Knowledge talk:Verifiability/Archive 11

3659:

to improve the article, sources can and will be found and added. Everyone wins. A newbie who wants - consciously wants - to contribute to an "encyclopedia" should come already expecting that anything they add be "verifiable," otherwise they are coming in bad faith. Does it insult experts? That is absurd. Any expert who is insulted when asked, "what is your source" is at best an insecure expert or at worst one who does not care to educate less knowledgable people. Again, anyone who comes to Knowledge without a desire to educate less-knowledgable people is coming in bad faith. It creates systematic bias? Absurd. This is not about any conflict between the views of experts and the views of non-experts. It is about verifiable and non-verifiable views. If a non-expert has expressed a view in a verifiable source (e.g. what does the President of the US think about foreign policy, or, if you prefer, what do middle-class Americans think about people living in the Amazon), it can and (to comply with NPOV) should be included in an article. Maybe we should just have a banner on the main page, "If you just want to spout your own beliefs, start a blog instead."

423:

will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history." Now, I have no idea what's really going on... whether this is an intentional hoax or an _unintentional_ hoax... because the email is a reasonably accurate, if overhyped, description of the Mars opposition which occurred _in 2003_. Right now, if you sampled the email traffic in the United States, you might get data supporting the conclusion that many people hold the opinion that there will be a close opposition of Mars in 2006. Perhaps right now that might even be true. But they will only hold that opinion for a short time: until they happen to ask someone who knows... or until they look at the night sky.

1253:

dearth of citable publications devoted to it, especially the older the topic is. Researchers in academia have similar biases and pressures to work against; convincing your Ph.D. professor that you should be allowed to write your thesis on some long-forgotten fad from 70 years ago may be a little easier today than it would've been for someone back then, but it's still an uphill battle. In the meantime, the reliable-source shortage diminishes the topic's notability and verifiability on Knowledge, which is where enthusiasts of the topic will almost certainly converge, like it or not, to collaborate and seek consensus on an informative article about it. —

3295:'s Wikilife extremely difficult." This policy makes it very difficult for me to contribute, given the topics I write on - websites, TV shows, movies - require original research and firsthand experience/expertise to write well. I remember Jimbo saying something about "no information is better than speculative information" (wait, do I need to find a reference for that?). I guess I can be "kicked out from the project for being a lousy writer". Let's not forget that I can't format a reference to save my life. I'm not saying that the policy is bad, just that it makes things difficult for me, and causes the following problems for Knowledge: 3775:, which previously had not had a source throughout its 5 year, 100+ edit history. If nobody had written anything because all those previous editors didn't have a source to contribute for what they were adding, the article wouldn't be here today. Yet now it is in the process of becoming a good article. For the first time it has a source, and one that's generally considered authoritative for the subject. The process is working on this article, why should we restrict other articles from taking those same steps? 31: 3047:

strikes me as bizarre -- are you suggesting that users who do not follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are breaking the law? The current click-through statement only refers to the verifiability policy in any case, not to NPOV or NOR. Regardless of this, I think your use of the terms "policy" and "principle" is confusing. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines a policy as "an overall plan, principle, or guideline"; in other words,

2555:

sources referenced. Eventualism is fairly tried and tested, as it's the method that's been used to write most of wikipedia over most of its lifespan. As it's a fairly natural mode for wikis. Knowing that most pages don't get much attention, I'd hypothesize that over 90% of our articles have been written using the eventualist philosophy, whether the editors were aware of it at the time or not. ;-)

3681:

information they contribute. My other point, I think, is not so much about the opinions of experts vs non-experts, but those of reliable published sources vs common people (although I worded it wrongly). The example I provided was about reliable published sources generally giving positive feedback about an aspect of a computer game (e.g. its graphics) that its players hate. --

2844:. My intention is to clarify that the policies themselves are very much debatable (what exactly does it mean for an article to be verifiable, and how do we achieve that? when do we throw out claims, when do we keep them?), it is the underlying principles and goals that are not. I would like to suggest that we only speak of principles as non-negotiable, and not of policies.-- 1056:, you will have all you need to make a well-grounded assessment of suitabilty for inclusion in an article: The material should be verifiable by referencing it to a reputable/reliable source; it needs to be attributed to the hodler of a significant viewpoint; and it cannot not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. 331: 2131:. Then, when it says "their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles," this should be qualified with a statement that the reason for this is because the policy represents a very strong consensus of a large majority of wikipedia editors, and changing that consensus would be very nearly impossible. 2140:(edit conflict)In reading the above disscusion I am not sure if everyone is really talking about the same thing. I think there is a difference between editor's of a particular article reaching consensus about the content of the article and the WP community reaching consensus about a policy. Does anyone think this re-write will help clarify the matter? 975: 967: 646:? On the talk page I suggested what direction someone might go to get his concerns about Parma, Ohio appropriately into the article. Instead of getting my point, he seems to have viewed my talk page remarks as a reliable source. I don't think I could have been clearer that I did not have citable sources for what I was asserting. - 1787:

it's so basic, it would take Knowledge-wide consensus. The statement that the rule is non-negotiable may not be factually or provably true, but no one else sees any point in trying vainly to disprove it. And it won't be disproved today; certainly not the way you're going about it. Head, meet brick wall.

3658:

Is this whole thing a joke? Verifiability is indispensible. Does it bite newcomers? Now, because verifiability does not demand that every statement of fact be accompanied by a verifiable source, only that it CAN be accompanied by one. This means that when there is controversy or people are trying

3346:

True experts don't need to refer to external sources but also have no trouble finding them. I know little about chess but I'll bet that a chess grandmaster could reel off half a dozen books that have discussions in depth of doubled pawns or whatever, they'd be able to tell you what Capablanca thought

3193:

is the very hook that landed me on this all too dry and airy land, and it's a topic on which I have wasted not a little gasping breath, but ... what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Your descriptivist e-lusions fall utterly flat on their face the second you try to x-plain why you

3092:

The policies are both descriptive and normative, and the underlying principles of NPOV, NOR, and V are indeed regarded as non-negotiable for the time being. Of course that could change, but it would require a groundswell of wiki-wide and Foundation support; it certainly couldn't happen because of the

3072:, and thus strikes me as a better term to use than the disambiguation between "policy" and "implementation of policy." Given that I do not share your legalistic interpretation of the policy, I don't think the distinction between normative and descriptive is relevant. Again, if you want, we should ask 2727:

Let me clarify some exception to this. If an editor replaces an unsourced statement with another statement which contradicts the removed one and is sourced that would be an acceptable removal. However editors should not be simply deleting the good faith additions of others because it is not sourced

1955:

In other words, the Knowledge verifiability policy isn't itself verifiable? One would think that if anything has to contain only verifiable facts, the policy about verifiable facts should. If we don't actually know the policy is non-negotiable, maybe it should say "this policy is widely believed to

1786:

Kim, look at it this way: just because this rule says about itself that it is non-negotiable doesn't prove that it really is. Think of it as a basic tenet held by the community, instead of being offended that it puts itself forward as a hard fact. Of course it could be changed, by consensus—because

1447:

My point is that people are endlessly trying to say they can just add original research because they really want to. We need a way to deal with that if WP:V is ever going to mean anything. Perhaps word it to suggest that enforcement of the policy is not negotiable, and that it would take an extremely

1421:

My problem is that declaring the page non-negotiable means that (at a meta level) it's going to become unmaintainable over time. Since I hope for wikipedia to be around for a while, you might understand why I'd like to be able to keep things a bit flexible so we won't get stuck with a big mess a year

1252:

Perhaps in general, but some pop culture phenomenons, for example, take a long while to get written about, even when they're at the height of their popularity. The commercial publishing industry is more concerned about the marketability of a text than its academic value, so a notable topic may have a

1216:

Other encyclopedias are not concerned wih the "truth" either (just read any early 1900 encyclopedias....) They publish information that is validated by an expert or experts and reflects these experts' viewpoints. To assert that other encyclopedias deal with "the truth" and Knowledge doesn't, reflects

3502:

The alternative is a site in which a reader has no way at all to know the source of a statement in it, and no way to judge whether to trust that source. That's not an encyclopedia. It's a web forum or a social networking site. The verifiability policy is the logical solution to the problem of how to

2026:

Appropriately enough, it's working on articles that has convinced me more than anything else that WP:V is good and useful and shouldn't be subject to wiggling out of whenever we feel like it. I really suggest people who don't get this do some more article editting, as I've noticed usually they don't

746:

idea. Not that it would do much to prevent that kind of vandalism. It's actually not so easy to do, and I suspect it would be a little embarrassing initially since I suspect most Knowledge birth and death dates are actually lifted from reference books... which of course, probably got them from other

2639:

This policy is not a stick to be used selectively in content wars. Every editor is responsible for policing his or her own conduct, as well as for checking that of others. Helping an editor with opposing views to find a source is a good example of the wiki spirit. Deleting an unsourced statement

2635:

This policy does not mandate that articles be deleted, unless there is reason to believe that no reliable, third-party sources can be found for the topic, in which case the article does not belong in Knowledge. Articles that do not conform to Knowledge policies should be fixed, if possible, rather

2554:

The eventualist view is that wikipedia is a wiki (we forget that sometimes). People will keep adding information; sometimes from memory, sometimes from sources. After some arbitrary (large) amount of time, eventually sufficient information will be gathered to make a fairly decent article, with most

1648:

solve it, but there aren't other policies that are so fundamental that they could successfully be declared non negotiable like NPOV, NOR, and V. Seriously, take the hint and go do something more important. And read the darn archives before you bring up crap like this that has been gone over so many

1390:

People are always trying to say WP:V doesn't apply to this article, or to that, and that we can just do original research this one time because we really feel like it. And without "non-negotiable", that could probably happen. And a project where that happens isn't really one I want to be a part of.

