Tagging without challenging[edit]

We talked about this a while ago, but I can't find the discussion. I ran across Glossary of communication disorders today. It's 100% uncited, and from my spotcheck, also 100% verifiable. That is, the only problem with the content is that nobody has yet spent several hours spamming in a bunch of little blue clicky numbers.

I'm wishing that there was a way for me to spam in ((citation needed)) at the end of every entry, so that it would end up in Wikipedia:Citation Hunt. However, under our present system, there's no way for editors to distinguish between "she didn't want to do all that work herself, so she set it up to work for the citation-adding game" and "This is a serious WP:CHALLENGE to the contents, and if a source is not supplied within a reasonable length of time, the material should be removed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ((unreferenced)) banner template is appropriate. Even though WP:GLOSSARIES can be even more of an oddball than lists, they still need verifiability, but on something that's an established field and verifiable in any single textbook like this, one could just pick up (or download) a single mainstream grad-level textbook, go to the index, and tick the boxes. I'd suggest you don't cite each entry to their page number in the textbook index unless you're actually verifying, word-for-word, that the description is accurate.
The concerning bit is the handful of entries that might be there are not in the standard textbook. You would probably find those in the edit history after the bulk of the glossary was written. Those are the ones to individually tag with ((cn)), or else to google-scholar quickly to ensure they are established in the field.
You could of course flag WP:WikiProject Medicine to do this, but it seems to me an easy enough job if you can get a relatively recent textbook. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv, I probably should have been more explicit, instead of just giving links. This policy says that all material must be verifiable. As I said, the list is 100% verifiable. That means, from the Wikipedia:Glossary, that all material in the page must be something "that someone (although not necessarily you) could, with enough effort and expense, determine has been published in a reliable source, even if no source is provided in the article."
This page "has verifiability". What it doesn't have is "cited sources". "Cited" means little blue clicky numbers on the page this minute. "Verifiable" means "an editor realistically could find a source to cite and add a little blue clicky number". In the language of WP:UPPERCASE, we have WP:V; we don't have WP:CITE. I would like to have both, and I don't want to do the work myself.
As a way of drawing attention to this page by people who actually do enjoy doing that work, I would like to get it into Wikipedia:Citation Hunt. However, it's important to me that this be done without anyone (e.g., an editor who is unclear on the distinction between verifiABLE and citED) being able to use that as an excuse to gut the article later. This is presently not possible in our current system. We don't have a system to say "It'd be super sweet of someone to volunteer to add a source here, and I am absolutely not issuing a CHALLENGE because I know perfectly well that this is verifiable content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This again? Anyone can put a cn tag if they want to and delete it after a time if one isn't forthcoming, no obligation to go hunting for one. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I could add a tag, wait a few weeks, and then remove it, but I'd like these entries to remain as opportunities in Citation Hunt until they are cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could only do that if the tag had actually been addressed or you're upgrading it to a secion/page tag, it would be disruptive to remove a valid tag. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the editor who adds a tag is allowed to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the tag has been addressed (even if thats because it was placed in error or not needed). A competent good faith editor simply does not place and then remove valid tags so if thats going on then the editor isn't one or either of those two things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule, and trying to make one up on the fly seems rather pointless. No idea where this bureaucracy-mongering is coming from.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understood what you were saying about the article (and maybe I didn't communicate that well), but I think I misunderstood the point of this thread (which isn't meant to be about any particular article).
I've found something similar in several old academic-centric articles, where a great bulk of material may lack references of any kind but be 100% verifiable (or in the case of math, simply verifiably true). One knows enough to know that supporting references definitely exist, but one lacks the time/energy to get those references, and one wants a tag that says to other editors "citation needed, but it's definitely WP:V and the reference material is out there, so please don't nuke this text in 6 months like you would with ordinary cn stuff." Do I have that right?
So it sounds like this is just a matter of creating a new inline template, and getting some consensus to put it in WP:V and other meta pages so people use it? You also need a good title for the template -- and I'm sorry but I can't think of one. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing now. A new template, or a "known good" parameter for the existing one might work. A new template (unfortunately) might be safer, as changing from ((cn)) to ((optional but it would be ideal to have a little blue clicky number here)) would be more noticeable in the diffs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is ((sources exist)), which is a header template that could certainly be improved a bit. But it's not so popular that it is heavily restricted. Adding some customizable text fields like |reason= would help. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the copyright status of www.nidcd.nih.gov? The entries on this list appear to be very close or simple copy paste of NIH entries. I know certain US governmental publication are free to use, but don't know the complete details.
. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything created by an employee of the US federal government in the course of their official duties is public domain. On official websites, it's not unusual to find that the text is public domain, but there are exceptions, and photos are more likely to be copyrighted.
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/glossary is a glossary there. The page has no statement about copyright, and https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/policies#d says "Unless otherwise stated, the information on this site is not copyrighted and is in the public domain." It appears therefore to be in the public domain.
Our page goes back to 2002 (=21 years). The first functional copy of the NIDCD page that I can find is https://web.archive.org/web/20160405050019/https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/glossary in 2016. Many descriptions match, but the list of entries is quite different (e.g., under "G", they have Genetic counselor, Geneticist, Global Aphasia, and Gustation, while we have Grammar, Gustation, and Glaucoma). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I could find how they declare non-free content but https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/policies#d is clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little geeky "I'm good at whipping up templates" part of me at first (for like two seconds) liked the "just a matter of creating a new inline template" idea, but in the end it would simply be abused by every PoV pusher under the sun to assert that their nonsense is somehow sourceable out there and shouldn't be removed. The only way to demonstrate that something is verifiable is to make it verified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make template trustmebro? Sources exist but I am not gonna tell you where.[Trust me bro] Polygnotus (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, that ((Sources exist)) template is a joke and should be deleted. I randomly picked an article where it was used, "Technical decision". Literally no sources. I compared the Wikipedia article with a boxing dictionary.
Wikipedia: "A technical decision is a term used in boxing when a fight has to be stopped because of a headbutt."
Boxing dictionary: "Technical Decision: When a fight is stopped early due to a cut, disqualification, or any situation when the bout is stopped and the scorecards are tallied."
So the Wikipedia article is not just unsourced, it also uses a wrong definition of its subject. Instead of using ((Sources exist)) one should simply post a bunch of sources on the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do exactly that at various topics (in a thread I always create and call "Additional sources" for consistency, and sometimes cross-reference them between related topics). It saves me the trouble of trying to learn some complicated bibliography app to keep track of stuff I find that might be of use, and with me putting the sources (usually already pre-formatted in citation templates for easy copy-paste) in the talk pages, someone else may beat me to the punch in actually using them to improve the article. Plus they're a line of AfD defense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get sidetracked, but the source you posted isn't an official rulebook or summary or something like that. When I looked up other sources, they were mixed depending on I guess how technical they were -- the Indian Boxing Council site seemed to indicated the TD can technically come about from any cut or similar injury, from any legal collision that is not a punch, but it seems from summaries like that of Sports Pundit like it's almost always a head collision or headbutt.
So our article does seem indeed to be verifiable by sources, but it's certainly not gotten at the heart of the issue that we want for any decent WP article -- what is the technical definition in every circumstance in every major jurisdiction. I'd say the ((sources exist)) tag is accurate, appropriate, and flags this article as one needing significant attention. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But when you dig a bit deeper that just turns out to be wrong, e.g. https://www.boxingbase.com/boxing-results-explained/ Cuts are one of many potential reasons for technical decisions, and the definition in the wikipedia article is incorrect. It would be much much better if the driveby tagger posted some sources on the talkpage instead of slapping on a sources exist tag. The template gives people an easy way out, which is great for lazy people but bad for the encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That link says exactly what I said. The fouls in question are almost always headbutts and collisions resulting in cuts, and half the google results refer to such exclusively. "Dig deeper" means doing the article right and getting strong RS, not this or that website. A driveby tagger may have simply known or believed, as a person familiar to the sport, that a TD is in practice always a head collision. They tagged the article as problematic. Now here we are discussing a problematic article. Had such a tag not existed, perhaps the tagger may have considered, as is the point of OP's thread here, that the article were sufficiently verifiable as to not warrant tagging that it "needs sources for verification", and moved on. The lack of a suitable tag would not magically motivate said tagger to spend 5--10 extra minutes on a single page to list a bunch of sources (which they probably would not themselves have vetted, because that's another 15 minutes at least extra commitment you're asking of them) on the Talk page.
If the point of having quick straightforward tagging templates is that problematic pages are tagged for later review by those with the time and energy, which is exactly what is happening right now with the TD article, then that is the system working as intended.
If a new tag with more granular semantics will mean more tagging of problematic articles with more precision, as OP is suggesting, then I'm all for it. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also one of the great properties of the trustmebro template. When Wikipedians see [Trust me bro] sprinkled throughout articles they may end up talking about those articles. So if I understand you correctly you think its a great idea if I add [Trust me bro] to all unsourced statements, which will then lead to discussions that mention the articles (despite the fact that mentioning an article does nothing to improve it). Being in favour of a template because people complain how useless it is is a bit weird. In response to the OP, if someone is too lazy to use sources they are too lazy to add content to Wikipedia and every edit they make should be reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv: Of course I was thinking about fixing the Technical decision article, but after reading your comment I decided I am too lazy. And when you are done, you will have only 1969 articles to go. Writing articles Wikipedia:BACKWARD is not to be encouraged. Imagine if we WP:TNT all that unsourced content. Have we lost anything of value? Pulling out the weeds gives the other plants more space and sunlight and nutrients to grow. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, deleting good content is always a loss. Deleting pages also means losing links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of Template:Sources exist as an intermediate point between Template:Notability and an article that has cited sources proving notability. I'm thinking of it as "I'm not questioning notability, because I did a BEFORE search".
I looked at a dozen articles tagged with this template. They ranged from Greasy Kid Stuff, with only an WP:ELOFFICIAL link, to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons), which cites 73 sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: See below. Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF [edit]

