Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Marfan syndrome: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Light current (talk | contribs)
 
 
Line 1:
{{Infobox_Disease
{{shortcut|[[WT:V]]}}
| Name = Marfan syndrome
{| class="infobox" width="150"
| Image = Marfansyndrome.jpg
|-
| Caption =
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|75px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/toc|Archives]]
| DiseasesDB = 7845
|}
| ICD10 = {{ICD10|Q|87|4|q|80}}
| ICD9 = {{ICD9|759.82}}
| ICDO =
| OMIM = 154700
| MedlinePlus = 000418
| eMedicineSubj = ped
| eMedicineTopic = 1372
| eMedicine_mult = {{eMedicine2|orthoped|414}}
| MeshID = C17.300.500
}}
 
'''Marfan syndrome''' is an [[autosomal dominant]] genetic disorder of the [[connective tissue]] characterized by disproportionately long [[limb]]s, long thin fingers, a relatively tall stature, and a predisposition to cardiovascular abnormalities, specifically those affecting the [[heart valves]] and [[aorta]]. The [[disease]] may also affect numerous other structures and organs &mdash; including the [[lung]]s, [[eye]]s, dural sac surrounding the [[spinal cord]], and [[hard palate]]. It is named after [[Antoine Marfan]], the [[France|French]] [[pediatrician]] who first described it in 1899.
==Please do not feed the trolls==
Naming no names here, but please do not support any trolling that may be occuring. I, for one, have not been participating in much of the previous discussion for this reason. Thanks for your time! [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 06:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Epidemiology==
==A thought: Tacitus' recommendation==
Marfan syndrome affects males and females equally,<ref name="marorg">{{Cite web|url=http://www.marfan.org/nmf/GetSubContentRequestHandler.do?sub_menu_item_content_id=6&menu_item_id=3|title=The role of heredity and family history|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=National Marfan Foundation|year=1999}}</ref> and the mutation shows no geographical bias. Estimates indicate that approximately 60 000 (1 in 5000, or 0.02% of the population)<ref name="marorg"/> to 200 000<ref name="mednet">{{Cite web|url=http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=63689|title=New, Deadly Relative of Marfan's Syndrome Discovered|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=MedicineNet.com|year=2006}}</ref> Americans have Marfan syndrome. Each parent with the condition has a 50% chance of passing it on to a child due to its [[autosomal dominant]] nature. Most individuals with Marfan syndrome have another affected family member, but approximately 15-30% of all cases are due to ''[[de novo mutation|de novo]]'' [[genetic mutation]]s<ref name="robspath">{{cite book | title=Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease| last=Cotran| coauthors=Kumar, Collins| publisher=W.B Saunders Company| ___location=Philadelphia| id=0-7216-7335-X}}</ref> &mdash; such spontaneous mutations occur in about 1 in 20 000 births. Marfan syndrome is also an example of [[dominant negative mutation]] and [[haploinsufficiency]].<ref name="Judge_et_al_2004">{{cite journal | last = Judge | first = Daniel P. | coauthors = Nancy J. Biery, Douglas R. Keene, Jessica Geubtner, Loretha Myers, David L. Huso, Lynn Y. Sakai, Harry C. Dietz | title = Evidence for a critical contribution of haploinsufficiency in the complex pathogenesis of Marfan syndrome. | journal = The Journal of Clinical Investigation | volume = 114 | issue = 2 | pages = 172-181 | doi = 10.1172/JCI200420641 | id = PMID 15254584 | url = http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/2/172 | accessdate = 2007-02-15}}</ref><ref name="Judge_et_al_2005">{{cite journal | last = Judge | first = Daniel P. | coauthors = Harry C. Dietz | title = Marfan's syndrome. | journal = Lancet | volume = 366 | issue = 9501 | pages = 1965-76 | year = 2005 | doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67789-6. | id = PMID 16325700 | url = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16325700 | accessdate = 2007-02-15}}</ref> It is associated with [[incomplete penetrance]], therefore not all persons carrying the mutation develop the disease.
:{|
|-
| valign="top" | ''nos consensum auctorum secuturi, quae diversa prodiderint sub nominibus ipsorum trademus.''
| | &nbsp;
| valign="top" | Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names.
|-
| align="right" colspan="3"|[[Tacitus]], ''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Annals]]'' XIII, 20 &ndash; [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Tac.+Ann.+toc Church/Brodribb translation]
|}
 
== Sidebar:Pathogenesis ==
Marfan syndrome has been linked to a defect in the ''FBN1'' [[gene]] on [[chromosome]] 15,<ref>{{cite journal | author = McKusick V | title = The defect in Marfan syndrome. | journal = Nature | volume = 352 | issue = 6333 | pages = 279-81 | year = 1991 | id = PMID 1852198}}</ref> which [[Genetics|encodes]] a [[glycoprotein]] called [[fibrillin]]-1. Fibrillin is essential for the formation of the [[elastic fiber]]s found in connective tissue, as it provides the scaffolding for [[tropoelastin]].<ref name="robspath">{{cite book | title=Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease| last=Cotran| coauthors=Kumar, Collins| publisher=W.B Saunders Company| ___location=Philadelphia| id=0-7216-7335-X}}</ref> Elastic fibers are found throughout the body but are particularly abundant in the [[aorta]], [[ligament]]s and the [[Zonule of Zinn|ciliary zonule]]s of the eye, consequently these areas are among the worst affected. Without the structural support provided by fibrillin many connective tissues are weakened, which can have severe consequences for support and stability.
 
A related disease has been found in [[mouse|mice]], and the study of mouse fibrillin synthesis and secretion, and connective tissue formation, has begun to further our understanding of Marfan syndrome in humans. It has been found that simply reducing the level of normal fibrillin-1 causes a Marfan-related disease in mice.<ref name="micefib">{{cite journal | author=Lygia Pereira, ''et al.''| title=Pathogenetic sequence for aneurysm revealed in mice underexpressing fibrillin-1| journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences| year=1999| volume=96| issue=7| page=3819-3823| url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3819}}</ref>
Is this sidebar <nowiki>{{Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things}}</nowiki> appropriate in a policy page? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 15:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 
[[Transforming growth factor]] beta (TGFβ) plays an important role in Marfan syndrome. Fibrillin-1 binds TGFβ and inactivates it. In Marfan syndrome, reduced levels of fibrillin-1 allow activated TGFβ to damage the lungs and heart. A defect in the gene ''TGFβR2'' on [[chromosome]] 3, a [[receptor protein]] of TGFβ, has also been related to Marfan syndrome.<ref name="tgf2beta">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=gene&dopt=full_report&list_uids=7048|title=TGFBR2 transforming growth factor, beta receptor II|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=NCBI|year=2007|author=Entrez Gene|format=Entrez gene entry}}</ref> Marfan syndrome can often be confused with [[Loeys-Dietz syndrome]], a similar connective tissue disorder resulting from mutations in the TGFβ receptor genes ''TGFβR1'' and ''TGFβR2''.<ref name="loeysdietz">{{Cite web|url=http://www.marfan.org/nmf/GetContentRequestHandler.do?menu_item_id=84|title=Related Disorders: Loeys-Dietz |accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=National Marfan Foundation}}</ref>
== Using nowiki tags to hide unverified content ==
 
==Symptoms==
A question? Is nowiki tagged content visible on the HTML output? Or does ot get omitted from the output? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There are no signs or symptoms that are unique to Marfan syndrome. It is usually a single apparent sign or symptom that leads doctors to look for others and eventually to diagnose the syndrome, which affects connective tissue in diverse organs and systems. Even affected individuals in the same family might exhibit various combinations and severities of symptoms.
:I assume you mean things in comments, like <nowiki><!-- something --></nowiki>. Based on extensive research involving putting a comment on my user page and viewing the source, they do not show up in the source. When you edit the page, you still see them. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
::I added to the page that this is an additional option to tagging or removing unsourced material. Feel free to revert if you disagree. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 
===Skeletal system===
== RfC: Interpreting WP:V in the context of [[Mnemonics]]==
The most readily visible signs may be associated with the skeletal system. Many individuals with Marfan syndrome grow to larger than normal height and have long, slender limbs, fingers, and toes. An individual's arms may be disproportionately long. In addition to affecting height and limb proportions, Marfan syndrome can produce other skeletal signs. Abnormal curvature of the [[Vertebral column|spine]] ([[scoliosis]]) is common, as is abnormal indentation ([[pectus excavatum]]) or protrusion ([[pectus carinatum]]) of the [[sternum]]. Other signs include abnormal joint flexibility, a high [[palate]], [[malocclusions]], flat feet, stooped shoulders, and unexplained [[stretch marks]] on the skin. Some people with Marfans have [[speech disorder|speech impediments]] resulting from symptomatic high palates and small jaws.
[[Talk:Mnemonic#RfC:_How_should_WP:V.2C_WP:NOR.2C_and_WP:CITE_be_applied_to_unsourced_examples_of_first-letter_mnemonics.3F]]. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the [[WP:V]], [[WP:CITE]], and [[WP:NOR]] policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "'''K'''inky '''P'''eople '''C'''an '''O'''ften '''F'''ind '''G'''ood '''S'''ex match those [[Kingdom (biology)|Kingdom]], [[phylum (biology)|Phylum]], [[Class (biology)|Class]], [[Order (biology)|Order]], [[Family (biology)|Family]], [[Genus]], and [[Species]], and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 22:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 
===Eyes===
:I don't see any harm in a few examples of mnemonics being used to illustrate an article, and I don't think there is a genuine conflict with WP:V here - we already apply our judgement sensibly and don't require references for obvious or well-known facts ("grass is green", or "Paris is in France"), so I think we can apply the same judgement to whether an example is "obviously ok".
Marfan syndrome can also seriously affect the eyes and vision. [[myopia|Nearsightedness]] and [[astigmatism]] are common, but farsightedness can also result. Periodic eye exams can lead to an [[ophthalmologist]] or [[optometrist]] discovering dislocation, or [[subluxation]], of the crystalline [[lens (anatomy)|lens]] in one or both eyes ([[ectopia lentis]]) by carefully observing these structures using a [[Slit lamp|slit-lamp]] biomicroscope. This can be differentiated from the similar condition [[homocystinuria]], where the dislocation is inferonasal; in Marfan's the dislocation is superotemporal. Sometimes eye problems appear only after the weakening of connective tissue has caused [[retinal detachment|detachment of the retina]].<ref name="mayo-gen">{{Cite web|url=http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/marfan-syndrome/DS00540/DSECTION=2|title=Marfan Syndrome|accessdate=2007-01-12|publisher=Mayo Clinic}}</ref> Early onset [[glaucoma]] can be another complication.
 
