Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence

The RfC at WP:V (full proposal explained in detail at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence) has been extended until Nov. 10 Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC Proposal re first sentence

The proposal is in two parts...

• 1) change the opening paragraph:

From: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To:     The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).

The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.

• 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:

==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". Assertions of untruth (i.e., an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

Rationale

Introduction The first sentence of the policy currently reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." There are concerns about this sentence, and particularly about the two words "not truth". In RfCs held in April and June, about 50% of editors responding supported change and about 50% opposed. After further discussion, with neither viewpoint gaining a solid WP:CONSENSUS, a working group formed to examine the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. The working group's deliberations can be found primarily at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence and its project page Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence; although a few threads continued at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Out of this working group has emerged the proposal above. It is seen as a compromise—one that addresses the core concerns of both sides. The proposal keeps the "verifiability, not truth" phrase in the policy, but moves it to its own section and clarifies it. It is hoped that both those who are content with the current wording and those who advocate change, to whatever degree, will support this measure as a compromise. Main rationale presentation Background: The concept that truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia was added for a specific reason - to support WP:NOR in saying that material should not be included unless there is a source that directly supports it. At that time, we had a persistent problem with editors wishing to add unverifiable material purely because "it's true" (a rationale commonly used by editors trying to "prove" their pet fringe theory). However, as WP:V has changed over time, the sentence has been moved earlier and earlier in the policy, and it has lost some of its original context. It has taken on meanings that were never part of its original intent. Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in a source must be included...simply because it is verifiable. This misinterpretation is in conflict with several other policy and guideline statements (especially the WP:Undue weight section of WP:NPOV), but examples of this misinterpretation happening in practice have been provided. How the proposal resolves this concern: The proposal adds an explanation that "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion", and it notes that other policies and guidelines can affect inclusion. Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is untrue (i.e., that the source may contain an error). Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true. That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable. Counter concern: This was never the intent. We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information. A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement. We also have to make judgment calls about the relative reliability of one source when compared to others. As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys." We do want the information we present in Wikipedia to be accurate, as far as possible. Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them). Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources. How the proposal resolves these concerns: The proposed language acknowledges that inclusion of potentially untrue information depends on context. We cannot make a firm one-size-fits-all rule on this. The proposal points out that the question of whether to include controversial and potentially untrue material is a complex one, that involves applying editorial judgment. It points the reader to other policies and guidelines that may help. Concern: Introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. The lede should focus purely on explaining what Wikipedia means by Verifiability without introducing secondary concepts. To the extent that it is relevant for the policy to discuss the issue of truth/untruth, this belongs in the body of the policy. How the proposal resolves the concern: The issue of truth is moved out of the lede and into its own separate section. Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained.

Notice: A change was made to two sentences of the Introduction to the Rationale on the first day of the RfC. This change is documented here. Also note that there were three intermediate versions of these two sentences on the first day of the RfC.

Relisted at 03:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Support

1. I obviously support this proposal... I was, after all, its primary author. The rational that is presented with the proposal explains most of my thinking on it. Not only is it a good (and, more importantly, a workable) compromise between the various positions... I think it actually improves the policy by making what I have always understood the intent of the current language clearer. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Support This is a compromise crafted over many months to resolve an ongoing, otherwise unresolvable debate that has gone on intensely for almost a year. It retains all of the intended meanings from the original AND reduces the unintended meanings and effects. I hope and request that folks from both sides of the debate....including those those advocating more or less change...support it as such.North8000 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal deals with the largest, most discussed issue. It does not preclude tweaks in other areas can then be discussed later. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   I'm guessing that 200,0000 words of reasons have been written over the last 8 months supporting why some substantive change is needed. I'm sure that most folks did not want to repeat them all here, plus this particular proposal is a compromise. I'm sure others kept it short for the same reason.North8000 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Support as a reasonable compromise and a well thought out approach to address a wide variety of concerns. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - HOWEVER, I think the initial paragraph needs to remove the word 'material' and replace it with 'information' (or similar). The use of the word 'material' can lead a person to think that we only accept words that are verbatim from other sources, which is actually against policy, yet it is FAR too common in Wikipedia. I've been involved in too many debates where people argue that "no, the source said 'rough' not 'coarse'" and people spend endless hours debating whether changing a word constitutes original research. But during this RFC, we're supposed to be focused on the "truth" part of the intro, so I guess despite my misgivings, I'll say 'SUPPORT'. -- Avanu (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - This version addresses many of the problems presented though I agree with the information rather than material reword.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Support  Balances many tradeoffs, not all of which I agree with, but overall a huge step forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, there is still much that I would change (including "material" to "information"), but this is undoubtedly an improvement.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Support as a major step forward for this policy. This proposal will reduce the potential for inexperienced or tendentious editors to misinterpret or pretend to misinterpret what it says.—S Marshall T/C 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Wifione ^Message 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I had no problems with the current version either, but this is a compromise I can accept. Additional changes (material vs information, threshold vs. fundamental requirement, ...) should be discussed afterwards (but, assuming that this rfC gets support, should stay away from the whole "truth" thing for a long time). Fram (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
11. Support the current wording is simply misinterpreted too often and this is an important step forward. Yoenit (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
13. Support part 2. I particularly like the part on "Assertions of untruth". The new sentences in part 1 read like a camel, but the intent can be understood. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. I've sometimes found myself asserting that although WP:V prohibits us from adding unverifiable information, it does not compel us to add information that is verifiable but untrue. This codifies the need for editorial discretion in those instances. I also prefer "information" over "material". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Verifiability and truth should go hand-in-hand. In the rare cases that they do not, we should not be actively encouraging people to post untrue information. I therefore support most of the rewording. —WFC— 12:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • However I oppose the bracketed bit as unnecessary. —WFC— 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Even though I understood what was meant by "verifiability not truth", it was clear just glancing at past discussions that editors were misreading and/or wikilawyering that counter to the policy's intent. Clarification is always a good thing. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The hard thing is to verify that the viw is significant. This is what I think we need to work on! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

17. Support Was tempted to oppose because it retains the Toxic Triad (albeit farther down the page). But it's a start, and in fact quite a good start. It addresses head-on the old "it's been printed in a newspaper so it's gotta go in" argument that we hear so often. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. Not perfect, but it is a change in the right direction. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
19. Support as a good compromise, with the hope that it can be tweaked over time (without giving preeminence back to the too often misused and misapplied 'Toxic Triad' that Boris mentions). First Light (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - The "verifiability not truth" mantra has always been the single most idiotic thing about Wikipedia. One of the PILLARS of Wikipedia should be VERACITY — and here we have a very explicit, up front, unambiguous declaration that PUBLISHED FALSEHOOD is perfectly fine. The threshold should be VERIFIABILITY and VERACITY. Period. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false but something else." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The hard thing is to verify that the view is significant. This is what I think we need to work on! If we really took the time to make sure that we were accurately representing sources in context (which belongs with "cite sources") and that we are verifying that the views included are all of the significant views, the quality of many articles will increase tremendously. But bring in truth and NPOV goes out the window. People holding equally significant but contradictory views may think they are equally true and the other's false!Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    If I may comment: Intended meaning: Verifiability rules as a requirement for inclusion. Truth or claimed truth is not a substitute. But potential inaccuracy of a statement should not be excluded as a consideration when editors are discussing possibly leaving something out. (Recognizing that in some particular situations, wp:npov trumps the discussion and dictates that it stay in.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    I admire your desire to support compromise. I would support Blueboar's proposal if it were modified. If you are using "accuracy" simply as a synonym for "truth" I fear we just disagree. If you mean that we must ensure that we are accurately representing the views we include, and that we are accurate in our claims that some views are significant and others fringe, I would agree with you, entirely (e.g., it is accurate to say that Darwin's theory of evolution is a significant view, and it is accurate to say that Darwin's view was that evolution occurred through natural selection). But if you mean that we must judge whether an established, significant view is or is not accurate (e.g. "is the theory of evolution by natural selection accurate" or "is the theory of relativity accurate"), then I think you are simply contradicting NPOV - and perhaps misrepresenting how science progresses. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