We have a problem that WP:RS has a section, WP:SELFSOURCE [edit: and also WP:BLPSELFPUB in WP:BLP], that is a slightly modified copy-paste of WP:ABOUTSELF in WP:V. This is an issue for several reasons:

There are [at least] three potential fixes for this, listed in the order I think they are the most sensible:

  1. Remove the SELFSOURCE material in RS; retarget that shortcut to ABOUTSELF's location in V, and "advertise" the shortcut at that place instead; in RS, summarize ABOUTSELF in a sentence and cross-reference it, without an unnecessary and potentially confusing devoted section.
  2. Keep a SELFSOURCE section in RS, possibly still with its SELFSOURCE shortcut, but replace the content with a couple-sentence summary of ABOUTSELF (and use ((Main|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves))), that particularly focuses on reliability for particular narrow things under certain circumstances, since that is the RS guideline.
  3. Keep a section in RS at its current name, and replace the content with a sectional transclude of the content at ABOUTSELF (but with its shortcuts hidden with <noinclude>, so no one is confused into thinking these shortcuts target the RS guideline instead of the V policy); move the SELFSOURCE shortcut to the ABOUTSELF "home" location and retarget it to this policy section.

[And resolve the WP:BLPSELFPUB fork the same way.]

I would lean strongly toward Option 1, as 2 is still rather reundant and has POLICYFORK potential, and 3 is just weird (it's something we usually only do with documentation/help material, like technical information that pertains to multiple templates).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC); revised to account for BLPSELFPUB. 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with option 1, having the same content in two different places isn't good, and directly oppose option 3. The only major difference between the two currently appears to be the final sentence of SELFSOURCE, appending this to ABOUTSELF would make SELFSOURCE redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity I also support doing the same with the BLP version. It varies even less from the V version, and doesn't contain anything else BLP specific. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 seems like more or less the best path, I would like to see discrete discussions about the differences between the two though. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, if indeed there even is a baby under the suds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 seems the way to go. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with option 1. I've added a text comparison below, for any interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it matters for this discussion, but there's also WP:BLPSELFPUB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! Yeah, consider that extra copy included in this merge proposal as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too like option 1, and generally prefer the blended version proposed below (see there for my caveat). Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have more time to look into this later/weigh in on which option to go with, but for now just wanted to note that it's refreshing to see significant effort being put into reducing CREEP/policy forking, and I'm inclined to strongly support a merge in some fashion. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option 1, and without getting into the weeds, the latest ideas for merging the material look pretty strong. The bottom line for me is we don't have this material duplicated in multiple spots. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

side-by-side comparison of current SELFSOURCE, ABOUTSELF, and BLPSELFPUB text

WP:RS WP:V WP:BLP
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;[a]
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Notes