===Cardiovascular system===
:While I do think examples of mnemonics should certainly be treated as allowed under WP:V, this is not the same as saying they should necessarily stay in the article - I agree that there are many more examples than needed in the article.
The most serious conditions associated with Marfan syndrome involve the cardiovascular system. Undue fatigue, shortness of breath, [[heart palpitations]], [[tachycardia|racing heartbeats]], or [[angina|pain in the left chest, back, shoulder, or arm]], can bring an individual into the doctor's office. A [[heart murmur]] heard on a [[stethoscope]], an abnormal reading on an [[electrocardiogram]], or symptoms of [[angina]] can lead a doctor to order an [[echocardiogram]]. This can reveal signs of leakage or [[prolapse]] of the mitral or aortic [[heart valve|valves]] that control the flow of blood through the heart. However, the major sign that would lead a doctor to consider an underlying condition is a dilated aorta or an [[aortic aneurysm]]. Sometimes, no heart problems are apparent until the weakening of the connective tissue in the [[aorta|ascending aorta]] causes an [[aortic aneurysm]] or even [[aortic dissection]]. During pregnancy, even in the absence of preconceived cardiovascular abnormality, women with Marfan syndrome are at significant risk of acute [[aortic dissection]], which can be lethal if untreated. For this reason, women with Marfan syndrome should recieve a thorough assessment prior to conception, and [[echocardiography]] should be performed every 6-10 weeks during pregnancy, to assess the aortic root diameter. Most women however tolerate pregnancy well and safe vaginal delivery is possible.<ref name="emed">{{Cite web|url=http://www.emedicine.com/ped/fulltopic/topic1372.htm#section~Miscellaneous|title=Marfan Syndrome, special concerns|accessdate=2007-06-25}}</ref>
 
===Lungs===
:A particular problem with mnemonics is a lack of good sources; in some cases I think it is better to have an unsourced "example" than to remove the material altogether or support it with an unreliable source. [[User:Enchanter|Enchanter]] 02:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Marfan syndrome is a [[risk factor]] for spontaneous [[pneumothorax]]. In spontaneous unilateral pneumothorax, air escapes from a lung and occupies the [[pleural]] space between the chest wall and a [[lung]]. The lung becomes partially compressed or collapsed. This can cause pain, shortness of breath, [[cyanosis]], and, if not treated, death. Marfan syndrome has also been associated with [[sleep apnea]] and [[idiopathic]] obstructive lung disease.
 
===Central nervous system===
::Why can't we just find some that are well sourced? [[User:For great justice.|For great justice.]] 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Another condition that can reduce the quality of life for an individual, though not life-threatening, is [[dural ectasia]], the weakening of the connective tissue of the dural sac, the membrane that encases the [[spinal cord]]. Dural ectasia can be present for a long time without producing any noticeable symptoms. Symptoms that can occur are lower [[back pain]], leg pain, [[abdominal pain]], other neurological symptoms in the lower extremities, or [[headaches]]. Such symptoms usually diminish when the individual lies flat on his or her back. These types of symptoms might lead a doctor to order an [[X-ray]] of the [[lumbar|lower spine]]. Dural ectasia is usually not visible on an X-ray in the early phases. A worsening of symptoms and the lack of finding any other cause should eventually lead a doctor to order a upright [[MRI]] of the lower spine. Dural ectasia that has progressed to the point of causing these symptoms would appear in a upright MRI image as a dilated pouch that is wearing away at the [[lumbar vertebrae]].<ref name="mayo-gen" /> Other spinal issues associated with Marfan include degenerative disk disease and spinal cysts.
 
==Management==
:::That would be ideal. At the moment, even those that are referenced don't generally have particularly useful sources. That is, the sources support a statement like "mnemonic x can be used to remember y", which is already obvious, but don't provide any significant evidence that the mnemonic is actually widely used, or who it is used by. I do think we need to be selective with references, and only include good quality ones that genuinely add to the verifiability of the article. In the case of menmonics, this might be a "history of mnemonics" or "survey of mnemonics"; sources like this are in practice quite rare. [[User:Enchanter|Enchanter]] 11:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no cure for Marfan syndrome, but life expectancy has increased significantly over the last few decades. The syndrome is treated by addressing each issue as it arises, and, in particular, considering prophylactic medication, even for young children, to slow progression of aortic dilation.
 
Regular checkups by a [[cardiologist]] are needed to monitor the health of the heart valves and the aorta. The goal of treatment is to slow the progression of aortic dilation and damage to heart valves by eliminating [[Cardiac arrhythmia|arrythmias]], minimizing the [[heart rate]], and minimizing [[blood pressure]]. [[Beta blocker]]s have been used to control [[Cardiac arrhythmia|arrythmias]] and slow the [[heart rate]]. Other medications might be needed to further minimize [[blood pressure]] without slowing the [[heart rate]], such as [[ACE inhibitors]] and [[angiotensin II receptor antagonist]]s, also known as angiontensin receptor blockers (ARBs). If the dilation of the aorta progresses to a significant diameter [[aneurysm]], causes a dissection or a rupture, or leads to failure of the aortic or other valve, then surgery (possibly a composite aortic valve graft [CAVG] or valve-sparing procedure) becomes necessary. Although aortic graft surgery (or any vascular surgery) is a serious undertaking it is generally successful if undertaken on an elective basis. Surgery in the setting of acute aortic dissection or rupture is considerably more problematic. Elective aortic valve/graft surgery is usually considered when aortic root diameter reaches 50 millimetres, but each case needs to be specifically evaluated by a qualified cardiologist. New valve-sparing surgical techniques are becoming more common.<ref name="mayo-heart">{{Cite web|url=http://www.mayoclinic.org/marfan-syndrome/heartsurgery.html|title=Heart Surgery for Marfan Syndrome|accessdate=2007-01-12|publisher=Mayo Clinic}}</ref> As Marfan patients live longer, other vascular repairs are becoming more common, e.g. repairs of descending thoractic aortic aneurysms and aneurysms of vessels other than the aorta.
::::What I've been doing is to try to find sources for mnemonics that I thought could be sourced. My feeling is that requiring a source is, if nothing else, a neutral and objective way to prune the list and weed out original creations (or minor variations, or original creations ''of'' minor variations). Being folklore, there's no ''urtext'' for most of them, but that doesn't mean that it's important ''for this article'' to show that Old Olympus' top could equally well be "towering" or "terraced" or "tremendous."
 
The skeletal and ocular manifestations of Marfan syndrome can also be serious, although not life-threatening. These symptoms are usually treated in the typical manner for the appropriate condition. This can also affect height, arm length, and life span. The [[Nuss procedure]] is now being offered to people with Marfan syndrome to correct 'sunken chest' or ([[pectus excavatum]]).<ref name="chkd">{{Cite web|url=http://www.chkd.org/services/nussprocedure/Overview.aspx|title=Overview of the Nuss Procedure for Pectus Excavatum|accessdate=2007-01-12|publisher=Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters}}</ref> Because Marfan may cause spinal abnormalities that are asymptomatic, any spinal surgery contemplated on a Marfan patient should only follow detailed imaging and careful surgical planning, regardless of the indication for surgery.
::::I actually don't think it should be very hard to find good referenced examples for a few of the "classics." That is to say, sources that give one of the examples ''and'' assert that it is "well-known." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Clinical trials have been conducted of the drug [[acetazolamide]] in the treatment of symptoms of [[dural ectasia]]. The treatment has demonstrated significant functional improvements in some sufferers.<ref name="spine">{{Cite web|url=http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article922.html|title=Dural Ectasia in the Marfan Spine: Symptoms and Treatment|accessdate=2007-01-12|publisher=Scoliosis Research Society}}</ref> Other medical treatments, as well as physical therapy, are also available.
==Conflict on use of self-published sources?==
It looks to me as if there is some ambiguity on the use of self-published blogs as sources. The subsection [[WP:V#Self-published_sources|self-published sources]] suggests that '''in some limited cases''', it is appropriate to use a blog as a secondary source, while the following subsection, [[WP:V#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves|self-published sources in articles about themselves]] seems to say that this is '''never''' appropriate. [[W:RS]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources|seems to take]] the latter position, but it's not 100% clear if "personal" websites means the same thing as "self-published" websites.
 
Treatment of a spontaneous [[pneumothorax]] is dependant on the volume of air in the pleural space and the natural progression of the individual's condition. A small pneumothorax might resolve without active treatment in 1 to 2 weeks. Recurrent pneumothoraxes might require chest surgery. Moderately sized pneumothoraxes might need [[Chest tube|chest drain]] management for several days in hospital. Large pneumothoraxes are likely to be medical emergencies requiring emergency decompression.
Is there a policy to clarify the distinctions between those three sections? Thanks, [[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Research in laboratory [[mouse|mice]] has suggested that the [[angiotensin II receptor antagonist]] [[losartan]], which appears to block TGF-beta activity, can slow or halt the formation of aortic aneurysms in Marfan syndrome.<ref name="scimag">{{Cite journal | last = Habashi | first = Jennifer P. | coauthors = Daniel P. Judge, Tammy M. Holm, Ronald D. Cohn, Bart L. Loeys, Timothy K. Cooper, Loretha Myers, Erin C. Klein, Guosheng Liu, Carla Calvi, Megan Podowski, Enid R. Neptune, Marc K. Halushka, Djahida Bedja, Kathleen Gabrielson, Daniel B. Rifkin, Luca Carta, Francesco Ramirez, David L. Huso, and Harry C. Dietz | date = [[April 7]], [[2006]] | title = Losartan, an AT1 Antagonist, Prevents Aortic Aneurysm in a Mouse Model of Marfan Syndrome | volume = 312 | issue = 5770 | pages = 117 - 121 | doi = 10.1126/science.1124287 | url = http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5770/117 | abstract = http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;312/5770/117 | news = http://www.news-medical.net/?id=17249}}</ref> A large [[clinical trial]] sponsored by the [[National Institutes of Health]] comparing the effects of losartan and [[atenolol]] on the aortas of Marfan patients is scheduled to begin in early 2007, coordinated by Johns Hopkins.<ref name="trial">{{Cite web|url=http://www.marfan.org/nmf/GetSubContentRequestHandler.do?sub_menu_item_content_id=147&menu_item_id=91|title=Atenolol vs. Losartan in Individuals with Marfan Syndrome Clinial Trial|accessdate=2007-01-12|publisher=National Marfan Foundation}}</ref>
I also think blogs should be excluded from reliability, as a rule. However, there may be exceptions, such as if the site is by an otherwise recognized source for a particular field, and the author himself is writing on that particular subject. Also if the facts from the blog are autobiographical. ([[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
 