799:

Plus, of course, the small difference between Old Style and New Style dates... before they merged Washington and Lincoln into President's Day and making holidays fall on Mondays and Fridays, everyone knew that "Washington's Birthday" was celebrated on February 22nd... making it easy to win properly

184:

If Tchadienne wishes to add criticism of the Guardian, he/she should be able to find at least one legitimate source in online databases like ProQuest and Infotrac that attacks the Guardian (for example, many journalists in the United States have attacked the New York Times in a variety of published

3359:

You used a good analogy - about chess grandmasters easily referring to chess books. Of course, it depends on their field of expertise. For history, for example, finding sources would be very easy. However, there are some fields where finding sources is not as easy and firsthand experience is truly

2461:

The vast majority of those examples are someone's pet idea that we are better off without. A tiny number seem like genuine shames, but those few articles would not make up for the mountain of crap that would otherwise come our way. And, someday, a reliable source may write on those topics and we

1502:

As to enforcement, FYI, IMO every wikipedian is personally responsible for creating an encyclopedia. Our guidelines stem from the experience of many people, and it is typically foolish and irresponsible to just disregard them. When encountering a fool, first try to educate them, and if that fails,

469:

shows that 18% of Americans believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, that is a significant fact, even though, patently, those who so believe are not experts in any sense. The main contrast between the Gallup poll and a Wikipedian's sampling of blogs is that the latter violates NOR, while the former

376:

be suitable for inclusion in that article. Arguments about significance of opinion don't belong under the category of verifiability. The only question, in my mind, is whether the blog is reliable. And in my mind this is the case: blogs are (generally) reliable indications of the opinions of the

3680:

I thought verifiability was non-negotiable. I have often seen newcomers, particularly anons, adding true but unsourced information to articles (particularly those on online games). Therefore, I disagree that newcomers wishing to contribute to the encyclopedia will expect that they must verify the

3046:

Your position seems to be that users enter a click-through agreement when editing Knowledge that forms a legal contract to respect the policies you call non-negotiable. That is an unusual position, and I don't believe it is shared by Wikimedia's legal counsel, though I'd be happy to ask. The idea

2910:

If language is used carelessly throughout Knowledge, that is not an argument for continuing to use it carelessly. Certainly the policies express a principle, and certainly the expression of the principle in a specific policy document is very much negotiable. You would not argue that policies like

1998:

Many wikipedia screwups in the past year can be traced back to people being too lazy or too unwilling to write down our actual guidelines as they are practiced. Currently wikipedia guidelines are a total mess, and no-one -not even top arbitrators- can still make heads or tails of them. They have

1915:

it can be changed, we only think so. Perhaps we'll never be proven right, and that's fine with me. Even if it is wrong about being non-negotiable, I don't mind it saying so—newbies will take it for granted and waste less time questioning basic principals, while the rest of us can just treat the

1347:

A year? That's a long time. I certainly recall approaching the problem gradually and carefully however. Knowledge principles have widespread consensus, that's why they're hard to change. Declaring anything as non-negotiable goes too far, however. That's saying you refute consensus, which is a bad

804:

doesn't make the issue clear, either. Hmmm... what does the Manual of Style have to say about this? Not much. Of course it doesn't matter when only the year is given, but when the month and day of an event that occurred under the Julian calendar is mentioned, shouldn't the Old Style date be noted

422:

A third problem is that blogs, like junk emails, are subject to wildly unstable positive feedback effects. Yesterday, I received an email headed, rather bizarrely, "The Red Planet is about to be spectacular!" It stated that "This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that

165:

Agreed, with a limiting exception. Some "blogs" are really daily columns written by reporters and commentators in the course of their duties and maintained by the reputable media organizations for which they write. Since the organization's reputation is still on the line, I would tend to assume

3708:

process. It's not that I don't wish to follow the policy. If I can find a reference, I'll put it into the article. It just happens that the topics I write on happen to make it difficult for me to follow this policy, and that I've spotted problems the policy creates. I would appreciate any advice

3371:

article entirely based on my experience on Google Groups, while ensuring NPOV and avoiding cruft. How could I write the article without using my "expertise" in Google Groups? Similarly, I have a Homerun VCD, I've watched it thousands of times since its release in 2003, and I've even met Jack Neo

3342:

Forcing them to add references for their contributions is insulting their intelligence. True experts write from their own knowledge, and don't need to refer to external sources. For example, a chess grandmaster does not think about doubled pawns or open files. He is thoroughly familiar with such

2520:

Nobel Prize, there's always a published work on everything. When I said in the Traynor article that Traynor was the greatest judge in California's history and one of the greatest in American history, I was promptly challenged. I found some sources to back up those assertions and the challenger

2142:

These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by any consensus on content. Their policy pages should only be edited to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles. Any substantial changes must be well advertised

1265:

I don't believe it is possible to prove that something is absolutely true. Even if so, Knowledge has no way to conduct research of an acceptable standard to do so. So we republish information from reliable sources. Other encyclopedias hire professional academics to write their articles, but I

1152:

The point is that the only way Knowledge can be a reliable source of information is by insisting on verifiability and no original research. If editors could add anything they wanted without having to provide sources, then how would readers know what was correct? A well-sourced article has a much

927:

Thanks, but as you know sources come in degrees of reliability. For celebrities (both of these cases), the usual sources are IMDb and TV.com, which are of questionable reliability. We could list them all, but then it seems like an indiscriminate collection of information. In both of these cases,

3770:

Other than on living-person biographies, I'm not sure how desirable that is. One person may not be able to find a source, but somebody else may come along later who does have a source for something. That's the nature of community construction; not everyone can do everything. As an example, I

2048:

I agree with that much, and I used to work on articles a lot. And then I worked on getting people to agree on how to edit articles. I have no problem with whacking people over the head with a big cluestick :-) I'd just like to retain the continued ability to modify the guidelines along with the

3625:

list? You might be able to find some ideas for what kinds of sources are being used for articles on films, television series, and video games. Having worked on articles on fiction, I'd argue that verifiability / original research are major problems with many articles on these subjects. Editors

3498:

When the views of the experts and the common people differ, the experts' views are usually given undue weight. This is because it is difficult to reference the opinions of the common people, and because adding their views requires weasel-wording. For example, if the professional reviews love a

2340:

No one's deleting articles because their current versions don't meet NPOV, and saying an article on an unverifiable topic might eventually not be is only true in that maybe someone will eventually publish a reliable source. Articles aren't to be deleted because they don't yet meet one of these

883:

Person has a resume online giving one date, but most other sources (and ancestry.com) give another date. A phrase stating that the person's resume "may have a reason to represent a different age" was removed as OR. I can buy that, but on the other hand WP is not an indiscriminate collection of

2921:

You may regard this as a superficial semantic distinction, but I think it's an important distinction. Knowledge is not about dogma, it's about creating the best possible encyclopedia. We recognize that certain principles are critical for doing so, and thus, we treat them as not negotiable. We

2821:

Brigitte, I agree that the editors I am thinking of are not particularly useful editors; and that the policy is not intended to mean "go ahead and take out anything without a footnote". But it can be read that way, and should probably be toned down. Giving PoV editors another excuse to revert

2771:

Of course, some statements are just so unlikely that they should be removed immediately. I assume this is why we have, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed." We shouldn't have to tolerate obvious nonsense, even nonsense inserted in good faith. For actual disputes, there are additional

2538:

I don't understand the eventualist point of view. If a short article can be sourced and written from a neutral point of view based on verifiable sources, then it can reach maturity at any length. If it can't, then I suppose it ought to remain a stub which doesn't appear in 0.5 or 1.0, or be

416:

why many people start them is precisely to enhance the visibility of their personal point of view. Few people will start a blog in order to opine that ice cream is tasty or that murder is morally wrong... and if they did, it's not likely that they would attract a large following or that other

256:

it ought to be balanced by an uncontentious contrary opinion from somewhere else. For the sake of notability (which goes to whether or not the information is encyclopedic), we should only quote opinions of people who are important enough (for which the threshold is probably higher than being

180:

I mostly concur with KillerChihuahua and Jkelly. The vast majority of blogs are highly unreliable. I am inclined to agree with Robert A West, but only to the extent that the news organization hosting the blog is reputable. For example, MSNBC maintains a blog which several of its most famous

3793:

If there is something that I think should go in an article, but I don't have a source for it... well, then, I leave a note on the Talk page saying "I think this should go in the article, but I don't have a source for it." Isn't "community construction" exactly what the Talk page is good for?

