a perfect world? Perhaps, but it also limits the removal of unsourced content, which is exactly what this proposal is about. Oh....and Masem didn't say "Source it or lose it". I did.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(inserting a reply) - Re: "Only material that is likely to be challenged should be cited." No... WP:BURDEN applies to more than material that is likely to be challenged; it also applies to material that has been challenged. Removal for lack of citation is a form of challenge. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The very first line makes it clear that returning unsourced material that has been removed, must meet burden as well. I don't think anyone is contesting that part; I certainly don't. The problem is with how material is being removed, not returned.

Our current policy is to remove unsourced information See, that unqualified assertion is false. That some people holds that misunderstanding is the reason why we're trying to clarify for you what V really means and how it must be used. There are important procedural reasons why the intermediate steps (trying to source disputed content yourself, tagging it if you can't, WP:PRESERVEing at talk pages) must be followed, even if the final result (removing unverifiable information) is the same. Those steps help us to build an encyclopedia step by step through the Wiki process, and short-cutting them is harmful. I don't want to stimulate the battleground mentality ; that's why I oppose the original wording that tried to tag you as being disruptive. Though I think it's important that those opposing this change recognize the need to protect the process by which unverified information is assessed as either to be removed or to be sourced; that process is an important part of the current WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE policies. I'll try to expand on these thoughts latter to explain you the full benefits of the process. Diego (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". That is "qualified". It is what the policy states.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and right after that it describes the proper process to remove it. It doesn't include "instantly, without reason". The only unverified material that can be instantly removed without a reasonable effort to assess its verifiability is BLP; the rest of policies do have requirements to make an effort not to simply lose it; so "source it or lose it" is actually against policy for content removed without care. Diego (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Some comments to the opposers:

• This proposal does not affect the policy regarding BLPs; that remains separate. The following paragraph, opening with "However, do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people" makes that quite clear. If anything, my proposal is emphasising that by making the difference with BLPs seem even more dramatic.
• It is not the intention here to give an opening to wikilawyering or require us to "guess what is in the mind" of editors. Rather, it is aimed at good faith editors who openly declare this is what they are doing. Suggestions for better wording would be welcome.

SpinningSpark 07:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

While it is nice that you explained this here it makes no difference what your intent is....the proposed line DOES actually say "..where you have no real concern". That is indeed an assumption one cannot make of another editor. It assumes bad faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We can make that assumption when the editor declares that's what they are doing. POVers and trolls will be disruptive no matter what, but there is a class of misguided editors who believe they should delete everything no matter what. That is the group I am trying to address with this. SpinningSpark 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support BURDEN applies to material challenged or likely challenged, not to all material; removers of content need to make clear that they're removing it on grounds of verifiability; and that they've reasonably certain that sources can't be found - otherwise the correct way according to policy is to tag it as needing citation, not to delete it. It's only and additional clarification of the actual existing requirement to identify the reason why the content is being challenged. Requesting more communication can only be a good thing for consensus-building.

I would include in the text the reason stated by SpinningSpark, that challenged but verifiable content is in risk of being lost, and not the explicit claim that removing content is disruptive if that you don't really think it is unverifiable. Diego (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This misses the point of challenged or likely challenged as simply being unquestionable fact. "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west". You said: "removers of content need to make clear that they're removing it on grounds of verifiability; and that they've reasonably certain that sources can't be found". No, they don't. All editor really NEED to do is not remove unquestionable facts that any reasonable person understands as a fact and make sure they have added an edit summary (we cannot force what that edit summary says, but should be a reasonable explanation). What you are suggesting is that policy requires all removal of content to be thoughly researched. It simply does not say that. That is the requirement of those that add information.

Jimbo Wales states: I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. – Jimbo Wales, 19 July 2006

1. Wales, Jimmy (2006-07-19). "insist on sources". WikiEN-l. Retrieved 2007-01-31.

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is that policy requires all removal of content to be thoughly researched. Not really; if you don't want to research the fact, you're expected to tag it as needing verification better than removing it. Only if you have made a reasonable attempt to assess its verifiability should you remove it; I think the very minimum to comply with the it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it part of BURDEN would be a Google search. Diego (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...no. Some editor expectations are simply inncorrect. There simply is no requirement to do that. The policy is: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step" This is simply not an expectation per policy, but per certain editors. No offense to those that expect this...but if you claim one MUST tag before removal as the method of allowing time for the source to be added.......that is not accurate. Also, there is no "comply" with it is better to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is a requirement to preserve verifiable content even if unsourced, and to help build WP:CONSENSUS with your fellow editors; and deleting unsourced content without proper consideration goes against both. I'm not requiring to tag all content before removing it; only the one that you're not willing to research yourself. "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented" is a mandate per WP:PRESERVE; if the fact would belong in a "finished" article, you're breaching policy by simply removing it. Diego (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that a requirement? First of all the section is titled "Try to fix problems, which is a suggestion and does not assume that every editor is capable of doing so (you must rememeber that policy is made to accommodate all levels of experiance and knowledge, not just experts) Verifiability "means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source". If the content cannot be varified with a reliable source the information need not be preserved. WP:PRESERVE is absolutely not a requirement not to remove unsourced content...at all. "hey should (not "must") be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research)". What many here are trying to say is that "verifiability" is not an actual RS added as an inline citation to content, but only that there be a reliable source out there somewhere. This is true (even Jimbo has weighed in on this as accurate). HOWEVER the problem is...nowhere is there an actual requirement to keep unsourced information just because there is a RS out there somewhere. This is simply a fight over who has the most responsibility to add that RS. WP:PRESERVE "Problems that may justify removal" state clearly that "WP:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material." Yes it does, it says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." This current proposal CREATES a problem by telling editors that removing unsourced information could be disruptive. Sure...but we do not need a policy to state that. All kinds of things cause disruption. Just editing a page can cause disruption...but that doesn't mean it was the edit that caused it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This will lead to far more drama and editwars than the present pratice. The Banner _talk 13:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• oppose - if someone is going around creating disruption by removing everything that is unsourced there is already WP:POINT to deal with that problem. Anything where there would be requirements that someone prove their intent is unworkable. "I can restore this without a source because I think you removed it even though you dont think that there are no sources to support it." Well that is just buckets of assumptions against policy.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support the general idea. There might be a better way of phrasing it. Yes, it's POINTy if you do a lot of it, but it's disruptive even if you only do a little bit of it. If you personally believe that the material is accurate, verifiable, neutral, and encyclopedic, then you personally have no business removing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