Genetic counseling and specialized clinics are available at many academic medical centers for affected persons and family members.
:I semi-agree. In this article, we should not conflate the ___domain of verifiability, which is the publications themselves, with the ___domain of reliability, which is (I believe) 1. editorship and/or peer review, 2. corroboration (independent concurrence), and 3. authority (as in, expertise & credentials). The fact that a statement was made in a blog is verifiable, but the statement itself may or may not be reliable, depending on who made it and who validated it. The type of publication does not affect verifiability, but ''may'' (or may ''not'') affect reliability. It could be a blog, the Asssociated Press, ''MAD Magazine'', or ''JAMA''. These are all verifiable sources, so they are ''eligible'' to be cited, but are not necessarily ''appropriate'', depending on circumstances.
:I don't think we disagree on these points, but I don't like the implication that a blog is inherently, absolutely unreliable by default. It should not be excluded from reliability any moreso than any other self-published source. I don't even think self-published sources should be held to different standards at all. Ascertaining the reliability of a source involves consideration of peer review, editorship, authority, and corroboration, etc., and we should be encouraging people to scrutinize every source according to the same criteria. A mainstream newspaper, at least nowadays, tends to make a clear distinction between editorials and factual reporting, so we can of course say a single-source, self-published work is ''likely'' to be less reliable than a newspaper …but less reliable does not equal unreliable.
:More importantly, I don't think this article should be talking so much about reliability; it is supposed to be about the separate topic of verifiability.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==Well known people==
== Proposal to restrict who can edit policies ==
Below is a list of prominent figures known or believed to have had Marfan syndrome:
* [[Euell Gibbons]], outdoorsman & health food proponent.
* [[Flo Hyman]], silver medal in Women's Volleyball (1984 Olympics)<ref name="flo">{{Cite web|url=http://www.volleyhall.org/hyman.html|title=Flo Hyman|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=Volleyball Hall of Fame}}</ref>
* [[Jonathan Larson]], Tony Award-winning playwright ([[Rent (musical)|Rent]]); he died in 1996 of [[aortic dissection]] on the eve of his musical's premiere<ref name="larson">{{Cite web|url=http://www.wnbc.com/drmaxgomez/5421112/detail.html|title=Marfan's Syndrome Is Deadly, Elusive|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=WNBC.com}}</ref>
* [[Robert Johnson (musician)|Robert Johnson]], blues singer and guitarist<ref name="robertj">{{Cite journal | last = Connel | first = David | date = [[September 2]], [[2006]] | title=Retrospective blues: Robert Johnson—an open letter to Eric Clapton | journal = British Medical Journal | volume = 333 | issue = 7566 | pages = 489 | url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1557967|accessdate=2007-01-11}}</ref>
*[[Mike Dunleavy]], professional basketball player for the [[Portland Trailblazers]]
* [[Vincent Schiavelli]], actor<ref name="schiavelli">{{Cite web|url=http://www.marfan.org/nmf/PreviewPressReleaseInfoRequestHandler.do?press_release_id=24|title=NMF Mourns the Loss of its Honorary Co-Chair, Vincent Schiavelli|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=National Marfan Foundation}}</ref>
* [[Sir John Tavener]],<ref name="bbc">Richard Morrison, ''99 Names for God: John Tavener turns his back on Orthodoxy'', BBC Music, November 2004, page 30</ref> contemporary British composer
* Bradford Cox, frontman of the punk rock band [[Deerhunter]]<ref name="deerhunter">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/43085-interview-deerhunter|title=Pitchfork Feature: Interview: Deerhunter}}</ref>
* [[Joey Ramone]], of the punk rock band [[The Ramones]].
 
===Spurious or conjectural claims===
Following banned user [[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]]'s attempt to rewrite [[WP:SOCK]] using two sockpuppet accounts, there is a proposal to limit the editing of policy pages either to admins, or to editors with six months editing experience and 1,000 edits to articles. Please vote and comment at [[Wikipedia:Editing policy pages]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of historical persons believed to have suffered from Marfan's syndrome, but as proper Marfan diagnosis was not available before well into the 20th century most such claims can only be considered as speculation based on sparse medical records and pictures.
 
* [[Akhenaten]], Egyptian Pharaoh, who was the father of King [[Tutankhamun]] (spurious claim based on early Amarna art style. Tutankhamun, who didn't have syndrome, was also portrayed this way)<ref name="pharaoh">{{Cite web|url=http://www.marfan.ca/pharaoh.html|title=Did Akhenaten Suffer from Marfan's Syndrome?|accessdate=2007-01-11|publisher=Canadian Marfan Association}}</ref>
:I don't agree with this. It is the ''content'' that is decided upon by its own merits, not HOW it got there on the page. Also, such a proposal can lead easily to the abuse of an elitist bureaucracy having control of policy. ([[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
 
* [[Osama bin Laden]] may suffer from Marfan Syndrome (speculation based on tall size, use of cane and rumoured heart-disease; almost certainly in error)<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/11/09/marfan/index.html</ref>
=== Policy makers ===
 
* [[Charles de Gaulle]] (conjectural)<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/11/09/marfan/index.html</ref>
After the debacle on this talk page a few months ago where certain editors got blocked by virtue of their interfering in WHEEL WARS, and other editors comments were sidelined by their contributions being deleted or otherwise hidden away by ADMINs, I think ADMINS are the LAST people to be making policy decisions! --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 
* [[Nicollo Paganini]] (Conjectural) <ref>[http://tafkac.org/celebrities/paganini_stories_myths.html], main reference being an article in the AMA journal by Dr. Myron R. Shoenfeld dated 2 January, 1978.</ref>
==Proposal regarding blogs==
I propose that we specifically call out blogs as unreliable sources for verifiability purposes. There are too many articles on Wikipedia, particularly those dealing with political or highly controversial subjects, like [[Bush family conspiracy theory]] for example, that rely heavily on the political rantings and made-up theories of bloggists. Can we specifically call out blogs as unreliable because they fail the objective tests of mainstream journalism? Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton devonshire]] 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 
* It was once believed that [[Abraham Lincoln]] suffered from Marfan Sydrome, although recent research has argued that he probably didn't.
:I also think blogs should be excluded from reliability, as a rule. However, there may be exceptions, such as if the site is by an otherwise recognized source for a particular field, and the author himself is writing on that particular subject. Also if the facts from the blog are autobiographical. ([[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
 
* [[Johnny Appleseed]], a pioneer nurseryman in America living during the 18th century; he has become an almost mythical popular culture icon in America.
:: As I said above, Wiki policies currently describe two conflicting rules for blogs. (1) The [[WP:V]] subsection [[WP:V#Self-published_sources|self-published sources]] states that blogs from recognized experts may be used as secondary sources, while (2) the [[WP:V]] subsection[[WP:V#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves|self-published sources in articles about themselves]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources|WP:RS]] each say that blogs are '''never''' appropriate as secondary sources. [[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==Related disorders==
:I posted my thoughts about this above. I don't think it is appropriate to make sweeping judgments about the inherent reliability of certain types of self-published sources, or about self-published sources in general. I also feel it is getting too deep into the topic of reliability, which is not supposed to be the subject of this article. There's a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|whole other article about reliability]]. We should put more effort into emphasizing that reliability is as important as verifiability and encouraging the reader to see that article, rather than trying to paraphrase and invent new reliability policies here.
The following disorders have similar signs and symptoms of Marfan syndrome:
:As for "reliability for verifiability purposes", it's not clear what you mean. The fact that statements are made in blogs (or in media outlets that use blogs as sources) is normally quite verifiable, regardless of the reliability of the sources. Whether such statements, when reliable enough to be cited, are ''properly'' cited (i.e., all sources of indirect/secondhand citations are mentioned) is a separate topic that should be (and is) addressed in [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it]].—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 03:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
*[[Arachnodactyly|Congenital Contractural Arachnodactyly (CCA) or Beals Syndrome]]
== Policy or Guideline? Difference ==
*[[Ehlers-Danlos syndrome]]
*[[Homocystinuria]]
*[[Loeys-Dietz syndrome]]
*[[MASS phenotype]]
*[[Stickler syndrome]]
 
The following conditions that can result from having Marfan syndrome may also occur in people without any known underlying disorder:
I noticed an inconsistency with the three policies here that, as it mentions, are not supposed to be interpreted in isolation of each other. Verifiability is a ''policy'', yet it directly relies on ''reliable sources'' by definition. This is an inconsistency because the article on reliable sources is a ''guideline''. If I understand the difference correctly, ''policies'' are unbending, whereas ''guidelines'' can bend as being merely being suggestions and therefore debateable. On the principle that a ''chain is only as strong as its weakest link'' this connection automatically tears down the "policy" of verifiability into a mere "guideline" because it directly depends on a guideline, the weaker link. Either the article on reliable sources needs to be upgraded to a "policy" or else this article on verifiability needs to be downgraded to a guideline. I think this inconsistency is the cause of much mayhem among editors right now. It would seem logical to me that all three should be considered ''policy'', and that the article on reliable sources be altered and amended with more details and examples so that it can no longer be debateable. As of now, it is a quite primitive guideline. While people think about this, I am going to focus on fixing the article on what reliable sources are. ([[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
 
<div style="width:30%; float:left; padding:0 3% 0 0; border:none; overflow:hidden; clear:left;">
:Hi Diligens, the Verifiability policy doesn't rely on RS. The difference between policies and guidelines is that the former are mandatory; and you can be taken to the arbcom for violating any policies, and blocked by admins for violating some. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
*[[Aortic aneurysm|Aortic aneurysm or dilitation]]
*[[Arachnodactyly]]
*[[Bicuspid aortic valve]]
*[[Cysts]]
*[[Craniosynostosis]]
*[[Cystic medial necrosis]]
*[[Dural ectasia]]
*[[Ectopia lentis]]
</div>
<div style="width:30%; float:left; padding:0 3% 0 0; border:none; overflow:hidden; ">
*[[Flat feet]]
*[[Gigantism]]
*[[Glaucoma]]
*[[Hernias]]
*[[Hyperflex|Hypermobility of the joints]]
*[[Malocclusion]]
*[[Mitral valve prolapse]]
*[[Myopia]]
</div>
<div class="editmode" style="width:30%; float:left; padding:0 3% 0 0; border:none; overflow:hidden; ">
*[[COPD|Obstructive lung disease]]
*[[Osteoarthritis]]
*[[Pectus carinatum]] or [[pectus excavatum|excavatum]]
*[[Pneumothorax]]
*[[Retinal detachment]]
*[[Scoliosis]]
*[[Sleep apnea]]
*[[Stretch marks]]
</div><br clear="left" />
 