439:

Of course it wouldn't be encyclopedic to cite somebody's opinion about something that can be determined either true or false as a fact. Opinions should only ever be used in discussion about subjective matters, e.g. whether a particular artist's later work is better than his earlier work, or

2074:

Just to clarify, I don't object to changing the policy in principle (but enforcement shouldn't be optional). It's just that changes to WP:V really, really need consensus, perhaps more than almost any other policy page. If the current wording doesn't reflect that properly, please improve it.

496:

Agreed. However, there are cases (e.g. when citing a single opinion from a single blog) that wouldn't be original research. The question is whether this is verifiable or not. The current policy seems to suggest it isn't, although this does contradict common-sense. I see no reason why a

1600:

it's non negotiable would matter. It would get changed. 2. The chances that such fundamental policies would need to be radically changed is so low that there are better things to work on. So pragmatically it's easier to say it's non negotiable, which for all intents and purposes it is. -

2588:

That's how some people are interpreting it. You're not making up some precice words etched into stone and stored atop an ivory tower; instead you're making a living document that's getting used every day by people from many different walks of life. You have to take that into account!

675:

Shouldn't claims made about living persons or organizations by partisan organizations on both ends of the political spectrum need third-party source verification? Otherwise, as far as I can see allowing unsupported assertions to be used as evidence undermines Knowledge's credibility?

2915:

is a particular policy that has very much been negotiated about in the past. Is an illustration "original research"? When is it acceptable to cite primary sources? And so on. We must continue this constructive dialogue, which will frequently necessitate changes to the policy

2657:

But it is used in edit wars. This is frequently cited by editors seeking excuses to remove what they don't like. We could probably use some language indicating that, while unsourced statements may be deleted, there are other methods, which should normally be tried first:

954:

Ok, so per WP:V you must cite reliable sources for information in articles. When there is an article about a website, and the references are only links from that same website, a common-sensicial reading of WP:V tells me that it still fails WP:V because it doesn't quote any

1658:

I got reverted twice on this article today, with the comment "non negotiable". I guess we have a problem then. Now, would you care to link to where in the archives people agreed it was ok to override consensus? In the mean time, see also below for my answer to Mzajac.

1422:

or two down the line. I've tried to pull other wikis out of swamps caused by similar situations with varying success in the past. I'm happy with the fact that I've spotted things early this time, and that there might still be time to do some preventative maintenance.

3445:

I'm using "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer". And I do understand why the policy exists - I'm just pointing out the problems it creates. For some articles, such as biographies of living persons, verifiability is very important, and I acknowledge that.

367:

is anti-semitic). However, one of Knowledge's greatest strengths (IMO) is that it caters to niches that interest too few people for mainstream publishers to print opinions about. I mean, just picking a random article: I doubt there's much in mainstream media about

3390:

That's just false. Academic and much popular writing cites its sources, extensively. It doesn't insult anyone's intelligence. The analogy about game playing has nothing to do with writing academic literature, and there are no experts' credentials on Knowledge.

607:

is for. If the opinion is clearly relevant, and the blog is clearly done for attribution by a top expert on the subject, then I can't see any objection under any policy we have. Trying to craft an explicit exception to cover the case strikes me as troll fodder.

2911:

NPOV or Verifiability are, in their exact writing and meaning, set into stone, would you? Negotiation means: discussing, finding consensus about reasonable changes, and making them. We can agree on the core principles while disagreeing about their exact meaning.

181:

reporters jointly contribute to under their own names. Because they are putting their reputations on the line (although in a more personal writing style than the standard writing or speaking style they normally use), I would consider that source to be reliable.

3503:

build an authoritative encyclopedia without requiring the contributors to be authorities. Why not perform Google searches on USENET for all your information needs? What's the difference between a Google search on USENET and Knowledge? The verifiability policy.

3481:

article. It cannot be satisfactorily referenced or verified without firsthand experience using Google Groups. Still, do you think the information in that section is useful and accurate? (If not, there is nothing I can do to stop you taking the article to AFD.)

2122:

Rather than removing the problematic sentences, how about clarifying that that when it says "these three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus," what is meant is that consensus of editors

257:

important enough to justify their own article). This is currently discouraged by the way this policy page is written, although I believe it to fall within the letter of the policy itself (i.e. the three points in the callout near the top of the page).

3096:

and I agree with him completely on that point: the three policies work in harmony, and jointly constitute the editorial backbone of Knowledge. Legally, they keep us safe to a large extent. Editorially, they stand between us and a deluge of nonsense.

1610:

It's a problem because people might start declaring other things on wikipedia non-negotiable too. I keep thinking of quickpolls, where people took it into the encyclopedia namespace and started using the quickpolls method to determine content. Oops.

999:

It is quite simple, really: Material from self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves, with caution., but if there is no other material from secondary sources, then this subject may be not notable to have an article in Knowledge.

679:

I suggest adding a rule that all assertions made by partisan organizations--groups advancing a definite viewpoint--should require some sort of independent verification, e.g. direct quotes taken in context or news articles from reliable sources.

2938:

It must be unequivocally conveyed that these policies are not open to debate for specific articles or on article discussion pages. The Policy is non-negotiable in regard to articles; the Principle is non-negotiable in regard to the policy page.

116:, but everytime I do so my edits are reverted on the superficial basis that 'blogs arent veriable sources.' While I don't agree with this premise at all, I can still see how some Knowledge users would rationally discount all blogs as sources of 1237:

In most cases, Verifiability stands in for notability. If reputable, reliable third-parties have taken the time to publish anything significant on a topic, that topic is almost certainly notable. If not, it most likely is not (yet) notable.

1840:

Currently the page says it can't be changed by consensus. And you and I both know it can be. I'd like for the page to stop saying it can't be changed by consensus, because many people actually rely on guidelines pages to learn how wikipedia

776:

to clear that one up). I have seen discrepancies of ten years in the date of a marriage. One on-line reference to the peerage had a pointer error that resulted in one woman's being listed as her own great-great-grandmother! Lots of fun!

3325:

Well, most anonymous newcomers won't read the instruction creep, although registered newcomers might. What I meant was that it is not easy for a newcomer to follow the Verifiability policy or format citations - so the policy "bites" them.

185:

articles, and one can cite them as reliable sources). If no such source exists with regard to the Guardian, then it is possible that Tchadienne's critical view is original research which no legitimate author or journalist has adopted. --

2691:

allow for the removal of unsourced statements from articles. There are other policies that do allow for this in very specific cases. For example an unsourced negative statment about living person should be removed, but not according to

3626:

routinely try to insert their own comparisons, criticisms (often weasel-worded), and interpretations. As dbpsmith mentioned, without these policies, we'd have less recourse to removing these usually baseless theories and speculation. —

1323:

That paragraph has been on this page for about a year—that implies consensus (aside from one dissenter). Though Knowledge's day-to-day functions are run by consensus, I don't know if it's true that consensus can be used to overthrow

2632:, and for some articles (particularly shorter ones) a simple bibliography may suffice. So long as a reasonably-diligent editor can identify and check the source without undue effort, the requirement of this policy is satisfied. 3515:

How do we know what the views of the common people are? From published academic studies of people's opinions, or from hearsay? Citing the former is welcome in Knowledge where it is relevant. The latter does no one any good.

2422:

a decent published source that satisfies Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view, if one looks hard enough. If a topic doesn't even have one decent source, then it's very likely to be original research.

2084:

And thanks for not interpreting the above as a personal dig at you... meta-discussions make me just a tad cranky. I only come here out of fear of waking up one morning and suddenly it's originalresearch-pedia, not Knowledge :-)

932:

comment about why one should be preferred over the other. In the second case, the person has stated a date (and there is no reason to think it was intentional misinformation), but in a format that I'm not sure how to reference.

3457:

If information can't be sourced, how can you claim that it is useful or accurate? Freedom isn't restricted: you are free to add information, and you are free to have it deleted by me if I think it isn't verifiable. That's

2270:

to do it when you're putting the material in than later... because at that moment you certainly know the source, whereas a week later you might have forgotten and need extra time to track it down. And by the same token it's

2508:, America's Newspapers on InfoBank, and other databases. After all, ProQuest has scanned in the full text of several newspapers back to the early 1800s; for example, that's where I got the citations from the 1930s for 2240:

There are approximately 1000 articles out of the over 1000 000 we have for which this holds. That's 0.1% . Gmaxwell and Kelly Martin can probably get the precice numbers for some specified point in time, if you want.

3726:

most if not all of the information in that article has almost certainly been published already, so it would indeed be verifiable. It could be that there are indeed sources out there for the material you're discussing.

1328:. Even if it is, I suspect you'd have a hard time finding consensus for that, and you certainly can't just unilaterally yank a statement of principal because you don't like it and not expect to be reverted. See also 3305:

Most newcomers do not add references when they add information. Proponents of the Verifiability policy will bite them upon discovering their unsourced statements. Formatting policies is also difficult for newcomers.