if the removal of unsourced content is disruptive its already covered by our policies against disruptive editing. all this wording would do is ensure that there would be disputes about something that CANNOT BE proved - an editor's belief.How would I possibly ever prove that you were removing content that you suspected might be verifiable? How would you prove that you didnt really think there was a reliable source that supported the claim? Thats just enshrining teh nonproductive dramahz with no value to the encyclopedia on any front. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen people actually say that they believe the material is correct but they are removing it because they believe this policy requires (or at least authorizes) them to do so. They usually go on to explain that they hope the removal will be an effective means of "motivating" other editors to provide an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - as worded - The sentiment behind the statement is okay, but its wording ("...where you have no real concern...") asks us to read the mind of the editors. Any change to BURDEN should be based on tests that are more objective. I think the intention of this proposal could be achieved by improving the definition of what "likely to be challenged" means ... if that could be made more specific, that could help address the underlying issue. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

I feel it should be noted that SpinningSpark, the proposer of this change, is currently involved in an RFC that could be directly impacted by whether or not this change is made. Doniago (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Its "burden of evidence, not "burden of proof"

By the way.......it is not burden of proof. It is "burden of evidence". There is a difference and this is a red flag that the proposer is not quite aware of what the burden policy is referring to. Many editors will argue that "burden" is not met even with a RS provided believing that it is not meeting a "burden of proof" that the information is accurate. We don't prove the information. We simply reference it with relaible sources. If you have not provided the source...you have not met the burden. Period.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the responses to the original proposal