  1. ^ For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added highlighting to the differences. Yellow for where they have different wording, and blue where they have additional wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a slightly blended version, cutting some of the blue areas in the RS version and using 'usually' rather than 'especially'.
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties.
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, too, except keep the mention of LinkedIn, which is the dominant business social-networking site.
But see also the thread above this one, about a logic inclarity. The first sentence should probably read "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors" if this is meant to treat a publication itself as a usable source for what the publication actually says, as well as treat a publication by someone as usable for certain things about its author. If it's not actually meant to encompass that (despite a frequent interpretation that it does), then it should instead say something like "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about their authors". The problem with the original wording is that "themselves" has a referent of "self-published or questionable sources" (only) and that is not the intent (regardless which of the alternative intents are the correct one).
Also, an argument can be made to remove "or questionable sources", or change it to "and questionable sources", since either we mean this to pertain to self published sources in general, or to self-published sources that are also questionable (e.g. by not being by experts), but we cannot mean "self-published sources or questionable sources" since nothing in the material here pertains to questionable sources that are not self-published, and questionable sources are covered in a section above self-published ones, though the latter are arguably a subset of the former.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the intent should be "...about themselves or their authors", given that a source is almost by definition a reliable source for the content of that source (although only sometimes and never exclusively the interpretation of that source). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see subject as an issue. When primary sourcing a book to itself the subject is still book, using a book abouts it's author is still the author as the subject writing about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a syntax error though, since the subject of "themselves" is "self-published or questionable sources", so technically the authors can never resolve to "themselves" in the construction. It's a technical point, but I've learned the hard way to never leave such an interpretation loophole open in policy material or someone will wikilawyer it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic digression into particular articles and how to source them
  • (edit conflict) I like all of that except the final sentence, which needs exceptions. For example, articles where the subject is a work, list of works/products/things operated/etc. In such articles there can often be no or limited alternatives to self-sourcing the bulk of the article (by volume of text) - the externally sourced information that demonstrates the topic's notability sometimes only exists in a parent article. See List of London Underground stations for example, where the great majority of the article is sourced to Transport for London (the operator). This isn't confined to list articles, either, articles about specific legislation can have plenty of external references but the majority of the text being supported by non-independent sources (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is not the greatest example, but one I was reading recently). Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against modifying or removing the last sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those don't look like articles we should be holding up as examples, those are articles which need to be re-written to comply with our standard not ones which justify modifying our standards to allow that sort of lazy editing or bad articles. If it can't be rewritten using better sources than it should be deleted as non-notable based on a lack of independent coverage and if it can then your argument is worthless because its predicated on the primary sources being the only possible sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Thryduulf's point is that there are more than enough independent sources with in-depth coverage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for it to be notable, but insufficient secondary material to provided the bulk of the detailed specifics about what the legislation says. Since the legislation is, by our definition, a suitable ABOUTSELF source for its own content, that's not a problem, until "the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources" (in the guideline not the policy) contradicts this, and essentially we have a micro-WP:POLICYFORK right in the same section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the logical conclusion there that "the bulk of the detailed specifics about what the legislation says" simply aren't due? That seems much simpler than the suggestion that policy or guideline need to be rewritten. The point of a wikipedia article of that sort isn't to host the text of the source, even if the source is a reliable source for that text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish has it right. The consensus has been, time and again, that these sorts of articles belong in Wikipedia and, where there are no legal considerations, policy must be descriptive of actual practice not dictate what practice should be. With the exception of the single sentence that is proposed to be added to the policy, the policy is currently descriptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not a DUE problem, because there is no conflict between the primary source saying what it actually does say, and secondary sources summarizing it in more general terms. A DUE problem would be most secondary sources summarizing it as meaning one thing, but an outlier source claiming it means something else, then Wikipedia treating these two positions as if on equal footing. DUE is very clear that it is a rule to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". But what the source literally says is not a "viewpoint" to balance against any other viewpoint, it's simply an observable fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about basic biographic information (what I think you mean by observable fact) or are we talking about "detailed specifics" because ABOUTSELF only allows the first, it doesn't allow the second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in this diversion is particular to bios; how could you think that exmples pertaining to a piece of legislation and to a list of subway stations are "about basic biographic information"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Biographic used loosely... It doesn't matter what the source is, we're supposed to summarize it... Not reproduce it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And nothing about this policy section or revisions thereof has anything to do with that. I think you are thinking of WP:NOFULLTEXT and WP:Quotations#General guidelines. Either that, or you are trying inapporiately to turn a minor merge-and-revision discussion about long-extant policy material into a referendum on whether the policy material should exist at all, in which case you should open a proposal at WP:VPPOL to remove WP:ABOUTSELF and its two copies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf is literally trying to turn a minor merge-and-revision discussion about long-extant policy material into a referendum on whether the policy material should exist at all. They are using this discussion to advance a claim to a longstanding consensus which does not actually appear to exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which information sourced to a primary source in the London Underground article couldn't be sourced to a secondary or tertiary source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of it probably could be, but what would be the point? Why would a secondary source that quotes factual information from a primary source be more reliable than the primary source? Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asking why we prefer secondary and tertiary sources over primary ones? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Was about the say the same thing Thryduulf did. If a self-published source says (and I'll use a bio example because that seems to be what Horse Eye's Back wants to bend the discussion to) "I quit university in 1993 because I was tired of schoolwork, and I'd just landed a great job in the field I was studying anyway, so passing that up to continue studying to get a similar job later seemed silly – and expensive. I didn't go back to school for a really long time, until 2007, and didn't finally finish my degree until 2009.", there is no point in citing a secondary source that says "In 1993, Smith quit college to take a job.", and relies on the same primary source for the information in the first place, while losing detail in the process. (For WP, it would be better to not quote it, but summarize as something like "After getting a job in the field of her univerisity study in 1993, Smith left her studies for many years, but completed her degree in 2009.") Robotically regurgitating factoids is not what secondary sources are useful for; they are required for analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have to have a discussion about why secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary ones I don't know if I can help you. Should we re-write WP:V? What about WP:OR? "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." is pretty hard to misconstrue even if you appear to have done so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a thread about substantively rewriting an entire policy (much less two of them). And you seem to be confused into thinking that "to a lesser extent" means "never to any extent". Please stop derailing this thread, which is about merging and (non-substantively copyediting in the process) a small subsection of policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "removing from the policy altogether." is not non-substantively copyediting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not in the policy, it's in a guideline that has forked from the policy. Please pay closer attention to the details in discussions like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a direct quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just stop. The material under dispute is quoted from the guideline version, at RS, not the policy verson, in V. If you cannot follow the basic facts of the discussion (including being able to figure out on your own what is really obviously meant when someone has a "policy" for "guideline" typo in a post, about material in a guideline that cannot possibly be removal of material from a policy since it is not a policy), then this is probably not a discussion in which you are going to be helpful. And your self-important "I don't know if I can help you" sarcasm above is in no way constructive. Virtually every sentence in every post you've made here shows confusion about this policy, about which page what material is in, how one policy relates to another, and/or how policy is actually interpreted. You are clearly not in a position to "help" anyone understand this material. Cf. Dunning–Kruger effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not sarcastic, its suggesting that the differences are likely ones of theory not understanding. We do in fact prefer secondary sources, I don't believe my understanding is a result of the Dunning–Kruger effect. I would appreciate if you could make this 90% less personal and confrontational. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This digression into picking at particular articles and arguing about your personal interpretation of how policy should be applied is simply off-topic. If you want to pursue it anyway, then please at very least start a new thread here or at VPPOL about how you want to interpret the synergy of these policies and guidelines as applied to particular kinds of cases, if you don't want to continue dwelling on particular examples, which is a matter for their talk pages and/or for FAR. PS: The fact that WP "prefer[s] secondary sources" is obvious and unchanged. "Prefer" does not mean "use exclusively". This is not the thread for arguing for a substantive change in policy and its application, against most or all use of primary sources for anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Thryduulf is mistaken/misspoken thats one thing, but nobody is arguing for "a substantive change in policy and its application, against most or all use of primary sources for anything." nor has anyone even mentioned that as far as I can tell. Where is that coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic digression again into particular articles and how to source them
  • List of London Underground stations, one of the examples above, is a featured list. I'm not sure what stronger consensus there could be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a featured list in 2005. If you think that the featured list status reflects current consensus feel free to nominate it for re-evaluation against the modern standard. You also haven't demonstrated what information which is sources to primary sources in there can't be sourced to better sources, which is the core of your argument. I also think you should review the version which was given FL status, [1] although I assume you are familiar with it given "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 7 December 2005 (rv my addition of openeing dates to A and B sections. See talk.). " Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to challenge an FA/FL, WP:FAR is thattaway, and it's no one else's job to do that work for you. If you have issues with the sourcing at a particular article, that's a matter for that article's talk page. This is not the venue for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd also accept things like their official website, their earnings, the identities of the executives, the number of employees and locations they have, and similar factual matters. I'd also accept press releases and similar statements as representing the view of the organisation on certain matters (e.g. if they were notably accused of something, I'd accept their press release as a suitable source for their response to the accusation). In most cases however articles about (commercial) organisations should indeed not be mostly based on self-sourced material - there may be exceptions and this is not necessarily going to apply to articles about an organisations' products or services. Regardless of subject, the volume of text is not always going to be an appropriate measure of sourcing (e.g. there could be a large and uncontroversial (mostly) self-sourced history or description section comprising a majority of the text, but with the rest of the article being (almost) entirely sourced to multiple third parties). An article about a for-profit organisation in a highly competitive sector is a different beast to an article about e.g. a non-political governmental body that has spent decades just quietly and uncontroversially going about its business. The more I think about it, the less I think any sentence like this can work as a policy and guidance is probably best left to more focused guideline pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always read it the same as Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a company or organisation is still the subject of an ABOUTSELF statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does already apply to organizations (we regularly use it this way), and the text doesn't saying anything about individual human authors. A scientific committee, a company, a band, etc. writing collectively are also an author for this purpose. But see above where I highlight the problem that the concept of "author" is actually missing from the wording, and "themselves" only syntactically refers to "self-published or questionable sources", which is not the actually intended meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at a redrafted merge