21. Support - A revision like this has been needed for a long time; this will end a whole lot of senseless talk page wikilawyering. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • P.s. I'm not thrilled about the parenthetical statement at the end - it doesn't seem to make any sense, and I'm not certain what it is intended for. That should be removed. --Ludwigs2 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - Sounds reasonable. --Iantresman (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Support seems like an improvement. -- Taku (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
24. Tepid support. I'm supporting because I think that the clearer explanation of "not truth" is a net plus. I also think that Blueboar deserves enthusiastic applause for devising such thoughtful wording for the sentence in which it appears, and for working productively with the diversity of editor opinions that went into the drafting. I am also taking to heart the suggestion that editors adopt a spirit of compromise. However, my support is only tepid, and I actually agree with a lot of the comments that I read in the oppose section. I see no good reason to move the discussion of truth out of the lead, and I worry that it has been buried in tl;dr. I also think that the proposal has been weighed down with additional changes that go beyond the central issue of truth. I believe this policy has long served Wikipedia very well in its present form, but that this proposal is, net, a very small improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - Mainly because of the inclusion of "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion." in the lede, though I think the whole thing is beneficial. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Clarification — In light of the extended discussion about truth that has developed here, I'd like to make it clear that my support is for the whole package, parts 1 and 2, not for any individual part and I would oppose any change which omits or softens — which the initial proposal does not in my opinion — "verifiability, not truth". — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Support in principle What we have needs to be changed, and the three things that need to be made clear are the three things presented in the proposal; however, the proposed text is far too verbose—a little more work and we'll be there. Uniplex (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    This addresses just the main topic of concern/debate. Other items can then be tweaked after that. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, the verbosity was my main concern also, and that can be improved over time. First Light (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Full support in light of comments. Uniplex (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

27. Qualified support The addition to the lede has the correct intent but is too wordy; it needs to be tightened up considerably. The additional section still fails to address the issue of simple factual error in sources, and, with WP:BURDEN, still encourages the creation of fake controversies by discouraging the rejection of manifest factual errors in otherwise "reliable" (that is, conforming the Wikip's formal standards) sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Support Although I agreed with the philosophy behind the original wording, its actual expression caused far too much difficulty. This proposal is an improvement. I shall not suggest any changes to the proposed wording and I suggest other "supporters" do not do either. Refinements can be made after any implementation is done. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Weak Support. The examples show that something about the current formulation of this policy is problematic. It's like the burden is always on those arguing for the removal of well-cited material to prove that it is irrelevant, unreliable, or otherwise inappropriate. However, it is not at all clear where this well-cited is holy attitude is coming from; in particular, I do not see how one can be so sure that "not truth" is to blame. Still, I largely agree with Tryptofish, this is a net plus, and my view is clearly closer to those wishing to remove "not truth" than to those who deny the problem altogether. Vesal (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
30. Support per Blueboar. --JN466 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
31. Support While "verifiability, not truth" is a great slogan, it's confusing enough that more explanation is warranted. I appreciate the further explanation of truth wrt verifiability and, in the strange circumstance that someone in a dispute actually read policy, would help. Just lop off the parenthetical statement at the end of the first change. On a different note, I'm seriously annoyed that this was set up as a vote by the proposer. When did we leave behind that other great slogan, "Voting is Evil"? 2009?Danger (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think that is fair. Blueboar is not so much that author as he is a de facto manager of a very long and comlicated process involving many people on some subpages. I think that the subpages were a serious exercise in good faith consensus building, and this poll should be seen more as a ratification or reality-check for the subpage process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Also, Blueboar just put it up as an RFC. Others added the format and structure for the feedback. Not that I disagree. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Actually, Tryptofish is evil. I made the edit creating support and oppose sections, so please blame me, not Blueboar. And I think that it has proven to be a useful edit. Please note that there are hardly any "me too" type comments. Rather, editors are generally taking the time to explain their thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I, for one, was glad that Blueboar was willing to do the primary work to create the RfC, and I appreciate his role in getting this going.  It was a decision of the working group to proceed with the RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

32. Support the compromise. Not the most ideal solution in my view but better than the "not truth" abomination. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
33. Support When I read paragraph 1, I was ready to jump flaming away onto the oppose side. Luckily, I kept reading and thus avoided making an idiot of myself. I think the compromise of keeping the wording but moving it out of the lead is one that will help clarify the point for new readers, while still leaving the concept available to this of us to whom the old wording makes sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. The existing language does more harm than good. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
35. Support As one of the party working on making the policy clearer and with less leeway for genuine misunderstanding or "creative misunderstanding", this is a very good start. We've spent a long, long (and at times tiring!) time working towards an improvement here, and finally come up with something which we all agreed could be put up for a "vote" by the wider community. This baby has been months in gestation - it's time for it to poke its head out into the world now. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
36. Support. We are concerned about truth - it's just that that concern is secondary to our concern about verifiability. We first make sure our statements are backed by reliable sources, and then and only then consider whether they are true. But that doesn't mean we don't consider truth at all, which WP:V could be mistaken to mean right now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
37. support not truth helps those who defame wp, dont believe what you read in wp, anyone can edit it and it doesnt have to be true. a clear example of wp being more concerned with the process than the result. it reminds me of a romantic scene where the troops know the are marching into certain death and continue because it is their duty. i also think it is stupid  :) Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    People defame WP because most of its editors are too lazy to take the time to go to a library and read several books in order to represent the current research on a topic. This is what academics do, and the result is not claims about "truth" but actual well-informed research. "Truth" is a metaphysical concept that people throw around when the believe in something that they do not understand, or use as a shortcut that saves them the trouble of investigating the complexity of just about anything and everything actual scholars study. No reform of WP will be effective unless we distinguish between two very different kinds of critics of WP: POV-pushers who hate WP because it includes views they think are false - this is a matter of faith (even if we are talking about secular claims), and people who recognize quality research. Quality research does not depend on claiming that something is true; it does show that one has read the most recent and well-reviewed books published by academic presses, and peer-reviewed journal articles, and, just as important, explain the views found in these sources in context. I have read lots of WP articles where people cherry-pick quotes from academic sources to promote a view that many people believe is "true" but that distorts the scientific research. As long as this happens, university professors will rejct any student research based on WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

38. Support. The "verifiability, not truth" is catchy, but the literal interpretation is not entirely accurate. It tries to make "verifiability" and "truth" opposing concepts, when in actuality they are supportive of each other. We should never knowingly add false information to an article just because a "reliable source" is erroneous. (Indeed if the "reliable source" is erroneous on a certain statement, then the source isn't reliable on that statement, even if it is reliable otherwise.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Not quite. We must include all significant views, it is not for us to determine whether they are true or not (especially when "truth" is a word most scientists avoid and philosophers question). The most we can say is "it is true that this is a significant view," if this is what you mean about mutually supportive. But what we are verifying is that it really is a significant view, and that we are providing an accurate account of it. This is a far cry from saying that th view is true! Do you truly believe that we are supposed to verify which of the following interpretations if quantum mechanics: The Copenhagen interpretation; Many worlds; Consistent histories; Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation; de Broglie–Bohm theory; Relational quantum mechanics; Transactional interpretation; Stochastic mechanics; Objective collapse theories; von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse; Many minds, is "true?" If one of them is true, the others must be false. Scientists acknowledge that they cannot all be correct. But you think our policy should be to report the true one? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Of course there are cases where there are genuinely competing views in high-quality sources about what the truth of a matter is. But that is addressed in WP:NPOV policy. It's not a matter for WP:V. --JN466 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I agree with you that this is covered in NPOV. But my position starts with NPOV as axiomatic and asks what then follows? My point is (1) V must be consistent with NPOV, and (2) given NPOV we have to ask ourselves, what is it that we are verifying? For me, if we accept (1) the answer to (2) cannot be "the truth." If we accept (1), then what we must verify is that "x is a significant view." It may be a view of the truth (as is often the case with religion, and never the case with science). Some people who are polling "support" are motivated by a perception (accurate in my experience) that most academics do not respect WP. They are also motivated by the belief that the cause of this perception is our use of "verifiably significant as opposed to fringe views" as our criterion for inclusion, rather than "true as opposed to false." I vehemently disagree with this.

