Template talk:Unreferenced

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unreferenced template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 September 1. The result of the discussion was keep.

Template:Unreferenced is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

A list of persistently discussed material which illustrates how current consensus came to be can be found at this subpage.

[edit] Maintenance messages should be externally purposed, too

The messages on the cleanup maintenance tags are primarily directed at WP editors. Shouldn't they communicate the specific concern to readers as it relates to their perspective as well? For example, the Unsourced tag should more clearly alert the average reader that the article or section contains unverified and unsourced statements, and the reader should take that into consideration; the request to editors should be secondary (although the automatic inclusion in a category broadcasts the alert nicely).

Suggested rewording (new text bolded):

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Readers should be aware that some content is missing citations and may not have been verified as coming from reliable sources. This may affect its accuracy and stability.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

I mentioned at this the Template messages Talk page a while back with no response, so this may not be a high profile topic. However, I think that we editors tend to be insular and forgot there is a whole world of WP users who actually use WP for reference, research and entertainment. We should ensure pertinent maintenance tags address their concerns first.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make the above suggested wording change to this template.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) {{editprotect}}

Not done. Sounds like a disclaimer. --- RockMFR 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it a disclaimer. It is clarifying the issue to the casual reader. A reader (as opposed to an editor) may not fully understand that a notice that appears to be meant for editors only has an impact on his/her understanding of the articles content.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No disclaimers in articles states: Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information you receive from Wikipedia is correct and has been verified. Check the references at the end of the article. Read the article's talk page and revision history to see if there are any outstanding disputes over the contents of the article. Double-check information with independent sources. Yes, this does warn the reader that accuracy is not guaranteed, but it also directs the reader to "check the references at the end of the page." What if there are no references at the end of the page? It seems to me that the disclaimer focuses on situations where the article appears to be sourced, which is not the case for citations-needed tags. If it is redundant to warn about accuracy when sources haven't been supplied, how come it's okay to have {{disputed}}, {{current}} or {{POV}} when the same policy states, "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING"? Wouldn't those templates duplicate the Disclaimer? Those templates do not even specifically ask for editor assistance, but appear to be directed at the reader.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

These templates indicate the status of the article with respect to our policies and whatnot. The addition you are asking for is solely for the purpose of warning readers, something that they should be able to do by themselves. --- RockMFR 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blank line

{{editprotected}}
Remove line break between and }} to avoid vertical space as in [1]. -- Lea (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specified time

Generally speaking, what is an adequate specified time that a new article or stub be marked with this template if it is to be helpful instead of obtrusive? I ask because I see many users seemingly abuse/tag a new article as soon as it's created. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add it as soon as possible. Even the person creating the article could add it if a specific reliable source is unknown. Tagging articles with this notice is not abusive: it is an alert to editors asking for help in improving the article, and a notice to readers that accuracy and verifiability may be issues.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separating verifiability and reliable sources

{{editprotected}} Would it be more helpful to wikilink to WP:V as well as WP:RS within this template, despite that the former contains links to the latter. Might be a more direct and expedient way of helping new users who have just created articles to navigate. Wisdom89 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This ones needs more people commenting before implementing. I would be against adding the guideline WP:RS to the template, the policy WP:V should be enough. Garion96 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that would be the feeling - I thought WP:V might be enough too, but then I thought about those those who would benefit. - new users come across the template after they create a page - if they are directed to verifiability, the might be loathe to read deep into it, but by providing two links which contain overlapping information, the message might be more easily conveyed. Of course, then it becomes a question of redundancy. In that case, would WP:RS just suffice? Just my two cents. However, I do see your point. Wisdom89 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Just a heads-up: potentially relevant discussion at Template_talk:Refimprove#Dual-purposed. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placement

Can we get consensus on placement, so it can be included in the documentation? This should clearly go at the top of an article, as with all other maintenance tags that describe entire articles. Based on what I've seen, placement in an empty References section is practiced mainly by inexperienced editors, doesn't make any sense, and isn't helpful. If there's a problem with an article as a whole, especially a serious issue like a complete lack of references, that's something people should see right away, at the top. It's at least as important as something like copy-editing required. Just because references have their own section doesn't mean the tag that describes their lack belongs someplace different than other maintenance tags. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:14, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I used to put it down the bottom, but up the top is a good place - both as maintenance template for editors and warning template to readers. - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The top of the article is the best place for article-wide maintenance tags. Placing it on the talk page is especially problematic, because it hides the warning from most of the people who need to see it. --M @r ē ino 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All main issue templates for article should be placed at the top of the page - sometimes they can be obtrusive and in your face, but with articles are poorly organized or badly in need of help, this is an essentiality. However, if the template refers to a specific section, that's where it should go - bar the reference area. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording suggestion: third-party

I want to make this template's meaning more obvious to casual readers, e.g. those who think "there's references to this thing, look, there's a link to the project page!" I want to make it clear third-party sources are considered pretty important.

e.g.

Or perhaps "third-party" should go in the second line of text:

Any thoughts? I appreciate the problem of barnacle-like creep of subclauses on previously clear statements and templates, and the importance of avoiding such, and am personally fond of clearing such out ... but I've been tagging quite a few articles whose references are the home page for the topic itself and which, although arguably encyclopedic, could really do with a third-party reference or two - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor/small text is rarely paid attention to - your first example is clear and unambiguous. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Third party sources are much better but often I am glad enough that an article at least has a reference. Even if it is not a third party reference. Garion96 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You might as well include secondary sources then as well. Might be better to have the template encompass primary, secondary, and tertiary. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This template has been used, for some time, to indicate articles for which there are no references provided whatsoever. It does well at that task. If the issue is that better references are desired, that's the role for another template, not this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially echoing my thoughts. Nicely put. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, see Template:Primarysources. --- RockMFR 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useage on image pages

I've noticed that this template is in use on many image pages. My first inclination it to remove these uses, but I know that the image side of Wikipedia has its own complex rules, and I want to make sure I'm not trampling on any of them first. --M @r ē ino 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some of the tags were added when the images don't give a source where the image was obtained. You could tag these with {{no source}} instead; be aware that will start a deletion process, so you should notify the uploader if you add that tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at one of the images, and it was a coloured data map whose content I don't remember. The image had a source and a free license, but I think the tagging was because the image and the editor-prepared information contained within had no references. That seems, at least in passing, to be a legitimate function of this template. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to tag such images with {{Original research}}--BirgitteSB 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny stubs

Could we add a small, strictly-a-suggestion info box to the usage template that says something like this?

Alternatives

Consider searching for references and adding them to the article, instead of this template.
Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles.

I don't want to set out any strong rules here -- just to remind editors to "be bold" and to hint that this tag isn't particularly helpful on two-sentence-long dicdefs-with-possibilities, especially if the only edit to the article during the entire last year was the addition of the ref template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've merged this box into the documentation. I also made the existing when-to-use statement bigger and easier to spot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No more categories?

It seems that a recent edit has removed all the default categorization for articles tagged with this template. Perhaps I missed a discussion for this change, but otherwise it seems like a mistake was made. If that is the case, please revert or fix. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The pages are still categorised, but (I think all) the categories used by this template are now 'hidden', and they are listed at the bottom of the page in the edit screen, just above where categories usually are, or you can change your preferences in the 'Misc' section to show them on all pages. Most maintenance categories which do not aid navigation are now hidden using this new feature (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Technology report#New features). The recent edits enable categorisation to be disabled so the tags can be placed on pages for demonstration (such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup) without categorising the page. matt br 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is the stupidest template: why not delete it?

Really ... once the first citation is inserted into an article, the template is no longer correct. I think the template should be deleted immediately, since the "refimprove" template does the job much better and is not immediately outmoded when action is taken to comply with it. Tony (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking a further look, there's a big bold notice on the template page that says: "This template should be used only on articles that have no sources", followed by "In articles that have some sources, but not enough, the refimprove template should be used instead."

The implication is that as soon as the first citation is inserted into the article text, this template should be removed and replaced by the refimprove template.

I put it to you that it would be better to start with the refimprove template. Why not delete this one?