124:. If multiple blogs all express similar opinions regarding a publication's pov, then this should posted as a widely held belief about the publication. So the question I pose is: Can users source blogs for opinions? 3817:

In any case, using the talk page in the manner you describe tends to ignore the existence of any kind of wiki. It's not the worst thing you could do by a long shot, but it's not exactly the most productive thing

2795:

In any case, the point I am trying to emphasize is that this policy isn't about "gotcha!" It is about writing a good, solid reference work that people can come to respect. While I understand and agree with the

301:. That has Guardian writers criticizing their own paper for being anti-Semitic! How can you even defend your position (on either case, both in the broad sense of discounting all blogs and in this specific case)? 1289:

I don't buy into the claim that the last act of a democratic system is to vote out democracy. I equally don't buy into the claim that the last act of a consensus system is to refute consensus. Wording removed.

2244:

The big three guidelines which are being heavily pushed as non-negotiable-policy at this point in time place a HUGE burden on smaller articles which are not maintained by many editors. This is not productive.

1309:

I think the non-negotiable thing came down from on high, no? Anyway it's an important thing. We shouldn't just start doing original research somewhere because people get enough "votes" in an AfD at some point.

2261:

How is it a burden? You're not supposed to be putting something into Knowledge unless you have a published source for it. So, how much extra time does it take to cite that source? It's just a matter of saying

377:

blog author. Perhaps it needs to be possible to verify the ownership of the blog, I wouldn't argue with that one. But I fail to see how a blog could possibly not be reliable as to its author's own opinions.

1747:

If you ever change your mind, and would like to discuss why it seems to work now but why I think it will break over time, I'd be happy to talk with you again, and please feel free to contact me on user talk.

554:

Yes, but for nearly all authors, their opinion is unencyclopedic and blogs are often ephemeral. If the opinion is really worthwhile, there will usually be other sources for it that will also provide context.

2221:

All I mean that it should not be optional for articles follow the basic concepts of NPOV and verifiability. I.e. when people say "Well we really want to include unverifiable information on this article..."

3376:

article. If I can't rely on my experiences watching the movie, how am I going to write the "Plot" section? Could I use the movie as a reference for the entire section? If so, how do I format the reference?

3813:

introduced talk pages as a separate place to talk about the page construction as it was happening. Some people are still not sure if that was the best of ideas actually, but now we're sort of stuck with

398:

because it's too easy to start one... and because not everybody has one. If virtually everybody in the United States had a blog, then you might be able to argue that a sampling of blogs would constitute

3695:

Based on my observations of past discussions on this page, and my past attempts to raise issues with the policy, I think I will soon be labelled a troll or crank. If I was, I would not have written the

3643:

Are you suggesting I look at other articles on websites and TV shows/movies to get an idea of how to find references for them? Thanks for the suggestion. This is what I wanted. I'll try that out. --

2345:

comply with those policies, no matter how much effort was put into them. Also I think saying we just have 1,000 articles that can be expected to stand up to any kind of policy standard is wrong...

281:

It doesn't matter whether an opinion is contentious or not, blogs are not reliable sources. If an opinion is significant, then surely you can find it expressed in a published, reliable source. --

2407:

Every one of our guidelines raises the threshold to edit a little bit. Individually they do not constitute a problem, taken together they can easily block people out, if you're not very careful.

3309:

Then I guess most newcomers have not bothered to glance underneath the edit box or click on the link to the verifiability policy. Obviously one should be kind and courteous to newcomers—in fact

2922:

recognize that particular interpretations of these principles have worked very well so far, and so we are careful about changing them. But we must guard against a spirit of dogmatic thinking.--

984: 3531:

I have been playing the online game RuneScape for two years. Through my interactions with other players, I know what the most common player criticisms of RuneScape are. I once nominated

1596:

Kim, this has been gone over umpteen thousand times ad nauseum. Does it matter at all? I submit no: 1. If a future consensus occured to change the policy, nothing we write now including

2572:

To clarify, the policy is that it is possible to verify it, that there exists a reliable source. It does not mean that every word and construction needs a footnote or it gets deleted. —

590:

on the latter page, although we could include it on the former. I think the latter should be acceptable so long as the information is encyclopedic. However rare such a situation is.

3064:

typically refers to specific documents (pages). It is absolutely not true that these documents are not negotiable. We require and encourage their negotiation and improvement. The word

210:

to it. There are papers nearer to me than Manchester that I think suitable only for birdcage lining, but I don't say that in their articles, even to cite my own blog on the subject.

730:) changed a number of years of birth. Should we start footnoting every piece of data in an article? Probably would not be a bad idea to have a reference for the birthdate in a bio. 573:

Especially since #4 is already included on the policy page, under using self-published sources about their authors, so any encyclopedic content of that sort is already permissible.

887:

For another person, unofficial but "reliable" sources differ. A live-TV interview confirms one date. How can that be referenced? There is no "official" transcript for verification.

2374:

a huge burden. Even a small article can be easily substantiated with a source or two if the topic is significant. For example, the other day, I was searching for information on

3580:

has served us extremely well so far. People that want freedom to do original research and edit articles without the need for verifiability, would be better served editing other

2968:

button at the bottom of the edit window. You contractually obligate yourself to abide by these policies as a condition of using this software resource to edit pages. The word

3499:

certain aspect of the computer game, but most players hate that particular aspect of the computer game, the article will give a positive impression of that aspect of the game.

970:| Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves 909:

If there are conflicting reliable sources, you could quote both. "According to a TV special, XYZ was born in 1945, but according to his official biography he was born in 1948"

752:

On the few occasions I've tried to source birth and death dates I've found it to be quite an interesting and surprisingly difficult exercise. See the second and third notes to

3093:

consensus of a small number of editors on any given policy page or article. Jimbo posted yesterday that he regards NPOV, NOR, and V to be different aspects of the same thing,

559:

In short, never say never, but this section probably contains more words than could be validly included in the whole of Knowledge for the sort of exception we are discussing.

542:

Normally not. One writer does not make an opinion prevalent, and a blog is not a reliable poll. If the blog references a reliable poll, there should be other sources for it.

2027:

really get their hands dirty with that very much. As much fun as meta-discussions are (ha ha), it's always good to keep oneself rooted with what we're actually here for. --

2237:

Actually, I think NPOV, verifiability and no original research are mainly important for articles which a lot of people are working on, and which people are fighting over.

1269:

Obviously, this encyclopedia will be less comprehensive or reliable on recent news or popular gossip than it will on basic mathematics or physics, but that is how it is.

448:

on their own merits. This discounts the argument about "widespread existence of opinions" -- tell me who has that opinion, and why I should feel their opinion matters.

497:

self-published document shouldn't be used as verification of its author's opinion. If that author's opinion is encyclopedic, and is used in a way that doesn't violate

1448:

strong consensus to fundamentally change the policy, because I agree that it should be able to change over time as needed. But enforcement being optional is a joke. --

3367:

for a year and am thoroughly familiar with its features. Therefore, I could be considered an "expert" in Google Groups, in a different sense of the word. I wrote the

328:

By their very nature, blogs are unreliable, because they lack editorial oversight, which is mainstay principal of Knowledge's policies against disreputable sources.

3422:

Knowledge is an open, 💕. The policy restricts the freedom that Knowledge is, and results in useful, accurate information that is difficult to source being removed.

2728:

Also I am speaking of an immediate removal. Of course if an editor disbelieves another's information they should request a source from the contributor and add the

546:

What about a "blog" that is really a column in a personal style written by reliable reporters or experts and subject to editorial control by a reliable organization?

1721:

Sorry, I don't have time to engage in a personal chat. Thanks for trying to save Knowledge from itself, but I think our time is better spent working on articles.

772:

I've seen death dates reported as nearly a month before a battle in which the person is reported (by the same source) to have fought. (A friend had to check the

3347:

or what Nimzowitsch had to say about it, and that they'd have three of those books within arm's reach of their computer and could dig up sources within minutes.

3360:

required. And these happen to be the topics where Knowledge is likely to excel compared to traditional encyclopedias. For example, pop culture and the Internet.

3343:

concepts, and makes moves on instinct. Trust the experts, as long as they prove they are experts. Many experts in their fields are also newcomers to Knowledge.

830: 2885:

all throughout Knowledge. There is no call to be chipping away at these cornerstones. You can debate them till you are blue-linked in the face, but they are

1381:

I think the time is well spent. Consensus is pretty fundamental. I am very worried about these two pages which are declaring they do not fall under consensus.

3547:. Most ironically, the "Criticism" section was removed from the RuneScape article a few weeks before the FAC, because it was unverifiable. During the FAC, 1683:

But Kim, here we are negotiating the wording, and the consensus is to keep it. Discuss further if you like, but please don't keep changing the guideline.

1402:"this guideline has the support of very many wikipedians, and you're not going to just get out from under the requirement to provide verifiable sources." 1477:

Verifiability is either meaningful now, or never has been meaningful. Take your pick. If I am asked to help out on an article, I usually pick the first.

928:

there are fairly good reasons to prefer one date over the other. In the first case, in fact, both dates are footnoted, but it seems like we should make

698: 2178:

You are taking this in too literal a fashion. These policies are non-negotiable. This does not mean that we cannot fine tune them if needed, though.

1325: 2211:-rulings? That is not while arbitrators would "despise" content policies. Only, a non-negotiable "enforcement" of content rulings doesn't work. -- 974: 966: 97: 89: 84: 72: 2982:

law, and so it is too ambiguous to properly fit the situation here. So thank you for calling that to my attention. I will amend it forthwith.