    I am convinced that the credibility problem with WP is cased by the fact that very few of our editors take the time to do enough research - which often times must take place in a library - to distinguish between fringe and significant views, and to be able to provide an adequate context when presenting significant views. This is a skill that any PhD must have when writing a literature review, but one does not need a PhD to have this skill (and I have always opposed making one's academic credentials or lack of them relevant to editing WP). One does however need to make an effort, and in my experience a great many editors do not. And academics can see this. Moreover, I am convinced that making "truth" a criterion for inclusion will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia either by encouraging OR or by leading to overly-simplistic coverage of complex topics. We would be much better off if we took more time to provide guidance about what kinds of research are required to verify whether a view is significant or fringe, and to be able to provide sufficient context to understand why people in good faith might have competing views (e.g. why different US Supreme Court Justices hold different views on the constitutionality of abortion, gun control, or torture. Or why equally respected scientists have mutually exclusive interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am not criticizing these articles, just using them to illustrate my point) This, and not the absence of "truth" is in my experience why so many scholars are dismissive of WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem here is significant and fringe are not exclusive things. Regardless of how you define it the Jesus myth theory is significant but because the definitions for it are all over the map it is next to impossible to tell if the entire idea is fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I would rather say that Jesus Myth Theory is significant in one context and not in another - just as I would say that Creationism is significant in one context but not in another. As many scientists have pointed out (Gregory Bateson most notable) context is crucial. Bruce, I think you make a valid point. I just do not think that making truth, fact, or accuracy a criterion is the solution. I think that clearer criteria for significant and fringe views, criteria that make clear the importance of context, will not only address the specific problems people here are concerned with but would moreover improve the encyclopedia in many other ways. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Several of the examples Slrubenstein mentions are cases where the truth is controversial or unknown. In many cases the fallacy of a statement in a reliable source is fairly clear cut and objective. The latest one I ran into was Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 2#Transportation where a "reliable source" erroneously said that the (hideous) Oslo bombing in July halted all public transportation. Would it have been right to propagate that statement? (In this case the issue was resolved by finding an even more reliable source, but even if not, I would support eliminating any sentences that are in clear and objective error.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    True and in the case of the Jesus Myth Theory just what the idea even is is up for grabs. For example, take this definition from Bromley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034: "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,...". Even if you ignore the whole story of issue (George Washington and the Cherry Tree is a mythical story of George Washington but doesn't mean there wasn't a George Washington) you still have the huge range of Greek and Norse mythology. Hercules was regarded by Eusebius in Preparation of the Gospel as a flesh and blood person who was later deified and as late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." So Bromley's definition depends how well you know Greek and Norse mythology and is only regarding story of Jesus rather than the man himself--not very helpful.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

39. Support. The proposed wording is a welcome clarification on what to do with material that is verifiable but not necessarily true. I think that it is a lot clearer on the subtleties of this issue for someone who is reading the policy for the first time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Useful clarification. Murray Langton (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
41. Support I have previously opposed any change on this guideline, which has served us well. But the proposed wording is simpler and clearer, and doesn't confront new users right up front with a basic rule which at first glance appears to be a logical contradiction-- or perhaps the nearest analogy might be a koan. Koans are very attractive as ways of expressing some deeper truth that is otherwise difficult to verbalize, but it's not necessary to have one here. The basic threshold is, after all, quite simply verifiability in the ordinary meaning of the word. If we can not find any information about a subject, even as a concept, we cannot write about it. Everything else is a subsequent step. We need not, for example, consider whether something would be notable if it existed, or whether a possibly insulting paragraph about an made-up person is a BLP violation. For content also: we cannot find some evidence for a quotation, we can not use it. If there's no source for a birth date, we can't give one. And so on, as the basis for WP:OR and much of WP:NOT , and many other fundamental policies and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    But DGG this change doesn't suggest that if there is no source we can't give a birthdate - it suggests that a sourced birthdate can be removed if one editor says "I know that birthdate is incorrect because they guy used to be my neighbor".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I do not think it can be read that way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    Several editors voting support are clearly stating that that is the way they read it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think so.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

42. Support The proposed wording is more precise and the additional section is accurate with regards to community consensus. ThemFromSpace 05:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
43. Support per TransporterMan. I like how it reminds editors to get down-and-dirty in article-talkpages and discuss the verifiable sources - so they can form a consensus as to whether such-n-such is really appropriate/reliable.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
44. Support While I appreciate the pithiness and power of the "verifiability, not truth" aphorism, it really doesn't belong in the beginning of the lead of this policy page, where the proper nuanced reading of it may be lost, and it is too easily open to misinterpretation. Insofar as the "not truth" part distracts from the intent of this policy page, it should be removed as described, and the addition providing context is also nice. --Jayron32 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. I think the link to the essay "verifiability, not truth", even the whole sentence including it, is unneeded; but this is still a better version. Congratulations to the many editors that discussed this (I've read once in a while over the months) and then brought it to a RfC. I am learning from you, thanks. - Nabla (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. This wording is better. I am amongst those who feel that a further improvement could be achieved by tweaking the first two words, "The initial...". Initial implies a chronological set of steps in editing Wikipedia which do not exist, and the use of "The" instead of "A" makes it sounds like it is even a strict one. During discussion of this draft many people clearly preferred something like "A fundamental threshold..." and I do not believe that consensus has been tested upon this point yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
47. Support.Drift chambers (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
48. Support. The current version is very confusing and is Wiki-jargon rather than real English. The proposed version is still far from perfect, but it is better. Neutron (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Can you explain what, specifically, you find confusing? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

49. Support - a beneficial clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
50. I support the proposal (1) as obviously desirable, and in line with other policies, WP:NPOV for instance. Not everything that is written about a topic deserves equal coverage in Wikipedia; some sources may deserve no coverage at all in a specific context. I have reservations that proposal (2) is adding anything of value, see my comments in the "neutral" section on this one. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    I do not understand how eliminating the "not truth" is in line with NPOV. Can you explain? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Um... the proposal does not eliminate the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... it moves it, and explains it. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Given that there are only two choices to vote on here, I chose the lesser evil. My own favorite formulation would be:

    "A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for the inclusion of a piece of information in a Wikipedia article is verifiability—whether the information has been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Truth is approximated in Wikipedia articles by following the neutral point of view, which requires that various bits of information from diverse sources be represented in proportion to their due weight."

    Aye, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    I share the anxiety many people below express, about a major change in policy. But below, Have mörser, will travel suggests that a better slogan would be "NPOV, not truth." I like this. What's more, I think this is a very constructive point, and it is a shame it is burried as a comment to someone else's comment.

    I second "NPOV, not truth" as a very constructive point. I think it deals with a lot of issues that people have with our current "verifiability, not truth" slogan. Nageh (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    That Blueboar's proposal has so much support tells me that there is a serious need to clarify our policies (and as I said before it also acknowledges the hard work Blueboar put into the proposal). But there is still considerable opposition and we are far from any consensus for such a change. Yet, some very positive things have come out of this discussion. One is Have mörser, will travel's suggestion that "NPOV, not truth" is the better formulation of the slogan. Elsewhere, Unscintillating suggests that it is our "Reliable Sources" policy that really needs work. I think that if any changes to V were made in conjunction with these other suggestions, it might be possible to move closer to a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    In pretty much every case we have talked about here, it's really the formal reliability of a source that has produced the problem. When editors have judged that the actual reliability of a statement was too low to justify including it, there have been objections that the type of material being cited was intrinsically reliable, and that therefore the editor could not object to its inclusion. That's the problem with "not truth": it is being interpreted to mean that editors cannot exercise judgement, because judgement implies interpretation, and that this interpretation is ipso facto OR and thus forbidden, and that therefore the truth of a tatement isn't germane in any way even when it is obviously wrong. That's quite different from what I believe was originally intended: that you can't just add material you think is true; you also need a good, referenced source for it.