• Strongly oppose Indeed, I oppose the sentence that is there already. Unsupported material should be subject to being removed, especially (but not only) if it has been {{fact}}-tagged or similarly tagged for a reasonable period of time. We are doing our readers an injustice and not fulfilling our primary objectives by presenting material which is not verified. The material may be, as Spinningspark suggests, "entirely uncontroversial and factual" but how is our reader to know that? Finally, we judge edits, not editors, and this opens up inquiry into motivations. The existing "make it clear that you have a concern" already opens that inquiry up more than it should, creates nothing more than a knee-jerk bureaucratic burden, and ought to be removed. We need to return to the simplicity described by Blueboar in this edit. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@North8000: I'm a latecomer to this party. Doing DR I've certainly seen the one-two punch you frequently mention in this discussion (perhaps best described by you here). This may have been discussed, but could there perhaps be a solution to that particular problem via a timing requirement that unsourced material be {{fact}}-tagged for some non-insubstantial period of time — perhaps a month — before it can be removed? Or has that idea already been thoroughly trashed here? Could there be some other more direct solution to that particular problem rather than attacking it through making WP:BURDEN more restrictive? Just asking... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, AFAIK the use of explicit time limits to remove {{fact}}-tagged facts have been discussed to death without consensus. You say that we disservice readers by including unsourced assertions; but it is also a disservice to delete valid ideas and articles before they have had a change to be properly recorded. Misplaced Pages was possible because it wasn't published in a finished state but it was allowed to grow, and that core idea is still valid today. That is the reason why the "citation needed" compromise was created (and why it's the single text most associated with Misplaced Pages, even more than Jimbo's fundraising request). This conversation has inspired me an alternate approach that I hope may satisfy the concerns of both sides, and it might even replace the current "make it clear that you have a concern" (actually I'm predicting my approach will raise the ire of both sides, which is a good start for discussion). Diego (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your answer begs the question, however: Who says that those supposedly valid ideas are valid? And that's my point: the ordinary reader shouldn't be put to making that judgment or having to look up sources, even if they're easily available, in order to make that determination. If the only unsourced things that were here are those things that are verifiable, I might agree with you but that's not the way it is, not even close. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Precisely because no one can instantly assess whether valid ideas belongs into the final article, talk is needed to elucidate that. The main problem I have with unrestricted and unqualified deletion following BURDEN is that it may get facts lost in article's history, hindering the accountability for the one that deleted the unverified content; at the very least the policy should provide a way to avoid that loss, registering when content has been deleted this way. This is usually not a problem for pages with high traffic and reviewers, but is essential for more obscure topics. Diego (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I dare say that a {{citation needed}} on the Barak Obama article wouldn't last out the day. But in the kind of articles I'm interested in (mainly engineering) they can be very rarely visited. I have provided references on numerous occasions for articles that have been tagged for many years until I came across them. It is a great shame that such material is continually lost because because an editor like me who can be bothered to find sources has not come along before a deleter who can't be bothered. SpinningSpark 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(added later) Transporterman, the focus of the person who made this proposal is different than my own. (which you correctly identified with that link.) I was just supporting their idea anyway. Briefly, their concern is about quickly deleting unsourced material en masse. My concern is using this provision in tandem with wp:rs "ideal source" criteria to knock out SOURCED material for POV or pissing-war purposes. To date my approach on the latter is to propose requiring a quick perfunctory questioning of the material when tagging or deleting. Now I am starting to think about wording in wp:rs that says that the strength of the sourcing (= degree of meeting the idealized wp:rs standards) should be higher for challenged material, (and implicitly, vica versa)North8000 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark: I agree, totally, that there is unsourced information in articles which has been there, tagged or untagged, for years which is exceptionally valuable, easily verifiable, and which would be a real pity to lose, but there is other information which is worthless, impossible to verify, and absolutely misleading. The every day Misplaced Pages user should not be put to the task of figuring out which is which, and removing the good information does less harm, in my opinion, than retaining the bad and making it harder to remove. I certainly don't oppose strengthening the rules which require preservation on the talk page, but to say that all unsourced information ought to be kept in mainspace because it might be valuable just risks more damage to the public perception of Misplaced Pages's trustworthiness. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Early in this discussion, I supported the proposal, and now, I see all the opposition to it that has emerged. I'm trying to weigh whether or not the existing wording – "When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." – is enough to get the message across to those users who delete stuff mindlessly. Perhaps it is, and perhaps Blueboar is right to point out that it's easier to just go a get a source oneself. I think that if editors actually take to heart the existing language that I just quoted, there is no problem. But the problem, of course, is when an editor fails to understand that language, or deliberately and disruptively choses to ignore it. I know we sometimes get editors like that. But, since revising Burden to include this language, do we have examples of editors who were pointed to this language and, nonetheless, continued to disrupt? I'm leaning towards the opinion that what we have now may be good enough, but I could easily be persuaded by examples that it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to reopen some very painful old now 99% settled down situations, I could point to mothers of all examples of mass deleting of even sky-is-blue material (and then hairsplitting the sourcing on sky-is-blue stuff when I sourced them) in obsessive battling type situations (where there is no POV dispute). Sufficeth to say such things happen, even thought it not my own focus which is wikilawyer-using wp:burden in TANDEM with wp:rs ideal criteria to knock out SOURCED materiel which they do not even question. Usually to POV an article, but sometimes to conduct pissing wars. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have no doubt. I guess the question becomes whether there is anything we can add to Burden to stop that stuff, or whether we are better off leaving things as they are and dealing with DR about the specific behaviors. Leaving aside the separate issue of sourced material debates, here the issue is unsourced stuff. I'm tentatively thinking that, if someone is doing that kind of obsessive removal of material, and if so-fix-it style finding sources (per Blueboar) can't keep up with the volume of removal, one should try to explain to the user the language that I just quoted above, and if they engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it becomes a matter of DR on the behavior, and not a matter of a simple fix in language here. I'm trying to think, though, of something we could say that might be addressed to the number of removals, as opposed to one or a few removals where there might actually be something to discuss on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Either way, I do feel this guideline needs extra clarification, or simplification. We have an RFC at Talk:Synchronous motor with both sides arguing that the guideline supports either removing or retention, depending on their stance in the debate. If you are not going to examine the motivations of the editors, then you have to accept the guideline is going to be applied bureaucratically in some cases, and you need to say in no uncertain terms that removing unsourced material for whatever reason is legitimate. Anything short of that, and you are saying that it is acceptable to examine an editor's motivations for removing such material. You can't have it both ways, since a guideline is not much use if it can fit diametrically opposed interpretations. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved with the RFC, I'd like to state that I entirely agree with Betty's points above. I'll add that if policy is to be revised then I feel the "citation needed" templates may need to be revised as well, as at least some of them explicitly state that "unsourced material may be removed". I've found it's very difficult and stressful to get involved in discussions regarding unsourced material precisely because the policies and guidelines, which are understandably designed for flexibility, end up allowing for conflicting interpretations. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You could always try common sense instead. That sometimes works. SpinningSpark 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I consider this a personal attack, and not the first one you've made against me recently. Please stop. Doniago (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Advising an editor to use common sense is a personal attack now? Do you not think that you should be applying policies with common sense? SpinningSpark 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comment implies he hasn't been using common sense recently, that's why he's taking offense. Diego (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not implying it, I'm categorically stating that he hasn't been. Doniago's style of editing is precisely the kind of disruption that this proposal is aimed at stopping. His recent foray into synchronous motor, a subject he self-admittedly knows nothing about, was the provocation for making this proposal. There he continues to argue for deletion in the face of opposition from a dozen knowledgable editors. But it is nor just that article. His talk page makes it very clear that he is making a career of this kind of thing. He has also provoked enough opposition in the past for an ANI case to be brought against him. Nor is Doniago the only editor doing this, another case at AIV has just been closed involving Epeefleche. It is not common sense to delete stuff just because we can. A more reasoned approach is more helpful and it would be good if policy made that a bit clearer. SpinningSpark 01:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what Doniago is doing right now does or does not display common sense, I haven't looked at it, but I do say that for the reasons that I've stated above that deletion of material merely because it is unsourced is not devoid of common sense. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this approach, instead?

Maybe leave the main text of Burden as is, but add a footnote at the end of the sentence, "When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable." The footnote would be:

"When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that other editors may perceive your edits as disruptive if you seem to be paying attention selectively to material of a particular POV, or if you appear to be removing large amounts of material without really having taken the time to assess whether or not it is verifiable. For this reason, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question is not verifiable."

