Property talk:P1310

Documentation

• Start a query
• Properties using this qualifier (statistics)
• Count

statement disputed by
entity that disputes a given statement

Description	Qualifier to link to a source that is disputing this statement
Represents	controversy (Q1255828), opinion (Q3962655)
Data type	Item
Domain	all (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed values	sources (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example	According to this template: Waltz No. 17 in E-flat major, Op. posth. (Q16747520) <composer> Frédéric Chopin (Q1268) qualifier: <statement disputed by> Chomiński catalog (Q16749680) According to statements in the property: Waltz No. 17 in E-flat major, Op. posth. (Q16747520) → Chomiński catalog (Q16749680) When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Source	it links to the source itself (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896))
Robot and gadget jobs	DeltaBot does the following jobs: Move source to qualifier
See also	stated in (P248), approved by (P790), statement supported by (P3680), nature of statement (P5102), statement is subject of (P805)
Lists	Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Database reports/Constraint violations/P1310
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 2,637 Main statement 5 0.2% of uses Qualifier 2,626 99.6% of uses Reference 6 0.2% of uses
Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Scope is as qualifier (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1310#Scope, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1310#Entity types

Qualifier or reference ?

There was some talk between user:Micru, user:Yair rand during the creation proposal. Yair rand and me were in favor of using this property in the source section. It makes it less visible, but it sounds semantically sounder, and it also let us provide a full reference (page, retrieval date, etc.), which is not possible in qualifiers. However, the property is currently marked as a qualifier, and used as such.--Zolo (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Zolo, why not a new property called "disputed in" as a counterpart to stated in (P248)? I have the feeling that this property has other uses that make it more suitable for actors disputing a statement, but not for sources. For instance check the uses in Yalta (Q128499) or Jesus (Q302). Actually this property doesn't fit very well in the Wikidata model, since it should be possible to source the qualifier.--Micru (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Micru: yes the cleanest solution would probably be a "disputed by" to be used as a qualifier and taking a person or an institution as value, and a "disputed in" that would be used in references that would take texts and other sources as values. I am not sure that would be very well understood by all users though. --Zolo (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zolo: That can be solved calling the property "disputed in source". A bit longer, but much more clear :) --Micru (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

+1, seems like a good solution. --Yair rand (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Started proposal at Wikidata:Property proposal/disputed in source. --Yair rand (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What qualifier for "statement uncertain"?

@Micru, Jakec, Emw, TomT0m, Zolo: When systematically adding the bridge number (P9759), I came across a case where it is not clear in the map which of two nearby bridges the identifier belongs to. I wanted to solve it by adding the identifier to the item pages of both bridges, but in both cases I would add a questioning qualifier to it. A similar case can occur, for example, in Structured Data in Commons, when the distinguishing between two similar places, between two villages or people of the same name, two possible dates etc. may remain unresolved. Or someone enters a statement that he is almost sure of, but not entirely sure. However, this is not an opponent, but the author of the data himself who is not entirely sure of his statement. There may be also other reasons why any statement can be considered suspicious in some way, for example, suspected typos or a non-standard format of data in the source, unexpected and unwanted duplicity of the identifier etc.

However, I did not find any generally questioning property such "statement uncertain", "statement doubtful" etc., expressing the degree of certainty or probability of the claim/statement. This property statement disputed by (P1310) is centered to the opposing entity/source and his/her/its criticism instead to the statement and its reliability degree and its reasons itself. In the case of an inaccurate map or an ambiguous source or identification, it cannot be said directly that this source would actively question any of the possible interpretations. Should we propose a new property, or rather adapt this property for more general use? Or is it possible that I overlooked an existing suitable property for such cases?

Maybe, similarly as we have a qualifier reason for deprecated rank (P2241) for rejected/obsolete/invalid statements, where the reason is filled as the value, we can have a qualifier "reason for questioning" or "reason for uncertainty" where the reason and degree of the doubts can be filled as a value - "uncertain identification" or "indistinct/ambiguous source" can be ones of the possible values. However, where two sources contradict and their claims collide each other, statement disputed by (P1310) remains maybe more suitable to link the colliding source. --ŠJů (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@ŠJů: I think sourcing circumstances (P1480) is used for that, though there are some issues with this property (it has been discussed at Property_talk:P1480#Ambiguous_meaning, but don't think things have been cleaned up yet). Zolo (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Enlarge to items ?

There are whole items about disputed or fringe theories, like Water memory (Q281606) for example we don't really have much ways to express stuffs about. I think a property such as this one could be useful in such settings. Should we enlarge the scope ? author  TomT0m / talk page 14:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)