    we're getting captured by the obsession with keeping OR out of articles, but the side effect has become essentially a lot of campaigns to keep false or misleading information in articles. The issue is becoming exhausting because those of us who want to produce an accurate encyclopedia and fix these errors have to spend inordinate effort to make what ought to be trivial corrections. I think there is a way to fix this without giving away our ability to reject genuinely novel material. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    The misleading information situation has a sort of a poster child in the Weston Price article. That article has many problems nearly all stemming on how Price's work is being used today rather than anything he himself did or wrote. So totally RS direct quote by Price from JAMA and a 1939 medical book division which would help address many of the POV issue of the article have been kept out under a misunderstanding of what OR even means.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    In addition to its relevance for ongoing, difficult discussions and curation, I think that the change is relevant and helpful even for casual but knowledgeable editors who are turned off by the idea that some wikipedian may remove a solidly sourced edit and replace it with a sourced but out-of-date or bogus replacement. While (hopefully) everyone in this discussion understands NPOV and the concommitant unattainability of "truth", it is quite off-putting for many to see a negation of truth in the lede. Mellsworthy (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

51. --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
52. A reasonable way to deal with incorrect statements in otherwise reliable sources; reflects current practice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
53. Support A useful and beneficial clarification. Edison (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
54. Concur with the above. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
55. Support My comments on the proposal have appeared elsewhere on this page. To address the concerns of those opposed to the proposal: I believe that the current WP:V (toxic trio: Verifiability, not truth) (1) enables cheap shots to be made at the quality of Wikipedia's editors and processes, (2) confuses new users. It is necessary. I foresee nothing substantial changing in how we edit, resolve disputes, etc. as a consequence of this change. It does no harm. patsw (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
56. Support There's nothing inherently wrong with losing punchiness for clarity on the subtler points. We shouldn't sacrifice meaning in order to get a slogan. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Good compromise. Salvidrim (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
58. Support So long as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, I agree with Blueboar's proposal. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
59. Support - I've always thought that line could be misunderstood, but never had the time or inclination to do the research to craft a well-researched proposal. Kudos to the work put in by the proposer here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - I've always struggled with this line, we can include falsehoods as long as there is a verifiable source is how I have read it. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
61. Support - The proposed text is a clearer version of what the original text is trying to say. The original text may have some sentimental value, but the wording we use in policies needs to be worded for newcomers to WP ... and what they need is of clear, plain guidance. The proposal makes clear that which is only implied in the original. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
62. Support – sgeureka ^t•c 09:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - This new wording makes the policy easier to understand and refrains from making verifiability and truth seem like opposites. Chris (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
64. Support. I have not been following this discussion recently, but this proposal seems good to me. I think "verifiability, not truth" should still have a prominent place, but I also think the notion of "truth" could be misinterpreted, since it means different things to different people. So I'm impressed with the compromise this proposal offers. Mlm42 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
65. Support "Verifiability not truth" is easily misunderstood. Moving it later in the policy helps to give it the necessary context to be understandable by a new user.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
66. Support I think the current version is fine. But this version is clearer, and therefore better. LK (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
67. Support, but suggest a different formulation The problem with the lead is the first two words "The threshold". This implies that verifiability is the single threshold or at least the most important. A better statement would be "One requirement for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability. Other requirements are relevancy and due weight. " This would reduce the argument that every bit of trivia needs to be included, or that information published by mistaken or fringe sources needs to be included. "Verified" means "demonstrated to be true." It is contradictory to say "verifiability, not truth". If something is verifiable it is necessarily true. If a source makes a mistaken assertion such as Dewey Defeats Truman, we would not consider that verified, even though it could be sourced to contemporary newspapers. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
68. Support This seems like a much better method of explaining to readers exactly how WP:V works. This is a nicely worded compromise on prior arguments. Silverseren^C 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
69. Support The new wording preserves the original intent, but minimizes the possibility of misunderstanding. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into this. Sunray (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
70. Support I agree. Sole Soul (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
71. Support this is long overdue. USchick (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
72. Support - It's an improvement in most ways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
73. Support Well argued. Dolphin (t) 04:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
74. Support, several times before this discussion occured I noted to myself that 'not truth' is flawed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
75. Support [1]... getting closer. Specifically, I agree that getting the mantra out of the lead is correct. I don't think letting editors know that there is more to policy than this page is a bad thing, and the current conflict with undue weight as pointed out in the proposal all lean in favor of this change. I think this page addresses two classes of users, Garage Band X and The Truth^TMer's. For Garage Band X with a listing in Podunk Daily, this proposal nullifies their ability to say see, put it on it's verifiable (the policy change nips a certain SPIA argument in the bud). For the The Truth^TMer's I think that this version still does a fine, even better job, with the additional section on "untruth", explaining why Proposition Q can't be included even if it is 'true'. Cheers Crazynas ^t 05:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    RE: People that don't support this because moving it out of the lead is watering it down. Pointing to a specific section of the page, for specific editors that need that advice is no less powerful then having it in the lead, if someone won't read what being polemic is with links like that, they are demonstrating a willful ignorance of what's being pointed out to them, or they are not suitable for this kind of work. Editors that don't 'get it' when linked to the new section, won't 'get it' reading the lead as it currently stands. Crazynas ^t 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

76. Support Although not perfect, and significantly wordier than the current version, the proposed change is a step forward in that it more accurately reflects the actuality of how en.Wiki is edited: verifiabilty is the essential first step, but a positive relationship with reality (i.e. "truth") is important as well. Even sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards can put forth statements of "fact" which do not accord with reality, and to include these without a caveat simply because they are verifiable does a disservice to our readers, and to our reputation (such as it is) for accuracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
77. Support, extremely strongly. Evaluating if a source is a reliable source, even though it is technically original research, is and has always been acceptable, because, as we have no god list of reliable sources we must figure out if a source is reliable on our own on a case by case basis. Due to the poor semantics of the issue, sometimes this vital and accepted deliberation over if a source is reliable or not due to factual inaccuracies/bias/outdatedness will be disrupted by people claiming "Verifibility, not truth!". JORGENEVSKI 08:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
78. Support I support this proposal, although I don't see the change in policy as very large since the "verifiability not truth" notion will remain in the policy. One thing that caught my eye was this passage in the proposed new paragraph: "Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information" I think this is good, but we might go even a bit further in that sometimes reliable sources may be materially in conflict with each other, and in those situations we could explicitly identify that the issue is in dispute, which is important information to present to readers. So it can be OK to say there is a dispute/disagreement (even though no source explicitly says this), and then present the information in terms of a dispute (e.g. using attribution). There is a section in the policy already (lower down) that says "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution" but this idea would go a tad further. --Dailycare (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
79. Support The "not truth" bit of the first sentence has long been problematic. It's a fact of life that many editors who read the policy for the first time (and that includes a lot of newbies) don't read much more than the first sentence. It's not atypical for a newbie to be scolded about his edits and asked to read WP:V. These editors come here, conclude that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth and leave. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
80. Partial support. In the (happy) absence of a wiki-judiciary to tell us what the words mean, it's up to us to occasionally rephrase policy to ensure that its clarity and relevance is maintained. I'll go along with the proposed change, though I think some rewording would be beneficial: I don't like "initial threshold", or the bit in brackets about specifics, for instance. In fact my preferred version would read something like:

    Information can only be included in Wikipedia if it is verifiable - that is, if it is possible to check that it has already been published by a reliable source. While this verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of it because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion too.