Instead of saying that policy requires a particular behavior, that then could be wikilawyered, a footnote of this sort approaches the issue from the point of view of advice about how to avoid conflict. It doesn't mandate anything. It doesn't water down the principle that unsourced material can be removed. But if an editor acts in a manner contrary to what it says, it makes possible a DR discussion focusing on whether the tagging/removal is disruptive or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above yet since last night, but this caught my eye and I had to say how much I agree with this. Whether this is what happens or not...bravo for the suggestion!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly buy into that. I suggest that the word "really" is superfluous. Arguing against my own position slightly, I think that adding "with at least a cursory online search" at the end of the first sentence would be helpful. We don't want editors to be criticised for not spending a fortnight doing research at the Library of Congress or the British Musuem. SpinningSpark 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support the proposal of Tryptofish without any further alterations. I don't agree with telling editors to do the research the contributer refused to do.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't agree with that, then surely you would take issue with the imputation in Tryptofish's proposal that removing unsourced material needs a "considered reason"? If I'm copyediting an article, do I always need to leave a mass of talkpage messages about unsourced stuff I may have removed or tagged for a variety of reasons? Is believing something to be untrue or harmful if untrue a "considered reason", or do I need to go further? What's my considered reason for adding a fact tag, beyond "the statement was uncited"?

Overall, I agree with the proposal in spirit, but I don't think it requires so many words and I don't think we need to say what is advisable. How about:

It may be considered disruptive to delete or tag material in a way that is not balanced, taking into account WP:NPOV.

or something like that? Formerip (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Or taking into account WP:V itself. 'It must be possible to verify this material, using some published reliable source' (our actual policy) is not the same thing as 'All material not followed by an inline citation is unverifiable'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It's not always a case of "the contributor refused to" provide sources. Sometimes the original person did fully source the material, but the refs were removed (e.g., by a person who refused to follow the directions at WP:DEADREF), or the text may have been changed so many times that the refs got detached and nobody remembers that the citation in the next paragraph covers this material, too, or someone inserted text in between the original material and the original citation, so that the original material appears unsourced and the new material improperly appears to be sourced. Or, for that matter, I've encountered editors who believe that citations at the end of a paragraph can't possibly support the whole paragraph. We don't have a one-citation-per-sentence rule, but some people use that claim as a means of "challenging" fully sourced material. There are many reasons why a citation doesn't happen to appear in a given location that have nothing do with the original contributor refusing to cite the material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that the editor is responsible for every other editors improper actions. 'Quantity over quality' is a bad premise for your reputation, as Toyota found out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm only saying that it's neither accurate nor kind to assume bad actions by the person who originally added the material. If you add good, sourced material, and someone else screws it up later, then we should blame whoever screwed it up later, not go around saying that you "refused to" provide citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the "or if you appear to be removing large amounts of material without really having taken the time to assess whether or not it is verifiable," when added to the "editors may perceive your edits to be disruptive". Those combined at least imply that the perception could be valid. All that is required by the policy right now is that one claim that one have concerns about verifiability, which is wrong and misleading because there's nothing which actually requires you to have those concerns. Indeed, what the policy says is, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." As it is right now, while it may be distasteful and may not be the preferred thing to do, and while some may be so upset about it to file unfounded and inappropriate complaints about people who do it, removing material merely because it is unsourced is perfectly acceptable unless it violates some policy other than WP:V such as POV. The ongoing attempts to change WP:BURDEN are an effort to slip a restriction on that in through the back door or by pecking away at the concept because that result cannot be achieved directly, as was tried and failed in the recent RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Supplement: I withdraw and apologize for the struck-through material. Making those kinds of accusations is not my style and I've felt bad about it ever since I said it. The excellent editors on both sides of this discussion have the true welfare of the encyclopedia at heart and absolutely did not deserve this kind of thing from me. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ashamedly, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noting what I already said on my talk page: no offense taken by me, at all! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, how do you interpret the part that says "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article", and that is also part of policy right now? Diego (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Transporterman, I wish (and have been advocating) that what you said ("required by the policy right now is that one claim that one have concerns about verifiability") was true but it isn't. It is certainly contained in the spirit of "challenged or likely to be challenged", but the operative/ nuts and bolts of the policy says the opposite. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@Diego: I see that phrase as being so open-ended and subject to interpretation in the eye of the beholder as to render it effectively meaningless as policy. Depends how and in what way? Is unsourced information about My Little Pony pony colors more subject or less subject to quick removal than unsourced information about whether Serbs were systematic victims of The Holocaust? Is unsourced information more subject or less subject to quick deletion in GA's than it is in stubs? I'm sure that we both have opinions about such questions, but that phrase gives little guidance as to which of our opinions is right. And the use of "should" arguably makes the answer to the whole question discretionary. Thus, read in the entire context of WP:BURDEN the phrase appears to be more advice than a rule, and that's how I've always interpreted it and taken it. If I understand what North8000 is saying in his last comment, just above (and I'm not sure that I do and I apologize to him in advance if I'm misinterpreting what he is saying), he may be saying that everything in that paragraph after the initial first sentence, "ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed," may only be advisory, and I think that he may be right. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re ""Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article"" — I interpret this to mean how likely the material is verifiable, how long it has been in the article, and what effect its removal would have on the article. For example, if the material seems verifiable, been in the article for a long time, and constitutes the main part of the article, then efforts should made to find reliable sources rather than to delete. Would changes to the sentence or an additional sentence along these lines be worth considering? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Is unsourced information more subject or less subject to quick deletion in GA's than it is in stubs? We have an answer for at least that part. The sentence is to be seen in the light of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, "the editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time", meaning that low quality stubs have more leeway for including "citation needed" during longer periods. Precisely at those stubs is where it's more helpful to tag content instead of removing it. Could we concur to make the requirement to tag-or-move-to-talk-instead-of-remove a strong suggestion for less-developed articles, and a weaker one for good quality ones? After all, WP:PRESERVE already makes it a strong suggestion; I think it would also clarify BURDEN if we explained that sentence. Diego (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. (Of course this wouldn't apply to vandalism nor BLP-infringing content). 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)~

