Property talk:P5102

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• List of values
• List of qualifiers
• Count

nature of statement
(qualifier only) the underlying circumstances of this statement

Data type	Item
Allowed values	official (Q29509043), unofficial (Q29509080), de jure (Q132555), de facto (Q712144), rarely (Q28962310), often (Q28962312), hypothesis (Q41719), uncredited appearance (Q16582801), proposal (Q3918409), hypothetically (Q18603603), expected (Q50376823), allegation (Q2839009), possibly (Q30230067), originally (Q53737447), self-proclaimed (Q17125668), disputed (Q18912752), approximation (Q27058), project management estimation (Q965330), unconfirmed (Q28831311), sometimes changes (Q24025284), accusation (Q19357312), mathematical extrapolation (Q744069), to be announced (Q603908), unpublished work (Q26944781), interim (Q4895105), declared deserted (Q45123627), presumably (Q18122778), allegedly (Q32188232), hypothetical entity (Q18706315), design requirement (Q774228), earliest recorded instance (Q63971158), sample credit (Q64447881), certainty (Q1520777), instances have exactly one value (Q68575046), attribution (Q230768), circa (Q5727902), fanon (Q3739281), canon (Q53815), minimum (Q10585806), maximum (Q111305333), mean (Q2796622), median (Q226995), acting (Q4676846), greater than (Q47035128), less than (Q52834024), greater than or equal to (Q55935291), less than or equal to (Q55935272), probably (Q56644435), mainly (Q91013007), prosopographical phantom (Q64643615), does not always apply (Q90177495), partially (Q100349848), optional (Q59864995), dubious (Q104378399), ongoing (Q104603903), finished (Q83489981), estimate (Q37113960), non-standard (Q105223969), uncredited musical artist (Q60614352), former attribution (Q70918737), uncertainty (Q13649246), unsubstantiated (Q107217620), scientific hypothesis (Q3144351), definition (Q101072), in-universe perspective (Q96102813), out-of-universe perspective (Q96102817), archive footage (Q101437313), contributing factor (Q18603648), sometimes (Q110143752), no earlier than (Q110290991), no later than (Q110290992), show election (Q139060), sui generis (Q311290), value split up, due to exceeding the 1,500 character limit on strings (Q110418529), name change (Q84590041), in articulo mortis (Q129580), maximum (Q10578722), average (Q202785), opinion (Q3962655), interpretation (Q855395), open problem (Q1321906), generally used form (Q112627455), not completed (Q20734200), incidental (Q112883215), dormancy (Q55909176), convention (Q367293), metaphor (Q113326371), guideline (Q1630279), mode (Q188224), defining quality (Q114980101), determined by the player (Q115211583), the object is the same as the subject (Q115471214), statement applies to the Wikidata item, not the concept represented by the item (Q115630159), depends on jurisdiction (Q115667526), illegal mark (Q116142274), non-canon (Q99841874), parodic (Q116822097), mathematical interpolation (Q187631), conjecture (Q319141), information from a forged document (Q118384519), regent (Q477406), de jure/de facto (Q20820099), retrospective diagnosis (Q652476), reality (Q9510), sum (Q218005), consensus decision-making (Q188577), near (Q21818619), obsolete (Q107356532), draft document (Q560361) or work in process (Q357662)
Example	Vermont (Q16551) → hypothesis (Q41719) graviton (Q103585) → hypothetical entity (Q18706315)
See also	sourcing circumstances (P1480), statement disputed by (P1310), statement supported by (P3680), based on heuristic (P887)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties By value of property Most statements Fewest statements Most sitelinks Most linked wikis Total of sitelinks on items Most identifiers Fewest identifiers Items with no other statements 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/P5102 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 41,815 Main statement 57 0.1% of uses Qualifier 41,735 99.8% of uses Reference 23 <0.1% of uses
Search for values