    Actually I don't know why we don't discuss issues such as this by encouraging everyone to submit their own preferred wording. Very few people wouldn't want to make at least a few changes and it would provide a tangible indication of the direction the majority want to go. It would certainly put the spotlight on the "vocal and unreconciled folk" who are resistant to change.  —SMALLJIM  21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
81. Support This is a small, commonsense step toward a smarter encyclopedia. "Verifiability not truth" is a simple-minded mantra mostly used to slap down other people's edits. No one thinks, "Hmm... This is probably wrong but I'm going to add it anyway because it's verifiable." Brmull (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
82. Support The present wording seems to give the impression that accuracy is not important. Ward20 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
83. Support I like "Verifiability not truth" but prefer to have an explanatory preamble to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance it causes on first reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. The statement, "verifiability, not truth" is a paradox according to the English language definition of the words verify and "not truth". Why this has been allowed to stay in this lead section for years on end is a question that needs to be answered. We need to say what we mean and mean what we say. Wikipedia needs to get in the habit of using words the way the rest of the world uses them, and to stop trying to redefine the language. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
85. Support. As I totally understand the birth of that slogan and actually support it. Reading it as : Wikipedia is not the place for genuine revelation; We'd rather wait tomorrow news [at the least] (reflecting NOR). I also think that it is time to counter the other side of the medal : If you know something relevant you ought to write about it (reflecting NPOV). And if the accident happened in front of your door, please don't ask a source in the name of verifiability knowing it's absolutely true. Iluvalar (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
86. Support. The proposed revision is, for me, simply a clearer way to express the existing sentiment. Ben MacDui 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
87. Support - seems preferable to the existing version. The words 'not truth' in the first sentence of the current version have always bugged me, and have confused many people over the years. Robofish (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
88. Support - This is an important albeit incremental step in more clearly explaining existing policy. First, although "verifiability not truth" is a useful slogan to remember, and a pedagogical tool to instruct the newbies that we can repeat only what we can verify, it is not strictly true in lay terms. A closer approximation might be "verifiability and truth", or "verify but be skeptical", as the new paragraph so aptly explains the nuanced approach to dealing with things that can in fact be cited to reliable sources but are nevertheless of dubious validity or encyclopedic value due to weight concerns, contradictory sources, irrelevance to the subject, being clearly erroneous, and various other matters of editorial discretion. Like "ignore all rules", TNV is an old-style Wikipedia Jimboism that is instructive precisely because it strikes the reader as ridiculous or untrue on the surface, in turn inviting us to consider how it is apt in a deeper sense. That's great for us as a community, and indeed the proposal doesn't mean we can't keep the slogan, write essays, create shortcuts, and so on. But as a simple policy lookup that should be accessible to editors old and new, the rewritten version comes closer to explaining how it actually works in straightforward language. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
89. Support Clearer exposition of community consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
90. Support - Simply because something is in a supposedly reliable source doesn't mean that it's actually true - reliable sources have biases. Allens (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
91. Support per Brmull. Albacore (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
92. Support - may as well get rid of it, my experience has been that I've rarely seen it actually invoked in those words, just because it sounds so creepy... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
93. Support - verifiability is not opposed to truth, it is a way of approximating to it. I have never liked their use here as apparent antonyms. The new wording is far more defensible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
94. Support Yosef1987 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
95. Support. "Not truth" adds nothing useful and, although I don't think it should, it is clear that it confuses even some experienced editors. Also, I agree that it does sound a bit creepy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
96. Support. I believe that anything verifiable is true. I also think the "not truth" expression sounds almost like something out of Orwell. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
97. Support. While we strive to make our encyclopaedia as true as possible, it would be impossible without sources to vefify verify the information with. Shuipzv3 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
98. Support. Truth... Not Truth... without the proper context, an appropriate level of reading comprehension and a source's proven consistency over time - is either really provable nowadays when it comes to verifying even the most well-established of sources? The new wording allows for such nuances to have a place if proven warranted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
99. Support - states the policy clearly enough and in a much less creepy way. Kansan (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
100. Support - I like the new phrasing. It's clearer and more positive. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
101. Support as an improvement over the current phrasing and a reasonable clarification. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
102. Support - Much clearer. _noisy jinx ^huh? 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
103. Support as a major improvement in the clarity of the statements. Gwickwire (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
104. Support Just the phrase "not truth" alone rings alarm bells for me. Bejinhan talks 04:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
105. Support Editors that insert information without a source are relatively easy to deal with. It is the editors that use a source to justify a edit that violates undue or is not significant that are more difficult. Having this mentioned early in this policy can only help. AIRcorn (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
106. Support I believe this change should go forth. As it has been said above, uncited material is easily dealt with, and the proposed change covers all of my concerns with it. The proposed wording is very clear, and I particularly like "it is not a guarantee of inclusion" which is then expanded upon later in the policy. The older wording just made things a bit tangled, and material MUST be cited, because we oppose Original Research due to it being intrinsically unreliable and fickle. The proposed change is well written, and I agree. Jessemv (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
107. Support I can see no particular logic in the existing wording - it is philosophically questionable, and seems to have been arrived at on an ad hoc basis, rather than as a reasoned explanation of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. In practical terms, the change will make little difference, except in that it will emphasise the necessity of proper sourcing - which can only be beneficial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
108. Support I really hope this change goes through. Having the lede of this policy negate truth (or even "truth") is not helping anyone. Long-time users should know already that sourcing and reputability/depth of sourcing is what is needed to back up content, but (anecdotally--ie. unsourced except for this page) those who are just getting deeper into wikipedia can find it quite off-putting. For example, empiricists eschew belief in obtaining truth, but they label the quest for NPOV a search for truth. I think that truth is a contentious enough word that we should (as the current proposal does) embed the discussion of truth more carefully into the middle of the matter, rather than at the beginning where it is too easy to come away with the wrong idea. Mellsworthy (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
109. Support The concept of not truth shouldn't be in the lead, because it's misinterpreted by new editors. It also gives Wikipedia's critics ammunition that we decide on content by consensus, rather than truth - which they have a point much of the time, unfortunately. --Confession0791 ^talk 07:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
110. Support I especially think that the new paragraph about truth and untruth is desperately needed, and I hope that it is added whether or not the lead sentence is changed. Ravendrop 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

     Perhaps "untruth" could be an article/concept created, rather than a redirect. It is an actual word - but not on this wiki ;> Doc talk 07:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

     I second the motion, for clarity. --Confession0791 ^talk 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

111. Support - this is admirably clear, and reflects well on all who worked so hard. A big improvement, thankyou. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
112. Support - this is a good way of avoiding any perceived false dichotomy. StAnselm (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
113. Support' - very important. thank you. Soosim (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
114. Support. Never liked the old version. This is an improvement. Qwfp (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
115. Support - Actually this is exactly what I felt should be written instead of the current version of WP:Verify. It is needed as it has more clear "wordings" and is more comprehensive to new users (old users would definitely be happy with it!). If the first line sounds "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." - that might create confusion to others - doesn't WP need truth...?? - something like this... So better focus on verifiability first, then in a separate section clarify what is considered as truth according to WP:Truth. And yes, it is always advisable that "If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page" - rather than removing it immediately. But I always recommend that before removing any unsourced information - the editor should search him/herself for whether there is any possibilities of existence of any source. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
116. Support Better balanced. Aflis (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
117. Support Much clearer than the previous wording. Further improvements can be made... but that can be part of the normal editorial process. Yaris678 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
118. Weak support It's a clearer picture of what verifiability means relative to truth, but I must confess I appreciate the shock value of "verifiability, not truth." I would support more strongly if WP:VNT had a template more official than essay, which makes it easily dismissable as a minority view when that isn't really to be the case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
119. Support. While I strongly agree with removing the problematically confusing "not truth" slogan, I think the second paragraph of the proposed new truth/untruth section may prove problematic in other ways. I expect that if this change is approved that the language will need to continue to be tweaked in that section. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
120. Weak support Per the well-argued #Rationale. In the greater scheme of things, I do not think a minor change of the specific wording of this policy matters all that much. —Ruud 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
121. Support The "verifiability, not truth" was added by User:SlimVirgin in 2005, without much discussion, and never enjoyed particularly strong consensus support. The change was reverted many times over the ensuing year or two and ultimately was left in place. This change restores balance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
122. Support I believe this proposal splits up the requirement into better more easily digested chunks. The initial statement about verifiability has been chopped down to what it actually means without sticking in negatives. The statement about verifiability not truth has been put where it makes sense rather than as an in your face silliness. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
123. Support Our goal is truth. Our verifiability policy is one means to attempt to get to an objective truth, recognizing that it can be controversial. But that doesn't change the fact that our ultimate goal is to include true information. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
124. Support Reasonable wording. "Not truth" is confusing and is open to misinterpretation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
125. Support – I would prefer no mention of "verifiability, not truth", which has an Orwellian ring, but this is a reasonable compromise. Occuli (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
126. Support - It's better explained what Verifibility, not truth actually means.--В и к и T 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
127. Support. Though I agree with the principle of WP:VNT, putting harsh (IMO) wording like not truth in one of the core pillars of WP might be harmful and give a bad impression to new editors. I think its best that new editors learn the principle of VNT as they go along, and not get a lot to swallow at once. We should be proud of VNT, but we have never "advertised" it like we have done WP:V, and I feel its best it remains that way, because it might ruin the image of WP itself. Lynch7 17:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
128. I mostly support this proposal, it seems as though they have thought this policy through carefully but it still doesn't fully address the problem of when citations do not exist. Wikipedia still want editors to verify any information that is contentious which is not always possible. Shimmeryshad27 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
129. Support Absolutely remove "not truth" from the lead. Too easily misinterpreted as meaning that WP doesn't care whether our content is true or not, when we clearly do. Including the phrase later where it can be more carefully explained is a reasonable compromise. Awien (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
130. Support There is no single 'truth' only verifiable or unverifiable perceptions of truth. Marj (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
131. Support As a relatively inexperienced editor I find the proposed changes to be a helpful clarification. Meters (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
132. Support It's time for Wikipedia to stop pretending that truth doesn't matter. Truth is not the only thing that matters, but it does matter. Using this as a rhetorical aid even if it helps the encyclopedia in the short run will only hurt it in the long run. Those who think otherwise might be advised to step outside of the wiki-world for a time and consider how research and presentation of "information" or "knowledge" in the real world proceeds. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
133. Support, but why not do away with the sentence: In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth".? Isn't it now superfluous? Chrisemms (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
134. Support, "not truth" is confusing to readers, since "verifiability" means to seek the truth. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
135. Support, I agree with the above comment. Doug (at Wiki) 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
136. Support per Blueboar. This is one of the most important policies for Wikipedia and the policy should be clear to all. Haseo9999 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
137. Support. In combination with the proposed new additional first section, the new lead wording gives a much more balanced — and newbee-friendly — view on the policy. DVdm (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
138. Support in principle, however I believe that as a blanket statement, V not T gets the point across. "Not truth" is a problematic wording. However I'd rather change it to something like verifiability, not just truth which as a one-liner gets the point across without the risk of making it sound like truth and verifiability are in conflict. Nitro2k01 (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
139. Support Now, POV-pushing editors hunt for academic sources and para-academic "sources" supporting their erroneous views, whose deletion is hampered by Not Truth. As the ratio of incompetents/competents increases, people may stop referring to "The Sokal Hoax" and start referring to Wikipedia---unless "Not Truth" is reformed. The intelligent consensus of good-faith competent editors, based on higher quality/more reliable sources, should allow us to remove erroneous material from articles. (Gangs of incompetent or bad-faith editors trying to squash properly referenced information are rare, and should quickly be reformed or blocked, of course.) Concern about the wording of the paragraph, especially its last sentence, which will encourage the inclusion of more junk as attributed junk. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