==References==
::What I have written shows that I am painfully aware of this. You seem to miss the point I was making. Here is the Verifiability Policy:
{{reflist|2}}
<blockquote>This policy in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.</blockquote>
::If Verifiability is in ''reference'' to RS, then Verifiability becomes a guideline, by default, because it ''depends'' on a guideline. Do you understand the analogous princple that ''a chain is only as strong as its weakest link''? RS is going to have to be upgraded to policy if it is included in the defnition of verifiability. As it is now, it is like telling people RS is just a suggestion because it is a guidelinie, but that simultaneously RS is mandatory because it is part of mandatory verifiability. Do you see the contradiction? --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==External links==
:::Rather than giving me analogies, could you explain why you believe V is dependent upon RS? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
*[http://marfanworld.org/ International Federation of Marfan Syndrome Organisations]
::::Without the principled analogy, I have explained it in other words. If you don't understand the principle, my explanation doesn't need it. --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
*[http://www.marfan.org/ National Marfan Foundation (USA)]
*[http://www.marfan.org.za/diagnosis.html Marfan diagnosis criteria]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/Marfan.html National Institute for Health Marfan syndrome page (USA)]
*[http://www.medicinenet.com/marfan_syndrome/index.htm Marfan Syndrome Center at medicinenet.com]
*[http://marfansyndrome.researchtoday.net/ Marfan Syndrome Research] - recent literature on Marfan Syndrome
*[http://www.supportmarfan.com Marfan support]
*[http://www.marfan.ca/ Canadian Marfan Association]
*[http://www.marfan.org.uk/ Marfan Association UK]
*[http://www.marfan.org.mx/ Marfan de Mexico]
*[http://www.marfan.no/ Norwegian Marfan Organization]
*[http://www.marfanlife.net Marfan Life blog] - mostly links to news articles about Marfan Syndrome
*[http://www.marfanlife.net/lists/ Marfan-List] - email discussion list for people and families with Marfan Syndrome
*[http://www.marfan.org.za/ South African Marfan Syndrome Organisation] - support group for Africa
*[http://www.medstudents.com.br/original/revisao/marfan/marfan.htm Eye Findings in Marfan's syndrome]
 
[[Category:Cardiology]]
:::Your error is in assuming WP:V becomes a guideline if it depends on one. RS may be a guideline because the wording and some details are not agreed upon. There's no substantial disagreement that WP:V requires reliable sources, therefore no real problem with WP:V. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Diseases involving the fasciae]]
[[Category:Genetic disorders]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]
 
[[ar:متلازمة مارفان]]
::::This is a fallacy of logic. If you admit ''"the wording and some details are not agreed upon"'' in the RS guideline, that makes the whole RS not agreed upon because you cannot say WHICH details or wording are not agreed upon. And if the whole RS is not agreed upon, it makes what ''Verifiability'' is not agreed upon because it substantially depends upon RS intrinsically, that is, it cannot exist without it. Until RS is upgraded to Policy, Verifiability remains a ''de facto'' guideline, something not agreed upon directly because reliable sources is not agreed upon. This is one reason so many disputes exist. It is largely the fault of the rules. --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[[de:Marfan-Syndrom]]
:::::*It's not a fallacy of logic. The policy is that reliable sources are required. This means any text without references will be removed. Any text with references will be referred to the guidance at WP:RS, where it will be determined if the sources are reliable applying the guidance offered. If they are not deemed to be, the information can be removed. If they are deemed to be, it stays. No problem. Once a source is determined to not be reliable, it becomes subject to this policy. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 12:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[[es:Síndrome de Marfan]]
:::::*You're trying to be legalistic about something that doesn't need it. There are more important things to work on. Upgrade reliable sources to a policy, but don't waste people's time on non issue. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 12:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[[fr:Syndrome de Marfan]]
 
[[ko:마르팡 증후군]]
::::::I don't think you understand. Guidelines are not strictly required (not mandatory as SlimV said), that is why they are considered ''guidelines'' and not ''policies''. Now substitute the logic:
[[it:Sindrome di Marfan]]
::::::'''FACT: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;RELIABLE SOURCES IS A GUIDELINE
[[he:תסמונת מרפן]]
::::::'''FACT: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GUIDELINES ARE NOT REQUIRED
[[nl:Syndroom van Marfan]]
::::::'''THEREFORE: &nbsp;RELIABLE SOURCES IS NOT REQUIRED
[[ja:マルファン症候群]]
 
[[nn:Marfans syndrom]]
::::::Now substitute this logic into your claim that, ''"The policy is that reliable sources are required."''
[[pl:Zespół Marfana]]
::::::and it comes out to be:
[[pt:Síndrome de Marfan]]
 
[[ru:Синдром Марфана]]
::::::'''The policy is that [not required] reliable sources are required.'''
[[sr:Марфанов синдром]]
 
[[fi:Marfanin oireyhtymä]]
::::::Yes, this is a logical contradiction. Is one of my FACTS wrong? If not, why would the conclusion be wrong? It is necessary that ''Reliable Sources'' be upgraded to Policy after being properly amended. You cannot base something mandatory on something that is ''not'' mandatory. As it stands there is a blatant contradiction in reason and logic. Legalism cannot even survive in such a situation because you cannot do to opposing things at the same time.
[[sv:Marfans syndrom]]
::::::--[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 13:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[[uk:Синдром Марфана]]
::::::The flaw is in your logic, namely that Reliable sources, being guidelines, are therefore not required. Guidelines are not to be ignored, should not be stated as being not rquired, and therefore the rest of your argument fails. Guidelines offer guidance on how to reach a conclusion on something. Policy describes what to do with such a conclusion. Guidelines aren't bendable, they operate through consensus. Policy cannot be trumped through consensus. '''The policy is that (consensus defined with guidance offered which should be followed unless good reason exists) reliable sources are required.''' Hope that helps. Happy editing! [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Diligens, you're arguably making what philosophers call a [[category mistake]]. Yes, reliable sources are required under [[WP:V]], which is policy. But [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]], a guideline, is not required. What you see as an inconsistency is resolved when you realize that "reliable sources" are not the same thing as [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]], which might just as easily have been called something else e.g. [[Wikipedia:How to judge between a good and bad source]]. That is, the guideline is not equivalent to the thing the guideline is about. It's the latter that is required by policy, not the former. Ergo, no contradiction. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Rather, what "some" alleged philosophers call a "category mistake"; I don't recognize that man (who made that up some 50 years ago) as a philosopher. I am into tried and true Aristotle/Aquinas and the traditional terminology, of ''non sequitur, ignoratio elenchi, apples and oranges'' and ''red herrings'', etc. Anyway, I think I know what you are saying. Though I don't think it completely solves a discrepancy. It appears to me that there is a problem of defining terms. What is a ''verified source'' in itself? That is not completely understood by all people. The policy is not clear. Is something only considered ''verifiable'' if it is reliable? or is ''verifiable' determined on its own ''before'' it is determined to be reliable? It appears to be the first because the policy, as stated in a nutshell, ''includes'' reliability in it definition. So, something is not considered verifiable UNLESS it is reliable. And if this is so, verifiability is dependent on being reliable. However, what is reliable is seriously disputed in many cases. It is logical to say therefore that verifiability is seriously disputed in many cases directly because of this. The guideline on reliable sources surely talks about HOW to judge what is reliable, but the result of a judgment decides WHAT is reliable. It should be plainly stated what is more according to the truth - It is policy that Verifiability should be ATTEMPTED. The ''attempt'' should be policy, not BEING verifiable, because being usually turns out to be later disputed as not being from a reliable source. The rules say that ''any editor can come along and delete anything that does not have verifiability'', but since verifiability is based on what subjectively is determined as reliable or not, it means that editors can delete based on subjective and disputed reliability. That is anarchy. The Reliability page should be upgraded to Policy, and expanded to DETAIL, with verbose examples, what sources, and the parts of them, are SOLIDLY considered RELIABLE. This is a big problem with Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline currently says that court transcripts are reliable published sources, yet it fails to mention what information needs be given such a quote to allow the public to verify a court record with. It also fails to mention that court transcripts are filled with hearsay evidence right along side with actual testimony and that hearsay evidence is not reliable. The rules here are very primitive and the cause of much unnecessary arguing, bandwidth and drive space, not to mention time and money. --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 
: I think SlimV is claiming it's the fallacy of 4 terms. In any event, I read this as WP:V policy says that reliable sources be used. Whether a source is or is not reliable is determined by consensus as reflected in the WP:RS guideline. It can be a policy to follow the law even while lawyers argue about what in particular the law requires. Just my opinion, [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::[[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] I think I love you. That's what I meant to say, but put it badly. What I suggest is that we carry on as if that's what the wording means, and leave any logical, philosophical or semantical discussions for God, who, as we all know, has already disappeared in a puff of logic. :) Happy editing, one and all, and please don't take offence at my humourous tone, it is meant in good faith. I simply want to convey the point that we're worrying about nothing in this discussion. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Carry on as if that's what the wording means? In other words, pretend it's better worded? No, let's actually word it better. I've gone ahead and paraphrased [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] in a minor addition to the 'nutshell', which was rather awkward in that it didn't mention verifiability at all, as well as at the beginning of the section on reliable sources. Otherwise, I am mostly in agreement with [[User:Diligens|Diligens]], although regarding "attempting" vs "being" verifiable, yes the attempt is policy, but ultimately, so is being. Assertions that could not possibly have reliable sources cited at the time the assertions are made amount to speculation and do not belong on Wikipedia. There is of course some leeway for making an uncited, but plausible and non-libelous claim, and then adding a source for it later (within reasonable limits), and this is already addressed in the policy article.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==Self published - baby - bathwater==
I can see what the aim of the self-publish limitation is, but some self published books are authoritative in their field, for example in the field of Anglo-Saxon pennies the vade mecum was printed and published by the leading collector, with the help of (I think) the Ipswich Numismatic club. Similarly "Report on Iron Mountain" et al, have been published by relativly mainstream publishers. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'' 15:51 [[23 May]] [[2006]] (UTC).
 