3031:

Fine. I'd like to review the extent of your evidence for this, please provide. I have some suspicions about what your findings would/should be.

1999:

needed tidying up for quite some time now. So how about you tell me what I think about attempting a guideline freeze under such circumstances?

1145:

Knowledge is not an encyclopedia if it is concerned more on verificability than truth. All other encyclopedias concern more on the opposite. --

67: 59: 1959:

And the whole "let's describe a non-absolute as an absolute, and make its non-absoluteness very obscure" idea has already been a disaster in

3222:

It's not very tricky to do so I should think. Could someone who is not-me (and possibly even neutral) take a look and just fix it already?

895:

change the numbers even with a footnote in place. It seems like only a tiny percentage of readers ever read the notes or check the sources.

3562:

Due to lack of time, I will not comment on the above text. However, I will elaborate tomorrow, and participate in the ensuing discussion.

2964:

refers to a specific norm of conduct. You signify your cognizance of and consent to these rules for your action each time you click the

683:

In biographies of living individuals, the burden of proof should be on the person/group making the accusation to remove the potential of

727: 3544: 2899:

Yes. I think I understand the principle of non-negotiable as understood on-wiki now. So much for the assurances to the contrary. :-(

536:

No, because of NOR. Moreover, sampling blogs is a lazy research technique that will produce transient results of questionable value.

298:

sources, and Jihad Watch, the most important site I noted, is widely considered reliable. Heck, look at the Mideast Dispatch Archive

3540: 2708:

based on the vision of God they had the night before, those statements would most likely be unverifiable and therefore removable.--

2323:

From an eventualist pov, you'll notice that by the rules, many small articles must be deleted before they can ever reach maturity.

3753:

I concur with Jossi and Slrubenstein. SlimVirgin has offered some suggestions. I would like to add one further comment: If you can

2700:", they are incorrect and need to be educated about this. The only statements which can be removed according to this policy are 2388:. I noticed that the Knowledge article on wrap rage was unsourced and incoherent, so I edited it a bit and added the reference. 3761:. Simple as that. Regardless of how "true" it may be, if you don't have a RS per V, it doesn't go in the article. End of story. 260:

As to the specifics, I believe the blog opinions in question are highly contentious, because they make extreme claims. Just as

2500:

I concur fully. Furthermore, it's not a statement of faith; it's a statement based on years of experience as an attorney with

600: 3429:

policy also restricts freedom and makes life difficult for some editors. As to removing information, the verifiability policy

1117:. "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge should not have an article on that topic." 2275:

for the person who puts in the material and knows where he got it to add the citation than for some other editor to find it.

1294: 144: 2696:

policy, it is really more about journalism ethics. If anyone is removing statements simply because they are unsourced "per

2304:

No one said making an encyclopedia would be easy. How on earth could these three issues be unimportant in small articles?

1956:

be non-negotiable and no successful challenge has ever been made" as opposed to stating as a fact that it's non-negotiable?

3739: 470:

does not. Both are verifiable in the sense that the blogs are out there. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient.

3723:

article a few times as an example of unverifiable material. But if you look at the number of books written about Google,

2792:

is available to give the other guy a chance to explain or correct the citation when the source does not support the edit.

3379:

The same applies to articles on books, for example. Perhaps I am interpreting the policy wrongly - if so, correct me. --

2786: 1329: 198:

said X, the facts were Y"; even if you heard about it from a blog. The problem with including "this blog criticized the

47: 17: 2748:

but can eventually remove the statement after some time has passed. This could technically be said to be removed "per

1819:

The only way to get stuff done is to make it personal :-) This also means one can be personally *nice* too course. :-)

548:

That is probably a different matter, but a regular, more considered, column or article would still be a better source.

339: 3821:

Not that I don't occaisionally do it myself, if I'm feeling particularly timid. But I do realise that I'm breaking a

3539:

for FAC. Both of them failed for the same reason - the verifiability policy. I think you should read my comments in

3187:

JA: Again, these are fascinating philosophical discussions, e-specially to me, as it happens that the article on the

1203: 983:

See this AfD for an example of users arguing that these self-references are sufficient enough for it to pass WP:V:

261: 38: 3254:

That's how many people are interpreting it, though I think some folks are also saying that that's not the intent.

1744:

I'm sorry to hear that. If you refuse to commit yourself personally to achieving consensus, please go away. Sorry.

294:

Don't you see the flaw in your argument? You're automatically discounting all blogs as unreliable - but blogs are

3189: 363:

That's true for well-known subjects that are likely to appeal to a wide variety of readers (e.g., whether or not

959:

sources. However, in the subsection "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves", it says:

147:

problem. We're not in the business of "taking the pulse of public opinion"; we summarise experts who do that.

3276: 3272: 2742: 2672: 505:, I don't see why it shouldn't be used. But policy certainly suggests that it can't. This is illogical, IMO. 2800:

section, I wonder if that section as phrased doesn't add to the adversarial atmosphere that we too often get.

3425:

Right, it is a 💕. Using a Wiki to build it is a means to that end, not an end in itself. As to freedom, the

3291:

Please place a note at the top of the policy page stating "This policy was created with the intent of making

1172:

If the missing information is notable there should be no problem in verifying this from reliable sources. --

3724: 3593: 3286: 3014: 2805: 2647: 2611: 2467: 2187: 1357:

yikes! Simplified ruleset actually got shanghaid or something, and fails to meet original goals. Fixing it.

1243: 1226: 1122: 1065: 1009: 918: 782: 721: 613: 564: 475: 171: 582:

Yes, but according to that policy, only on a page about the author. So, for instance, we couldn't include

3738:

I concur with SlimVirgin. There are several excellent books and thousands of articles about Google. See

3664: 2782:

should probably be used more often when people aren't sure on just what passage the other guy is relying;

2776: 2391:

Well, ya learn something new every day. I've experienced wrap rage for a long time—since the invention of

334: 3809:

seem to think that wikis are a tool for community construction and collaborative editing. At some point,

2207:

is the negotiable part. Specifically for the three top content policies. Remember that ArbCom can't make

688: 3124:

for what is non-negotiable (the key ideas of verifiability, NPOV and no original research) and the term

2212: 834: 717: 3005:

It is ... A user not abiding by Wikipedis policies, will see his or her edits challenged on that basis.

3219:

Note that as long as this page is worded to comply with no binding descisions, I'm fine with it. :-)

299: 3762: 3731: 3156: 3101: 2759: 2715: 2152: 1199: 1090: 1026: 991: 135: 1565:

Er, I guess... but that doesn't address why enforcement should be negotiable, optional and so on. --

1266:

doubt that they conduct any original research either, and their articles are well referenced too.

1022:

Makes sense to me, but does it state something to that effect somewhere in a guideline or policy? --

530:

I think this section has addressed at least four distinguishable questions, with different answers:

2432:

That's a statement of faith. See the archives for discussions about this, with real life examples.

934: 896: 731: 466: 3829: 3801: 3788: 3779: 3765: 3746: 3733: 3713: 3685: 3667: 3647: 3634: 3612: 3597: 3569: 3510: 3486: 3450: 3440: 3410: 3383: 3354: 3330: 3320: 3258: 3245: 3228: 3208: 3198: 3175: 3158: 3135: 3103: 3083: 3035: 3018: 2996: 2986: 2950: 2929: 2903: 2893: 2861: 2851: 2826: 2809: 2766: 2722: 2682: 2651: 2628:

This policy does not mandate that every trivial statement be footnoted. There are many styles of

2615: 2593: 2583: 2559: 2525: 2471: 2436: 2427: 2411: 2402: 2353: 2350: 2327: 2291: 2282: 2251: 2226: 2223: 2215: 2191: 2169: 2159: 2135: 2103: 2089: 2086: 2079: 2076: 2053: 2031: 2028: 2003: 1967: 1886: 1752: 1703: 1663: 1653: 1615: 1605: 1569: 1566: 1536: 1452: 1449: 1426: 1395: 1392: 1385: 1376: 1361: 1352: 1314: 1311: 1303: 1257: 1247: 1230: 1210: 1176: 1161: 1126: 1092: 1069: 1041:

One of the common mistakes that editors make is to take a single policy in isolation. If you take

1028: 1013: 993: 939: 922: 901: 865: 837: 812: 786: 763: 736: 705: 691: 664: 654: 617: 594: 577: 568: 509: 479: 452: 430: 381: 305: 289: 268: 236: 214: 189: 175: 160: 151: 138: 128: 3798: 3507: 3437: 3351: 3317: 2801: 2732: 2662: 2643: 2607: 2463: 2399: 2279: 1239: 1118: 862: 809: 778: 760: 702: 609: 560: 471: 427: 167: 3073: 2857:

I'm still worried about the principles being non negotiable, but it's an improvement, at least.

232:, not here; the overall question of what to do in such situations is still worth talking about. 697:

Before anyone devotes too much time to debating this with 146. here, they should probably read

3710: 3682: 3660: 3644: 3566: 3483: 3447: 3407: 3380: 3327: 3292: 3242: 3132: 3080: 2926: 2848: 1964: 801: 643: 229: 2603: 2165:

I don't think that's a good idea at all. The problem is that maintenance becomes impossible.

