The redraft is progressing slowly so that as many concerns with the wording as possible can be dealt with. Where there is concern (objection seems too strong a word) over the redraft, the same really applies to the policy as currently worded anyway (since, after all, it is a redraft, not a fundamental change). The redraft does, however, clarify existing practice, and I think it leaves no loopholes - by being straightforward and not allowing for complicated exceptions, and by having fewer words to argue about, loopholes are eliminated. Of course, the wording is, no doubt, imperfect, and suggestions for taking this forward would, I'm sure, be welcome by all, Jon jguk slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: On 1/4/06, Jon wrote: Please note too that it has also had objections, and because it's one of only three editorial policies, and the one dealing with sourrces, it's important that no loopholes be opened in a drive to be succinct. Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

There are edge cases in this that concern me a little. Facts should be from reputable sources? Not quite. They should be from appropriate sources. The British National Party is not reputable and (like even some reputable British political parties) cannot be expected to publish accurate membership figures and certainly cannot be cited on issues such as social concerns of people living in Sheffield. It is a perfectly appropriate source, however, for the wording of a campaign address given by its by-election candidate in Sheffield, although it must be attributed if the text has not been published elsewhere. If one is writing about the British National Party's political strategy in South Yorkshire then appropriate reference to material published by the party itself (say the party's official mailshot delivered free by Royal Mail during the by-election or words obtained from the party's official website) may be used with caution, as long as material published solely by the party is not given undue weight and is treated as campaigning material and not a supporting source for factual claims made in the material. Currently I'd feel confident in arguing for appropriate use of such material, but it may be that we want to employ higher standards and omit such material altogether.

Not really a bad idea, but sometimes I come across articles that used to have sources, but died because SOMEONE closed down the website the sources came from. If we were to police such a thing, we'd have much more deletions of stuff that could easily be re-verified. I think someone should be notified before entire article which used to have sources end up deleted because of this so they can recheck. Mgm