:With self-published material, there is no one standing between the writer and the act of publication: no editorial oversight, no fact-checking, and so on. That's why the policy limits how it can be used. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::Of course, if the subject matter is autobiographical, it is acceptable as a reliable source. Such as what a person believes and what are the facts of his own life. --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:::With some limitations. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Does the guideline or policy explain those limitations? --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Are you commenting here on something you haven't read? :-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Apparently you are too, otherwise you would have answered me with a Yes or No. --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 13:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:There's no throwing the baby out. Where such self published sources are recognised by other sources which meet the guidance at [[WP:RS]], they are citable through that source. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 14:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::The answer is yes, the policy does explain the limitations. See [[WP:V#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves|here]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Are we talking about only about journals and accademic books here?--[[User:DrWorm|Dr.Worm]] 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:[[WP:V#Self-published_sources]] says it well, I think. [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know]] unreferenced problem ==
 
There has been some (strange to my mind) resistance to having the Did you know on the main page only allow referenced facts. For reasons I expanded on in that talk page I think highlighting unreferenced facts and articles on the main page is not what we should be promoting and violates the verifiability anyway. Please go there and comment so we can move to ecouraging the type of referenced work we need. Thanks - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:I've left a comment. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==Membership in organizations based on org's website?==
Regarding [[Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth]]: Is an organization's website considered to be a verifiable source for information about who belongs to that organization, or does members' membership have to be independently verified? I think under [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves]] it would be permissable, and would not need another source. If someone disputed their membership in the group, that would be another thing. [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби]] 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 
: Technically, [[WP:V#Self-published sources in articles about themselves| the relevant section]] of WP:V doesn't permit use of self-published sources that "involve claims about third parties" and states that "[s]elf-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic." I read that to say that the widely accepted wiki consensus means you ''can't'' use an organization's website as support for statements about who the members of that organization are. I tend to agree that you ''should'' be able to, however, and would be interested to see a discussion of whether it's possible to make a manageable change to [[WP:V]].[[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call members of an organization third parties. Unless the organization has some reason to lie about who is a member, they would seem to be a better source regarding their membership than a source outside the group. [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби]] 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
I think for reputable non-controversial organizations you can sometimes use the organizaiton as a source. In a case like [[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] I would want confirmation at least from the person themselves (which could be on their web site). I think there's a real danger of a political group claiming to have more support then it really has. Since ''some'' people would consider being a member of [[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] a negative thing, I think [[WP:LIVING]] obligates a high standard for sourcing it (even though, its likely all the people listed by them, are happy to be associated). I think a 3rd party source may be unecessary if both the organizaiton and the member agree the relationship exists. Although, I suggest, if you can't find the names of members in 3rd party sources then the members and/or the organization are probably not notable. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:I could see political or religious groups claiming people to be members who aren't. At the same time, I'm not sure when scrutiny is really called for. If a 9/11 conspiracy group claims a 9/11 conspiracist as a member, where's the controversy? If they claimed George Pataki or William Clay Ford, Jr. as members, then I would question it. Then again, if a group falsely claimed someone to be a member, I would expect that it would be easy to find a denial of membership by that person or their spokesperson. [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби]] 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
== Index of 'sources of dubious reliability' needed ==
The article states: ''sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight''. It's good theory, but how in practice are we supposed to determine that? Of course, often common sense comes in handy (tabloid vs. enyclopedia), but common sense can be a false friend too often to simply rely on it all the time. We could use an list of dubious sources, I think.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:We have to use common sense, Poitrus. A list of examples of dubious sources would be a good idea, but hard to compile, because either the publications listed will be obviously dubious, or else people will fight to keep them off the list. But feel free to start one if you'll willing to venture where angels fear to tread. ;-D [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:: A list of dubious sources is [[WP:BEANS|bean-huffing]], I fear. We have already people shouting "[[Jan Hendrik Schön|It must be true]], [[Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy|after all it was published in a refereed journal]]!". Once there is a list of dubious sources there will be cries of "It must be true, it isn't on the dubious list". [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:::LOL!! [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:That's what Wikipedia is all about - starting projects and perfecting them little by little. If you have, for instance, days upon days, upon years, upon decades of a particular publication, you start off listing statistical errors and listing the dates. Although the Wikipedia guideline tries to make newspapers look like they have a panel of people verifying what they print, this is not true. They are a private business, out to make money. They compete against other newspapers and are notorious for making haste in printing stories. They are not licensed by the state or government and we don't have to treat them as some sort of golden calf standard. Just like lawyers and politicians are notorious in their own sphere of work, and are the brunt of jokes, the newspapers are notorious for liberal slant, and mistakes. Read what Thomas Jefferson said about newspapers:
 
:<blockquote>I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.</blockquote>
 
:<blockquote>The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.</blockquote>
 
:Wikipedia should be listing as the top goal VERIFIABLE TRUTH. From there we should find rules of thumb and rules of precedence to guide us, with a constant regard for reason and logic. As it is now, using logic amounts to "original research", but that is not a proper attitude is seeking truth. And, the thing about "reliable sources" helps create a numbskull encyclopedia: one person finds a book that says one thing, and another finds a book that denies it, and then an article is written with so-called NPOV to reconcile the two that basically says to the reader, "I don't know what the truth is, here are the two sides and you can choose which truth you want to believe!". I foresee someone starting his own wikipedia on the Internet and getting rid of these counterproductive rules that are the cause of too much bickering, and cause articles to be too easily edited by later visiting editors. --[[User:Diligens|Diligens]] 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::I partially agree with you, but I'd stay away from 'truth' - it is too big of a concept for anybody to work with. The policy is sound as it is, preffering verifiability to truth, but it's the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] support pillar which needs improvement. I was specifically thinking about reliability of sources printed in certain times, places and on certain subject: that you can't always equal two (verifiable) citation or sources. Just to give you a few examples, it seems that Western publications from the Cold Era are usually more reliable then Soviet publications, Nazi Germany publications are even less reliable, and quite a lot of 19th century 'historians' used a very POVed language which should be discouraged from our 21st century Wiki. Also, if a certain issue is politicaly (or otherwise) sensitive in a given country, and that country government is known to influence the academic publications, such sources should be given less weight then a source from a more neutral country. Of course my examples are general and should be backed by academic research on given countries [[historiography]], [[freedom of press]], government power over academics, etc. [[WikiBooks]] is trying to gather information on every book, including reviews and such, but this project is in its infancy and will not be very useful for at least a few years. Perhaps a new WikiProject is needed to address a less demanding task (a rule of thumb for reliablity of certain issues in given countries in given times), but perhaps this can be intergrated into an already exisitng project. I am currently reading various Wikipedia namespace pages related to that issue, but I am sure we don't have and index like that and that it would be rather useful.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
I've always wanted some kind of classification process, so we can decide whether Rawstory or MEMRI or whatever constitute reliable sources. I agree it would be a phenomenal cluster-somethingorother, but if we were going to do it, I would recommend some kind of nomination/debate/consensus process, like RfD.[[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:That seems like a good idea. I was also thinking of collecting links to various academic reviews related to a given source. So who would be interested in joining such a (wiki?)project?--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== 'Verifiable truth' ==
 
Diligens should look here [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/truth]] to see earlier ideas similar to his. 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:Seems like a moot point, though, in the face of the current editors' positions and unwillingness to indulge the topic. Are you one of the "trolls" warned about at the top of the talk page?
:Anyway, what I am guessing is the problem is there are a lot of conspiracy theorists and holders of unpopular ideas who are very upset that other editors won't let them keep unsourced information or information from unreliable sources in an article. Their argument of course relies on the truthfulness of what they're trying to put in the article - "how can you justify not putting in what's true?" - and the counterargument is that "because I not only believe it's false, I also can't find a reliable source to convince me otherwise". It's unfair to the would-be truth-teller, sure, especially if there is a legitimate bias at work. If the policy were taken to its logical conclusion (given that no citable source has ultimate reliability), Wikipedia would be little more than Lexis-Nexis, regurgitating only whatever journalism previously sold copy, undermining its value by being counted on to reinforce widely held "truths" borne largely of momentum in the publishing industry. In the short term, though, the policy requires that people really think about what assertions they're making, and staves off the more immediate threat of Wikipedia's value being undermined by erring too far on the side of every point of view being worthy of consideration. So... *shrug* I think you just have to take consolation in the fact that the policy is currently used mainly to prevent WP from being taken over by crackpots, even if some percentage of them are actually wise men. If the day comes when every article is subjected to an audit and "unverifiable"/unpopular content is deleted en masse, then this "truth" business might be a topic to discuss at length. In the meantime, your page is a philosophical exercise that I fear will go nowhere, given the current editorial climate…—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 11:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
==Books and page numbers==
 
I think if a book is used cited and used as a source then the page number in the book should be given. Without this it would be very time consuming to verify if the source is correct and also easy to make a mistake. I had assumed that this would be clearly documented in Verifiability or one of the support guidelines. It may be there, but it is not at all clear to me. I can only find page numbers mentioned in [[WP:CITE#Harvard referencing]] as an option, but in the more general section [[WP:CITE#Complete citations in a "References" section|Complete citations in a "References" section]], it is mentioned in passing that "''This can raise serious problems for citations, because different editions may be paginated differently''" but it does not explicity mention that page numbers should be give in an example. It is left to [[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example]] to show what I mean.
# Is it specified in any of the guidlines (other than the FN example)?
# Does anyone disagree that for a full citation taken from a book, that there ought to be a page number given?
# If you agree, where should this be explicitly mentioned in the Verifiability policy and accompanying guidelines?
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 
: This is tricky. Page numbers refer to a physical book, not to the organization of the information in it. After all we use page numbers for articles to find the article in question. I would prefer chapter numbers for consistency and convenience of the reader. [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Although chapter numbers are useful Chapters can be very long and although better than just the book as a source, it could still mean lots to read. Further there is no guarantee that from one edition to the next that chapter numbers will be any more consistent than the page numbers. Generally I think page numbers give reasonable granularity and they do not often change much from edition to edition and if the specific edition is given in the References, then that should be sufficient. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:The best way is if the book exists in [[Google Print]]. In that case we can link the ref directly to the page online. Eventually all books will be in GP, I hope. Articles are a bit trickier as [[Google Scholar]] has no scans and just directs user to various databases, many of them non-free. Here's hoping for a change in copyright law that will make our life easier. For now I recommend using books in Google Print as often as possible, they are the best combination of reliablity and verifiability we have at this time and place.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font></sup> 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::References without page numbers are almost useless because editors who are unfamiliar with the book will have to do a lot of reading to verify the reference. Verification is further complicated if an editor inserts a summary of material discussed over many pages. It is thus for a good reason that [[WP:CITE]] requires editors to provide the exact edition of the book, including year and publisher; if all this information is given in a reference, verifying it should not be a big deal. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 13:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:::What I meant to say is that chapter numbers are useful in case a book got re-paginated when a new edition was issued. Amen, brother, what you say about edition, year and publisher. [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 
==Race==
 