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

One of Q29509043, Q29509080, Q132555, Q712144, Q28962310, Q28962312, Q41719, Q16582801, Q3918409, Q18603603, Q50376823, Q2839009, Q30230067, Q53737447, Q17125668, Q18912752, Q27058, Q965330, Q28831311, Q24025284, Q19357312, Q744069, Q603908, Q26944781, Q4895105, Q45123627, Q18122778, Q32188232, Q18706315, Q774228, Q63971158, Q64447881, Q1520777, Q68575046, Q230768, Q5727902, Q3739281, Q53815, Q10585806, Q111305333, Q2796622, Q226995, Q4676846, Q47035128, Q52834024, Q55935291, Q55935272, Q56644435, Q91013007, Q64643615, Q90177495, Q100349848, Q59864995, Q104378399, Q104603903, Q83489981, Q37113960, Q105223969, Q60614352, Q70918737, Q13649246, Q107217620, Q3144351, Q101072, Q96102813, Q96102817, Q101437313, Q18603648, Q110143752, Q110290991, Q110290992, Q139060, Q311290, Q110418529, Q84590041, Q129580, Q10578722, Q202785, Q3962655, Q855395, Q1321906, Q112627455, Q20734200, Q112883215, Q55909176, Q367293, Q113326371, Q1630279, Q188224, Q114980101, Q115211583, Q115471214, Q115630159, Q115667526, Q116142274, Q99841874, Q116822097, Q187631, Q319141, Q118384519, Q477406, Q20820099, Q652476, Q9510, Q218005, Q188577, Q21818619, Q107356532, Q560361, Q357662: value must be one of the specified items. Please expand list if needed. (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/P5102#One of, values statistics, SPARQL

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

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5102#Scope, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200), Wikibase MediaInfo (Q59712033), Wikibase property (Q29934218), Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771), Wikibase form (Q54285143), Wikibase sense (Q54285715): 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/P5102#Entity types

This property is being used by: ca:Plantilla:Format P170 ga:Teimpléad:Format P170 Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Label for this property

@Valentina.Anitnelav:, thanks for pointing out the existence of this new property on Project Chat. I think it will be very helpful. However, I find the label "nature of statement" confusing. What this property does is restrict or modify the scope of the statement. This property seems to be similar to refine date (P4241) in that it allows us to record fuzzy concepts as stated in references. I would prefer a label like "refine statement".

Also, I'd like to add a new value "originally" (alias "traditionally"), which I would use for clothing and textiles (something might be "traditionally" woven of wool, but "sometimes" uses synthetics or blends). Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there could be a better label although I'm struggling to find one that fits to all allowed values. I'm not sure about "refine statement" - this suggests to me that the statement itself (e.g. its content) is refined. I don't think that it would be a problem to add new values. I'll ping the persons who proposed this property for their opinion: @Swpb:, @Deryck Chan: - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see this as something like applies to part (P518) but refers to part of the property, not part of the subject; or sourcing circumstances (P1480) but refers to the validity of the statement itself rather than the source. Swpb and I intended this property to be a successor of the now-deleted P794 ("as"), covering use cases that qualify that truth-value of the statement itself. I would expect all the allowed values to be adjectives or adverbs that qualify a relationship and I agree with Valentina that we should feel free to add items to the list of allowed values - unless another relevant property exists. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Restoring my own comment after Swpb's commenting deleted it. Deryck Chan (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Deryck. Swpb (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Valentina that "refine statement" does not adequately capture the allowed values, but it would be fine as an alias. I chose "nature of statement", because these qualifier mostly explains what kind of statement it is: an official statement, a de facto statement, a hypothesis, an allegation. While the qualifier does change or "refine" some statements (e.g. rarely/often), it mostly puts statements into context. I think the "originally/traditionally" value is a great idea; would an existing item like tradition (Q82821) fit the bill? Swpb (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I think values should mostly be adjectives or adverbs, and while "traditionally" is related to "tradition" I don't think that Q-item should be the value here. I am going to add "orignally/traditionally" as a value. Thanks for the comments, all. - PKM (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with sourcing circumstances (P1480) on dates management