Probably the simplest way to state my idea is to bring the operative wording in compliance with (instead of conflicting with) the spirit of "challenged or likely to be challenged", noting that "challenged or likely to be challenged" is a characterization of the material itself,....not it's sourcing status, but sourcing is what it then calls for in those conditions. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(I've not read the posts since my last posting above, so this is not intended to comment upon them.) General comment: I'd like to say that I've always seen a difference between an editor who merely occasionally deletes unsourced information and an editor who makes a regular practice of going around deleting unsourced information from a number of different articles without making an effort to see if the information is or is not verifiable. This policy makes it clear that the best practice is to either find sources for the information and add them or to at least make sure that the information is not verifiable before deleting it. It is, however, acceptable to delete it without checking. I do believe the second kind of editor is making himself vulnerable to being sanctioned through blocks and bans, whereas the first kind is not. Though it's not set out anywhere that I've ever been able to find (though I must admit that I haven't looked very hard), community members can and have been blocked or banned simply because of chronic conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian. Over the course of one's Wiki-career and as an everyday matter of behavior, upstanding — not outstanding, just upstanding — members of the community do things the "best practice" way or they don't do them at all and folks who chronically do it the "merely acceptable" way are asking for trouble, not for violating the rules per se but simply for not being responsible citizens. That can happen quicker if their chronic mass deletions can be tied to violation of some other policy or more blatant irresponsiblity such as POV-pushing, edit warring, or perhaps COI, but it can also happen just because of not doing it in the socially-responsible way. The unpleasant thing about that is that they can arguably do quite a bit of damage (although there is an argument to be made, which I have indeed made in the main part of this discussion, above, that it's not really damage) and cause a lot of drama and disruption, before their behavioral pattern becomes sufficiently defined and the community becomes sufficiently fed up. In my opinion, we need to preserve the acceptable conduct level to provide for the situation in which good, upstanding, fully-and-regularly-responsible members of the community spot marginal information and want to delete it without having to search to see if sources are there and without becoming involved in huge amounts of drama when some fanboy or fringe-flogger starts screaming about there being huge amounts of reliable sources about bigfoots coming to Earth on ancient Mayan spacecraft. I'm not opposed to tightening down the standards to let us deal with the irresponsible mass deleters more quickly, but not by throwing out the acceptable level of conduct for use by responsible, but busy, editors. Maybe one place to start would be to simply say make the community-responsibilty standard a bit more explicit by this addition to WP:BURDEN:

"While it is acceptable to occasionally delete unsourced material merely because it is unsourced, all editors have a responsibility to avoid chronic, continual, or regular deletion of unsourced information without either attempting to find a reliable source for the information or making a good faith determination that no such sources exist. If an editor's editing history shows a pattern of chronic, continual, or regular deletion of unsourced information but does not also show frequent additions of reliable, inline sources to unsourced information, the editor may be subject to blocking or banning if the information which has been deleted is not of clearly doubtful verifiability on its face or if the information being deleted indicates that a particular point of view is being pursued or that a conflict of interest is involved."

(There is, incidentally, a third situation which I find much more difficult to approach conceptually: the deletion of a massive amount of unsourced information in a single article or group of closely related articles in a single act or spree.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Revised footnote

• I've examined carefully the issues that TransporterMan, SpinningSpark, and WhatamIdoing have – correctly, I think – pointed out as flaws in my original suggestion, and I think it may be possible to revise the footnote to correct those problems. (I, for one, am certainly not trying to slip anything in through the back door!) Revised footnote:

"When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that other editors may object to your edits if you seem to be paying attention selectively to material of a particular POV, or if your edit history shows a pattern of chronic, continual, or regular deletion of unsourced information without any effort to check for the existence of sources. Sometimes, material may have been supported by an inline citation in the past, but the citation was removed by subsequent edits. For these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question is not verifiable."