Have you looked into the names of the categories that these templates use? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think is useful to have a separate category for those article without a single reference. It is a red flag that there could be larger issues. Also I think stubs should have at least one general reference as to show notability but I don't believe {{refimprove}} is appropriate for stubs. From your approach here I doubt you are open-minded about this but for the record I would definitely oppose grouping all the articles from here and {{refimprove}} into one category. --BirgitteSB 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it relevant to point out that the "big bold" text was neither big nor bold two days ago, but in general I'm with Birgitte: it's sometimes useful to be able to find articles in a zero-refs category instead of a someone-wants-more category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand about stubs, but for larger articles, the maintenance issue is important: as currently worded, the template becomes obsolete on first strike. Perhaps it should be explicitly framed for stubs and its use for larger articles discouraged. Tony (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No referencing templates at all should be put on stubs; the stub tag is sufficient. I don't see why it's a problem that the template becomes obsolete when a reference is added. The addition of even a single general reference on an article is an important step in the article development process, and this template is meant to encourage that step. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, doesn't the refimprove template encourage the same thing just as well, without the impediment of almost immediate obsolescence? Tony (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest a re-write of either template which makes you feel more content about their purpose in sorting articles into two different catagories.--BirgitteSB 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Most cleanup templates become obsolete when they are handled - {{capitalization}}, {{wikify}}, {{copyedit}}, etc. The point of the templates (if there is one) is to indicate the specific problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Most cleanup templates are still accurate until work on the issue has finished. This one is wrong after the very first move. Tony (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think refimprove does need to be changed. It's fine for all purposes. Tony (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For {{unreferenced}}, another logical next step is {{prod}} due to lack of references. For {{refimprove}}, that's not so logical. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that is a theoretically good approach, and I think it is not. That approach is practically a very bad idea. It will gain more critics and trouble than you can imagine. Be careful not to use {{prod}} unless something is an obvouis hoax, or unless you are very experienced at taking things through AFD and know for certain what would garner no opposition.--BirgitteSB 13:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken dozens of articles through prod a month or two after seeing the {{unreferenced}} template applied, and only rarely had to step up to AfD - that's what comes from watching Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. Most of the time, the article has no particular value, and nobody cares - which is exactly why {{prod}} was created, IMHO. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Tony1, I basically think that if you don't like this template, then you are free to not use it. Other editors should have the option of using it at their discretion. I consider the likelihood of this template being deleted so small as to make WP:SNOWBALL relevant. We could go {{Round in circles}} on this, but I think that useful discussion is over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Um ... that's like saying if you don't like the prose in that article, don't read it. I have no intention of ever using this template. The issue is its immediate obsolescence, and the need for other WPians to have to change it to refimprove after the very first citation is entered into an article. I still say delete it. Tony (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, then you may certainly propose it at AfD. I suggest that it would be a waste of your time, but as far as I am concerned, you are free to make that choice. Of course, I also believe that further chatting about it here is also a waste of your time -- as chatting about your dislike of this template cannot have any practical impact on the template's continued existence -- but perhaps you find value in this discussion that I can't see. If that's the case, then as far as I am concerned, you are free to make that choice, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And what a waste of time your contribution is. I do feel strongly, but suffice it to alert people here that I will advise others to use refimprove rather than this silly thing whenever the issue comes up. Tony (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I tend to view refimprove as less useful. Its problem is that it doesn't say what needs to be referenced, so there's no concrete action that can be taken to resolve it. I prefer for people to simply leave a comment on the talk page explaining what issue they have, and I've been known to remove the refimprove tag soon after it was added if the article appears to be adequately referenced and no specific concerns have been raised. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove "additional" from refimprove—it's just not necessary—and get rid of this "unreferenced" template completely.

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Most articles that have insufficient (or no) citations and need a tag have a general problem. Otherwise, "fact" tags can be placed at one or more specific locations in the text. Tony (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Placing multiple act tags are in fact depreciated if they are used in multiple places if the problem is more general. They are intended for asking for a reference for a single disputed fact. Of all the article improvement templates in Wikipedia, I would say that this particular one is the most important and the most necessary. The first step in upgrading WP is at least catching and provided some references for the ones that do not have any. Its the minimum needed to enforce one of the core policies, of Verifiability. There are some policies or guidelines that I and others think perhaps mistaken or too stringent or too permissive, but the basic need to have some sort of evidence for the material in the encyclopedia is the primary reason why we can be trusted even as a ready-reference source. I think there is about 99% agreement on this one, and I am startled at an attack on it.

By the way, the next logical step after using thi template is not prod--we do not delete articles for having no references, we look for references and only delete them if we can find none after a reasonable search. Putting prod on articles that seem referenceable is a very poor idea unless one can document that there are in fact no apparent print or online references. Deleting unreferenced articles merely for being unreferenced has been repeatedly rejected by the community. DGG (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy

Is there any copy of this template? --Filipinayzd (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why references redirects to unreferenced??

Hello, I don't understand quite well, why {{references}} template redirects to unreferenced template? I think, it should be a list of references template, by ex: ==References== <references/> --serhio ^talk 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For reasons lost in history, the template that expands to a <references/> is {{reflist}}, while {{references}} is "references are lacking". Big job to change now. (BTW, I'm assuming you wanted "nowiki" above, rather than "code"....) --Alvestrand (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

old →

← new

Description: Please replace Image:Question book-3.svg with Image:Question book-new.svg. I believe this is an uncontroversial edit because the images are fairly similar. I think that this new image reflects the colour scheme of the template a little better, and the image looks cleaner (note the visibility around the top of the question mark), and is smaller in filesize. Template:refimprove has already started using this image too. Thanks in advance! _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Though I bet the servers weren't too happy about it. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki redirect

Please fix The it.wp link should be to Template:F. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move the date's location

Move:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}

To after:

removed.

Remember to add a space between the period and the date. This is to conform with other templates, which have the date at the very end of the message. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah I also just realized that the extra small is unnecessary, so replace:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}

With:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''}}

Gary King (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Sorry, missed checking back here. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we add a category

Resolved. The cat. is already there.

to this template so that we can easily track what articles need to be cited?^MY♥_INchile 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are categories, but they are hidden on the actual articles this template is used on. See Category:All articles lacking sources and the montly subcategories like Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006. Garion96 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ah, i see. hey is there any way to make the hidden categories be seen? or separate navigational/reader categories from procedural/editorial ones?^MY♥_INchile 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see the categories normally by going directly to the category, but not on the article page itself. Only when you click on "edit this page" you can see a box with in there the info on transcluded templates and the hidden categories. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (This template is a potential merge-to or redir-to.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can a different language wikipedia be the sole source?

There are several articles like Lasalle, Gard, Fressac or Cornillon that have "Based on the article in the French Wikipedia" as the only reference. Is the {{Unreferenced}} tag appropriate for these articles? Or is the French Wikipedia valid as a sole source? — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what others think, but I personally do not object to having references to other Wikipedia articles or other Wikipedias if there are no other references to use or if an article was based on another article or other Wikipedia, because I believe that even a weak or non-realiable reference is still better than no references at all. However, referencing Wikipedia is an example of self-referencing, and such self-references cannot be considered "true" references. If somebody wants to use them, they can only be considered a form of "intermediate" or "imperfect" weak references just to enable the reader know where the information they read comes from (and, of course, to enable them read anything with a grain of salt). Imagine if somebody based something on another Wikipedia article and put no references at all, some readers would assume that the writer wrote the article based on their experience and my believe that the writer thought that they knew what they were doing. However, if a (Self-)reference to another Wikipedia article is added, then the reader is warned that the information they read is simply a "copy" from a source which is unreliable and cannot be trusted as a "real" reference, so the readers can take care in their use of the information they read. Thus, I see self-references to other Wikipedia articles or other Wikipedias as warnings, or intermediate references until something better can be found, rather than "true" references. As such, I consider that it would be appropriate to say that an article only citing Wikipedia as a source can still be considered unreferenced, even if it contains a References section, as long as the only reference given is Wikipedia. However, this obviously doesn't apply in translated Wikipedia articles if they contain the original references given in the other Wikipedia. NerdyNSK (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I found my answer in WP:SPS: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than that. For example if I write "Heathrow is the largest airport in Britain", it is more "likely to be challenged" (WP:PROVIT) than "Heathrow is the largest airport in Britain". But if someone does challenge it then one can either argue the toss on the talk page or add a citation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style tweaks

I've made some tweaks to the sandbox to match the styling used on similar templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done The Helpful One 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

This template does not belong to category:cleanup templates. It is very difficult to track it without being listed there. Someone needs to add it to the category. --GP Pande 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to the more specific category of Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates. What are you trying to track? — Satori Son 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template incorrectly refers to unverifiable material

Unverified information may be removed. We do not require that the information be unverifiable before removal. This is the heart of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence; the burden is on the editor wishing to include challenged or likely to be challenged material to verify it. While we do have some Wikipedia mores urging editors to attempt to find sources before removing unsourced material, this does not turn the burden on its head, and the template should reflect the policy. Given the massive number of articles this is transcluded in, I came here seeking feedback before making the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the proposed change is not consistent with common practice and consensus. It has been repeatedly shown at AFD that a merely unverified article will be kept and that the nominator must try and fail to find sources before the article will be removed.--BirgitteSB 17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating deletion of article norms with removal of unverified information norms. What happens at AfD with respect to whether an article is verifiable or not and thus should or should not be deleted is not relevant to the framed issue which speaks to WP:BURDEN, which is the standard this template directly invokes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This template is about entire articles, not about pieces of information. If you remove the unverified information referred to by the template you will be blanking the article as this only applies to articles where no sources are given at all.--BirgitteSB 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is neither here nor there because the removal, per the template and the policy it quotes in shorthand, is not applicable to all material, but specifically to: "

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged [which] must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

" (emphasis added). It goes on to say: "

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging..."</nowiki>

" This is long standing policy with bedrock consensus and is expressly not about unverifiable material but unverified material. The whole point of the policy section is that the burden is on the person seeking to keep or add the challenged information to source it, and it is no small thing that the template perverts the very policy it stems from. This is not discordant, and should not be confused with, the deletion standard that the subject of an article be verifiable (rather than verified).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This template is not used to mark "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged ". It is used to mark articles without any sources, changing this template to say "unverified material may be challenged or removed" is not good. None of the information in these article is verified and changing the language in a way that might encourage people to blank them or put them in AfD for containing only "unverified information" is a problem. So don't make the change that you proposed, because it does not have consensus. --BirgitteSB 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is simply factually incorrect, as a simple reading of the template shows. The template says there are no sources, and material that is challenged may be removed, given that state of affairs. Willfully ignoring what it says gets us nowhere. Whether the template should remove the express language from WP:BURDEN entirely is another matter, but if it's going to invoke that policy, it cannot function to reverse the burden by requiring information be unverifiable before removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You very well may disagree with me, but claiming that I am "willfully ignoring" anything is out of line. However much I disagree with you, I assume that you believe what you state is true. I expect you to extend this same courtesy to me. Since you cannot manage that; I have no interest in further discussions with you.--BirgitteSB 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the template goes, I agree, the point of the template is that no sourcing is provided in the entire article, so every disputed or likely-to-be-disputed claim is up for removal, since its source cannot have been properly indicated. AfD is about deleting the whole article, not specific content within it.