Hi, I appreciate this new property. However, as you may see in Help:dates, there are 4 main qualifiers to refine an undetermined date, and specificaly the P1480 manage the diferents values related with "doubt situation": circa (Q5727902), near (Q21818619), presumably (Q18122778), disputed (Q18912752). Now it seems that one of this vàlues must be use under P5102, but no the others that remain in P1480. I disagree splitting similar concept in function of its values because increase complexity in the access and the infoboxes/templates that handle dates. Recently, a bot moved several P1480 to P5102 as you can see in special:diff/672107727 and we lose this info in cawiki templates. My pourpose is keep gathered all this values for the dates in one of them (P1480 or P5102), in order to have a coherent focus for similar concept. I ping the persons who proposed this property for their opinion: @Swpb:, @Deryck Chan: and @Pasleim: who runs the changing bot. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I run that bot based on a request. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the use cases of P1480 or P5102. You probably want to leave a comment on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Close-out of statements formerly using P794. --Pasleim (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with consolidating these values under one property. For dates, sourcing circumstances (P1480) probably makes more sense: uncertainty in a date is a matter of sourcing, not of the underlying fact. So I support moving disputed (Q18912752) back to sourcing circumstances (P1480). Swpb (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I support adding disputed (Q18912752) back to sourcing circumstances (P1480) too. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Requested bot migration. Swpb (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I come to this page to make similar observation. --Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Difference between hypothesis (Q41719) and hypothetically (Q18603603)?

Both hypothesis (Q41719) and hypothetically (Q18603603) are allowed values for this property. But I cannot figure out the difference between them. Could someone please explain this, preferably with examples? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Their meaning is identical, one being the noun and the other it’s form as an adjective. Both the other allowed values as well as the specific phrasing ‘’’‘’nature’’’ of statement’’ favor the noun. There are more cases like this, such as minimum (Q10585806) and greater than or equal to (Q55935291). --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Former attribution

I've added former attribution (Q70918737) as an allowed value, as parallel to "attribution". - PKM (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we allow prediction as well as estimate for values?

We already allow estimate (Q37113960), maybe we should allow prediction (Q748250), which has a similar but different meaning, and is usually used for forecasting what will happen, when, and with what probability, vs estimate which seems to be broader.

Conflict with P1480 to be solved

JakobVoss (talk) ClaudiaMuellerBirn (talk) Criscod (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Ettorerizza (talk) Ls1g (talk) Pasleim (talk) Hjfocs (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC) PKM (talk) 2le2im-bdc (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC) ElanHR (talk) User:Epìdosis (talk) Tris T7 ^{TT me} UJung (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Envlh (talk) SixTwoEight (talk) User:SCIdude (talk) Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) Mathieu Kappler (talk) So9q (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Zwolfz (talk) عُثمان (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC) M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC) —Ismael Olea (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Andrea Westerinen (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Peter Patel-Schneider