• Better? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I really like it. Actually I really like the beginning and the end, and stuff in between is necessary filler. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems appropriate for an essay rather than policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've been wanting to comment on this for a while, but haven't had a chance yet. And now that I take a look, I see that it has turned into a wall of text. :( So let me just say agree that we have a real problem here, and I support efforts to improve the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As for an essay and a wall of text, yes, the discussion is a wall, but the proposal is just a short footnote to the policy. And we could delete the sentence about "Sometimes, material may have been supported by an inline citation in the past, but the citation was removed by subsequent edits." Someone suggested the idea, but I don't think it's really necessary here, and there seems to be some sense that the proposal should lose some weight in its middle regions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Essays are useful. Suggest putting it there with more similar thoughts, and when it matures sufficiently, put a link to it from this policy. Also, it might become a guideline, partly a behavioral guideline. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. First, let's see what people think about a footnote here, since there seems to be some interest in covering these issues here on the policy page. But I agree, if there isn't consensus, then it won't be here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about giving guidance to well intentioned people, which is what an essay would do. We're talking about stopping people from deliberately mis-using wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think something stronger is required than an essay. We already have WP:PRESERVE and editors ignore it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a footnote and not an essay (although why not create an essay that elaborates on the footnote) and think Tryptofish has the right idea.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. (I suspect that you mean "frequent" rather than "regular".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks all. I'm fine with changing "chronic, continual, or regular deletion" to "chronic, continual, or frequent deletion", or even "chronic or continual deletion" or "frequent or continual deletion". I simply copied that phrase from what TransporterMan had written in a comment. I'd also be fine with removing the sentence about "Sometimes, material may have been supported by an inline citation in the past...". What do we think about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree you need to take out the bit about past citations. That is going off at a tangent from the point we are trying to make and is a situation that is easily dealt with. If one suspects that to be the case one just needs to find the old citation in the history and restore it. SpinningSpark 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it. You should update the proposed change to provide easy clarity on what it is. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that a clearer update is needed, and seems to be moving in the right direction. But I'm going to let it marinate another day or two before I do, to see how #Footnote suggestion revisted, below, does, how we feel about the edit summary proposal by Diego, and whether there are any opinions about "chronic, continual, or regular deletion". As that comes into focus, I'll revise it accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd want to include the following addition, after "For these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question is not verifiable; placing the word BURDEN or leaving a link to this section, either at the edit summary or article's talk page, is enough to satisfy this need", for the reasons I state in the section below. By making it a suggestion and not mandatory, I hope this can satisfy Amadscientist's concerns that it adds too much instruction WP:CREEP, while retaining my hoped benefits - by suggesting a sign to look for that can be commonly used. Diego (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I find myself with a bit of a dilemma here. I'm basically okay with Tryptofish's 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC), version of the footnote, either with or without the second or third sentence, but I'm opposed to the continued inclusion of the sentence to which it will be a footnote, so while I support that version of the footnote, I'm opposed to the whole thing. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I weakly oppose Diego's 12:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC) suggestion (just above) and oppose Diego's 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC) "Another suggested addition" below. I only weakly oppose the one above because it is in a sentence conditioned with "it is advisable" whereas the one below simply adds to the burden I generally oppose, i.e. having to say anything at all. (I also oppose it because it would keep me from universally making clear my intent by putting a userbox on my user page which says, "I never delete material unless I have concerns it is unverifiable." Just kidding.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why your opposition to the weaker form, in which the sentence creates no burden and is included only as a suggested way to express one's concerns? Diego (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My reason for both oppositions is really the same: that I'm opposed to having to say anything at all. My objection to the one below is stronger because it more directly increases that burden (which, per the discussion above, may not be mandatory at all), while my objection to the version above is weak because it still imposes a standard, and thus more firmly entrenches the notion that something should be said in the first place, even if it is just a suggested standard. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I'm sure I'm telling you what you already know, but I don't think we are likely to undo the sentence in the main text (to which the proposed footnote would apply). Diego, I understand how having a clear edit summary is a good thing, but I keep feeling like it's WP:CREEP to recommend what the edit summary should say. If we tell editors to "communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question is not verifiable", that covers it. How they should "communicate" it "clearly" should be up to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. When Mr. Stradivarius closed that RFC he was careful to note that there were only 12 editors in the discussion and that "this close is not the final word on this subject; editors are encouraged to open up new discussions about further changes to the proposal, whether those changes have already been considered in this thread or whether they are completely new ideas." (Emphasis added.) I'm not prepared to do that at this time, it's too soon, but I don't want the idea to become any more entrenched than it is already since it was a weak consensus at best. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair, WP:CCC. But I'll put it this way: I'll oppose removing that sentence! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed (it appears I'm slow today!) that Bob K revised that sentence, and in my opinion, it's an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Another suggested addition

I propose another small addition for the case when content is finally deleted, to make it easier to find it in the future:

"When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable by including the word BURDEN in the edit summary."

We're assuming that editors will be able to find the removed content through article's history. This was true in the early years when history lists were sort, but nowadays content edited more than a few months ago will usually be out of reach. Tools like WikiBlame can help locate particular text inside the article, when one knows that some content was removed and has a reasonable idea of how it was worded; but reading the edit summary is the only way to know the intent of editors.

If we include in policy the specific sign to be used for removing unsourced content, all editors removing content will tend to use the same word to signal it, and those removals will be easier to find by someone trying to recover and source removed content. Many editors are already including WP:BURDEN in the edit summary as the reason to remove content; this change would increase the numbers of edits that are marked this way. I know that this proposal is not perfect as not all editors will know or remember to always include the signal, but it will help even if it's used only in 80% of removals of this type.

It also has the benefit that, once content has been removed including this signal, this policy applies in full force and the content can't be restored without inline citation; it's a way for the editor to signal that they know and understand the policy and that they are following its requirement to identify their concern. This avoids the "need to read other editors' minds" problem that was raised above. Diego (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• TL;DR version: always put BURDEN in the edit summary when deleting unsourced content. This way you've complied with your requirement to claim it unverifiable, and I can find your removals and try to source them. Diego (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oh good... More instruction creep! (sigh) We can not mandate that editors put certain words in their edit summaries. In fact, we can not even mandate that they even leave an edit summary (I often forget to do so). Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem then; the removal in that case wouldn't be protected by WP:BURDEN and could be restored by anyone. Note that it doesn't add more rules, as you're already required to state your concerns about unverifiable content; it only adds consistency to the current rule. Placing the signal would end all possibility of wikilawyering about the intent of the editor removing content. And it would really help support wiki process, providing accountability for removed content. Diego (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I had kind of the same reaction as Blueboar did. It's a perfectly good idea for an edit summary, but I think that enforcing this would be impossible. In a way, it's self-evident that an editor who reads BURDEN and bases an edit on it would be, well, basing their edit on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that an editor is concerned with content being "lost" in the edit history when it is deleted. However I would remind the editor that the edit history is there precisely for retaining the content in some form to be retrieved at a later date. Think about this a minute....if "verifiable" content is being left unsourced simply because there is a source out there somewhere and we are speaking about this as a reason not to delete it, is the same not true of the content in the history? It is still there and just because one editor cannot find it, doesn't mean another editor can't.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

By that logic we wouldn't have cleanup templates, deletion sorting, nor tags in edit summaries to search edits made by bots. Diego (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making this up as I go along. You know very well that the history is there for a reason. If you can't take the time to look through it then please don't create issues that are simply not there.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's make this clear: your suggestion for someone wanting to review this for removed information is to review the diff for each single edit and try to find the reasons why something was removed? Diego (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This procedure reinforces the bright line that WP:BURDEN is supposed to be by defining an unambiguous test to apply the policy:

• Content removed without a BURDEN comment is not challenged and any editor can restore it.
• Content removed with a BURDEN comment is challenged. Editors restoring it without inline sources are breaching policy. No exceptions.