Based on above comments and concerns, this is what I would run with probably:

A self-published, questionable source may be used as a source of information about itself or its author, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the author be a published expert in the field, so long as:
  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties.
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article should usually be drawn from independent sources.

Since policy-writing is hard, here's a run-down on what specifically this does:

Possible tweak 1: Add a note below the list: "Author" includes an organizational one, not just an individual.

Possible tweak 2: Add a foonote: An example of an exception to "majority ... should usually be drawn from independent sources": an article on a piece of legislation and its specifics, about which the coverage in secondary sources so far is more general despite still being in-depth and reliable.

Possible tweak 3: Just remove the ", questionable", leaving "Self-published sources may ...". We should probably go with that, because the only self-published sources that are not questionable-by-definition are some self-publications by experts on a particular topic, but here the author's own life is not that subject of expertise, so the "experts escape clause" for considering that self-published work not in the questionable category does not apply. From an alternative viewpoint, everyone is a subject-matter expert on themself (but that's not really what we mean by "expert" here). Either way, the "Self-publisihed, [or] questionable" longer phrase is not useful.

Possible tweak 4: Include the footnote from the RS version, which was just skipped in the above discussion (but fix the typo in it). The footnote is correct as to how these rules are applied.

Possible tweak 5: Revise the heading to better agree with all this, as suggested in the thread immediately above the merge thread.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these tweaks were accepted, the entire section would look like the following:
Self-published sources for claims about themselves or their authors
"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.
"WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter.
See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion
Shortcuts

A self-published source may be used as a source of information about itself or its author, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the author be a published expert in the field, so long as:

  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties.[a]
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

"Author" includes an organizational one, not just an individual. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article should usually be drawn from independent sources.[b]

[... rest of page ... ]

Notes

[... rest of page's notes ... ]

  1. ^ For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criterion, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
  2. ^ An example of an exception to "majority ... should usually be drawn from independent sources": an article on a piece of legislation and its specifics, about which the coverage in secondary sources so far is more general despite still being in-depth and reliable.