Notified participants of WikiProject Data Quality Hi all! As of now, as this query shows, 27 usable values are shared between this property and sourcing circumstances (P1480). This makes queries harder, of course; it affects some qualifiers used for dates (see Help:Dates, which prescribes sourcing circumstances (P1480)). I think we should establish, for each value, only one suitable property and then perform the appropriate replacements. The need of having this property was established in this RfC (2018) as proposed by @Deryck Chan:, in order to have two different properties for the qualification regarding the reference or the qualification regarding the statement. While the problem is complex and I would like to reflect more on it, it seems that the distinction has blurred during this four years and that probably P1480 has over-expanded against P5102; I also tend to think that, since P1480 regards the source of a statement, we should reflect on the possibility of restricting its use to references, excluding it from qualifiers. Opinions are welcome! --Epìdosis 17:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I remember P5102 was created because the curators of sourcing circumstances (P1480) were very strict about their constraints, so as a compromise we defined a conceptual boundary between "the state of human knowledge is fuzzy" (P1480) vs "the fundamental truth is fuzzy" (P5102), with the expectation that P5102 would be less strict about constraints. Among the shared values, I can see many of them can be reasonably used for both with different meanings, e.g. minimum (Q10585806) and maximum (Q10578722). The P1480 use case will be "10 people measured the high tide independently, reporting values of min. 2.0m and max 2.1m", whereas the P5102 use case will be "the water level at this harbour is min. -1.8m and max +2.1m [due to tidal range]". In terms of your proposed intervention, I think you'll need to ask the curators of P1480 would even entertain the idea of moving all their current use cases from qualifier to reference... Deryck Chan (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I mostly agree. While effectively the examples you make for minimum (Q10585806) and maximum (Q10578722) demonstrate that having them on both sides is fine, I am mainly thinking to the qualifiers used for dates (e.g. circa (Q5727902), possibly (Q30230067), probably (Q56644435)), which should probably belong to single references instead of to the entire statement. Let's make a concrete example, I have come across this many times: two sources report the birth date of a person, one as year X and the other as year X circa; this could be modeled in two ways: either two statements, one with the first source and the second with the qualifier P1480/P5102=circa (Q5727902) and the second source; or one single statement, with the first source and the second source containing in itself P1480=circa (Q5727902). Both options have pros and cons; I tend to think that the first is the most used (I usually act in this way), but I'm not completely sure it is the best one. --Epìdosis 20:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Inference?

Could we include inference (Q408386) here? Example - for Andrzej I Mackensen (Q123513698), to support the statement that Mackensen was born in Scotland, I cited a published source in which a historian explained the process by which he inferred that Mackensen had emigrated from Scotland to Poland. DS (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Swpb (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. And what steps are necessary to do this? DS (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Grades of trueness from obviously false to absolutely true

Imagine there is a task to characterize the statement, and the degree of evaluation has to be carefully chosen and exactly corresponding to the state of things.

I wonder if there are enough values for P5102 to specify exactly the degree that is needed.

From the full list of the existing values, I could select the following (sorted from false to true):

False

non-canon -> unsubstantiated

Probably false

dubious

Unknown

open problem -> hypothesis / hypothetically / hypothetical entity -> conjecture -> scientific hypothesis

Unsure

disputed -> unconfirmed -> possibly / probably / uncertainty -> opinion / interpretation -> retrospective diagnosis

True with exceptions

rarely -> partially / sometimes / depends on jurisdiction -> does not always apply

True but only one side of range limitation is known

no earlier than / no later than -> minimum / maximum / greater than / less than / one more maximum -> greater than or equal to / less than or equal to

The true value is unknown but is located in some range

expected / extrapolation / presumably / estimate / mathematical interpolation -> average

True with known limitations

de jure/de facto -> circa / mainly / often

True

definition -> de facto -> certainty -> illegal mark -> reality

Questions

How do you look at this? I see a lot of gaps and lots of values for P5102 that could fill the gaps.

Could it be a problem to make some more of the existing items allowed to be used as values for P5102? What if there will be as much new available values as there are already listed above? Would it be a problem? Nikolay Komarov (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

wouldn't be a problem to add more allowed values but would want to make sure we aren't making things more ambiguous. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making as a allowed value

Items of United Nations Security Council resolution (Q877358), have voted on by (P9681) with the voter organization (mostly, Security Council) and the number of votes fav./con./abs. as a qualifiers with they correspondant properties (Ex.:Resolution 757). However, sometimes that result is "uncountable", because the decissions is "by consensus", without indication about number of present voters. Then, I used nature of statement (P5102) with consensus decision-making (Q188577). As this value is not in the one-of constraint (Q21510859) value allowed, these cases generate a constraint.

So, do you agree to include consensus decision-making (Q188577) as a valid value ?.

CC: @Nikolay Komarov, for ping to me about constraint.

Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No news, good news. I proceed !. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)