     I echo your concern. But the proposal is a big improvement all the same. Passing the change would not prevent further discussions to refine the wording. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

140. Support, this would be a definite step forward. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
141. Support and how. One of the worst formulations in all of Wikipedia's policies, and one that has irked me for years. Truth is a basic presupposition of everything we do and have done; an encyclopedia is worthless without it. Chubbles (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
142. Strong support, without wanting to get into a philosophical ramble about the concept of truth, this whole recent drama was kicked off by a fundamental misunderstanding of this very sentence, and I'm still frightfully reminded of that editor who posted about something untrue from a vandalised BLP (can't remember which one) being reported in the press via WP "it's clearly not true, but now it's been published in several reliable sources, under Wikipedia rules it doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not". And you can't really argue with him when we have this ridiculous wording on a core policy. "Truth" is too vague a concept to throw around like this without elaborating. - filelakeshoe 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
143. Support this timely clarification of the wording. 101.171.149.26 (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

     Folks, this is a one-off IP delivering their only edit. Is this seriously to be considered among the support votes? I would sincerely hope not. Doc talk 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

144. Support Agreed, not all verifyable infomation is neccessarily true, and we are here not to promote paper and arguements but spread knowledge. Comprimise must be made though, please don't let this drag out for years.TheThiefOfEden (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 12.24 1/11/11 AEST
145. Support The obviously reasonable meaning should be that "just because something is true isn't enough — it needs to be verifiable". But the existing wording sounds far too much like the absurd claim that "if it's verifiable, we can say it regardless of whether or not it's true". Richwales (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
146. Strong Support Archolman User talk:Archolman 02:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
147. Support per Blueboar. A helpful, reasonable, and perhaps overdue clarification.--JayJasper (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
148. Strong Support Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
149. Support. I've opposed variations on this redaction before, because I consider the cognitive shock provided by "verifiability, not truth" to be valuable, but we can find other ways to accomplish that, and I accept that it facilitates people getting wrong ideas. It's time to let it go. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
150. Support. A good compromise that offers welcome clarification. Eusebeus (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
151. Support I've withheld opinion until now (except for my Perspective section post, below), reading everyone's comments, and percolating on it for awhile. However, I think the change is reasonable and needed, though I see it will cause some problems for certain areas like some of the scientific articles. It would seem that there is a need then for sub/co-policy that comes into play when those areas are challenged with V&T issues, and when the fringe theorists feel the wind in their sails. Sctechlaw (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
152. Partial Support. I support the changes to the lead. For the new section, I support all but the last two sentences. I think those need to be removed. Karanacs (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
153. Support Nothing is lost except the order in which information is presented. The reworded proposal reflects the way Wikipedia works more accurately. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
154. Support Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
155. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
156. Support Truly, "not truth" has nothing to do in that opening paragraph. Vladimir (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
157. Support per Occam's Razor. New wording of lead presents policy more simply. New explanation of difference between verifiability and truth is a more proper. -Drdisque (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
158. Support as a "step in the right direction": the impact of the Verifiabilty, not truth is stark and liable to mislead. Perhaps it would be sufficient to say "Reliable Verification, rather than Truth" and basically retain the previous statement. So far as the suggested new section on assertions and truth and untruth is concerned, creep could be reduced by saying the following: "It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). Information supported by a reliable source should be discussed on the article talk page, in the light of policies like neutral point of view and due weight). Presenting the information as a claim rather than known fact can often resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.--Jpacobb (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
159. Support (qualified) The proposal seems well argued and appears to have been extensively discussed and on that basis I have no reason to oppose. I have been involved with editors—generally from an inclusionist angle—where the question of verifiability most often occurs. I have been in the position of preventing BITE on more than one occasion so any calrification of this policy is welcome. qualification—I am concerned with the wording of "Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information" where I believe should be reworded as "... the sources opinion ..." to prevent the policy being used to insert editors own opinions --Senra (Talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
160. Support The prominent position of the "verifiability not truth" "maxim" implies that verifiability somehow trumps the truth (and hence every other WP policy). Demoting and explaining the "maxim" in context therefore removes this (undesirable) implication without swaying the policy from its (desirable) intent. --DaveG12345 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
161. Support The criteria should clearly be verifiability AND truth. The only problem with the truth part is that it is harder to check. The old wording gave the impression that people shouldn't bother with whether something was true or false. If it was published somewhere and hence verifiable then it passed the threshold. I once removed a clearly false statement, impeccably sourced to a drunken comedian. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
162. Support. Swarm ^X 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
163. Support The main point is verifiability and the 'not truth' part can be covered later with more explaination. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
164. Support, the wording should not imply that verifiability and truth are contrary to each other, but rather assert the threshold for inclusion. New wording does this much better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
165. Support, while true, removing this from the lede subtracts one of the things most off-putting to some editors. Nothing changes other than the presentation of the idea, and I support that. Dayewalker (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
166. Support - I'd like to add to this debate the following example/case study: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Halt_and_Catch_Fire. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
167. Support I have been feeling myself uncomfortable with the current wording for some time. It may give a false impression that truth and verifiability are incompatible, or even that truth is not welcomed in Wikipedia, while in fact both should go in an inseparable bond. Brandmeister t 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
168. Support I personally would prefer something even more restrictive than this alternative. Having worked in contentious areas and with unpopular movements ,I think the threshold needs to be much higher than the suggested improvement. However it is inherently a move in right direction. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
169. Support. If we're going to say "verifiability, not truth", then we ought to explain what we mean by it, because I can see how the old version could confuse people.Beth 84 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
170. Support. On the whole, a clear step forward. The relationship between verifiability and truth is clearer under the new language. Shanata (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
171. Support. Clarifies the intent of the policy, while retaining the language and making sure we don't misunderstand the policy. A good step forward. Yobol (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
172. Support. A good compromise and in my opinion an improvement to the wording of this policy. The wording change helps make things clearer. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
173. Very Strong Support This clarification is long overdue. I would even hope for stronger wording. The goal should be the closest we can come to what reliable and verifiable statements of truth or apparent truth (or falsehood) have been made. Obotlig (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
174. Support. This change is a good step towards avoiding misinterpratetions of the current wording.Dallasparta (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
175. Support. Seems reasonable to expand the meaning into the new section. This is a fair proposal that handles both sides of the argument.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