There's an ongoing discussion between myself and an anonymous IP at [[Talk:Paris Bennett]] right now. (S)he removed "Category:African-American Singers" from the page, saying it needed a source. I reverted it, saying "Don't be stupid." (S)He changed it back, saying "Don't be racist." His/Her position is that since Paris Bennett might (a) have a genetic defect, (b) be "very tanned", (c) have had surgery to look that way (etc., etc., etc.,), we need a source that she is, in fact, African-American. Does this fall under the "obvious" category (grass is green, London is in England, people who look black are generally black), or do we need a source on the ethnicity of every person on Wikipedia? I compared it to trying to find a source for gender. Do we have any proof that she's a woman? How do we know she isn't a robot? Should we assume all of these things until proven otherwise? [[User:The Disco King|The Disco King]] 13:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 
:If you have reason to believe the challenge is not legitimately motivated, then ignore it. If it is a topic that is really important, others (with less of an agenda) will challenge it properly. I believe the answer to "How important is it to verify this?" trumps "How much effort should we put into providing ways for people to actually verify this?". In your case it's not much of a risk that you'd need to do that, but other types of personal identity are a little bit touchier - there are a lot of Wikipedians out there who are eager to slap the words "gay" or "Jewish" onto biographical articles, for example, and in those situations, challenges and the need to cite sources, as well as weighing the importance of making those claims at all, become much more of an issue.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
==Self-published sources==
Further to my comment above, I made a small edit to [[WP:V#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves|self-published sources in articles about themselves]] to render it consistent with [[WP:V#Self-published_sources|self-published sources]]. Does anyone have any thoughts? Thanks, [[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 
: Looks reasonable. I made another edit to make it clear that professionals shouldn't stray from their speciality. [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 22:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 
== "The burden of evidence" ==
The article states "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." If one editor places a referenced information in an article, but reference is hard to obtain, is it reasonable to expect the editor to post the original passage the information was taken from.
 
Whatever the answer, I think this section mighe be made more clear.--[[User:DrWorm|Dr.Worm]] 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==What is publication?==
Following a debate at the talk on [Socialist Party of Great Britain] article, a question arose over what constitutes publication. the article in question deals with a subject where most sources are going to be gry literature at best - and some sources are matter that is available to the public via contacting the organisation - i.e. as sole publisher. So, do reports within organisations that are available to the public count as published? And do internal documents of organisations count towards the verifiability requirement (they are official and vetted but not strictly third party, unless you count members as being theird parties to corporate bodies)?--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 
==Is the RS content a summary of WP:RS, or policy?==
As I mentioned (perhaps not phrased very well) in other comments, this policy article is getting a bit deep into explaining the topic of reliability of sources. I've grouped all of that discussion under a single section heading (it was misfiled under "burden of evidence") and added an introduction to say what relationship reliability has to verifiability on Wikipedia, and to state that the reliability criteria given here are (at the very least) ''summarizing'' the WP:RS guidelines.
 
However, some of the material here is going beyond just summarizing the [[WP:RS]] guidelines for the benefit of understanding verifiability; it's actually elevating those guidelines to policy status (which may be deliberate), and perhaps also subverting the guideline consensus process. For example, the recently added implication that all blogs are inherently unreliable seems to have been added here out of momentum, not consensus over on WP:RS. If there is consensus that some WP:RS guidelines are to be canonized as policy with respect to verifiability, then it should be clearly stated in this policy that that is what is going on. If that's not what's going on, then I feel this section needs to be trimmed down a bit so that it's clearly a summary, and more emphasis placed on referring the reader to WP:RS, which in turn would need to rely less on WP:V.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
: Some (most?) of Section 3 "Reliability of sources" has probably a more suitable home in [[WP:RS]] IMO. We'll have to re-align what [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] say about self-published material, too, currently [[WP:V]] has the more lenient view. [[User:Dr Zak|Dr Zak]] 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
::That's more or less what I'm thinking. Relating RS guidelines to verifiability is deliberate and necessary, but if specific guidelines are going to be mentioned, they should be a summarized, representative sample of the more solid guidelines from WP:RS, no?—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 
 
== Definition of term ==
Has anybody looked at the actual definition of [[verifiability]] lately? You may find it means something different fromn the WP defn! 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what your point is. The link you reference is (as of this writing) a redirect to [[Formal verification]], which is a specific term of art, and not the normal English meaning of the word. The WP usage is also a term of art specific to the project, but even so is nearly identical with normal English usage. A claim is verifiable if an interested reader can verify that the claim appears in one or more sources that are cited in the bibliography and/or notes of the article. Sounds very close to the normal meaning to me. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 
**I thought about this some more, and realized that the article on formal verification is ''apropos'' after all, and that what we are talking about is indeed analogous to formal verification. '''Validation''' would be trying to determine whether an article (or portion thereof) is true. Wikipedia does not attempt to validate. '''Verification''' is determining whether the article has been written to specification: an NPOV rendition of what can be found in reliable secondary sources. We attempt verification by looking up the claims in the sources cited. A verifiable article allows this. Non-verifiable articles are prohibited as a matter of practicality: absent citations, the process will not work. So, now I am even more at a loss what Light current's point is. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
 
===Dictionary definitions ===
 
Verification to me means the establishment of TRUTH! (Latin - veritas = truth?) Verifiability therfore means the ability of something to be established as truth.
Verifiable:
*able to be verified.''
 
Verify:
*to confirm, or test, the '''truth''' or accuracy of
*to cause the '''truth''' (of something) to be percieved
*(law) to affirm at the end of a pleading , the '''truth''' of (matters alleged in the pleading
*(law) to substantiate by proofs
REf Longman Modern English dictionary, Longman 1976
my bolding.
 
There seems to be no doubt that verifiabilty involves truth from these defintions. Therefore the policy as it stands (Verifiability NOT truth) is nonsense! Thats all Im saying 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:Playing devil's advocate here, that dictionary could be outdated or just plain full of crap, or could be omitting some definitions, such as the one used here in Wikipedia. Yet, since it's heavily edited, perhaps peer-reviewed by nature, widely cited, and published by a reputable company, I am pretty confident that it's a reliable source of information about definitions of "verify" and "verifiable". Or at least, I am confident that, ''to the extent that it makes specific claims'' about those topics, it is a reliable source, and therefore whatever ''paraphrases of those claims'' are made in Wikipedia are ''"verifiable"'' by WP:V criteria. The distinction is that WP supposedly eschews pretension of being an authority, itself, and rather claims to be "true" only to the extent of "we have it on good authority" / "it comes from a reliable source". The dates that claims are made, both in WP and in cited sources, make a difference, too; what is true today may not be true tomorrow, or may be found to have been untrue all along, and WP must still be able to report on it responsibly in the meantime. Personally, I think it could be argued that WP:V is a half-arsed form of testing and ascertaining a level of "truth", but I suspect that that particular philosophical argument is a dead horse around here.
:Having said that, I do feel that if verifiability has a common definition and connotations in the real world that render the Wikipedia definition rather counterintuitive, then we have a responsibility to address that point in the policy article.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Yes but the phrase 'Verifiability not truth' is, by the above definition, patent nonsense and should not be used in any policy statement. If we cant get the main catchphrase right, what hope do we have of everyone understanding the
details of the policy? The verifiability 'policy' is in such a hell of a mess right now and needs rebuilding from the ground up with ALL users involved in discussions.
 
A good place to start would be to choose the right words. 'Verifiability' is not one of them (unless you mean affirming the truth).
 
