Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions

:I am not particular about the text, but I am concerned if users think it's OK to add material from archival sources that haven't been published at any time. I maintain that a private museum collection or an unpublished record in an archive, is not published. Verifiability and reliable sources talk about the concept of publication for a reason. AFAIK this hasn't changed. I've pinged a bunch of people from the prior discussion who are still around to see if any will drop by and shed some light. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 04:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

:*They talk about publication, but the actual Wikipedia policy ''on verifiability'' ([[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]), which you reference, explicitly states as noted above, that '''''this''''' (the term "published", which the policy explicitly states "the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public '''''in some form'''''") means "This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones."). Thus, respectfully, you are simply wrong. The policy is quite explicit that publication does not mean "published as in a journal/book/magazine/etc", it simply means "made available to the public in some form". Indeed, [[WP:NOR]] also explicitly recognizes that, although they should be less-used than secondary sources, primary sources are also ok. Many primary sources are not "published" in the manner you suggest, but are absolutely "available to the public in some form" (such as in an archive) and are, therefore, both "published" and "verifiable" for WP purposes. A tombstone (an example the policy explicitly references as acceptable) is not "published" in the traditional sense you reference, but is available to the public in some form, so is 'published' in a Wikipedia sense. An article that overly relies on primary source material (whether archival or 'published' somewhere, in your parlance, like in a collection of letters) may run afoul of [[WP:NOR]]'s guideline that primary sources should be used "to a lesser extent", but un-"published" (by your definition) archival materials are no more or less reliable (and certainly no more or less verifiable) than, say, some random self-published book or website online. tl;dr: As I read it, WP's definition of "publication" turns on availability to the public '''''in any form''''' and '''''not''''' availability via a book/journal/website, as you seem to be calling for. Best. [[User:Staxringold|Staxringold]] _{[[User talk:Staxringold|talk]]}^{<span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">[[Special:Contributions/Staxringold|contribs]]</span>} 12:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)