3826: 3785: 3522: 3468: 3397: 3255: 3225: 3205: 3172: 3032: 2993: 2944: 2900: 2858: 2590: 2577: 2556: 2545: 2509: 2433: 2408: 2380: 2324: 2310: 2288: 2248: 2166: 2100: 2050: 2000: 1922: 1883: 1810: 1749: 1727: 1700: 1689: 1660: 1612: 1533: 1423: 1382: 1358: 1349: 1338: 1300: 1275: 1207: 1173: 651: 372:, but if somebody noteworthy expressed an opinion about it, on their own blog, I think that 120:. However, there simply is no argument that blogs cannot be used on Knowledge as sources of 2516:

Pulitzer Prize, plus millions of scientists and academics cranking out papers in search of

2512:. With hundreds of thousands of professional journalists running around today looking for 3806: 3743: 3728: 3589: 3310: 3195: 3153: 3098: 3010: 2983: 2890: 2823: 2753: 2709: 2679: 2522: 2424: 2183: 2146: 1400:

Oh, I'm not denying the guideline is very important. Slightly different phrasing, such as

1222: 1087: 1061: 1023: 1005: 988: 914: 684: 661: 574: 302: 233: 211: 186: 125: 3406:

Exactly. Knowledge is anti-elitist. Expertise is neither acknowledged nor appreciated. --

1166:

But many true information is missing from the wikipedia because they are not sourced. --

3822: 3701: 3426: 3373: 3129: 3077: 2923: 2872: 2845: 2629: 1960: 1644:

So you're wasting this much valuable time over something that might happen? If it does

1042: 753: 583: 498: 253: 207: 3313:

is policy, too—but that does not mean one should not tell them what the policies are.

3795: 3720: 3705: 3697: 3631: 3581: 3504: 3478: 3434: 3368: 3364: 3348: 3314: 2912: 2876: 2868: 2396: 2276: 1050: 859: 806: 757: 604: 587: 502: 424: 3363:

In such fields, a different type of expert may emerge. For example, I've been using

2341:

policies, they are deleted because reasonable editors feel it's unlikely they could

747:

reference books, etc. and are probably many steps removed from good source material.

3622: 2375: 1155: 283: 112: 264:, extreme opinions have to come from more noteworthy sources than every-day ones. 206:

statement is verifiable), the blog is a primary source, and we don't want to give

3128:

for what is negotiable (the concrete manifestation of these ideas) makes sense.--

2822:

good-faith edits bites newbies worse than this policy (properly read) ever will.

2143:

among the community at large to be certain the proposal has widespread consensus.

1153:

better chance of being correct than an article that doesn't cite any sources. --

3776: 3577: 3519: 3465: 3394: 2975: 2940: 2797: 2749: 2697: 2573: 2542: 2539:

deleted. An encyclopedia cannot be a collection of hearsay or biased writing.

2307: 2132: 1919: 1807: 1724: 1686: 1650: 1602: 1373: 1335: 1272: 1114: 1046: 647: 591: 506: 449: 378: 265: 148: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

330: 3609: 3585: 3006: 2501: 2179: 1218: 1186: 1167: 1146: 1057: 1001: 910: 660:

I requested a source; if not supplied (and it won't be) the paragraph can go.

157: 3068:

is not used in Knowledge ambiguously, is not commonly understood to refer to

1769:

Actually, I seem to be part of the consensus. No need to take it personally.

3810: 3772: 3548: 3536: 2979: 2385: 1504: 194:

And it should also be possible to source both halves of the statement: "The

156:

As above, that's original research, and not particulary scientific at that.

2752:" although it is more about the unresponsiveness of the comtributor IMHO.-- 3279:. I am copy-pasting because this is relevant to the Verifiability policy. 440:

whatever. Also, I feel all opinions should be sourced to somebody who is

110:

Consider this an informal poll. I've repeatedly tried to add criticism to

3627: 2505: 1254: 403:

kind of reasonable sampling of opinion. But, as of 2006, that's not true.

2687:

I think you are confusing "unsourced" with "unverifiable." This policy

3532: 879:

Is there an appropriate way to handle conflicting sources? Two cases:

143:

Combing through blogs in an attempt to report on popular opinion is a

2840:

policies to "principles" in the intro, but this change was instantly

3241:

Isn't "non-negotiable" pretty much the same as "binding decision"?

534:

Can a survey of blogs serve to verify that an opinion is prevalent?

3621:

Have you looked at the Media and "Sport and games" section of the

2705: 2392: 2370:

Also, Bruning's position is just plain wrong. The guidelines are

3194:

think that anybody here has the "right" to ban or block a user.

2606:

applies to all policies, including this one. My thought below.

1391:

Efforts to let people add their opinions to articles worry me. --

831:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Different calendars

540:

Can a single blog serve as a source that an opinion is prevalent?

2395:, I think—and I feel much better now that I know it has a name. 1916:

guideline's presumed fallibility as our little secret. Cheers.

369: 248:, my personal view is that it ought to be possible to source an 3372:

before. Therefore, I'm more than qualified to write the entire

2095: 396:

for the widespread existence of the opinions expressed in them

25: 3433:

results in useless and inaccurate information being removed.

3171:, to stress the fact that the guideline itself was editable. 552:

Can a single blog serve as a source for its author's opinion?

3784:

I've had similar experiences. Hence I'm somewhat skeptical.

1113:

Actually, in cases of this sort, we need go no further than

985:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (second nomination)

3271:

The following text is copied complete and unabridged from

3204:

Speak english and I might even be able to answer that :-)

2974:

is more equivocal or general, as it can refer either to a

2521:

promptly backed down. That's how Verifiability works. --

1699:

Why do you -personally- want to keep the current wording?

1404:(which is what you mean, right?) is already quite alright. 800:

bets about when he was born. I notice that our article on

3094: 2841: 2837: 2203:

these three policies is non-negotiable..." Pardon? The

1217:

a poor understanding on how encyclopedias are created.

225: 2772:

templates to encourage reasonable, measured behavior:

2704:

ones. For example is someone adds new information to

3551:

was shot down because it lacked a Criticism section.