I suggest two new words:
*Referencablity (or 'referability') and
*Truth
Of course WP is not interested in the truth at the moment -- I think it should be. --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
==Are these edits contentious?==
Since in my recent edits some content was rearranged, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&diff=56203241&oldid=56019726 the diff] looks a bit more drastic than it actually is. [[User:Francis Schonken]] reverted them, explaining "found no real discussion about this on talk". I'm a bit mystified by this, as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AVerifiability&diff=56213037&oldid=56025804 clearly did] raise the issues or chime in on the already-raised issues here. I suspect that either the diff looked too drastic or the discussion points on the talk page were too buried, so I will list the exact changes here, along with their rationale:
* As I mentioned above, the entire article dwells quite heavily on reliability and citation of sources without adequately relating those to verifiability. In particular, the 'policy in a nutshell' fails to mention verifiability at all. I came here to refresh my memory on what the verifiability policy was because I was about to beat someone over the head with it, and was surprised to find no clear reason given why the article seems to be rehashing [[WP:RS]]. I consulted this talk page and found some explanations buried in the discussions along with the ludicrous sentiment that "we should just carry on as if it's worded (the way we mean)" (see comments by Block, Gimmetrow). I'm satisfied with the explanations, but not with the fact that they're buried on the soon-to-be-archived talk page rather than reflected in the article. The reason reliability is the focus of the article should be made clear by ''explicitly'' relating reliability of sources to verifiability. Also, something I didn't mention is that it also implies that citing sources is sufficient to ward off challenges. To address both issues, I changed ''Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed'' to ''Any material that is unsourced or obtained from unreliable sources is not considered verifiable, and may be challenged and removed.'' Is this really that contentious?
** Just want to clarify that I didn't say the "carry on" phrase quoted above, and don't necessarily agree with it. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
* As I mentioned above, the "Sources" and "Burden of evidence" sections seemed to be sloppily arranged. "Sources" began with a summary of a few of the major guidelines from WP:RS, and a reference to WP:RS for details. This was followed with "Burden of evidence" as a subsection, referring to WP:CITE for details. After that came "Sources of dubious reliability" and then "Self-published sources" and then the very awkwardly worded "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" subsections, all of which further expound upon the topic of the intro paragraph, leading one to wonder why this continuation of thought had been interrupted by the "Burden of evidence" section, and also in parts seeming to exceed the realm of summarizing, instead getting into material that should be (but isn't, really) covered in WP:RS (such as the blanket characterization of all blogs as inherently unreliable). However, I knew better than to make any substantive changes to address the latter two issues without prior discussion, so I raised the topic above, under the "Is the RS content…" heading. I do, however, feel confident that the strange arrangement of topics could be addressed with a bold edit, which I undertook:
** I made a formatting change to the intro paragraph/summary of WP:RS to make the items drawn from WP:RS be a bulleted list rather than prose. This helps better offset it from the material that follows, and makes it easier to keep it in sync with WP:RS.
** I added an introductory sentence to lead into the list. It explicitly relates 'verifiability' to 'reliability'. It reads as follows: ''An essential component of the verifiability policy is the reliability of sources; information from an unreliable source is unreliable, itself, and is thus unverifiable. Whether a source is or is not reliable is determined by consensus as reflected in the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] guideline, which is partially summarized by the following''. '''The latter sentence is almost verbatim from the Block/Gimmetrow consensus above.'''
** I moved the "Burden of evidence" section, which is about ''citing'' reliable sources, out to its own section, thereby allowing the rest of the "Sources" section, which is about ''reliability'' of cited sources, to flow nicely and be consistent in topic.
** I retitled "Sources" to "Reliability of sources"
** I added ''"for example, a Wikipedia article about a notable person may reference that person's self-published material"'' to the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", which I otherwise am hesitant to touch. The fact that this section is confusing is mentioned in discussions above.
As I said, I left the more severe issue — the fact that WP:V contains material that should be hammered out in WP:RS — as a topic for future debate; my edits only dealt with making it clear to the reader that WP verifiability is defined in terms of reliability, and cleaning up the organization (but not the content) of the "Sources" section.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
My major problem with the series of updates is that it promotes the idea of reliable sources to a point it gives the impression that [[wikipedia:reliable sources]] would (already) be a policy. Well, it isn't, and there are several reasons for that. Of course [[WP:V]] is very related to [[WP:RS]]. But the qualification of that relation was OK the way it was. So I revert to that version. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:What qualification of that relation? The relation was not explicitly stated anywhere at all. I made no attempt to change the degree to which the idea of reliable sources was promoted, and I didn't change the relationship, I merely stated what it already was (but which took digging through the Talk page to figure out). You're shooting the messenger.
:The policy was titled "verifiability" yet there was no mention of the term "verifiability" in the 'nutshell', where it belongs more than anywhere. Instead, the policy avoids stating what it means and just launches straight into a discussion of reliability, and seems to rehash/overlap WP:RS. You should be asking yourself "how could he come away with the impression that it's rehashing WP:RS" or "how could he read this policy and think RS is policy, not guideline" — gahh, how could one ''not''?
:Similarly, when you say "''and there are several reasons for that''", you seem to imply that I should be aware of what those are. Are you not listening? '''They're not mentioned'''.
:The reader should be told outright, not left to infer, what the connection is, and how RS is still just guidelines, not policy. Being explicit is especially important since WP's definition of verifiability is not typical. We must make it clear to them why the "verifiability policy" appears to have nothing to do with verifying the truthfulness of anything and everything to do with adhering to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Yet when I did this, based on info taken from what appeared to be consensus here, it was information that you did not want to hear, and you blindly reverted it twice.
:(''venting'') The pride, heavy-handedness, and deafness with which this policy's cabal of core editors dismisses debate is disturbing. Trolls, people who don't want to cite sources, and perpetual motion machine enthusiasts aside, the volume of people coming here to discuss unclear concepts and suggest changes to the way the policy is expressed in order to make its intent more clear, let alone make changes to the policy itself (which I was not attempting to do), should be sending you all a message that the policy is ''not'' that well written. There are articles I thought I crafted very well, but when someone comes along and adds or rewrites something that strikes me as perhaps substantive but unnecessary or reflecting a failure to understand something that I thought was obvious, I usually don't just revert the edit and move on; rather I try to figure out how they could've read the article and come away with the impression that they needed to make that edit. Then I make changes to the article, accordingly. If they happen argue with me on the talk page, I'll state my case and let the discussion go on as long as it has to. I'm getting the distinct impression that around here, such patience is a rarity, and every newcomer who doesn't think every nuance of the policy is clear is considered an ignorant fool by default. (''done venting'')—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 10:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Reply to mjb's comment on my talk page:
* This page ([[wikipedia talk:verifiability]]) is better suited for discussing this than user talk pages I suppose;
* This page ([[wikipedia talk:verifiability]]) is also the page that is probably best used to see whether there's [[wikipedia:consensus|consensus]] regarding proposed changes to the [[WP:V]] policy page, and/or to try to find such consensus. Currently there's no consensus that warrants a change in that sense to the WP:V policy page;
* WP:V currently has<blockquote>''For more details on this topic, see [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]''</blockquote>under the [[WP:V#Sources]] header. So the link to [[WP:RS]] is clearly there (and is mentioned also in some other places of the WP:V policy page). Also such link "qualifies" the relation: the other page gives more detail, without asserting that that "detail" qualifies "reliable" in absolute terms. In my opinion such links of WP:V to WP:RS should neither be ''more'' stressed, nor ''less'' stressed, nor otherwise reformulated than it is done currently. None of the above appeared convincing enough to me to start supporting the proposed changes.
In other words, your reading of the present content of WP:V seems missing some of the content of that page. Not the right foot to get started on if wanting to ''modify'' that content, I suppose.
 
Note that the modification procedure for policies (and guidelines for that matter) is somewhat different than for articles in main namespace. The basics regarding the ''modification/updating of policy'' are included in [[wikipedia:how to create policy]]. So, for instance, if you think the "policy-in-a-nutshell" formulation unclear or otherwise inappropriate, simplest is to propose a new formulation on this talk page and see whether it meets community consensus. If you think the change was self-evident, and implemented it, then it stops being self-evident if someone disagrees and reverts (like, for instance, I did). Then discuss on talk. Just a tip: if discussing on talk, try to "convince" other wikipedians. Loose accusations about cabals and the like are usually not the most "convincing" arguments.
 
On the other hand, the fact that the "policy-in-a-nutshell" formula doesn't use the word "verifiability" or "verify" once, is a convincing argument (to me at least). Only, I'd draw another conclusion than you do. Instead of going still more heavy-handed on the "reliable (sources)" in that template, I'd for instance propose something in the vein of replacing the template's first sentence ("Information on Wikipedia must be reliable") by something that better reflects the first paragraph of the policy text, for instance: "Wikipedia should only include information that is ''verifiable'' with reference to reliable external sources." --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:(Just addressing one of your points here; no time for the rest till later) - ''For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources'' is essentially [[Template:Main]], and indicates to any semiregular user of Wikipedia that the section is an overview/summary of a topic that is more comprehensively and (given that it's a guideline) more ''authoritatively'' defined elsewhere. Yet the section does not stop at summarizing WP:RS and referring the reader elsewhere, it actually gets into quite a bit of detail (a mistake often made in regular articles) and I believe accidentally sets forth ''as policy'' certain RS criteria -- this accidental elevation in status arising due to their presence on the policy page without explicit clarification, and due to the absence of certain ones from the RS page (which says "see WP:V for details" basically). It seems nonsensical that you and others would assert here that that's not the intended interpretation, yet simultaneously shun my stating the intended interpretation (that they're not policy but are guidelines defined in WP:RS) on the policy page itself. I also actually see no reason to mention details of WP:RS whatsoever: If the nuances of RS, such as the relative reliability of different types of self-published sources, are truly guidelines in the WP sense of the word, then they should be relegated entirely to WP:RS, and not be restated and risk being accidentally elevated in status on WP:V.
:Also, on your talk page, I was not asking to move the discussion there; I was just supplementing my public response with a semi-private one. After I wrote it, I ended up coming back here and making similar updates to my public response, so they ended up looking very similar. Sorry for the confusion.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Reply to TheronJ's comments on my talk page, regarding the self-published sources: sorry, I reverted something as part of the whole. Anyway, my basic assumption is that the details about self-published (and on-line) sources should be in the [[WP:RS]] guideline, while it's practically impossible to sort that out in detail on "policy" level. So I've been bold (let's see how long this stands...) and:
*Moved the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" to the WP:RS guideline *including* the additional clarification by you which I removed together with my reverts regarding the statute of WP:RS. Note that I *kept* the other paragraph about self-published sources on the WP:V policy page;
*I extended the title of that section (self-published and on-line are not synonyms in all cases, the section is on both)
*I included a deep link to the (also renamed) section of WP:RS that treats online/self-published sources.
Hope this helps. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
: * I have reinserted the large part you excised. There is a place in WP:RS which seems to quote WP:V ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources here]). This exact quoted text no longer exists, however it was the text that developed into the list that was removed (back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&diff=54696820&oldid=54659087 here]). WP:RS needs some editing accordingly. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on [[Talk:Fedora Core]] ==
 
I have been asked to mention [[Talk:Fedora_Core#POV_no_matter_what_you_write.3F|this discussion]] here. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:By your own admission, you made the statement ''Many of the administration tools in Fedora Core are written in [[Python programming language|Python]] - an object oriented language that makes programs easy to maintain, but like most "scripting" languages is slow to execute.'' in order "to hint at the fact that [Python-based rpm update tool] [http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum/ Yum] simply crawls compared to other update tools".
:The swipe at all of Python was of course too broad (although as a huge fan of Python, maybe I'm not the best person to comment), and the only way to get away with saying it's "slow" is to make an actual comparison, as fully qualified as it needs to be (slow compared to what, under what conditions), which you almost ''have'' to draw from and credit to some external source in order to comply with [[WP:NOR]]. Even if you use the "some say…" weasel-wording, it can't be ''you'' who's saying it.
:I'm not the keeper of the verifiability policy (a point which is obvious from my diatribes above) but in this case I think you first need to better ascertain what it is exactly that you want to assert (e.g., that certain versions of yum under certain conditions are slower than some other tools and/or user expectations), and why it's important to include this claim in the Fedora Core article (which also affects how you phrase the claim), perhaps making your case on Talk:Fedora Core since your motivation is already suspect. Assuming it's ''really'' important to include, it shouldn't be too hard to find sources. :Look: http://www.google.com/search?q=python+yum+slow — lots of FC users and even developers are self-publishing claims about yum and FC's update system being slow. Weigh the reliability of these: there are lots of complaints about symptoms (slow updates when using yum) and there is speculation as to the cause (yum's fault, FC's fault, Python's fault), some perhaps misinformed, but some coming from positions of relative authority. If these are the best sources you can come up with, ''and if'' there is consensus, which you might test by just posting them, that these sources are reliable enough to support ''that particular claim'' in the context of the FC article, then adjust the claim's phrasing to qualify it appropriately; don't just say "yum is slow" and attribute it to random idiots on the Internet. It should be more along the lines of "One of the update management tools bundled with Fedora Core, yum, drew criticism among FC users in 2005-2006. Relative slowness compared to other update management systems and Linux distributions was reported, and users speculated that the problems were attributable to issues with either yum, Fedora Core, Python, or some combination thereof. As of June 2006, it was not clear whether yum or FC developers were investigating the issue, or whether the symptoms were even affecting all yum users, just those on FC, or some subset thereof."
:The fact that the sources are self-published does diminish their reliability for any claim, given that edited and peer-reviewed sources may be available, but I personally am against the blanket characterization of such sources as being universally disqualified for all claims. For the claim "yum is slow" those sources are arguably not reliable enough. But for the more heavily qualified claim, they're ''more'' reliable, and your concern is more just "how important is it to put it into the article?". When considering importance and how to phrase the claim, try to anticipate the slowness being fixed tomorrow or being found to not be yum's fault or Python's fault but rather perhaps caused by misconfigured systems and user error. The claim you make should be just as verifiable ''then'' as it is ''now''. Does this help?—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
 
== Terms ==
I think the term 'verifiability' (which means the property of being able to confirm the truth) should be replaced by the word 'referability' which means you can find a published source (reference). Comments?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I understand "verifiability" as a reference to the possibility of the material in question being verfied by other editors by checking the source. It is the property being able to confirm the accuracy of an edit compared with the source; I don't think the word has anything to do with truth. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
I think it does have to do with truth!
===Dictionary definitions ===
 
Verifiable:
*able to be verified.''
 