[Update: Material highlighted now in pink is subject to some continuing concern, below.]

Examples of source types in BLPSELFPUB: That version of the text included two examples of self-published source types (press releases and websites). I bring this up because BLP is also a policy, not a guideline, so elminating those examples during the merge without discussing it first would be an undiscussed change to policy. So, to discuss it and moot that point: I think they should be excluded because the "Self-published sources" general section just above ABOUTSELF already provides such examples.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC); "the subject" concision tweak 20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence just needs removing from the policy altogether. It's guidance on sourcing that is irrelevant to verifiability (it speaks to notability) which has many exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the argument for removing that but not number 5? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for removing it is discussed in detail above, as you well know since you are part of that discussion already. Number 5 of what? If you mean tweak 5 in the material above, that has nothing to do with the final sentence, from SELFSOURCE at RS, that is under discussion (and tweak 5, to the wording of the heading, hasn't been objected to by anyone). Again, please pay closer attention to the discussion details. This constant stream of largely off-topic and confused naysaying comments and questions from you is not contributing helpfully to the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the indenting, I wasn't asking you. Sorry for any confusion or apparent naysaying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well aware of the indent level. I'm objecting to you wasting everyone's time asking for a rationale that has already been provided in detail. Also asking what you mean by something else (and addressing what I think it means, since I wasn't sure you'd answer the question – and in fact you did not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I mean't by "something else" when did I say it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind on that bit; I misunderstood you as probably referring to tweak 5 of the proposal description when on re-reeading I now get that you meant numbered list item 5 inside the draft material. Sorry about that!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries... If I can clarify... The argument given above about there being a longstanding consensus that articles can be primarily based on self published primary sources applies equally to point 5 and to the sentence at the very end. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that the the sentence at the very end is almost entirely redundant, it just restates point 5. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly attached to the last sentence, it does in effect just re-itterate point five that states that articles shouldn't be primarily based on such sources.
I still don't believe there is any need for the author or the source as a work as that doesn't appear anywhere before and is just a long winded way of saying 'subject'. No-one is going to misunderstand that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; "subject" would seem to have a clear enough referent in "itself or its author", so I switched to that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see a need for 1 or 2, agree with 3 questionable isn't needed, am ambivalent about 4 per my comment above, and agree with 5 the new header is a better fit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak 2 would go away if the disputed final sentence from the RS version goes away. If you don't actually object to tweak 1, it addresses some confusion about the point that was raised as a concern above, and it's "cheap" in being very concise. I didn't see you comment specifically about the RS footnote in 4, just omit it from a draft, so I wasn't sure that was intentional or what the rationale might be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Issue 1 goes away by sticking with about themselves, which doesn't need clarifying in anyway. No-one is going to not understand that 'themselves' is refering to the subject of the ABOUTSELF statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but we already had that wording, and the confusion arose anyway. In the discussion above is outright wondering (by a admnin not a noob) about whether organizational/corporate authors qualify, despite most of us agreeing that they do and always have, and it's not the first time this has come up, e.g. in sourcing discussions at various article. Just stating that it doesn't only apply to individual authors is a quick and painless way to put that confusion down forever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the switch to singular, I don't think it makes it clearer or less complex. Its not a merge at that point, its a rewrite. (update: a subsequent edit has improved the clarity and reduced the complexity but I'd still prefer something closer to a mirror) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're also copyediting here, and it has no effect on the meaning and applicability of the material. "I don't like" isn't much to work with; is there something demonstrably unhelpful with the singular version? Here it is with plurality restored, and it seems much harder to parse: Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors, usually in the articles about the subjects, without the above requirement that the authors be published experts in the field, so long as:... In what way(s) would that be an improvement? One issue I see quickly is that "articles about the subjects" implies an article that covers both the work and (not or) the author. A minor one is that "field" being singular is a mismatch for the rest of the syntax, but changing it to "fields" (not in the original) reads weirdly. Honestly, this switch to singular is the kind of edit I and various others would probably do WP:BOLDly without discussing it first, because it's non-substantive but easier to understand and a little more concise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that field singular reads weird is that you've inserted authors plural before it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that making that word plural reads weird. Try it yourself: "without the above requirement that the authors be published experts in the fields". It sounds like we're talking about pastures. But swiching to "author must be an expert in the field" conflicts with previous consistent plurality: "sources ... sources ... themselves ... authors ... articles ... subjects ..." Using "authors must be experts in the field" isn't awful, but in a sentence that is otherwise consistently pluralized it kind of sticks out. Just one of several artifacts of using the plurals here.
More importantly, neither you nor HEB have said what you think is better about the plural approach and worse about the singular one, which was the point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Established" or "published"? It is probably worth considering whether we should change the policy's "established expert" to the guideline's "published expert", which was done without detailed discussion of the change in one of the earlier drafts. The controling policy section for that language is WP:SELFPUB and it says "established" not "published" (and it is possible to be an expert, established as such in independent reliable sources, without being a published author, though probably not in academia; those who qualify are usually heads of organizations, with their editorially-controlled publications coming out with authorship attributed to the organization not the person). I don't see any actual point to changing the original "established" to "published", and the inconsistency might confuse someone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SPS requirement is published not established, so the V version is wrong in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its wrong SPS is part of V. Its not one or the other, its both... They need to the both an an established subject-matter expert *and* independently published, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Also note that its "may be" not "are" this is a bar below which nothing can be considered a self-published expert source... Not a bar over which everything is considered a self-published expert source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"expert in the field" is the same as "subject matter expert", it's just two ways of saying the same thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I guess "established subject-matter expert ... published by reliable, independent publications", though itself rather poorly worded, does seem be summed up well enough with "published expert", so any concern I had about changing from "established expert" to "published expert" in the ABOUTSELF material has been assuaged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of SPS that is important, and isn't part of that is "reliable, independent". Published expert covers enough here, but SPS has to cover 'experts' in woo published by the woo's on publisher. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal to merge with the minimum of changes

Self-published sources may be used as a source of information about themselves, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that they are a published expert in the field, so long as:
  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties.
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