     Support This clarifies, for the better, a bedrock policy. Wikipedia is a compendium of what's been published in reliable sources about a subject. If genuinely reliable sources are mixed, the page should not be about the truth of a matter, it should report what reliable sources say about the matter. If reliable sources all line up, the article probably is the truth. That's a happy by-product. But the goal here is to establish what reliable sources say, not whether they're correct. David in DC (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

176. Support. This is how Wikipedia already works. Arguments of the type, "yes, we all agree it's false, but we must claim it anyway because this formally reliable source says it, no reliable source contradicts it, and Wikipedia doesn't care about truth" can sometimes be heard, but usually lead to severe disruption and never win in the end. Hans Adler 12:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
177. Support. I support this change. Why would something be "not truth" just because it is verifiable ? The current wording is misleading and the change is a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbchurchill (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
178. Support With caveats about what might constitute a "reliable source," I support this proposal. In cases of controversial and not objectively factual material, it seems to me that fair treatment becomes a higher criterion than reliable sources. What I want to avoid, and what I would like Wikipedia to avoid, is having articles espouse as "truth" something that appears to have a preponderance of evidence that in fact, consist of the largest number of people who shout the loudest. I think it is important that controversy over material be documented and annotated. Norm Reitzel (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
179. Support. I agree with concerns that the new wording is longer than it needs to be, but it does seem to improve the clarity of what the policy is actually trying to say, which is more important. Plus what Hans Adler said. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
180. Support. While I think that "verifiability, not truth" is a nice catchphrase in retrospect, it may well confuse new editors. For these people, the proposed change clarifies the policy. ylloh (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
181. Support, but would like to see change from "verifiability, not truth" to "verifiability, not just truth", per Nitro2k01. Moogwrench (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
182. Support. While I generally support being succinct, I find that "verifiability, not truth" can mean many things to many people. This proposal makes it very clear what it is supposed to mean, and that's the point. The Haz _talk 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
183. Support. Not much to add really. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
184. Support. The new phrasing is more positive and clear than the "not truth" statement. -Fall Of Darkness (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
185. Support, for improved clarity.--Miniapolis (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
186. Support, But for heaven's sake - if this minor change sparks this sort of conflagration, no wonder WP is struggling with new editors. Please consider what the core mission is, a Free Encyclopedia, an Encyclopedia contains verifiable, vetted information - the "truth" WP:Truth is far more elusive. Jettparmer (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
187. Support. I have had trouble with stupidity in the past.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
188. Support. Although it makes it more complicated in the immediate context. This move puts some more emphasis on WP:RS which is the larger context. I don't like the absolutist statement "blogs are not a reliable source" or when it is similarly expressed about videos or whatever. The change makes this stuff somewhat more complicated, but I say nonetheless it is a good change. Sorry for the long rationale. DanielM (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
189. Support. The expansion of the lede dramatically improves the integration of the policy with other policies, as well as reducing confusion for new editors. There may be additional work on this policy in the future, but the proposed changes are a significant improvement. Tgeairn (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
190. Support. The notion that "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth" is an error based on a formalistic/legalistic approach. Of course, we want to say only things that are true. If there's significant doubt, we can still say that such and such sources say something, and the claim that they say them, is true. This does mean that not everything can be reduced to procedures, which I infer is what the objectors want to do. But you know, we just can't. There has to be room for contributors to discuss which sources make sense, and which ones are making dubious claims, and in that discussion there has to be some role for the expertise of the editors who know what they're talking about. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
191. Support, pretty much as summarised in the proposal. It's a great compromise. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
192. Support This clarification greatly improves Wikipedia's stance on what should be included in articles. Reywas92^Talk 02:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
193. Support I was in two minds about this until I thought of a recent example of my own where I amended a person's year of birth based on a newspaper report, subsequently realising the newspaper had got its facts very wrong. I didn't go back and amend the WP article because I didn't have a neat proof of the correct YOB. In fact I should have done so and found something to support the correct date. The proposed change discussed here will emphasise that we Wikipedians are able to think for ourselves and interpret sources intelligently. Sionk (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
194. Support Quite strongly. In fact, I would suggest (argue?) that the issue of "TRUE" (or not) not be raised or even, ideally, mentioned in the guidelines. "Verifiable" is an objective standard, referential and testable by third parties whenever a dispute over material arises (save, of course, when the dispute meta-tizes over how worthwhile some source/referrence may be). "True", however, is a subjective non-standard - the seed of a monster of disputation lying in wait to devour in endelss argument any discussion regarding any statement on any controversial subject. "True" sounds nice, sounds so sweetly absolute and final - but here, I have to go all Pontius Pilate on the matter. Let's wash our hands of the issue of "true", which lies without our human capacity to resolve, and, instead, commit to "verifiabile", which lies within. JTGILLICK (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

     • I agree 100% with you that "truth" is subjective, the source of endless argument, and frequently beyond our capacity to resolve — and for that very reason I must throw my support behind policy wording that makes it clear in the very first sentence that we do not consider "truth" as a threshold for inclusion of content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