Verify:
*to confirm, or test, the '''truth''' or accuracy of
*to cause the '''truth''' (of something) to be percieved
*(law) to affirm at the end of a pleading , the '''truth''' of (matters alleged in the pleading
*(law) to substantiate by proofs
REF: Longman Modern English Dictionary, Longman 1976
my bolding.
--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:I interpret "verifiability" in light of the first bullet point: to confirm, or test, the truth or '''accuracy'''. Verifiability should be about the ability of other editors to confirm the accuracy of an edit, i.e. whether the edit matches the source cited. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 21:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Yes but the way the policy is written implies that finding a reference is what is meant by the word 'verifying'. THe word doesnt mean that as I have demonstrated above. Therfore the word in the policy should be changed. 8-|
--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
::What is the "truth" being confirmed? In NPOV style, many statements look like "A says B happened" (reference C). The truth that A says that is verified by checking source C. If there is no debate about B, then the article will likely say "B happened" because any reliable source should confirm that. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
What Im saying is that in the WP:V policy, the term 'verifiable' is not the right word to use when we mean being able to find any old reference. 'Verifying' actually means 'establishing the actual truth of a statement or assertion' as in my above dic defs.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Would you quit trying to create controversy where there isn't one. The policy exactly fits the definition "able to be verified". That's what references are for, both that other editors can verify the material if desired and the reader can too. That's what references are for. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Im afraid your just not getting my drift! The fact that you can find a reference to something doesnt mean that you have ascertained its truth. THe reference could have been written by any idiot! 'Verifying' means ascertaining of confirming the truth of a statement. I would have thought that that was self evident.8-(--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
*And I'm afraid that you're missing the point. The only test of truth available to Wikipedia is that there is a consensus (or near-consensus) among those who possess access to the evidence, the training to evaluate it, and have spend the necessary time to do so. That's it. A few special (and relatively unimportant) cases aside, that is the best tool we have. And, assuming the Republic of Letters is doing its job, it is the most powerful tool that has ever existed. It will err, but it will err less often than the biasses and largely amateur analyses of random Wikipedians. We are here to report on what the experts believe: in most cases, that will be Truth, or at least the best approximation of it available. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
I agree with your sentiments actually! All Im saying is that the slogan '''Verifiablility not Truth''' is gibberish. Because verifiability means ascertaining the truth!. Look at the dic defs i put up! To make proper sense in English, the slogan should read: '''Referencability not truth''' 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:That's because the dictionary definition plays loose with the word truth like most people do. Still nothing to see here and you've demonstrated no problem and nothing valuable about making a change. Please stop. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
OK thats what you think. I was replying to [[User:Robert A West]] actually. I wonder what others may say. BTW do you always butt in and try to silence people with whom you disagree? 8-((--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:The way the policy is written is the way everybody understands verifiability, and as you can see from the above discussion, your idea finds little support. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
::I agree with Taxman and Pecher. I think that your efforts are misguided.
::*You state that you approve of the policy, just not the wording, so you are making a semantic point.
::*To justify a change in wording, you must first show that the current phrasing causes harm: that it is widely misunderstood or fuels many flame wars or something of the sort. I see no evidence of this.
::*Your proposed alternative is semantically horrible. The transitive verb "reference" means "Make a reference to," hence the coined word "referencability" would have to mean, "Able to be referenced in other works."
::You have failed to convince -- you ought to consider that your opinion may not be the truth on this point and move on to something more useful, like championing the policy as intended. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Actually I ''dont'' agree with the policy statement but your derived definition of 'referencability' is exactly what I had in mind! However, 'able to be referenced in other works' does not necessarily guarantee the truth of a statement - does it?
 
Anyway, I was just pointing out that the policy statement is not self consistent. If you, and other admins, cant see that, I cant help you any more! 8-(
Theres no need to get worked up and hyper defensive about this - anyone else would think you were [[paranoid]]. Im sure you, like all other admins, are not 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
*I am not an admin. (Should there be an abbreviation for that? IANAA?) I just care about the project. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
I didnt say you were! (paranoia?) i care about the project too to the extent of putting a hell of a lot of time into it! [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Light_current&dbname=enwiki]--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
*Not paranoia, the ability to read English. "You, and other admins ..." "You, like all other admins ..." [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Thats your intrepretation only! The phrasing is deliberatly ambiguous--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:If you think that phrasing even slightly ambiguous, then your knowledge of English is defective, and you should not be raising semantic issues or trying to rephrase policy until you have learned better. Consider the phrase, "John Doe, like other child molesters..." No one would think that ambiguous for a second. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
There is nothing wrong with my knowledge of English. Its your lack of view! I didnt know whether you were an admin or not, so the phrasing was appropriate. Anyway who are you to tell me about my use of English when you dont even know what 'verifiable' means? Humpty Dumpty?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:Please don't take offense. Given your points as raised and defended, I have two choices. The [[WP:AGF]] option is that you are well-meaning, but have several wrong ideas about Standard English. I regret having to be blunt, but I saw no reasonable choice. Your semantic games are neither well-done nor constructive. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
No offence taken! But perhaps my use of the English language is more developed than yours! Since we are in [[Humpty Dumpty]] land, I consider what I wrote to be fair! BTW I '''am''' well meaning: its just that people dont appreciate my subtleties. Pls see my user page to find out more about me 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== Policy wording ==
I would like to propose that we replace the word 'verifiable' by 'referencable' and the word 'verifiability' by 'referencability'. I would be pleased to hear peoples comments on this proposal.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
: This seems to me to restrict the meaning of ''verifiable'' to a form of positivism. Also, I think the word would be ''referenceable'', but I can't verify it. :) [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Yes 'verification' means establishing the truth of something 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
*Verifiability is the right word. Strictly speaking, what is being verified is that the article faithfully reports what its sources say and that the sources are considered reliable. If one insists on mathematical terminology where it does not belong, a Wikipedia article is a meta-claim: a claim about claims, not a claim about the truth. We leave those to professional scholars. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:*This type of repetitive unhelpful argumentation is exactly the type of thing that brought about [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière]]. Light current has a remarkably similar pattern of argumentation. Light current appears to enjoy painting that as silencing, but it's more about stopping behavior that grinds useful discussion to a halt. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
Do I detect a threat here? You must be paranoid as well!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== Self-published sources ==
 
A sentence in the section "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" says: "''Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic.''" Looks like this sentence contradicts the section above, which says that self-published material by experts in the relevant field are sometimes acceptable. Due to this contradiction, I'd propose to remove the sentence that self-published sources are ''never'' acceptable; "sometimes" is just fine. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup>
 
: You're right, this was pointed out [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Conflict_on_use_of_self-published_sources.3F | above]] My apologies if the deletion I reverted was supposed to fix that issue. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
::OK, I'm removing this sentence. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
: I've been looking through the history pages. This point was addressed and fixed on May 30, but the fix was lost on May 31 when the page was reverted to an earlier version. I intend to reinsert the corrected sentence, which said "Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above." [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== Suggested Policy ==
 
WIkipedia needs a better way to stop page vandalism. Why not restrict changes so that changes to pages must be suggested and then approved by at least two other members? This might make it slightly harder to change pages, but it would cut down on incidences of somebody editing a page just for the sake of putting up something stupid that they think is funny. Yes, a dedicated vandalist could get around it with sockpuppet accounts, but just by making it harder we will stop most casual vandalism.
[[User:24.91.251.108|24.91.251.108]] 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 
== A Useful (I hope) Question ==
 
I have run into a situation on [[Army of the United States]] where the citations provided are to publications of the United States that are for internal use only and hence not available to the general public without justification. (Apparently the documents are perfectly huge.) This IMO makes the whole article unverifiable, but the editor in question keeps insisting that I can just call a certain phone number ask to speak with Customer Service. AGF that this is a valid number, I imagine that I would be told where to go very quickly.
 
While it is obvious to me that these types of sources violate policy, finding a clear citation to that point eludes me. The other editor keeps pointing out that the sources *are* published, while I keep pointing out that they are not generally available, which is what I take publication to mean.
 
Is this made clear somewhere? Does it need to be? Or is this a special case that is unlikely to be repeated? [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 
:BTW, the specific situation seems to have finally resolved itself amicably, with additional sources being provided. Nevertheless, I find the case interesting. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Unless an editor can in principle get a hold of the source, the fact is not verifiable. Can I go somewhere, a reading room etc and get access to it to read it? If the answer is no because I'm not an Army employee of the right class etc, then it doesn't sound like a valid source to me. The example we usually use to show that it doesn't have to be easy to get a source to be verifiable is a limited edition book where the only public access is at a library reading room in Ireland for ex and you have to look at it only there only for certain limited hours. That is considered a valid source, because anyone (key difference) could in principle go there and see it. But that example is about at the limits of what does count as a valid source. If only a few people can get access to the source it's not verifiable. Seems like a good question to me. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Ok, now you have me thinking, so here's some more, yet again. Re-reading your post, it seems to be that anyone could get it if they provided justification (or were willing to pay the printing costs which is standard for govt sources). If that's the case then that would tend towards being a verifiable source. But if there is a significant reason that it is not designed for public consumption (such as they're not willing to stand by it) ''other than size'', then that would mean it passes the able to get a hold of requirement, but not the reliability part. So more detail would be needed. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)