Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

**{{ping|Masem}} If I'm understanding, part of this viewpoint is that there is information in the title of the article?  If so, do [[Lexington Symphony]] and [[Lexington Philharmonic Orchestra]] require citations?  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

*** No, the title is not the factor here, though 99% of the time for an orchestra, the title will indicate where the orchestra is from. It is the fact that, working on the presumption that the blue-linked articles meeting WP:N guidelines (which thus assures WP:V), that in defining the notability of an orchestra ''is'' going to including defining its home, even if that is flatly obvious from the name of the orchestra. It always may not be, hence why I do not consider the title the indicator, but the sources asserting notability in the linked article. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

**Saying that verifi''ability'' does not mean verifi''ed'' by an inline citation is correct. [[WP:V]] mandates that all material on Wikipedia needs to be merely verifiable. But we are dealing with [[WP:MINREF]], a special case of verifiability that calls for certain content to be verifi''ed'' by an inline citation. I do not know if OP has confused the two or not, but the policies are not confused. MINREF material needs to be verifi''ed'' by an inline citation. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;[[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 19:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

**Regarding the current contention, my last post summarized my position on the article talk page, and [[User:Postdlf]] saw no need to respond.&nbsp; I stated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_symphony_orchestras_in_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=766139234&oldid=766033547 diff], "...my view is that unsourced material requires sources, and if not sourced may be challenged, although there is no deadline for either.&nbsp; There is no consensus that there are exceptions that allow blue links to be used as reliable sources.&nbsp; <small>[[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)</small>"&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 19:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' This list gives a good example of why such lists may need to have some in-line citations. I scanned the list and looked for a name that might not fit the bill. The first one I looked at had citations that probably covered it, but [[Urbana Pops Orchestra]] has only one citation ("[http://herald-review.com/entertainment/local/article_02c52280-45d7-11e0-b482-001cc4c002e0.html "Millikin grad develops pop orchestra in Urbana]") and that does not support UPO's the entry in the list, so it is not unreasonable to require a citation for that one. Personally I think that a blue link may be sufficient, particularly if the necessary citations are easy to find in the linked article, however entries such as UPO clearly need citations. Like Blueboar says it is usually easier to find a citation than to argue about it, but also there is no need to pre-emptively supply a citation for an entry like the [[New York Philharmonic]] because it is "[un]likely to be challenged" by anyone who is reasonably well educated (sky is blue). -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 23:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

**I'm classicly trained and I have no reason to know the difference between the New York Philharmonic and the New York Symphony Orchestra.&nbsp; Moreover, there is something even easier than copying and pasting citations from a blue link, which is to not remove the citation that already exists, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_symphony_orchestras_in_the_United_States&diff=763878063&oldid=763877883 diff].&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 00:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

*'''Strong Disagree''' - {{ec}} First, I have to say (again) that I object to this enthymeme approach to RfCs, which seem more of an obscurantist exercise in circumscription rather than seeking clarity. We're left to fill in not just the practical evidence, but the practical effect, apart from the abstraction. Regardless, there's an obvious flaw in the logic. The "premise" leads one to believe Wikipedia is being used as a source. '''Obviously a link to a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source'''. This is made explicit in multiple locations, and there is no argument to the contrary. But that's only the misleading surface question, as what it's actually asking is the question that comes up frequently, framed in much clearer terms: "If a list article contains links to Wikipedia articles, do they also need inline citations, and if they don't have inline citations, should they be removed?" The answer, time and time again, is a big fat gray area. If you have reason to challenge the inclusion of a particular item, then go for it and put the burden on whoever wants to include it. Just saying "I contest everything that doesn't have a source, even if there are sources in the respective articles", however, is disruptive and contrary to the spirit of various policies (though to be clear, I know OP is not doing that). I'd be happy to continue this line of discussion in a separate thread. &mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 02:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

*'''Disagree with premise''' I do think there is a "simple" way but not in the way stated. For such list, if you don't in good faith think an orchestra belongs because it cannot be sourced, either tag or remove it, per a proper challenge. If, on the other hand, you just want the source from the linked article to be transported to the page, SOFIXIT and transport the source. I do think any editor who sources can't be reverted for adding a proper source, at least on the basis that sources are "clutter". -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:I guess the underlying question was whether list items must be footnoted. Answer: Yes, when challenged. Corollary: In certain cases by the virtue of the list nearly all items may be challenged or blue links present challenge for verifiability, therefore the whole list may be challenged. Certainly we are not going to run around all [[List of Nobel Prize winners]], slap tags onto them and delete items if not referenced in, say, a month. 20:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

* '''Obviously agree''' that wikilinks are not a reliable source, but I would add that editors should not mass remove list items simply because there is no source included, but are expected to make a good faith effort to [[WP:PRESERVE]] apparently non-contentious material with all the usual BLP caveats. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;font-family:Impact;">Timothy</span><span style="color:#6f3800;font-family:Impact;">Joseph</span><span style="color:#422501;font-family:Impact;">Wood</span>]] 20:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

== Availability ==