3275:. If any text seems out-of-context, please refer to 2378:'s Infotrac database on plastics and came across a 3709:which helps me follow this policy when editing. -- 3608:dpbsmith and jossi have hit the nail on the head. 858:(Strikes forehead with base of palm) Duh. Thanks. 3076:to comment, as he is the Foundation's attorney.-- 2992:Thank goodness what you're saying is not true. 2094::-) Good morning! And original-research-pedia is 1804:Really, let's be more productive with our time. 1532:Is that view close enough to yours to work with? 599:Any finite set of finite policies will either be 3742:if you do not know how to do online research. -- 2418:For every significant topic out there, there is 961: 1372:Please don't waste time on things like this. - 2640:when one knows of a reliable source is not. 3477:Read the "Interface features" section of the 262:exceptional claims require exception evidence 8: 106:Can blogs serve to verify prevalent opinions 3120:are not non-negotiable, and using the term 638:Talk page remarks are not a citable source 699:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight 3771:recently added a source for the article 2462:will have them. That is eventualism. 2287:What kind of articles do you edit most? 1297:, for a more extended discussion there. 972: 756:to see what happened when I tried this. 244:Ignoring any specifics with relation to 3535:for FAC, while someone else nominated 3060:However, in the context of Knowledge, 252:opinion from a blog. For the sake of 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2127:cannot override the policy, which is 2099:. Not even half bad, actually! :-) -- 964: 7: 3267:This policy creates several problems 2049:progressing insight of wikipedians. 417:bloggers would link to or copy them. 224:Tchadienne is attempting to protest 1202:. For reliable sources, please see 228:. The merits of his edit belong on 3163:IIRC, Originally we used the word 394:No, blogs aren't reliable sources 24: 2129:consensus of wikipedia as a whole 642:Can someone possibly help out at 973: 965: 586:'s self-published opinion about 408:Second, blogs are intrinsically 329: 29: 1862:Thanks for talking with me! :-) 987:. Which argument is correct? -- 891:It's amusing that some editors 2266:you got it. If anything, it's 1295:Knowledge:No_original_research 671:Verifiability and partisanship 145:Knowledge:No original research 1: 3740:Knowledge:Article development 3215:No binding decisions (again!) 2624:What the policy does not mean 202:", is that even if true (and 3116:My point is that the policy 1330:Knowledge:Simplified Ruleset 1326:Knowledge's basic principals 1086:Ok, thanks for the advice -- 18:Knowledge talk:Verifiability 3830:22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3802:22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3789:19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3780:13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3766:12:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3747:20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3734:08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3714:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3686:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3668:01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3648:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3635:23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3613:21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3598:20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3570:15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3511:20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3496:It creates systematic bias. 3487:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3451:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3441:20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3411:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3384:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3355:20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3331:08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 3321:20:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3259:16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3246:15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3229:12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3209:12:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3199:12:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3176:12:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3159:11:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3136:11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3104:10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3084:05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3036:12:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 3019:03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2997:02:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2987:01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2951:01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2930:23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2904:23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2894:23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2862:22:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2852:22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2827:20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2810:16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2767:12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2723:12:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2683:05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2652:23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2616:23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2594:16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2584:01:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2560:08:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2526:21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2472:22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2437:23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2428:22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2412:19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2403:23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2354:22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2328:21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2292:08:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 2283:23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2252:20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2227:17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2216:17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2192:20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2170:20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2160:16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2136:16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2104:16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2090:16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2080:16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2054:16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2032:16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 2004:20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1968:02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 1887:17:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1753:16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1704:16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1664:20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1654:16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1616:16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1606:16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1570:16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1537:16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1453:16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1427:16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1396:15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1386:15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1377:15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1362:20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1353:15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1315:14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1304:12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1258:07:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 1248:18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 1231:19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 1211:01:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 1177:01:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 1162:00:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 1127:18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 1093:16:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 1070:15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 1029:14:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 1014:14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 994:14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC) 940:15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 923:14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 902:14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 866:01:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) 838:10:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 813:09:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 787:03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 764:00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 706:20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 692:19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 618:18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 595:06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 3852: 1141:Knowledge=Not Encyclopedia 950:WP:V & self-references 737:23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 665:22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 655:05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 601:incomplete or inconsistent 578:20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 569:16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 510:16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 480:15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 453:10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 431:16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 382:10:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 306:16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 290:10:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 269:08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 237:20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 215:19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 190:19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 176:18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 161:18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 152:17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 139:17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 129:17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 3704:articles, or created the 3190:consensus theory of truth 1712:Because it seems to work. 3711:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3683:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3645:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3584:, creating a blog, etc. 3567:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3484:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3448:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3408:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3381:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3328:J.L.W.S. The Special One 3277:User:Hildanknight/Crisis 3273:User:Hildanknight/Crisis 2199:Re. W.marsh's proposal " 3303:It bites the newcomers. 3152:Yes, that makes sense. 3051:can be synonymous with 2832:Policies vs. principles 1115:WP:V#Burden of evidence 3759:do not add the content 3719:You've mentioned your 3545:RuneScape's failed FAC 2347:we have at least 1,001 1503:introduce them to the 1185:considered notable? -- 3706:Requests for feedback 3340:It bites the experts. 3236:the top of this page) 2097:right this way <- 412:reliable because the 42:of past discussions. 2678:, or simply asking. 2125:at a particular page 774:Gesta Henrici Quinti 442:named in the article 166:those are reliable. 3582:wiki-based projects 3541:Neopets' failed FAC 2787:failed verification 1204:WP:Reliable sources 1054:together as a whole 3526:2006-08-17 00:47 Z 3472:2006-08-17 00:47 Z 3401:2006-08-17 00:47 Z 2549:2006-08-16 01:20 Z 2314:2006-08-15 21:06 Z 1926:2006-08-15 17:21 Z 1814:2006-08-15 16:52 Z 1731:2006-08-15 16:33 Z 1693:2006-08-15 16:18 Z 1342:2006-08-15 14:51 Z 1279:2006-08-15 16:26 Z 3596: 3527: 3473: 3402: 3167:in preference to 3017: 2764: 2720: 2550: 2348: 2315: 2190: 2157: 1927: 1815: 1732: 1694: 1343: 1280: 1229: 1068: 1012: 981: 980: 921: 802:George Washington 644:political machine 336:Morton Devonshire 230:Talk:The Guardian 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3843: 3623:featured article 3588: 3525: 3471: 3420:It is anti-wiki. 3400: 3009: 2791: 2785: 2781: 2775: 2763: 2760: 2756: 2747: 2741: 2737: 2731: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2677: 2671: 2667: 2661: 2548: 2510:Roger J. Traynor 2381:Consumer Reports 2346: 2313: 2213:Francis Schonken 2182: 2156: 2153: 2149: 1925: 1813: 1730: 1692: 1341: 1278: 1221: 1158: 1060: 1004: 977: 969: 962: 913: 835:Francis Schonken 712:Changing numbers 603:. That's what 333: 286: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3851: 3850: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3763:KillerChihuahua 3757:find a source, 3269: 3217: 2879:are are called 2834: 2824:Septentrionalis 2798:burden of proof 2789: 2783: 2779: 2773: 2761: 2754: 2745: 2743:citation needed 2739: 2735: 2729: 2717: 2710: 2680:Septentrionalis 2675: 2673:citation needed 2669: 2665: 2659: 2626: 2604:don't be a dick 2235: 2154: 2147: 1287: 1156: 1143: 952: 714: 673: 662:Septentrionalis 640: 588:Cornish pasties 575:Septentrionalis 284: 234:Septentrionalis 212:Septentrionalis 136:KillerChihuahua 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3849: 3847: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3825:when I do so. 3819: 3815: 3791: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3702:Homerun (film) 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3638: 3637: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3513: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3377: 3374:Homerun (film) 3361: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3297: 3296: 3281: 3268: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3249: 3248: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3161: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3087: 3086: 3057: 3056: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3000: 2999: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2933: 2932: 2918: 2917: 2907: 2906: 2887:non-negotiable 2865: 2864: 2833: 2830: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2793: 2636:than deleted. 