However, I don't think "unverified" is a good word choice. There is no policy that says that material in an article needs to be verified. It just needs to be sourced properly. There is no need that any editor or reader actually verify the source. If someone tries and fails, they can mark it as such, remove the false source or even the claim etc., but there is no policy saying they must try.

I think the word choice "unverifiable" reflects this fairly well, and is in agreement with the name of the policy itself, WP:V. However, I'd be fine with "unsourced" instead of "unverifiable". I definitely think that "unverified" sends the wrong message, as if there were official WMF censors who go through articles verifying them for foundational appropriateness. JackSchmidt (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe simpler wording would help? I've noticed lots of new editors take {{unref}} as if the article was scheduled for deletion. Here is something simple:

One doesn't want to say too much on it, because most articles without sources are already pretty bare and need lots of work. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That works for me--BirgitteSB 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing it to remove WP:BURDEN entirely seems like a good solution. It is slippery for users not very familiar with the ins and outs of verification, sourcing, deletion etc. to understand how they interact and don't interact, and without the full quote from the policy it is apt to confuse (I can see many users thinking "what does "challenged" mean in this context?"). However, the change cannot say "please help make this article verifiable by adding..." That's a non sequitur. An article is either verifiable or it is not. Citing sources proves that information included is verifiable, and lack of sources, after looking, is evidence that information is unverifiable, but whether information is or is not verifiable is an unchanging state of affairs (except by new sources coming into existence). An article subject or information in an article can be ''verified by addition of sources, and sources can help verify" an article's subject or information in and article, but whether the subject or information is "verifiable" exists regardless of whether it has or has not yet been shown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

I think this addresses your concern about "verifiable" being objective and true/false, and handles my concern that verification can only be done individually by each user. There is no official stamp of approval, "this article has been verified" thing. Why would anyone trust such a thing on a wiki? To me WP:V is a core policy because it answers the fundamental objection to "an encyclopedia anyone can edit": how can any reader trust its contents when anyone can write and rewrite the articles? Answer: the only material included is taken from reliable sources which are cited inline for easy verification. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what stamp of approval you're talking about and I think we're talking past each other because that suggestion still suffers from the same problem. Is it possible we have different understanding of what verifiable means? Verifiable means "capable of being verified." You would not say "help make this article more easily capable of being verified"; we "help verify an article by citation to reliable sources" and an article "is verified by citation to reliable sources." In any event, I don't think three users are enough for consenusus on removal of WP:BURDEN entirely from the template, given just how high use it is (though we're now 2; I've driven away BirgitteSB with my characterization of her post). I think I'll advertise a bit at the village pump later.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about "more easily verifiable," but disagree that adding a citation makes a claim verified, either objectively or practically on enwiki. Verification is done by the consumer of the article, the end-user, the reader, not by any editor (and this is supported by the wording in WP:V). Practically speaking, there are way too many objectively false statements with inline citations (for instance in mathematics articles). However, the reader can themselves verify the claims by going to the sources, noting the mistakes made in the wiki article, and coming away with useful knowledge. If the mistakes are particularly egregious (such as, the reliable source does not even address the claim), then there is a nice template, {{failed verification}}, for them to add, and in fact some of us at WP:FACT go around routinely to do this.

How about:

Having a rough draft we can agree on provisionally is a good idea before proposing at VP. What do you think about this? Should it mention the "inline" part of citation, or just be general? JackSchmidt (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points (unindenting):

It's true that sources may be miscited and that they allow a reader to check themselves whether a citation verifies what it's cited to verify, but sources either verify what they purport to verify, or they do not, objectively. It is customary usage on Wikipedia to use verify as a verb mean "add source(s)", and verified as the past tense thereof. However, I would like to take a different tack (below), that sidesteps the whole issue.
If the language from WP:BURDEN is going to come out, what's wrong with just keeping the current language? "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources" and appending "Verifiability of information is one of Wikipedia's core content policies"? That way we still invoke WP:V explicitly without the y / ied / iable suffix issue rearing its head.
I started this with objection to the use of unverifiable in the template, when that places the burden, prior to removal, of finding and citing sources on the person challenging the material, which is directly the opposite of what the invoked policy section says. Maybe we can keep it almost the same but get rid of the issue by using the language from the companion template {{Refimprove}}, which states "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." In fact, this template in prior versions contained similar language: "Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time." (prior version). I also note that both of these formulations, speaking of "unsourced" material, rather than material for which no source can be found, bolster my point that unverifiable in the current formulation is erroneous.
To boil this down, I suggest, if we are to mention WP:V explicitly but get rid of the WP:BURDEN invocation:

And if we are going to invoke the language of WP:BURDEN, without using the V word in any form:

I prefer the latter and I think we should be mentioning the burden. No matter how much we link to policies, only some small subset of people will actually look at policy page and distill it. So, if we don't mention it in the template itself, it's lost on many. I also think getting rid of it is likely to be controversial. I also like your idea of adding inline citations in some form. So my final and preferred suggestion for the moment is:

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:V does not require material to be sourced, only to be verifiable in theory. Only quotes and things that are challenged or likely to be challenged "need" to be sourced. Uncontroversial facts that clearly could be verified in reliable sources do not need to be explicitly sourced. If a change is needed in the template here, the last sentence could be removed entirely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As already stated at VPP, I agree, but the template is invoking WP:BURDEN, challenged material can be removed if unsourced, not unsourceable. See third template up for suggestion of what to replace the last sentence with, if WP:BURDEN material is to be taken out of the template entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Fuhghettaboutit's last suggetion is good. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Books

For the new Book feature on Wikipedia, I think that this template should be added to Category:Exclude in print.

--Wyatt 915 ✍ 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is done. The documentation for Category:Exclude in print clearly indicates this template should be added. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably that goes in from Ambox? Rich Farmbrough, 17:34 4 March 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Table

How about adding a new parameter, table, for templates that would accompany an unreferenced table? "This table doesn't cite any...". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unreferenced|table}} works already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit requested

Could someone add ({{Findsources}}) before the closing . Kevin (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some opinions on that first. We don't want to litter our articles with google links. I can accept that on {{BLP unsourced}}, but I'm not sure if we want that on all unsourced articles. --Amalthea 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Would seem a sensible solution. I'm unclear if any downside outweighs the added nudge for editors to find and add sourcing. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What about maps?

As discussed at Template_talk:Fact/Archive_5#Version_for_maps.3F, we could use an unreferenced template which would say "this map is unreferenced". Also, we could use an inline version of {{fact}} to tag map captions in the articles to note that a map is unreferenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unreferenced|map}} should work, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Although I'll note we still don't have inline version for captions - consider how many people actually bother clicking on a map picture to go to map page and will therefore not see the large template... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag would need to be rendered with the image at whatever resolution it's reduced to in thumbnail version to really work or be forced into the caption somewhere. Unless it appears immediately in the article it's not much of a warning as most in-article renditions of maps are large enough to not require clicking through to the full size image. PetersV TALK 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have the means to add a tag to the image itself, but a citation needed and similar tags for captions seem feasible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to change wording

This template has recently been changed to include the wording (ideally, using inline citations). I would like to propose the removal of that phrase:

I feel this may put off new editors (and maybe others) from adding references as the Wikipedia:Footnotes page is fairly intimidating to a new user (try reading it whilst imagining that you are new to wikipedia). Whilst I can understand the need to encourage users to use inline citations, I feel it is better for an article to have some sort of references than none at all. An article that is referenced but lacks inline citations can be tagged with {{No footnotes}} or {{More footnotes}}. We should encourage editors to add references and then maybe ask them to improve them once the article is referenced. The guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources which this template links to, states: Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred. with respect to how to present citations (inline or not).