This is mostly the V version with small parts from the RS version. Specifically correctly enticing that the SPS requirement is being published not established, and subject not source. It doesn't include the final sentence from the RS version, as the fifth point already makes the same statement.
The purpose here would be to merge the three sections as a first step. Any other changes could then be discussed while there is only one version of the guidance rather than three. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As second choice, sure. I wouldn't outright oppose it, since it gets the basic work of the merge done, but it doesn't address issues which would just need to be dealt with in further discussion(s) later. It would be simpler and cleaner and less bureaucratic to do it all in one pass. E.g. this still has the basic syntax problem of "themselves" only having a grammatically possible referent of "self-published sources" not the authors of the sources. It's a loophole for wikilawyering against treating the SPS as reliable for basic facts about the author rather than about the publication. Using "the subject" later doesn't fix that: its clear referent in this construction is also "self-published sources", since the author is not mentioned (and only with a confusing "they" which has no referent at all and conflicts with the previous "themselves" in the same sentence) until later in the material. We should not be resistant to just using plain English here. Saving a tiny handful of words at the cost of badly confusing language is not worth it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If I seem insistent about this, it's primarily because of the "Consensus set the new wording we have, so we mustn't change it even if it's crappy" ossification that can easily happen (e.g., this sentiment has derailed further attempts to improve MOS:GENDERID for several years, with hardened reluctance to change even a single word of something arrived at through an RfC despite it clearly having problems; it's as if "consensus can change – but not in this lifetime"). Please let's avoid coming to a consensus-of-temporary-convenience on faulty wording just because it would be easier/faster.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely change should always be allowed, but my point was that the merge can be done quickly while any changes are going to take longer. Why hold the merge back, when it's such a easy thing to accomplish. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just said why: because the extant language is demonstrably faulty, and there is apt to be more resitance to repairing it post- than pre-merge.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said why because you believe the current language is faulty. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why you are repeating my own point. If the grammar is screwed up (which it certainly is in the original material), then we just fix the grammar and get on with our lives. It has no effect on the intended applicability of the policy; it's just basic copyediting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry with added emphasis for clarity, "You said why because you believe the current language is faulty". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "belief" involved. This is a simple matter of basic English grammar parsing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a little bit beyond "basic" grammar. Problems like pronoun antecedents are not always obvious to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again we disagree on the use of language. You believe that you are right, I do not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish is correct about the grammar question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which form of grammervis require by policy? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop this, it's an argument that goes beyond this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in everybody's interest for policies to be grammatically correct and unambiguous, and SMcCandlish is correct about the grammar in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which grammar of which form of English, the formal grammar that you were taught that has little basis in everyday use? The argument for using a simple version without the need for overly complicate language necessitated by formal grammar rules is a matter of opinion, not something that can be proven true or false. If someone believes it is necessary for understanding that is again a matter of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's really about syntax; ("grammar" has multiple meanings, and the pertinent one here is grammatical relation, but only part of the syntax issues in the original sentence are grammatical in that exact sense). The issues are not particular to any dialect; there isn't a variety of English in which the original wording makes clear sense without potential for confusion and even opposite conclusions. (Even if there were some exception, the commonality principle is important; it does not help us in any way to have X% of editors understanding it one way and Y% interpreting it another, and Z% just not being sure what it's supposed to mean at all). See Zero0000's comment below for concrete proof of exactly the confusion we're talking about; that editor has come to something close to the opposite of the intended and best-accepted meaning. I know you've grown weary of this discussion, so I'm not going to reiterate the precise nature of the syntactical issues; they're already detailed step-by-step above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that changes my prior point, and as I said previously one or two editors misunderstanding doesn't require making the changes. I'm happy to drop this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-drafted merge 3

Taking all the above on board, how about this? The entire subsection would look like the following (minus the colorization, which I'm using more accurately below, to account for three not two source versions, plus tweaks under discussion):

Self-published sources for claims about themselves or their authors
"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.
"WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter.
See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion
Shortcuts

A self-published source may be used as a source of information about itself or its author, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the author be a published expert in the field, so long as:

  1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties.[a]
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Author includes an organizational one, not just an individual. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

[... rest of page ... ]

Notes

[... rest of page's notes ... ]

  1. ^ For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criterion, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Yellow = wording from V's version; blue = from RS's version; green = from BLP's version; pink = from the above discussion; lavender = proposed for removal below; no color = common to all (not including singular/plural tweaking). Hopefully, there's sufficient luminosity difference for anyone with color-blindness.

This: A) keeps the crime-denial footnote from BLP policy, B) deletes the RS codicil that was so objected to above (partly for being redundant with numbered point 5, and partly for having a different "great majority" standard from policy's "majority"); C) keeps my semantic repair to the opening sentence; D) has the "Author includes an organizational one' clarification; E) restores the boldfacing around the "about ..." clause in the opening sentence (markup that was present in all three original versions).

Can we live with this? It doesn't address Thryduulf's concerns that certain cases of academics and such might be affected, at least in theory, but that is already an issue with the extant wording in all three locations, and seems like something that must be addressed separately as a substantive policy clarification.