This exact test clarifies the current wording that requires content to be "challenged" and editors to state their "concerns". It would also silence the claims that the deleter didn't properly try to source the content. An editor knowledgeable enough to include the BURDEN comment in the edit summary is making an explicit claim that, yes, he regards the content as unverifiable. This makes that editor responsible for those claims in case that they're misused or lightly made over a prolonged period.

In short, I believe this clear test would help reduce the edit warring and discussion about the meaning of BURDEN that is usual nowadays. Diego (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No. This just does not make any sense. You think an edit summary should qualify a deletion and when not using the term doesn't. LOL! That is really not going to work. That is true instruction creep and just trying way to hard to put up an obvious brick wall to keep unsourced content. We are now beginning down an absurd road. I suggest we stick with the footnote suggestion as it is, by far, the best suggestion being made.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"eleter didn't properly try to source the content". This clearly shows you are simply trying to place "blame" (edit) responsibility on the backs of editors that remove the content and that really is the exact opposit of Burden. Deleters don't have to attempt to source it, just verify it...and even that is not a requirement. Policy states that the burden is on those wishing to return it. You now want the burden to be on those removing it. It really should just be the burden of those adding any information. Then we wouldn't have this issue. Since that isn't going to happen why would we then demand others do the research for those not capable of it to begin with?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...blame is too strong.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I'm not the one adding that responsibility; it's already there in the policy your duty to communicate your concerns, and if you fail to do it you're breaching your part of the deal. The only thing my proposal changes is that now, when you fulfill that already existing responsibility, you're shielded from others trying to attack you. Diego (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You kinda are with a requirement to add a specific word. And it has no effect on any shielding...it actually creates issues as this would not be something people will know or even understand and may well just be ignored creating loads of drama. As I and many others have continued to say, there is not real "obligation" or "requirement" to communicate in this manner. As I have said before elsewhere, a deletion itself is a challenge to the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What would you think of this addition if it was not an obligation nor a requirement? Diego (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This clearly shows you are simply trying to place "blame" on the backs of editors that remove the content Now I think you didn't understand the proposal. This would achieve exactly the opposite, by protecting you from those other editors that "might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" and that the policy warns you about. Diego (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Also see that I wrote "claims that the deleter didn't properly try to source the content". I'm not the one making those claims; I want to avoid them being made. Diego (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Footnote suggestion revisted

I suggest brevity might be a good idea. Inspired by North800's suggestion:

After this the prose in "Burden: "When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable." add the following shortened version of Tryptofish's suggested footnote:

When tagging or removing such material, other editors may have various objections. For this reason, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question is not verifiable.

--Amadscientist (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think the "challenged or likely to be challenged" should have a footnote explaining what is meant by this to clarify it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

After the term "challenged or likely to be challenged" place a footnote similar to:

A challenge could be a talkpage post questioning the validity of verifiability or an edit, such as deletion of content for no sources or a tag requesting sources. "Likely to be challenged" is any content that is not unquestionable fact.

--Amadscientist (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but I think it confuses matters more. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'd rather have it clearer what those "various objections" would be, and why. It also isn't clear to me that we really need to clarify what "challenged" means. (Is it the posting of a challenge, or is it skepticism about the material?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way it could be adjusted to be less confusing to you North? Typto, it is both. if you have a skepticism it is liely to be challenged and the act of challenging is what I listed. I see confision in the very question which leads me to believe it needs clarification. Maybe not mine...but it needs clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unverifiable as a standard

I think the reason all the above proposals are being rejected is that including unverifiable in the policy was poor choice. The discussion that led to it was poorly attended and was a small part of a long drawn out discussion. While it wasn't a big deal at the time, now editors are grasping on the wording to shift policy substantially in a way that was never intended by the original discussion. To form a belief that something is unverifiable could mean any of a variety of things. Does it mean that I think the claim is wrong and my impression looking at the article, but not doing any research, is that I think it is unlikely that a search will easily verify the claim? Is it that I want to remove the claim and have done a rudimentary online search for sources (as in googling for a few minutes) and found no acceptable sources for verification. Or is it that I have extensively searched to such an extent that I can say with reasonable confidence that it actually cannot be verified. Prior to the October discussion, the policy was clearly in line with the first of the versions, after the RFC, maybe its the 2nd. But even if you maintain that the discussion close intended to move further then that middle ground, it certainly did not receive sufficient participation to support such a dramatic shift in a core policy.

To resolve this, I suggest we amend the unverifiable language as follows:

When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, make it clear that you have a concern that the material is unverifiable not easily verifiable.

This would be a much more workable standard, and would target those indiscriminately removing content without trying to source it, but would preserve the long standing BURDEN design by keeping it on those who add or restore content. Monty₈₄₅ 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't work because it wouldn't discourage deletion of material if the editor thinks the material is not easily verifiable yet thinks that it is verifiable if one worked hard enough to find a source. Another way of looking at it, is that it implicitly says it is OK to delete verifiable material that is not easily verifiable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How is an editor really supposed to know how hard or impossible it is to verify something without having tried? At best we are talking about a guess, and where different editors will make different guesses, its a bad idea to have policy turn on them. Monty₈₄₅ 21:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing that might help to crystallize and focus the discussions is to identify the types of situations that most merit a policy tweak to reduce the problem. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to recognize that BURDEN really has two separate requirements - two situations, if you will - one for removing content, a different one for bringing it back. (Sorry to those arguing that you can freely remove any unsourced content at any time; there's simply no consensus for that). The policy should clarify (without changing the current requirements) the expected behavior of both the people trying to keep and remove the content.