I have no problem with the phrase being used on {{refimprove}} as inline citations would be an improvement and the article is not unreferenced. I just feel that including it on this template does no good. For example: if an article had the unreferenced template on it but had a reference the template would be removed or replaced whether or not it had inline citations, however the (ideally, using inline citations) text in the template may put some users off adding refs to an unreferenced article due to the apparent complexity of doing so. This could leave an unreferenced article unreferenced due to lack of knowledge of how to do inline citations rather than lack of available sources.

Any thoughts?

ascidian | talk-to-me 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point Ascidian. I want to encourage use of inline citations but definitely not at the expense of causing some to forego any, and you may be right that if a user sees that they may throw up their hands and not add a general reference that they might have in its absence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that someone at least read this - I thought either I had proposed something completely insane or that no-one else cared!. As this thread is moving rather slowly, I have notified the editors that took part in the discussion that led to this change of this new proposal. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to (or should) remove the phrase... It isn't saying that inline citations are manditory... only that they are the ideal way to do it. It is good advice. We want new editors to learn how to format proper citations, and the Template points them to a page that can teach them how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the word change. For a completely unsourced article; a few references at the bottom in bullets points is still a significant improvement.--BirgitteSB 17:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the new wording. I think the old wording is better. It ties in much better with WP:PROVEIT --PBS (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) Philip, if you mean because the proposed insertion would encourage new editors to believe that generalised references at the bottom are a solution (and inline citations only "ideal", i.e., less than essential), yes, the insertion would be undesirable. There is no escaping the need for specific inline citations. Tony (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For stub articles, and articles substantially based on a single source, I feel that the push towards inlnie citations is a distraction. I would prefer the reworded template (that is, without the "inline" part). --Alvestrand (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tony1 that is exactly my point. Alvestrand See Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1#Usage revisited this template is not meant to be used on stubs.

From the history of the article "15:20, 2 May 2009 Fuhghettaboutit (This is a long standing version, just not the last.. WP:V is non-negotiable and cannot be overruled. This overrules it. Unsourced material not unsourceable material can be removed per WP:BURDEN; leave offf inline citiation prod per discussion)". The version I reverted too was the Revision as of 17:23, 4 March 2009 which was also the version that [user:Garion96] reverted too before me. The wording of the version of 4 March 2009 was unchanged from at least November 2007.

So user:Fuhghettaboutit please show me through the edit history how you justify the statement "This is a long standing version", because AFAICT it is not. I suggest that you gain consensus for changes before making them. --PBS (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" is not an improvement on "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" because I think that the older wording better sums up Verifiability in its whole. But let us discuss it further and see if there is better wording which we can all live with. --PBS (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is an imporevement and a crucial one, because the former says the opposite of what Wikipedia:Verifiability says. Specifically, material does not need to be unverifiable (unsourceable) to be challenged and removed. It only needs to be unverified (unsourced).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This one goes to the heart of Wikipedia's verifiability policy afaic - global references are often too hard to check for volounteers with limited time or interest. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". There is a quick guide to useing refs - Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use -

Yes it does go the heart of verifiability. That's the point. The policy states that unverified material may be challenged and removed, not unverifiable material. That turns the burden on its head. That's all this is about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to use

A simplified explanation is given at Help:Footnotes

Place a <ref> ... </ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
Place the <references /> tag or {{Reflist}} tag in either a "Notes" or "References" section as explained in the Guide to Layout — the list of notes will be generated in that section.

The ref BOT will often add titles, leaving the finessing to more experienced editors. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 07:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that inline citations are a definite improvement on global references in an article especially in terms of verifiability. However this template should be used only for articles with exactly zero references, so I think that any hurdles to add a reference (global or inline) should be avoided, as any form of valid reference added must be an improvement? It is the same volunteers with limited time or interest you note above who might be put off by having to add refs with inline citations rather than a global ref and then do neither, which would leave an unreferenced article still unreferenced. ascidian | talk-to-me 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Should the template employ "unverifiable" or "unverified"?

This is a dispute over which word to use in the high-use template, {{unreferenced}}, "unverifiable" or "unverified" to properly invoke WP:BURDEN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable mean not able to be sourced.
Unverified mean not yet sourced.

Verifiability is one of our core policies and its subsection, WP:BURDEN, provides that:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles.

The disputed language in the template is the WP:BURDEN invoking: "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." That present construction, using unverifiable as opposed to unverified, functionally reverses the burden of WP:BURDEN. What it says can be restated as: "Material that cannot be sourced may be challenged and removed." By so stating, it requires the person challenging the material to show it can't be sourced. The policy says the opposite. It is the person wishing to add or restore material that has the sourcing burden. That's the dispute in a nutshell.

Upon changing the word to "Unverified", I was reverted. Discussion was had higher on this page and a bit more two sections up. I eventually settled on changing it to an equivalent of unverified—unsourced as at least one person objected to either verified or unverifiable. Note that for a time, approximately April - June, 2007 the template existed at various versions which properly invoked the burden, then stating "Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time."

On June 26, 2007 "unsourced" was changed to the non-equivalent "unverifiable." From then until now it has persisted with versions of that language, with no one apparently commenting or showing they noticed the change.

In any event, WP:V is core policy and cannot be overruled. I believe this bowdlerizes it and I think getting this right is important—WP:BURDEN is important; thus stating correctly the burden when invoking it is important; this template is transcluded (as of this writing) in 127,664 articles, and it is more likely that a new user will see the burden through this template at the top of an article they created, than they are to actually visit the underlying policy page it invokes. I am being stubborn on this because I have seen much conclusory statements that unverifiable is better, but none providing any trenchant reasoning why it is better or why I am not correct, and I think this is a serious matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This template has always been poorly worded, and this is just one aspect of that; of course it should be "unverified". In addition, I was howled down last year when I complained about the awkward wording "This article does not cite any references or sources", which would be neater and more formal as "This article cites no references or sources". A third, overarching problem, is that as soon as a single reference is added to a tagged section, the template becomes wrong ... plain wrong. That is why I've been advising editors not to touch this one with a bargepole, and instead to use {{refimprove}}. Tony (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The template is not poorly worded. It reflects the current policy that material must be verifiable, not verified. This is not some poor diction, this is an important policy distinction. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To say there was a dispute between unverified/unverifiable is a mischaracterization. My objection was that it is problematic to prompt people to remove information that is "not yet sourced" from an article known not to have a single source, which is of course everything. However I don't support the template saying "unverifiable" either. We should be prompting people so search for sources on this particular template rather than prompting them with language which is about more fine-grained situations. --BirgitteSB 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- BirgitteSB My original post sought the change from one word to the other, only. That's all I sought. You were the first responder and objected. Maybe you misread it then?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Disagreeing with your proposed change != supporting no change at all. The RFC summary describes this a choice between unverified vs unverifiable, when in fact there was significant discussion about removing the language from WP:BURDEN entirely. And there were proposals made that contained neither word.--BirgitteSB 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    - That's true, but only because you objected to my change of the one word, and others commented, so I sought other ways to accommodate people. I wanted the change of one word; I still want the change of one word; it's all I ever wanted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    - I would support some of the versions above that don't mention WP:BURDEN. But I really think the template is OK right now. Gigs (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely leave it as unverifiable the policy is named "verifiability" not "verification". As it says on my user page "The idea that people are not free to add unsourced knowledge goes strongly against the entire idea of a wiki. Unsourced is not the same thing as unverifiable." Leave the template alone, it's fine the way it is. Gigs (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gigs, instead of simply championing unverifiable, can you respond to the fact that the template invokes WP:BURDEN, and apparently changes the burden by its use of that word? That's the sharp issue. You seem to have a problem with WP:BURDEN by your statement. But that doesn't change the fact that this template invokes it on the one hand, but says something inimicable to it on the other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Your understanding of WP:BURDEN is incorrect. Material that is verifiable may not be removed, regardless of its current sourcing. Looking at the above conversation, this was pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people. This is a long standing and community wide consensus, and attempting to change it on the talk page for a template is not the right way to go. Gigs (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    - No. Simple and objectively. WP:V states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." If you want to change the policy, fine, but that discussion doesn't belong here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      - You can't take a single part of a single sentence out of context and present that as the entire policy.
        
        "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."
        
        That's a far cry from what you are implying. The only way you can possibly get your interpretation is to ignore every other part of the policy and only look at that sentence fragment. That doesn't reflect what the consensus is. The policy is verifiability, not verification. Gigs (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        I am not implying anything. I grow weary of this and this is all sidetrack which I shouldn;t have bit on. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." How could it be any clearer? You are a not a new user by registration but you only have 670 edit to articles so you probably don't see WP:BURDEN in practice very often for its uncontroversial, plain meaning. So you want to see consensus as to what it means? Okay. Here's multiple links to people applying it for its straightforward use. 1, 2‎, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The burden is on the person who wishes to keep challenged material to find sources. Not the people challenging the material. The template's use of the one word over the other switches that burden.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon reviewing WP:V in totality, I think Fuhghettaboutit is exactly correct about this. The meaning of what he quoted is not changed by the qualification cited by User:Gigs. That section essentially merely recommends reasonable efforts to warn editors and even try to find sources prior to removing unsourced material, but it does not require it. The absence of source is sufficient cause to remove material, period.