PS: I really don't care that much if the opening sentence is pluralized again, but it would make for more difficult-to-parse syntax: "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the authors be published experts in the field", potentially confusing because "the subject" and "the field" seem to need to remain singular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote a (which might need to be tweaked at BLP as well as here) should end after "do not fall under this criterion". Such claims can merit inclusion in Wikipedia if they can also be sourced to reliable third party sources and their existence in this sort of source as well is irrelevant to matters of DUE, V, etc. Additionally, it's fine to use SPS as verification for matters of fact related to claims that source makes related to third parties but not to establish notability for those claims (for example if there is dispute about what someone actually said then citing the original source material is sometimes appropriate), but I'm undecided at present whether this needs spelling out.
"if they can also be sourced to reliable third party sources" would make them no longer a matter of claims only backed by self-published sources, so this whole subsection would no longer be applicable. And in a merge discussion we're not in a position to make a substantive change to the policy without derailing the process. If WP:BLP's footnote needs adjustment that should be a separate discusson.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This subsection not being applicable is the point of my proposal, however I have raised it at WT:BLP and we should maintain consistency with the outcome of that discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with bullet 5 using the word "primarily" because it's loose enough not to prohibit the types of article discussed above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I very much dislike all the new verbiage per CREEP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only new verbiage (other that a couple of words needed to make the grammar actually parse at all) is the "Author includes an organizational one, not just an individual." And we've seen above that people have been confused on this point. (If you'd prefer, this could be moved into another footnote instead of being put inline at the bottom.) All of the other material is in one policy, both policies, or the guideline. Oh, there is also the word "above", to make it clear where the expert rule actually is, since people will arrive at this subsection by shortcut, but no one raised any objection to this before. It's in your "minimal" version above, too, I would add.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, and repeatedly, I don't believe it's necessary or that it's been shown to be necessary. You can say the opposite, we disagree that's fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to resolve this further in user-talk; I don't think an "agree to disagree" works when someone hasn't actually laid out a clear rationale for what their objection is (an "I don't like it" doesn't help). Clarifying unclear policy wording and merging redundant policies is entirely in keeping with all of the meaning and intent of WP:CREEP. Literally nothing in this discussion is adding any new rule or complicating an exiting one, but removing confusing and wikilawyerable ambiguity (which is complication and then some) from the existing one, and dropping a guideline-version codicil that is redundant with point 5.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be replying on my userpage, I have laid out my objects previously. You have ignored them and continued. Just because I won't satisfy you by laying them out again in detail doesn't mean that I haven't "laid out a clear rationale", just that you disagree with my previous objections (and you are free to do so, but can't claim they don't exist). None of this is needed to merge the sections that is a separate issue, while the additions you are looking to make aren't needed. A couple of editors not seeing that "the subject" can refer to a person, concept or object doesn't require more text, but just a quick explanation by another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read all your input into this entire thread. You have not laid out any "objects" at all. You just keep repeating that fixes are "not needed" and that "[you] don't see" any problem, with no rationale in support of that, after a great deal of explanation of why the syntax issues are a problem and fixes are needed, which you have not addressed, but just skip over and repeat that there's no problem to fix. That's just "I can't hear you", not discussion. You've offered an opinion that just doing a bare-minimum merge without addressing the syntax issues would be preferable to you than doing them both in one pass, which is no better or worse an opinion than mine in the opposite direction, other than that mine has been backed by reasons, and yours has not and is just an opinion in a vacuum. I've tried in two places now to get you to provide actual rationales beyond "I don't like it", and demonstrated in great detail that your "WP:CREEP" claim is not applicable [2]. So I'm at a loss for how to get past this stonewall. Meanwhile, I've acquiesced to and incorporated every single other wording tweak you have wanted, including: leaving off RS's redundant codicil, using RS's "usually" and "published" and "subject" and "pages from", using V's "as long as", etc. (and everyone else who cares seems to be going along with it all). This is feeling very one-sided: everyone must compromise except ActivelyDisinterested. Given that the present re-draft incorporates all of your "use this version not that one" merge preferences, all of which were in the direction of concision, I think you could budge an inch on the opening sentence being a tiny bit longer for the sake of clarity to everyone, even if you don't think the clarity problems will affect enough editors for you to personally care about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone else objecting to these changes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've seen. Thryduulf had an issue with the RS codicil, which has been removed (and to the extent is might also be affected by point no. 5, common to all versions, it would be a substantive-change matter to take up as a separate proposal). Same goes for someone above's idea of cutting off the "and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia" ending of the BLP footnote (it's already policy material, so removing it would be a substantive policy change).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again please do not continue to mischaracterise my arguments. Yes I have read you arguments and I'm not moved by them, I find it very hard to understand why you believe repeating them again will change my mind. As I've said repeatably I'm not going over the same points again. I'm not stonewalling, I just don't agree with you and we do not have to agree. Let other editors have their say, I'm happy for the consensus to be against me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the note, isn't this restating matters covered in BLP. Wouldn't a link to the relevant section of BLP be a better idea? This started as a discussion to remove duplication across different pages after all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can find. It's consistent with WP:BLPCRIME but does not reiterate it. It's specific to the "BLPSELFPUB" fork for ABOUTSELF, covering a matter that the BLP regulars thought of or had to wrestle with that the V regulars did not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. I'd like to suggest removing usually in the article about the subject as I think it's unnecessary, but my support is not conditioned on exclusion. — Frostly (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see that happening, since the clause advises/requires nothing and just makes an unnecessary observation. I blocked it out in lavender above in case others want to look it over and weigh in on whether to retain it (I suspect ActivelyDisinterested would favor removal, since they've been focused on concision). But since the clause is in one of the policies and the guideline, someone might think it substantive anyway. Even doing a basic syntax fix has bogged the process down. If this were punted for later, along with the definitely substantive questions about point 5 and the BLP footnote's closing, worse could happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing that phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too, for the record.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support re-drafted merge 3 wording. I think it addresses the concerns of the majority of the participating editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question the rationale for removing "questionable". First, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources includes a link referring directly to this section. That clearly supports the presumption that "questionable" in this section is intentional and meaningful. The "without the self-published source requirement" clause is obviously irrelevant to non-self-published sources, but the numbered items 1–5 are, on their face, applicable to any questionable source. Questionable sources may be used as sources about themselves, subject to certain conditions, and here are five such conditions – nothing implausible or impertinent about that.
I also think ActivelyDisinterested makes a fair point about "about themselves" / "author". The word "source" has a broad range of meaning, which can simultaneously include a work or author or publisher, depending on context. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source (explaining the word "source"). Likewise in ordinary language, the word "published" or "self-published" is an adjective which can be applied to works and to writers. I doubt we really need to sprinkle "[the works] themselves or their authors" around, when "sources" is already a word for people or things. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Zero0000's incorrect belief immediately below that "author" is excluded from the intended meaning of "source", for a clear demonstration of why the publication/author clarity is needed. The very fact that "source" can be ambigious is itself the problem. We provably cannot rely on editors to consistently come to the conclusion that "source ... itself" means "the publication, the author, or both".