Nobody denies that the burden to cite and keep material lies with those in the keep side, and without sources it will be ultimately removed; but those challenging the content also have a burden to avoid disruption and losing the facts because of a careless removal. This is in line with the consensus that was developed at the latest RfC. Any revision should be in line with helping both sides to better develop consenus in a situation like this. Diego (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't agree with a couple of the underlying premises here. First, I don't think everything being discussed is being rejected! Beyond that, I feel that the page does explain what "verifiable" means. (If it doesn't, we've got a big problem!) Given that, I'm not sold that it's unclear what "unverifiable" means. Once we get into distinguishing between easy and not-easy verifiability, we open ourselves up to wiki-lawyering about where the line between them is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that "unverifiable" is the safe word for the no-no-fifth rail phrase "looks doubtful". I.E. going around tagging lots of "sky is blue" statements is more discouraged than tagging lots of "sky is green and purple polka dots" statements. In some circles they figure its verboten for editors to know and decide which color statement should and shouldn't experience a full whack from wp:burden. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but the flip side of that coin comes if we attempt to legislate a safe word for "looks beyond doubt". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Continuing, there are lots of POV warriors who would knock out "sky is blue" if they just have to say "not a wp:rs" but won't if they have to look stupid and say "I question that the sky is blue" North8000 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no desire to go on content removal crusades. But my concern is that when there is a dubious fact, WP:BURDEN is a tool to stop the proponent of the statement from dragging it out into a really unproductive argument other whether it could be verified. Such arguments are particularly pointless because the proponent of the material could just provide the verification. My concern is that expanding the unverifiable requirement will return us to incredibly pointless arguments over whether the claim really is unverifiable or just hard to verify, and that it should therefor stay despite the lack of verification. Monty₈₄₅ 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm confused, but it seems to me that it's better, in that regard, not to differentiate between easily and not-easily verifiable. If someone wants to challenge a dubious statement, they can tell the proponent of the statement that they question its verifiability and want to see a reliable source. If instead they question whether it's easily verifiable, then the proponent can argue that they would have found sourcing if they had tried harder. I'd rather not draw such discussions into the question of ease of finding sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Before I read through the replies I have to admit I am a little surprised by the recent change in wording. I gave up on the discussion very early whn this first began to develope and I am a little disapointed bu the outcome of the recent change. I am not sure that what is there now in the lede is appropriate at all and seems confusing still. The point is supposed to be that content ve verifiable, but..as monty points out...to what extent? I am very concerned about this issue as not understandable and the discussion clearly shows that. Look, I think have a grip on the spirit of the issue, and I think North, Monty and Typto have a true sense of the spirit of the guideline(there are more editor here that I feel that way about as well but those are the more recent replies). I truly believe some editors are attempting to push a policy forward that simply makes it a wikilawyering excuse to arm warriors who want to keep unsourced content, Not fake or false content but unsourced content based solely on the fact that they "know" a source exists that can verify it. There seems to be a devide. On one side those who believe that (even with one source) all content that is likely to be challenged by anyone should be referenced with an inline citation. Lets face a fact here. NO article can exist without at least one source as an overarching reference. Some editors will simply palce the single source at the bottum and not make any inline citations, but that is not correct. If you have only one source and you are still making claims from that source you are indded supposed to place a citation from that source to the page the claim is made.

This needs some attention from a WMF fellowship participant in my view. This policy page is just confusing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Monty, Just for the sake of discussion, would you have any problem with the following sentence?

"When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, make it clear that you have a concern that the material may not have been published in a reliable source."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that language. Monty₈₄₅ 04:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Then how about this modification of the above version?

"When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, make it clear that you have a concern that the material may not have been published in a reliable source, i.e. may not be verifiable."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, no objection, the use of may gives sufficient flexibility. Monty₈₄₅ 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob... lets take a look at what occurs if we do add this... what happens if someone does not make their concern clear? More importantly, what if a wikilawyering editor feels that the removing editor has not made their concern clear enough? Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is any less of an issue with the current language. Monty₈₄₅ 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's concern. Though I don't think that anything after the first sentence of that paragraph is binding, as now written, an editor grinding a point (I, just for the record, object to the offensive term "wikilawyer" even though, as I point out there, I use it on occasion) can argue that the other way. I'm afraid that it creates a Catch-22 for editors who remove uncited material: if they don't make the declaration, they'll be harassed for that, if they do make the declaration and it proves that it would have been pretty easy to determine that the material was verifiable then they'll be accused of lying (even though the sentence only requires a concern and even though a version which would have required to to declare that the material was, in fact, unverifiable was rejected in the discussion which resulted in this sentence). More drama, not less. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about what others think, but IMHO the most common problematic situation which merits a policy tweak is mis-using wp:burden in tandem with wp:rs to knock out unchallenged SOURCED material (e.g. the deletion edit summary just says "not a wp:rs")....to pursue POV'ing or pissing war objectives. I could give an IMMENSE number of examples of this, but each points a finger at someone, so I am just summarizing. I don't see where the above helps that. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT all of the very long discussion before your comment has been about the issue of uncited material. Perhaps we should stay the course and finish settling the uncited material issue before considering the unreliably cited material issue? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, North's comment does fit in to the overall topic... in that he is talking about situations where a) material is removed for lack of citation... b) returned with a citation (per BURDEN)... and c) removed again on the grounds that the citation was not wp:RS ... thus, arguably, not fulfilling the requirements of BURDEN (to return the material with a reliable source). I think his concern does need to be addressed... but as a second step... we first need to reach a consensus on parts a and b before we move on to addressing part c. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Also where the unchallenged it is initially sourced and knocked out. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, too, and definitely think it's worth talking about, but later. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're right. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)