I see no substantiation for Gigs' assertion that: "Material that is verifiable may not be removed, regardless of its current sourcing." That is not stated or even implied in WP:V nor in any other WP policy, AFAIK. Even the part Gigs quoted contradicts this assertion: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object...". Sure, they might object if you remove it, especially without warning, but that does not at all mean it "may not be removed". Further, Gigs' assertion flies in the face of Jimmy Wales himself:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales ^[1]

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It should read "~~Unverifiable~~ Unverified material may be challenged ~~and~~ then removed." That would better reflect the process in the context of a completly unsourced article. Of course, if it is a biography of a living person with no sources, just nominate the article for deletion.

I realise the process is different when someone adds a silly claim to an otherwise decent article; those can and should be deleted on sight. But that is not the context this template is used in. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the 1st word, agreed, tho "Unsourced" or "Unreferenced" would be better - someone can "verify" something without actually sourcing it if they're not used to the WP jargon. I don't agree with "then", since removing unreferenced nonsense is itself the challenge, and some editors don't consider their unreferenced silly edits to be nonsense. The burden should be on the people trying to turn the encyclopedia into Usenet or a messageboard. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-06t16:05z

The purpose of the template is to alert editors that there is a problem with the article, to wit the article needs verification. It warns them that if no verification is fourthcoming information might be deleted. The template must be seen as a step in a process. At the point in that process when this template is added, the unsourced information is in a sort of "Shrodeger's cat" state... it might be removed and it might be kept, depending on whether it is eventually sourced.

Now, what happens after the teplate is applied is a different issue. Ideally, the person who adds the template attempts to fix the problem and find sources... however, he/she is not required to do so. The burden falls on those who wish to add or retain information to source it. On the other hand, simple courtesy demands that we give our fellow editors a reasonable amount of time to do so.

This brings us to the "unverified" vs. "unverifiable" debate. Our policy states that unverifiable information may be removed. That means that, if there is a reasonable belief that something can be verified, we leave it. However, the contrary argument is also true... if there is a reasonable belief that something can not be verified, we may remove it. If, after tagging the article or statement, and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to provide sources, no sources are forthcomming, then it is reasonable to reach the the conclusion that no sources exist... and that the information is unverifiable. We may at that point remove it.

In other words, we maintain a balance between immediate removal and everlasting retention of unsourced information. With this ballance in mind, "unverifiable" is the better wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar wrote "if, after tagging the article or statement, and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to provide sources, no sources are forthcomming, then it is reasonable to reach the the conclusion that no sources exist... and that the information is unverifiable. We may at that point remove it." Sorry, but I disagree. It might be apparent that potential sources exist, but that examining them would be more work than any volunteer editor is inclined to undertake. For example, it might require examining the laws of every state of the U.S., traveling to a library to examine a manuscript, or reading a source in a foreign language. So it isn't necessarily unverifiable, it just requires more effort or expense than any of the participating editors care to undertake. Of course, the material may still be deleted after a reasonable period of time; if the adding editor didn't see fit to brag about all the wonderful source-based research he/she did to justify the claim, it is reasonable to assume that he/she didn't do any source-based research. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BURDEN goes both ways. The majority of text on Wikipedia is inadequately sourced, but nobody complains or removes it. Once some text has raised suspicions, it is incumbent on the uploader to provide verification, but this goes outside the scope of the template. The template is for unsourced articles, but the removal of the text is not because it is unsourced, but because the remover feels that it is untrue. This means that the remover's WP:BURDEN is to have done some research to see if it cannot be immediately verified. The template should read "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." Joey the Mango (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If potential sources exist (such as laws, rare manuscripts, or foreign language sources) then all it takes is a note on the talk page to that effect halt the process. However, once a challenge has been issued (ie the template has been placed on the article or a fact tag has been placed by a statement), there must be a good faith attempt to find sources. The burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep information, not on those challenging it. The only question is how much time is given for that good faith attempt (I would be very generous, as long as someone is engaging me on the talk page and requesting more time). That said... please note that throughout my comment above, I make use of the term "reasonable". What is reasonable will differ from article to article depending on the nature of the unsourced info. My point is that there is a ballance between inclusion and exclusion that is best achieved by using "unverifiable" instead of "unverified" in the template. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To say unverifiable is to make the template useless. You cannot show anything is unverifiable, even in our sense, without examining every speck of printed matter in the world. The balance is real; but it is implicit in may, which we could do worse than emphasize. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the template useless? The template notes that the article unreferenced and needs to be fixed. The comment to the effect that "unverifiable information may be removed" is simply cautionary... warning editors that stuff might end up being removed unless it is fixed (in this context I take the word "may" to indicate a potentiality rather than permission). Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it arguably does make it useless as a warning that material might be removed, given that "unverifiable" is technically unprovable. It takes the teeth out of it (which may be why some favor it). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great discussion folks. A lot of good points. The problematic sentence in question currently says:

"Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."

I understand Gigs' point about what the policy is, but in the context of this template there is no reason to reinforce that.

What if it states something like this instead:

"Unsourced material that is challenged and remains unsourced may be removed."

Yes, in some cases, unsourced material may be immediately removed, but this template has no application in those cases. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking on my last comment (that in the context of the template, we want to express potentialiality and not permission), and Born2cycle's good suggetion above... perhaps it would better reflect what mean if we were to say:

"Unsourced material that is challenged and remains unsourced might be removed."

This would accurately warn editors of the potential result of inaction, but leaves everyone some flexibility of action. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As the RFCer, to coin a verb, I want to note that I for one am very flexible as to a solution. I had previously suggested getting rid of the invocation of WP:BURDEN entirely as a solution, as well as replacing it with something which simply flags the verifiability policy but not its burden subsection: ("Verifiability of information is one of Wikipedia's core content policies."). What I just can't stomach is the fact that it very specifically invokes the subsection of the policy dealing with the burden but reverses it. Blueboar's suggestion of "might" seems like a decent contender because the word takes the emphasis off of any present conflict with the unsourced material (it hasn't yet been challenged).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, leaving "unverifiable" in there is untenable. It must go.

Another candidate:

"Unsourced material that is challenged and remains unsourced may and might be removed."

Note that this says nothing about unsourced material that is not challenged. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The important information is in the first sentence and like {{Refimprove}}, I think the second sentence should be , because the first sentence is a warning to readers, while the second is maintenance aimed at editors and as such could just as easily be on the talk page. I don't mind if it remains as it is or if the second sentence of {{Refimprove}} is used. --PBS (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree about , and I think there is something to be said for using identical wording in both templates (so only the first "big" sentences are different). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave as unverifiable. Hello? Miles of problems calling, apparently your can of worms is here. Unverifiable means no source exists or could exist, etc. With mountains of books and news media, scholarly works and other texts locked away presently we have a major information gap that defies that certain subjects are inherently notable and source-able and don't need to be removed simply because the book isn't in front of you. Sources do exist they jsut haven't been plastered up and down an article. The present sourcing expectations have changed considerably since even a few years ago. Encourage more sourcing not more deletions and edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 11:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- If something is labeled as "unverifiable", that strikes me as a declaration that the tagged statement can never be verified -- even ignoring the impossibility of proving such a negative, I should think that any content which will never be verified should be removed as a matter of course. Simply labeling something as "unverified" is a much simpler charge, with fewer such implications. The easiest way to demonstrate a statement's verifiability is and will always be, of course, to verify it, so why not invite that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  - The practical issue is how such statements are unfortunately used in contentious manner. Similar to an editor adding dozens of fact tags to content they wish to be deleted, similar to editors deleting entire paragraphs because each sentence didn't have a ref on it. Despite general references, which is still a common practice, being on the article. From being on the other end of this where someone wikilawyers to delete material for whatever reasons forcing others to stop what they were working on and repairing the damage I can assure you that logic only plays a bit role here. The moment you open the door that something that is unverified can be deleted ... it will. It won't be pretty. It will be mass slicing through content with little regard to prose and what serves our readers, it will be chop-shop writing that resembles a committee that each wrote a sentence with a ref because only a sentence with a ref will stand a chance to survive. It will sadly be a degrading effect where someone on a mission will point to a word and says "this says i can and nothing says I can't so chop, slice, delete," this really foretells many contentious problems ahead I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 11:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