2625: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2597: 2596: 2586: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2405: 2384:article about 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2318: 2317: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2234: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2201:Enforcement of 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2173: 2172: 2119:A suggestion: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2082: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1957: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1745: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1707: 1706: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1355: 1318: 1317: 1286: 1285:Non negotiable 1283: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1234: 1233: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1017: 1016: 979: 978: 971: 951: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 889: 888: 885: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 792: 791: 790: 789: 767: 766: 754:Elsie de Wolfe 749: 748: 742:It would be a 713: 710: 709: 708: 689:146.145.70.200 672: 669: 668: 667: 639: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 584:Nigella Lawson 557: 556: 555: 549: 543: 537: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 458: 457: 456: 455: 434: 433: 419: 418: 405: 404: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 274: 273: 272: 271: 258: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 182: 163: 154: 141: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3848: 3831: 3828: 3824: 3823:key guideline 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3800: 3797: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3778: 3774: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3732: 3730: 3725: 3722: 3721:Google Groups 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3712: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3698:Google Groups 3687: 3684: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3669: 3666: 3662: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3636: 3633: 3629: 3624: 3620: 3619: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3568: 3563: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3521: 3514: 3512: 3509: 3506: 3501: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3488: 3485: 3480: 3479:Google Groups 3476: 3475: 3474: 3470: 3467: 3461: 3456: 3452: 3449: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3423: 3421: 3418: 3412: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3396: 3389: 3385: 3382: 3378: 3375: 3370: 3369:Google Groups 3366: 3365:Google Groups 3362: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3353: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3341: 3338: 3332: 3329: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3307: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3288: 3287:Verifiability 3283: 3282: 3280: 3278: 3274: 3266: 3260: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3247: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3235: 3230: 3227: 3223: 3220: 3214: 3210: 3207: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3197: 3192: 3191: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3160: 3157: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3105: 3102: 3100: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3085: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3045: 3044: 3037: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2962: 2958:JA: The word 2952: 2948: 2947: 2942: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2928: 2925: 2920: 2919: 2914: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2863: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2850: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2831: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802:Robert A.West 2799: 2794: 2788: 2778: 2777:Request quote 2770: 2769: 2768: 2765: 2757: 2751: 2744: 2734: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2721: 2713: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2681: 2674: 2664: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644:Robert A.West 2641: 2637: 2633: 2631: 2623: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608:Robert A.West 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2595: 2592: 2587: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2561: 2558: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2544: 2537: 2527: 2524: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464:Robert A.West 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2355: 2352: 2344: 2343:ever possibly 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2329: 2326: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2303: 2302: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2274: 2269: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2232: 2228: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2158: 2150: 2144: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2120: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2055: 2052: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2033: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2005: 2002: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1928: 1924: 1921: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1754: 1751: 1746: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1726: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1665: 1662: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1647: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1617: 1614: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1604: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1538: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1454: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1428: 1425: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1354: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1296: 1291: 1284: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1274: 1267: 1259: 1256: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240:Robert A.West 1236: 1235: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200:WP:Notability 1188: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1157:Donald Albury 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1140: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119:Robert A.West 1116: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1030: 1027: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998: 997: 996: 995: 992: 990: 986: 976: 968: 963: 960: 958: 949: 941: 938: 937: 931: 926: 925: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 900: 899: 894: 886: 882: 881: 880: 867: 864: 861: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 839: 836: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 814: 811: 808: 803: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 788: 784: 780: 779:Robert A.West 775: 771: 770: 769: 768: 765: 762: 759: 755: 751: 750: 745: 741: 740: 739: 738: 735: 734: 729: 726: 723: 719: 718:69.248.76.129 711: 707: 704: 703:FeloniousMonk 700: 696: 695: 694: 693: 690: 686: 681: 677: 670: 666: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 653: 649: 645: 637: 619: 615: 611: 610:Robert A.West 606: 602: 598: 597: 596: 593: 589: 585: 581: 580: 579: 576: 572: 571: 570: 566: 562: 561:Robert A.West 558: 553: 550: 547: 544: 541: 538: 535: 532: 531: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 511: 508: 504: 500: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 481: 477: 473: 472:Robert A.West 468: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 454: 451: 447: 443: 438: 437: 436: 435: 432: 429: 426: 421: 420: 415: 411: 407: 406: 402: 397: 393: 392: 383: 380: 375: 371: 366: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 342: 341: 338: 337: 332: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 307: 304: 300: 297: 293: 292: 291: 288: 287: 285:Donald Albury 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 270: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 250:uncontentious 247: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 235: 231: 227: 216: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 192: 191: 188: 183: 179: 178: 177: 173: 169: 168:Robert A.West 164: 162: 159: 155: 153: 150: 146: 142: 140: 137: 133: 132: 131: 130: 127: 123: 119: 115: 114: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3758: 3754: 3694: 3661:Slrubenstein 3564: 3561: 3517: 3495: 3463: 3459: 3430: 3419: 3392: 3339: 3302: 3293:Hildanknight 3284: 3270: 3243:Ken Arromdee 3233: 3231: 3224: 3221: 3218: 3188: 3186: 3168: 3164: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3052: 3048: 2978:law or to a 2970: 2969: 2965: 2960: 2959: 2957: 2945: 2886: 2881: 2880: 2866: 2835: 2820: 2702:unverifiable 2701: 2693: 2688: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2627: 2578: 2540: 2517: 2513: 2419: 2379: 2376:Thomson Gale 2371: 2342: 2305: 2272: 2267: 2263: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2198: 2141: 2139: 2128: 2124: 2121: 2118: 1965:Ken Arromdee 1917: 1912: 1805: 1722: 1684: 1682: 1645: 1597: 1401: 1333: 1299: 1292: 1288: 1270: 1268: 1264: 1197: 1182: 1154: 1144: 1053: 982: 956: 953: 935: 929: 897: 892: 890: 884:information. 878: 773: 743: 732: 724: 715: 682: 678: 674: 641: 551: 545: 539: 533: 445: 441: 413: 409: 400: 395: 373: 365:the Guardian 364: 340: 335: 295: 282: 249: 246:The Guardian 245: 226:this removal 223: 208:undue weight 203: 199: 195: 121: 117: 113:The Guardian 111: 109: 78: 43: 37: 3827:Kim Bruning 3807:Some people 3786:Kim Bruning 3256:Kim Bruning 3226:Kim Bruning 3206:Kim Bruning 3173:Kim Bruning 3165:"guideline" 3033:Kim Bruning 2994:Kim Bruning 2976:descriptive 2901:Kim Bruning 2889:. Finis. 2859:Kim Bruning 2591:Kim Bruning 2557:Kim Bruning 2434:Kim Bruning 2409:Kim Bruning 2325:Kim Bruning 2289:Kim Bruning 2249:Kim Bruning 2233:wrong scale 2205:enforcement 2167:Kim Bruning 2101:Kim Bruning 2051:Kim Bruning 2001:Kim Bruning 1884:Kim Bruning 1750:Kim Bruning 1701:Kim Bruning 1661:Kim Bruning 1613:Kim Bruning 1534:Kim Bruning 1424:Kim Bruning 1383:Kim Bruning 1359:Kim Bruning 1350:Kim Bruning 1301:Kim Bruning 1208:Alias Flood 1198:Please see 1174:Alias Flood 805:somewhere? 744:really good 467:Gallup poll 36:This is an 3744:Coolcaesar 3729:SlimVirgin 3427:neutrality 3196:Jon Awbrey 3154:SlimVirgin 3122:principles 3099:SlimVirgin 3074:User:BradP 2984:Jon Awbrey 2916:documents. 2891:Jon Awbrey 2755:Birgitte§β 2711:Birgitte§β 2523:Coolcaesar 2502:LexisNexis 2425:Coolcaesar 2148:Birgitte§β 1293:See also: 1219:≈ jossi ≈ 1088:AbsolutDan 1058:≈ jossi ≈ 1024:AbsolutDan 1002:≈ jossi ≈ 989:AbsolutDan 716:I noticed 446:noteworthy 303:Tchadienne 187:Coolcaesar 126:Tchadienne 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 13 85:Archive 12 79:Archive 11 73:Archive 10 3773:LR parser 3586:≈ jossi ≈ 3549:RuneScape 3537:RuneScape 3234:see also: 3130:Eloquence 3118:documents 3078:Eloquence 3070:documents 3066:principle 3049:principle 3007:≈ jossi ≈ 2980:normative 2971:principle 2924:Eloquence 2846:Eloquence 2733:unsourced 2663:unsourced 2386:wrap rage 2180:≈ jossi ≈ 1911:We don't 1649:times. - 1505:cluestick 936:Gimmetrow 911:≈ jossi ≈ 898:Gimmetrow 829:Re. MoS: 733:Gimmetrow 296:published 68:Archive 9 60:Archive 5 3796:Dpbsmith 3505:Dpbsmith 3435:Dpbsmith 3349:Dpbsmith 3315:Dpbsmith 3311:WP:CIVIL 3169:"policy" 2882:policies 2842:reverted 2689:does not 2630:citation 2506:ProQuest 2397:Dpbsmith 2277:Dpbsmith 860:Dpbsmith 807:Dpbsmith 758:Dpbsmith 728:contribs 685:WP:LIBEL 425:Dpbsmith 200:Guardian 196:Guardian 122:opinions 3818:either. 3811:someone 3533:Neopets 3520:Michael 3466:Michael 3462:wiki. 3395:Michael 2873:WP:NPOV 2838:changed 2543:Michael 2351:W.marsh 2308:Michael 2224:W.marsh 2209:content 2087:W.marsh 2077:W.marsh 2029:W.marsh 1961:WP:AUTO 1920:Michael 1808:Michael 1725:Michael 1687:Michael 1567:W.marsh 1450:W.marsh 1393:W.marsh 1336:Michael 1312:W.marsh 1273:Michael 1043:WP:NPOV 701:first. 499:WP:NPOV 444:and is 254:WP:NPOV 39:archive 3799:(talk) 3777:JulesH 3610:Jayjg 3508:(talk) 3438:(talk) 3352:(talk) 3318:(talk) 3289:policy 3126:policy 3062:policy 3053:policy 2961:policy 2941:Centrx 2913:WP:NOR 2877:WP:VER 2869:WP:NOR 2602:Well, 2574:Centrx 2420:always 2400:(talk) 2280:(talk) 2273:easier 2268:easier 2133:JulesH 2096:-: --> 1841:works. 1651:Taxman 1603:Taxman 1598:saying 1374:Taxman 1348:plan. 1051:WP:NOR 1049:, and 863:(talk) 810:(talk) 761:(talk) 648:Jmabel 592:JulesH 507:JulesH 503:WP:NOR 450:JulesH 428:(talk) 414:reason 379:JulesH 374:should 266:JulesH 158:Jayjg 149:Jkelly 2706:Jesus 2518:their 2514:their 2393:Tyvek 2264:where 1187:Kitia 1181:What 1168:Kitia 1147:Kitia 957:other 893:still 465:If a 118:facts 16:< 3700:and 3665:Talk 3632:Talk 3578:WP:V 3543:and 3431:also 3285:The 2966:SAVE 2946:talk 2867:JA: 2806:Talk 2762:Talk 2750:WP:V 2718:Talk 2698:WP:V 2694:this 2648:Talk 2612:Talk 2579:talk 2468:Talk 2349:! -- 2155:Talk 1913:know 1646:then 1244:Talk 1123:Talk 1047:WP:V 930:some 783:Talk 722:talk 652:Talk 614:Talk 565:Talk 476:Talk 401:some 370:KJNO 204:that 172:Talk 134:No. 3814:it. 3755:not 3663:| 3628:TKD 2372:not 1332:. 1255:mjb 1206:-- 687:.-- 605:IAR 501:or 3630::: 3592:• 3565:-- 3523:Z. 3482:-- 3469:Z. 3460:so 3446:-- 3398:Z. 3326:-- 3013:• 2949:• 2875:, 2871:, 2836:I 2808:) 2790:}} 2784:{{ 2780:}} 2774:{{ 2758:ʈ 2746:}} 2740:{{ 2738:or 2736:}} 2730:{{ 2714:ʈ 2676:}} 2670:{{ 2668:, 2666:}} 2660:{{ 2650:) 2614:) 2582:• 2546:Z. 2504:, 2470:) 2423:-- 2311:Z. 2222:-- 2186:• 2151:ʈ 2145:-- 2085:-- 2075:-- 1963:. 1923:Z. 1811:Z. 1728:Z. 1690:Z. 1339:Z. 1310:-- 1276:Z. 1246:) 1225:• 1183:IS 1125:) 1064:• 1045:, 1008:• 917:• 833:-- 785:) 650:| 616:) 567:) 478:) 410:un 174:) 94:→ 64:← 3594:@ 3590:t 3518:— 3464:— 3393:— 3232:( 3133:* 3081:* 3055:. 3015:@ 3011:t 2943:→ 2939:— 2927:* 2849:* 2804:( 2646:( 2610:( 2576:→ 2541:— 2466:( 2306:— 2188:@ 2184:t 1918:— 1806:— 1723:— 1685:— 1507:. 1334:— 1271:— 1242:( 1227:@ 1223:t 1121:( 1066:@ 1062:t 1010:@ 1006:t 919:@ 915:t 781:( 725:· 720:( 612:( 563:( 474:( 170:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Verifiability/Archive 11 - Knowledge

Index