As for "questionable sources" (WP:QS), that is a sibling category in the same containing section ("Sources that are usually not reliable"), and QS means material "expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." It already has wording that cross-references ABOUTSELF: "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below." Mentioning them again in the ABOUTSELF subsection would be redundant, since the only use of a "questionable source" permitted in it is as a "self-published source" about "itself" (i.e. about that publication or its author[s]) – the fact that the specific source under consideration (having arrived at WP:ABOUTSELF via the WP:QS cross-reference) is also "questionable" is irrelevant to the material in the ABOUTSELF subsection. So, it's just unneeded repetitive verbiage. That is, using "Self-published or questionable sources" in this subsection doesn't make sense, since there are zero "questionable sources" that could apply in this subection that are not also self-published ones when it comes to the applicable material. As a concrete example, a questionable source like The Epoch Times, fully red-flagged at RSP, cannot be used for any claim about anything all, except as a self-published source about itself (and even then it would most likely not be usable anyway because any claim it made about itself would probably fail rule no. 1, at least in that particular case). Using "or questionable" here also can be misinterpreted as wrongly implying that questionable sources can be used with impunity if they are not self-serving, don't involve third-party claims, etc. This would be an incorrect read of the rule (which is only for claims about the publication or its author), but we already know that the rule gets incorrectly read, including on that specific scope question.

The solution to all of this is simply to write more clearly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement that sources be understandable[edit]

I thought that the verifiability or a related policy (perhaps NOR) had a section saying that if a source needed an expert to interpret it in a way that supported the text, it was not permissible. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of point 3 of WP:PRIMARY? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be related, but I've repeatedly run into older sources that are best described as either obfuscatory or obscurantist. Most of the time this is due to archaic writing styles, which tend to avoid clarity with a preference towards ambiguity and even whimsical prose. Other times, it may be due to specialists writing outside their field. For example, this recently happened to me when I was trying to source an article about a church. It turns out, the history of the church was partially written by academic zoologists, who didn't understand how to write about history. In my opinion, only an expert about that particular religious sect could really understand what the source was trying to say, which made me abandon the source altogether. I've also found a similar phenomenon at work in older art criticism, particularly from the mid to late 19th century. Such criticism can sometimes border on outright fantasy, and I've had to be very careful using it on Wikipedia. In one specific example that was discussed on the refdesk, a piece of art criticism was composed by someone who may not have ever seen the work of art that they described. Instead, they invented an idealized description of the work and set it to poetry, which confused the actual description of the work as it appears in reality. While not exactly obfuscatory or obscurantist, it certainly approached a level of fabulism that I've never seen before. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the core policies don't require actual source reliability which would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. (that would be a good addition) But I think that the RS noticeboard typically does consider those things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread my comment, as it has nothing to do with source reliability, but verifiability. In the first example I gave, one couldn't understand the source about the history of the church unless one was an expert. The way it was written made it impenetrable to non-experts. In the second example, one could not understand that the art criticism was erroneous unless one was knowledgeable about art history. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Thanks for your post. While I admittedly did stray from the OP (and I think so did you), IMHO I did understand your post and IMHO my comment was relevant to it. Your posts were not actually about understand-ability of an expert source but were in fact about wiki-editor needing expertise to understand that the source was not knowledgeable/objective regarding the text which cited it. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding archaic writing style, I view it in the same vein as foreign languages; we allow sources in a foreign language that would require one to be an expert in that language to understand it, so likewise we should allow sources written in a style that can only be read by experts in that style. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution against adding to V any requirement that a secondary source be understandable without special expertise. Wikipedia has large amounts of technical content that would then become unsourceable. This content is, in my opinion, one of the most valuable things about the encyclopedia, because it greatly expands access to technical knowledge, provided the reader is willing to put in the work to acquire the necessary background (much of which can also be found in Wikipedia, again if you're willing to put in the work). --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and I add that any such rule would end up, in practice, with a definition of "an expert is anyone who knows more about the subject than the editor complaining that he personally can't understand it". We get enough of this now; we don't need an Official Rule™ that says if WP:RANDY can't understand it, then the source can't be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is just impossible for any meaningful writing on a topic to be understood by non-experts; just take a look at any of the articles in Category:Category theory or their references. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Double plus good! unlose Oldspeak NadVolum (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like two different topics commingled: The first is a question of whether the source is parseable by someone with the skills to interpret it. If so, it's a valid source, and is the same issue as citing a non-English work. E.g., there are various published facsimile editions of census records and other historical documents, which require considerable experience in interpretation of pre-modern handwriting. They are not invalid sources. But other examples above seem to be sources that are of dubious reliability, because they are by non-experts in the topic, are just opinion (including poetry or other art that is inspired by the topic), or are otherwise not stating facts (or WP:AEIS of facts) on which we can rely. These are a different class of things than works difficult to parse for linguistic-skills reasons, and they clearly can't contribute to verifiability, because they do not count as WP:RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That really only applies to primary sources... We want to avoid OR but that doesn't mean that we exclude a gold star statistics paper which isn't comprehensible to the non-statistically literate (I personally find Japanese language sources to be incomprehensible, that doesn't mean that Japanese language sources can't be used by editors who do speak the language). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A statistics paper, or most academic research papers, would of course be primary sources to begin with unless they are review articles or letters.
It's ok to just say that for articles where WP:CIR applies, the same may apply for some of its sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the categories correctly, a research paper claiming a novel result is a primary source for that result, but it may repeat results from other papers, and for those I think it's technically a secondary source. Probably not usually an ideal one, as the choice of what results to cite is so directly influenced by the work of the paper itself. A survey article is generally a better secondary source, because it selects material that workers in the field have found to be important. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends as much on what within the source you are referencing and what text you are using it to support. For example, a citation to the "Methods" section of a meta-analysis review would be almost certainly use of a primary source. Likewise, a citation to the "Introduction" section of virtually any paper, where they do a brief literature review and maybe opine on the state of the field, would be secondary, but not necessarily of any quality. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought -- a source not being understandable to most readers (or editors) is no more disqualifying for V than a source not being accessible to most readers (print archives only, e.g.). The text (written faithfully) is still independently verifiable at the end of the day.
My experience has been that poor use/misuse of sources is the more poignant problem than the sources being themselves intrinsically poor or unusable. It seems OP is suggesting an additional category of the latter, which wouldn't actually address the problem of people writing unverified text -- I think obscure sources are only problematic in that it takes a bit longer for such articles to be audited (a similar case to articles with large amounts of print sources). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC maybe of interest to this page[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way may interest any watchers of this page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed above. I'd be very happy to have more comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 84.15.183.2 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More