- - - My attitude is that a template that contains a condition that is impossible to fulfill is null and void, and I am free to ignore it and/or delete any instance of it that appears in an article. Since it is impossible to search all the publications in the world to determine if a claim can be verified, the template is null and void; it is the template that should be deleted, not the material in the article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had editors say ridiculous things like "I challenge every statement in the article, therefore every sentence must have a reliable source" WP:BURDEN should not be taken as a license to change the verifiability policy into a verification policy that requires every statement in every article to have a cited source. This template should not reinforce that idea either. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- What's ridiculous? It's de-facto standard, love or hate it. And if a sentence combines info backed by different sources, it goes deeper. Sure, if a whole paragraph is lifted off a single book it's simple, but it's not always so simple.NVO (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think both of the following statements will work: Unreferenced material may be challenged or removed or Unverifiable material should be challenged or removed. They both mirror what happens here. On the one hand material that is impossible to verify shouldn't be here at all and it is every editor's duty to remove such material. On the other hand, regarding information that could be verified yet currently isn't; editors still can challenge this and noboby should reinsert the material until backed up by a source. I prefer "unreferenced" myself as an article here is only as good as the sources currently in it, not the sources stacked away in libraries that none of the article's writers has bothered to consult. Them From Space 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The first suggestion works just fine. The second suffers from exactly the same problem the current one does. By saying Unverifiable material should be be challenged or removed" you are saying: "material for which sources cannot be found should be be challenged or removed". This leads to only two possibilities. 1) We treat "cannot be found" as a good faith attempt by the disputer to find sources, in which case we are reversing the burden in exactly the same way the present statement does, i.e, the person who disputes the content, regardless of what the material is, must first attempt to find sources and only after failing, may they then state their failure to find sources somewhere, then challenge, then remove. 2) The second possibility, as noted by a few users, is that if we treat the technical definition: cannot be found strictly, using unverifiable states an impossibility, thus eviscerating any meaning from the sentence. Unsourced/unverified/unreferenced/uncited all work. Unverifiable does not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Then go get the policy changed, since that's what you seem to have the actual problem with. 206.248.204.121 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur. Not betraying the existing policy is what we're here about. Have you actually read anything above?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read most of this, but "unverifiable" means that the reader is not able to verify it, not necessarily that it is impossible. Citations don't verify, readers do. Adding a citation doesn't verify the line. Unverified implies that we haven't gotten around to verifying information, which is something we don't do in the first place. As for text, try "This article requires additional references to ensure verifiability". Everyone will read a few words in a box, everyone will ignore pretty much anything over one sentence. M 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for Unverified. The statement that a statement is unverifiable is itself unverifiable (it can be falsified, but not proved), so that statement must itself be removed, leading to a logical short circuit. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Use Unreferenced or Unsourced. I think people are getting confused over the context of "unverifiable" in the wording of this template and the verifiability policy. If you read the first sentence of WP:V it states:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (some emphasis/bolding removed and some added by myself)

As a casual reader would see it, if an article is unreferenced then it is unverifiable (by the reader) as there is nothing in the actual article to support the claims it makes. You can argue that somewhere there will be a reference or source in a book or anywhere else, but for the casual wikipedia reader who has no interest in searching google or the library to check that the information is true, it is unverifiable to them. Unverifiable/Unverified is too subjective as the discussion above proves, whilst unreferenced and unsourced are objective: It's either sourced/referenced or it's not. ascidian | talk-to-me 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Use unreferenced or unsourced for all of the reasons mentioned above. However, if I have to choose between "unverified" and "unverifiable", It should definitely be "unverified". It makes much more sense and is less confusing, especially to new readers. hmwith τ 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks to User:M, I get it now. "Verifiable" means that the article has sources cited which a reader can use to verify the veracity of the material in the article. If there are no sourced cited, the article is not "verifiable"... it is "unverifiable". However, as much as that makes sense now, I still think it's problematic because it's so easy to misunderstand. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect premises

Going back to the top of this discussion, there are a couple of incorrect premises:

Unverifiable mean not able to be sourced.
"Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." That present construction, using unverifiable as opposed to unverified, functionally reverses the burden of WP:BURDEN.

These premises are incorrect because:

"Unverifiable" means the editors have not cited sources, leaving the reader with no way to verify that sources support the material in the article.
The construction does not reverse the burden of WP:BURDEN. A simple absence of citations to sources indicates that the article is "unverifiable". The burden remains squarely on the editors to provide those citations so that the reader can use them to verify that the sources cited by them support the material in the article.

With that clarified, I don't see a problem with the current wording, except that it might be misunderstood. That can be fixed by changing it to say:

Unverifiable material (material that lacks citations for a reader to use to verify that the sources cited support the material) may be challenged and removed.

I'm sure better wordsmiths than I can say the same thing more succinctly. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Where verifiability means "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", a pure language definition, using normal interpretation of the change from an "ability" ("capacity") ending to "un" ("not") and "able" ("capable"), unverifiable means "it is impossible (there is no capability) for readers to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". You conclude from this that "impossible to check" means unsourced but that doesn't follow. Unerifiable means it is not possible to take the steps needed to allow the ability, i.e., it is not possible to source the material to allow the checking to occur. Using the same pure language interpretation, unverified means "readers are not yet able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". The only reason they are not yet able to do so is because it is unsourced. No matter how you work it, unverifiable should be replaced. Probably the greatest reason to do so is that the actual policy section it invokes, does not use the word unverifiable and we can see that it is very problematic to do so because so many people find it slippery to define. The actual policy says (I am not paraphrasing here, the direct quotes are) "...must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Given that we're referring to this section of the policy, why not use the form of language it actually uses to craft its invocation. Unsourced/unreferenced/uncited all do a yeoman's job. Unverifiable seems to be a sinkhole.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(To Born2Cycle) Clarified? Unsourced is not the same thing as unverifiable. The presence or absence of cited sources has absolutely no bearing on whether information is verifiable or not. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in an abstract sense, but unverifiable, like many words, can mean different things based on the context. In this Wikipedia context an article is "unverifiable" to a reader if the editors did not provide citations for the reader to verify that the cited sources actually support the material in question. Adding citations to sources that support the material is what makes an article change from unverifiable to verifiable. Any thing that is "unverifiable" in the strict/absolute sense shouldn't be in there at all, and should be removed, not cited with a tag. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that view is the consensus. You seem to be the only one here asserting that unsourced==unverifiable (in any context). Even Fuhghettaboutit is not asserting that. We should keep in mind that we aren't out to redefine the policy here, this template needs to reflect consensus interpretation of the policy, not put a new spin on it. That was the original concern anyway, that it was putting an inappropriate spin on the policy. Spinning it the other way and implying a stricter standard would be just as bad, and we'd be back here with a mess of defenders of WP:BOLD complaining that we were discouraging edits. It looks like the straw poll is showing a rough consensus at this point anyway, so we might be able to just agree to disagree and move on. Gigs (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This "dispute" is bogus. The spirit of the policy is that content added to WP should be able to be cited properly. Arguing over the words used is not the point. WP is not a court of law. Please abide by the spirit of policy, not the letter of the "law". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Support:

2nd choice - I still think this verbiage is OK as well. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice - to emphasize that it is everyone's role to try to source material if the editor who introduces it neglects to. DGG (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unverified material might be challenged and removed.

Support:

2nd choice. SilkTork *^YES! 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd choice. hmwith τ 13:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd choice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd choice. ascidian | talk-to-me 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd choice. Unclear who does the verification, editors or readers. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material might be challenged and removed.

Support:

1st choice. SilkTork *^YES! 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd choice. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice. This is OK. It dodges the verifiability question in a way that's acceptable, allowing that unsourced information may be verifiable, but the burden is on the adder. I think this reflects wider consensus. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice. hmwith τ 13:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice and what I had previously changed it to (other than the use of "might") and was reverted; this is the parallel language to that in {{refimprove}}, used since 2007). Note though I would have set up this poll differently as 1) keep current form and use unverifiable 2) Keep current form and use unverified 3) Keep current form and use unsourced 4) Regardless of what first word we use, should we change "may" to "might" 5) Should we get rid of all language invoking WP:BURDEN and instead simply flag the existence of the verifiabiity policy by a replacement statement such as "verifiability of information is one of Wikipedia's core polices".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice. ascidian | talk-to-me 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1st choice. This not only makes it clear challenged material must be sourced, but "sourced" makes it clear who neglected to do something: the editors. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
acceptable, because of the use of "might". it does not say it will be removed, it says it might, which is perfectly true. It gives by implication the proper advice. DGG (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Although I prefer "may" to "might" as any editor should remove such material that infringes one of our core policies (WP:V). Them From Space 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Prefer 'may' instead, otherwise ok. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable material (lacks citations for a reader to use to verify sources) might be challenged and removed.

Support:

1st choice --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed (just throwing this out there)

Support:

[edit] A modified approach

The proposals above are tinkering too much with one sentence (or even one word), and therefore demanding that it carry too much of the weight. In my opinion, we should consider the language of both {{Refimprove}}

and {{Unreferenced}}

to arrive at the best solution. I propose taking the best from both to rewrite {{Unreferenced}} as follows:

Points to consider:

Adding "for verification" to the end of the first sentence puts the Verifiability policy where it belongs. The reason for requiring source citations is for verification, that is, to make it easier for readers and editors to verify the article's content.
The second sentence of {{Unreferenced}} is clearer that the second sentence of {{Refimprove}}.
Unverifiable should not be the first word of the last sentence because it is not impossible to verify content without a citation; a trip to the library will do it in most cases. We require citations to make verification by others easier.
Unverified should not be the first word of the last sentence because a citation does not make content verified. The citation just makes it easier for anyone else to verify that the content is supported by the cited source.
Unsourced, with all that precedes it, sufficiently conveys what we mean. A wordier alternative would be Material without citation of supporting sources may be challenged or removed.
In the last sentence, may is preferable to might; may correctly conveys both what an editor is permitted to do and that it might happen.
In the last sentence, I would change and to or because (a) no one editor would to both at the same time and (b) or sufficiently conveys the range of consequences. Finell (Talk) 20:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support:

Finell (Talk) 20:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (my proposal)
Looks good too. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
--Jc3s5h (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Brilliance/perfection. hmwith τ 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with it. Gigs (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Great idea, takes care of all the problems. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 02:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why we need two separate templates (rather than redirecting this one to refimprove), but at least they should be uniform. This is a step in the right direction, and the text is also one of the best variants so far. (I agree with some below that "and" would be slightly better than "or", but that's a WP:BIKESHED problem.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Great! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This fixes all the problems. Very nice. Werson (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice. Them From Space 22:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

Finell wrote "The reason for requiring source citations is for verification, that is, to make it easier for readers and editors to verify the article's content." That is not the only reason. Common courtesy, and in some cases copyright license agreements, require attributing direct quotes to their source. Another reason, which does not rise to the level of a requirement, is to guide readers to additional information beyond what is in the article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. WP guidelines reqire a specific citation, with page number if any, for each direct quotation, for all the above reasons (courtesy, copyright, and verifiability). I would use {{Fact}} for an un-cited quotation, and would not rely on {{Refimprove}} or {{Unreferenced}} for that purpose. Citations also help to police copyright violations or plagiarism (the two aren't the same) for material that does not purport to be a direct quotation, if too much text was borrowed from a source. I also thought about the "further reading" function of all citations, but it is an added benefit of satisfying WP:V. And I didn't want to be wordier than I already was. Finell (Talk) 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy we are no longer stuck on unverifiable, and I like the integration of refimprove's first line. However the change from "and" to "or" does not work. It robs the intended meaning from the framed language to set forth an order of events (challenge, then remove if no sources are found) and worse, strongly implies something incorrect. This does not work in the same way that the following statements, also having one thing that must happen before another, are almost meaningless and do not work with a change from "and" to "or":

"the instructions say to prime or paint"
"If you're caught you will be tried or convicted"

By using "challenged or removed", we are by normal language construction saying that the challenging, and the removal, are two alternatives things that can be done where sources are lacking, and not necessarily connected things at all. The sentence no longer parses as stating the process has an order. "Challenged OR removed" means material can just be removed, without a challenge first, or, separately, that material may simply be challenged. Retaining "and" works, as does something more pointedly instructive, such as "Unsourced material may be challenged and thereafter removed if sources are not provided."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your last proposal. It implies that you need to discuss before removing instead of being bold. Gigs (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(indent)Upon further thought, I think "or" is valid, and "and" is also valid:

Challenge - You can discuss before removing dubious info that someone might be able to source
Remove - You can be bold and remove info you think is unlikely to be verifiable
Challenge and remove - You can stick an ugly citation needed tag on, and then come back and remove it later, or remove statements with stale fact tags, or remove information to the talk page... etc.

All of these courses of action are allowed and encouraged, depending on editor preference and the situation at hand. If anything "and/or" would work, but I think leaving it as "or" is fine; in common English, "or" is often not exclusive (when lacking "either" at least). Gigs (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First, it's normally a challenge before removal operation, with the policy strongly recommending that order. That's gotten across by and, and not be or. Second, by separating them you are making it into two statements: unsourced material may be challenged" and "unsourced material may be removed". The second one relates to the policy invoked. What does just challenging have to do with anything? You say: "you can challenge before removal." Yeah but it no longer says that. It just says you can challenge. The coupling between them is lost. No, making it "or" is confusing and no longer captures the policy invoked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think people need permission or prior discussion to remove material, then you are just wrong. This is a wiki, not a "design by committee" encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that, and haven't a clue what your post is addressed to but very apparently it's a strawman, and I really wish you'd read what I've said with a bit more focus, because you responding to something else than what I've said. or entirely missing what I'm saying is happening with some frequency. Talking about the effect of language and parsing it can be slippery but we seem to be miscommunicating a great deal --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. In any case I do think challenging alone is a valid course of action (as well as the other 2 possibilities), so "inclusive or" is perfectly fine to leave in the template, and probably should be changed in refimprove as well. Gigs (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The term and/or is what we mean, but it is an abomination to the English language. The word or is presumptively inclusive unless qualified, and therefore embraces both and and or. Therefore, or is the best choice here and for all similarly phrased templates. Finell (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You speak English so you use or as an exact disjunctive every day for the exact opposite of what you are saying (the wikt:exclusive or. I can even state the choice we are faced with using the exclusive or, or not. That last sentence is actually a disjunctive use and the promised choice before us is: to use "or" OR "and". That sentence has a natural meaning and it is that we can use one OR the other (and this sentence is yet another usage). Try to substitute and/or in any of those preceding sentences and the result is an absurdity. There are times when or can be used as the inclusive or, but we understand whether something is the exclusive or, or the inclusive or, through context, which new users seeing the template do not have.

I defy you to think of any use of "challenged and removed" that doesn't convey what we are trying to say, that material can be challenged and, material can be removed, which has a secondary language meaning of implying the order of operations which is de facto, how we use it in the context of WP:BURDEN. Specifically, Gigs says "we do just challenge"—yes, on Wikipedia, speaking generally of things that are possible, people do just challenge if they drop a drive-by fact tag, but that is not what we're talking about in this specific context. In the context of WP:BURDEN, challenge is in relation to removal. We can just remove, yes, but we only challenge here as a prelude to removal if sources are not provided. And, thus, is inclusive of all operations we want to convey. You must concede (because you speak English) that "challenge or remove" can, as one of its possible parsing interpretations, mean "material can be challenged or material can be removed, not both"; as well, that is can mean: "material can be challenged, alternatively, material can be removed", both of which constructions are not what we mean in this context. What, then, does using or bring to the table over and that is not a liability?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you try to run across eight lanes of freeway you may be seriously injured or be killed. The or implies any of the following may occur

serious injury without death
death without injury (instantaneous death)
serious injury leading to a coma and eventual death a week later

. Similarly, in the proposed wording with or, all of the following possibilities are included:

challenge without removal
removal without challenge
challenge followed by removal a week later

Or in both of these contexts is correct, and I think the meaning should be clear to most. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are using or in its inclusive form in this example; the context makes anyone reading it immediately aware of that. What you are not responding to is that or also has an exclusive form. Or in the context here, can be taken as the exclusive or that the context of your example usage above does not allow. And suffers from no such problems. You say "you think the meaning should be clear to most." Even if that's true, you leave in the possibility of the meaning not being clear. Using and raises no such confusion possibilities. So, even if you say that or will probably be understood by most, why does that impact on whether or is superior to and?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And is misleading. While the material may be challenged and (necessarily) removed, it may also be challenged, fixed, and not removed. "May be challenged and removed" does not parse to mean that - that is, the "may be" modifies "challenged and removed" together, not each word independently.
Also, the exclusive or meaning of or has so little application in standard English that it is not even mentioned in the article. For example, even in an apparent exclusive or situation such as when a server asks whether you would like coffee or tea, the possibility of having coffee and tea is not precluded.
Further, even in logic and computer science the inclusive form is the default meaning. Using or may not be perfect wording, but I do think it's the best, certainly better than the misleading and. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See also what User:Werson says below under Conclusions - while or is ambiguous, and least it's not wrong like and is. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Styling

Why has the line break and small text crept back in? It doesn't make the template any smaller, unbalances it on wider displays and makes the instructional text less legible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably to make its appearance consistent with the refimprove template. Both variants are the same to me, as long as they are both the same. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (not at work) we have already had a discussion on this (see Template talk:Refimprove#Style tweaks, so why are you asking this question, (when you posted your last comment to that section on the 11th) and phrasing it the way you have? But to summarise for those who do not want to read "Style tweaks": The first part is of use to readers and editors of an article, the second half is only of interest to editors as a maintenance comment; and as such having the second part in small, emphasises the important part, (as the second part could be placed on the talk page as it is of no importance to readers). --PBS (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, on wide or high resolution displays the line break and small text adversely affects the appearance and readability of the template. Using them to marginalise part of the text because of a personal distaste for cleanup text on articles is inappropriate, as was PBS's use of his admin bit to revert the change in question after it had been proposed and performed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got 3800 horizontal pixels between my two monitors, and it looks fine to me. The second part of the text is indeed less important. Gigs (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a comparison. On high-resolution, high-DPI screens there's a clear win here. I'm still struggling to see what the advantage to the two-line format is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The two line format is easier for me to read. It shows that the template is making two comments about the same subject. One is a warning to readers, and another is instruction about how the problem might be addressed through editing. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gigs is right. Maintenance templates should be as succinct as possible so readers (who generally don't care about wiki maintenance) aren't distracted from actually reading the article (which is usually their goal!). Leading with a big, short sentence gets all the meaning across and lets the readers continue onto the article if it's something they're not concerned with. Putting it all on one line forces them to read the whole list of wiki cruft. It's just bad usability, regardless of simple aesthetics. Werson (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions?

So, it seems that the discussion has died out. This one seemed to be OK with most people (minus one objection for the two line format, and one objection to "or" instead of "and"):

Are we ready to call it a day for now? Gigs (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Premature. Four of the people who participated in the straw poll have not commented on the later proposal section, 3 people expressed a preference for "might" over "may" that haven't commented in the section. One of those that commented above agreed that "and" is better and that issue hadn't even been broached at the time the others signed (and or is wrong). At this point I see more participation and more support for the original straw poll proposed language than the above later addition. RFCs, though they have no mandated time period, are removed automatically at the 30 days (we're at day 13), so no, let it run a proper period. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. This wording clarifies the meaning of verifiability – as seen from the original discussion, even experienced editors didn't understand what the term meant in that context. It makes much more sense here. As for the and/or debate, I don't think there's any succinct way to accurately get the meaning across. There are three possibilities for unsourced material:

It may be challenged and kept (if a source is provided in response to the challenge)
It may be removed without a challenge (while challenging is polite, it's certainly not required by any policy, and this template should not falsely imply that it is)
It may be challenged, and later removed

The word and falsely implies only the third possibility, while the word or falsely implies only the first two. The word or can be inclusive, but it simply doesn't sound inclusive in the above sentence.

Therefore, I propose a different wording entirely, which gets the point across as clearly as possible: "Unsourced material may be removed at any time." It's better for the template to be too direct than too equivocal. If that's not an option, then I support Finell's wording. The word or is better than and here, as or is ambiguous while and is simply wrong. Werson (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Still opposed. The arguments for the two-line format are bogus, especially Werson's argument which says that making the second line twice as difficult to read is a usability win. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the following wording? Would that satisfy everyone?

Unsourced material may be removed with or without prior challenge.

Hope that helps... --Chris Jefferies (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good compromise Chris. It should just be and but that language does take care of the problem. I could even have lived with or over and if I had to, but that is better than using or in the current formulation. The original problem of unverifiable is behind us, which is was far more important than any of this. What really rankles is that all this was so unnecessary. 50,000 words spilled to change the obviously incorrect WP:BURDEN wording, but for the switch from and to "or", to exactly what I changed it to word-for-word more than 3 months ago.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this new proposal is fine as well. Fuhghettaboutit, you may think all the discussion was unnecessary, but remember it was you who often raised objections to developing consensus. I think this discussion is important, as unnecessarily discouraging casual users from adding unsourced information would be disastrous. We must carefully communicate our policies in a way that avoids doing that. I am glad we were able to reach a consensus here (save Chris). Gigs (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I support Chris Jefferies wording proposal too, although I have to agree with Chris Cunningham that on my monitor (widescreen at 1920*1200) the  text is a bit too small? ascidian | talk-to-me 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As this template is frequently replaced by footnote citations, which are often presented using {{reflist}} and so are in a small font how do you manage to read them? --PBS (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@Gigs: I continue to be gobsmacked by your indiscriminate posts; your niggling insinuations; your off-the-wall misinterpretations. As uncivil as this post is, this is me biting my tongue. It is better we don't interact.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A conclusion?

So, we have this tag that says that unsourced material may be removed. So, what if someone removes it? And what is left is speedy-able or clearly fits inside the reasons for deletion - do we as a community have the resolution to carry forward and not permit restoration of the challenged material without source and go ahead and delete the remaining stump of an article? And, the logical extension, is that blanking of wholly unsourced articles is permitted and deletion will occur in short order. If we are unwilling to do this, then this template has no teeth and will just be a long-term place holder rather than a real means to improve the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's under discussion above is the wording of the template where it invokes the long-existing subsection of the verifiability policy at WP:BURDEN. This template, as well as {{refimprove}}, have contained wording addressed to that for ages, and we're here about the correct way to say it. The underlying policy itself is what I think your post is addressed to so, unless I misread you, I think Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is a more natural fit for your post. However, I would note that having seen WP:BURDEN used in many situations, it is rarely closely connected with any form of article deletion. It is usually employed with regard to specific material that a person challenges, most often in a already fairly well-developed article that already has some references, but none or unreliable ones for a challenged sentence or section, and is not used to remove most of the material from an article to leave it in a "speedyable" state. Many users would revert the wholesale blanking of most of a non-BLP article while invoking WP:BURDEN as indiscriminate; a failure to capture the spirit of the policy, which invites a challenge, a look for sources yourself first, some time for the majority contributors to rectify the problem and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are cases were the use of such a template is the forerunner of a AfD. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII I added a {{refimprove}} along with {{fact}}s for specific paragraphs not already tagged with {{fact}} on 07:06, 16 September 2007. On the 2 October 2007 as no additional citations had been added, I put the page up for an AfD. During the week of the AfD, all paragraphs with a {{fact}} were removed, There was one sourced paragraph on a World War I plan, and two other sentences (1)"Hitler declared war on the United States of America on 11 December 1941", (2) "The Hawaiian Islands could be used for future landings in the continental U.S., or to conduct aerial surface, naval, or submarine attacks against U.S. coasts." from a source called "What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been". But this is not what normally happens, instead the warning template alerts a reader that not all/any of the information in the article had been verified with the use of citations, so therefor it may not be completely accurate (no way to judge), and over time citations get added until an editor makes a judgment call that the article now has enough citations to warrant the removal of the {{refimprove}} template. --PBS (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit If we are bothering to rephrase it, then say what means and mean what it says. The old tag was basically handed down with a pedigree but not necessarily embued by consensus - now, if we have a consensus on what it should say - and therefore, what it should mean - what's wrong for expecting people to act upon it? In the early days when WP was desparate for content, there was a leniency that we'd rather have an unref'd article than no article at all - I thinkk that mentality has shifted over time, and now we may expect more from our articles per WP:BURDEN, WP:RS, and WP:V and esp. WP:BLP for those articles. So when people bent over backward to keep an unreferenced one-liner "Joe Blow was a famous Fooian singer/writer/scientist, whatever." three years ago, that won't pass muster today and may even be speedied. Again the thinking is we needed more articles on Fooians. Well, I'm not saying there aren't any famous Fooians we don't have yet, there are fewer and fewer as time progresses and we're less likely to make a leap of faith that Joe Blow is notable or a short article about him without references ought to be kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

People act upon WP:BURDEN every day but not normally to remove all content such that deletion is in the offing. The language of the policy does not speak to unfettered removal. It contains all types of caveats and recommendations before removal that results in people using it only for specific material they object to, or think sounds dubious, or controversial, rather than using it as a license to remove any unsourced material. When it arises, I see it typically being applied to articles that already have references, and the removal is as to those parts of an article that do not. As I intimated previously, I think you need to go to the source. The verifiability policy does not have the teeth it should or, at the very least, the way we apply is with kid gloves. I think we have dug ourselves a very, very deep hole that we are going to have a hard time climbing out of with hundreds of thousands of entirely unsourced articles sitting around. I think it's a systemic cancer on Wikipedia. But, for better or worse, there is a very deep and wide vein of editors who have shot down every proposal that has ever been made to seriously enforce verifiability; to apply it with any teeth. If you think I'm one of them, that's not the case. I am reporting what I see, not what I believe. If it was up to me, we would start systematically removing unsourced material from the encyclopedia. What we need is something like Wikipedia:Requests for verification, which was shot down. This template acts to flag that unsourced material is a problem. And it acts to also tell people that unsourced material can be removed. But this template and its progeny are side issues. The underlying problem can only be addressed by a change in the culture, where we don't just require the hypothetical ability to be sourced, but actual sourcing on some type of a time frame, or deletion will follow. Verifiability as presently written and interpreted can only take us so far. It doesn't require sourcing. It requires the ability to source. The WP:BURDEN subsection doesn't get us to a place where we require sourcing either (unfortunately).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Template talk:Unreferenced

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Maintenance messages should be externally purposed, too

[edit] Blank line

[edit] Specified time

[edit] Separating verifiability and reliable sources

[edit] FYI

[edit] Placement

[edit] Wording suggestion: third-party

[edit] Useage on image pages

[edit] Tiny stubs

[edit] No more categories?

[edit] This is the stupidest template: why not delete it?

[edit] Copy

[edit] Why references redirects to unreferenced??

[edit] Edit request

[edit] Interwiki redirect

[edit] Move the date's location

[edit] Can we add a category

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing

[edit] Can a different language wikipedia be the sole source?

[edit] Style tweaks

[edit] Category

[edit] Template incorrectly refers to unverifiable material

[edit] Books

[edit] Table

[edit] Edit requested

[edit] What about maps?

[edit] Proposal to change wording

[edit] How to use

[edit] RFC: Should the template employ "unverifiable" or "unverified"?

[edit] Incorrect premises

[edit] Straw poll

[edit] A modified approach

[edit] Styling

[edit] Conclusions?

[edit] A conclusion?

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Interaction

Toolbox