195. Support Someone made a comment that the first sentence of the current wording raises cognitive dissonance that prompts the editor to read further. I think that is a valid point. However, I'm very suspicious of catch phrases that try to make difficult concepts seem simple. I agree that an explanation for casual readers contrasting what the term "verifiability" means generally and on Wikipedia would be useful. As a new editor, I understood the policy better from reading the new wording than the old wording. I'd make the change.Carmaskid (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
196. Support I always had a problem with the line. I am surprised there is as much opposition as there is. Rabuve (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
197. Support. "Not truth" is misleading. utcursch | talk 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
198. Support. Truth would be nice, but verifiability is feasible. "not truth" can be misleading unless you take the trouble to think about it. Some people don't. Catchy is not always a good substitute for unambiguous. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
199. Support - sensible.  Frank  |  talk  14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
200. Support - For the lead, I think it's appropriate to phrase things in terms of what Wikipedia is. Make things clear. The nuances of contrast between verifiability and truth can be addresses more specifically further in. --EEMIV (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
201. Support We lose nothing by the change other than a catchy phrase which only sounds slightly fashionable. For most of the important topics not affected by the systemic bias, we get the truth right anyway. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
202. Support removing truth out of the mix seems rather appropriate. This approach also seems a nice simplification of the lead. I'm not sure how much this will result in any change in practice, but from a policy perspective it seems appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
203. Support While I don't expect Wikipedia to achieve truth, I do think it is incumbent on its editors to seek it. We are not just a bunch of robots indiscriminately cataloging both the sense and the nonsense of the rest of the media. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
204. cautious Support. Great improvement but the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is still there and not one of my favorite pillars of wikipedia. Do we need that phrase at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiez (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
205. support the "not truth" thing is perhaps one of the most puketastic bits of wikipedia (though that's a hard fought title). A teeny step in the right direction. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
206. strong support have been trying to move in this direction fo a long time. see wikipedia:facts precede opinions Bensaccount (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
207. Support. "Verifiability, not truth" has always stuck in my craw. Obviously, we should seek "Verifiability AND truth" in the encyclopedia. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
208. Support, one would think this is a no-brainer. However, I've been tripped up on this subject before. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
209. Support. The new version is no worse than the existing version, and I want to see the change rammed down the throats of the cabal that resists any improvements to this policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
210. Support have always hated the VNT phrase as it is to me antithetical to all we are doing here as an encyclopedia (i.e. trying to write as accurately as possible about the world around us with the sources we have access to. For all those below who tell me it means something else, the glaringly obvious ambiguity in how the 300-odd people here view it should be a huge red flag in how subjective it the phrase is, and hence is relegated to more of some glib jingo than a proper mature discussion on how we write an encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
211. Support because I've seen the "not truth" part be used to argue that accuracy is subordinate to verifiability when I believe proper editorial discretion demands that the two are equals. Dualus (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
212. Support - "not truth" in the lede in fact impacts verifiability in an indirect manner -someone could assume that verifiability would not be true, when in most cases it would be close to the truth. There are other issues then - of whether truth itself is objective or relative, but that would be a digression towards making a moral statement. Shaad lko (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
213. Support - Prashant Serai (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC).
214. Support IMO better expressed what we are trying to say. I understand why we have the 'not truth' bit there and 'what is the truth' is something useful for editors to think about, but I think it's also something that can be confusing to editors so a better phrasing and explaination of what we mean is beneficial. I know some have suggested those who don't understand it shouldn't be editing but IMO this ignores the fact 1) They are. 2) People who don't understand it initially may come to understand it over time if we guide them there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
215. Support Thanks for doing this. This truth business has always been a little off-putting, so I want to echo statement #158. Mabuse (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
216. Support as a reasonable compromise and a well thought out approach to address a wide variety of concerns. --Kanovski (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
217. Support. RDBrown (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
218. Support. SeelTheMan (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
219. Support. A slogan may be useful but it is often misused and misunderstood. Polequant (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
220. Support. This seems like a reasonable compromise; "verifiability" on its own should be clear enough, and the question of dubious content is raised in the paragraph below. Good work. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
221. Support. While the new language is not perfect, it is a substantial improvement from the existing language. Truth is inherently a crucial part of verifiability, but the existing formulation can give the false impression that the truth doesn't matter. John M Baker (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
222. Support Per Blue Boar and others. I was unsure of how to vote because I do not object to the current wording, but was leaning towards support because I the extra detailed explanation is good and because it was the product of compromise. Since then, however, I have moved squarely to support because of the arguments made by many of the opposers, believe it or not. Apparently, according to these individuals, the current wording is based upon a specific understanding of "truth." Truth, they claim, in this context doesn't mean accuracy or factuality but something much more rigid and absolute. Such "truths" they go on to claim, don't really exist and are not in line with modern scientific epistemologies. Well the problem is that most editors and outsiders do not understand truth in this absolutist manner in the first place. They do not think of "truth" as the thing against which we need to guard ourselves, but instead think of it as accuracy and factuality, things that we ought not be claiming we are against. I'd much rather make this decision based on that social reality than the convoluted philosophical arguments they put forth to justify the phrasing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
223. Having been aware of the massive barney on this page, I came here expecting to see a debate about the core values of our project. Instead, this is really just all about the structure of the page, isn't it? In that respect, the proposed alternative is more accurate, nuanced and suitable. For experienced editors looking to point IPs and noobs to the VNT concept, we can just shortcut WP:VNT to the new section of the page that will say: "An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth".--Mkativerata (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
224. Support AndrewN ^talk 23:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
225. Support —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:27pm • 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
226. Support. Verifiability not truth is the pillar of the content of Wikipedia. Any reiteration of the policy that restate this more explicitly is a good thing. 1exec1 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
227. Support Weighed the background reasoning/ proposed text / support / oppose / questions sections. Based on my WP experiences, the proposed language resonates with me as helpful and practical on a day to day basis. 00:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (by FeatherPluma)
228. Support Good idea, adequately executed. Though new editors will miss having the first impression that Wikipedia is devoted to the verifiably untrue. :-)John Z (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
229. Support This has turned into quite the discussion. I would like to point out that the Article Wizard makes the following statement in the box titled "Basics of editing":

     "It's highly recommended that you try editing a few existing articles before you create your first article. We care deeply that our articles are right, and incorrectly formatted and unreferenced articles are often deleted. Learning a bit of our house style first increases your chances of success."

     (emphasis added for clarity and not found in original text). wsoder (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

230. Support per Mangoe's observation at #50: "That's the problem with 'not truth': it is being interpreted to mean that editors cannot exercise judgement, because judgement implies interpretation, and that this interpretation is ipso facto OR and thus forbidden, and that therefore the truth of a tatement isn't germane in any way even when it is obviously wrong." I also think this is what Jimbo has been getting at -- we have a moral obligation to uphold truth and to resist indifference to it -- a point with which I also agree. FactStraight (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
231. Support - well worked out, covers all bases. --Scott Mac 13:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
232. Support Great resolution, the "not truth" part deserves its own section. MonsieurKovacs 11:08, 6 November 2011 (QYZT)
233. Support. The phrase "not truth" is more likely to confuse than enlighten. Yes, "verifiability, not truth" is still Wiki-policy. But so is "verifiability, not whether it rhymes". Moreover, the vast majority of sane editors agree that truth really is the ultimate goal of human knowledge, and thus "not truth" is potentially confusing. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
234. Support Definitely clearer! Esuzu (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
235. Support: As to purely concentrating on "verifiability, not truth", it is the most stupid twisting of words I've ever seen. I support a change of wording in that, to show that verifiability is the starting point only. It makes it sound as if Wikipedia does not care about truth, and I've seen too many eds. and admins. offer that very viepoint.Djathinkimacowboy (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
236. Support. A great improvement. Concentrate on the verifiability in the lede. I understand and accept the rationale for the current wording, but have always thought it was philosophically problematic and potentially confusing. The later additional points are much clearer too. (RT) (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
237. Support. While the "verifiability not truth" argument does come in handy when mitigating the ill-effects of the pervasively irrational (e.g. [2]), the argument itself is ultimately not a good one and is only useful in the abstract. The reason the poster in the example given doesn't have a leg to stand on is that he is wrong. That is he also in violation of WP:V is just icing on the cake. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
238. Support despite initial skepticism and personal attachment to the phrase "verifiability, not truth." (I quote it prominently on my user page.) As long as we're revising, I would have changed the verb "to check" to "to verify," reinforcing the word "verification." But I won't strain at that gnat. This is a well made compromise and I'm all for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alarob (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 November 2011‎ (UTC)
239. Support. Consistent with the original intent of WP:V and an improvement over the current wording. CJCurrie (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
240. Support. Clarifies current wording. There's still a way to go, RE: Truth, though. Lou Sander (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
241. Very strong support I think that most content should be verifiable, but then, not everything that someone publishes, especially on the internet, is true. For example, if someone posts on the internet that Octopi live in trees (and someone has done that), that doesn't mean that they are telling the truth, but according to the current policy, someone could put that on Wikipedia, because it is, technically, verifiable. Also, some information, like "fish can swim" is so obvious that few people have probably even published it, so it might not be considered verifiable. pluma Ø 00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     That kind of example (a source that is obviously untrue) does not qualify as a WP:RS and therefore is a nonissue and strawman. But do some octupii inhabit trees (especialy, either submerged trees, or climbing out of the water in mangrove coastal forests)? Neither of us can say absolutely for certain, we are not qualified to determine truth. (Similarly in fact, such a thing as a tree kangaroo was only recently discovered! And we are frequently making surprising discoveries about octopii -- at the very least, you do know they will stealthily climb across the room to another fish tank and back right?) To determine whether to include the tree-octupus in WP, we must check whether the sources are obviously satirical versus scientifically reputable, check whether other sources dismiss or discredit the claim (surveying for sources on the controversy itself), and even if the mainstream consensus is that the tree octopus does not exist (and thus that we must not assert its existence) we still apply WP:DUE to assess whether to report on the existence of the claim of its existence. But at no point does the editorial process hinge on our own views about what is true, or (what is different) whether we claim the personal ability to verify its truth (not necessarilly "originally"); it hinges completely on what sources we can cite. Moreover, the fact that you made the comment you did, suggests to VnT fans that your support position is rooted in misunderstanding of the policy (i.e., that you personally exemplify the need for "not truth" to be emphasised more strongly -- and also for the policy wording to be kept fun and not made dull/dry/wordy/legalese/less-readable). Try watching an article like bible (or some of the theoretical physics topics), which constantly attracts editors who claim to be absolutely certain of their own peculiar truth (and hence, of which sources fall short of truth); VnT is absolutely key to constructive collaboration in such contexts of strong personal disagreement. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     However, if an average editor sees this for the first time, they will think that the implied definition is what is true and not the actual definition. So, its what it says, not what it means, that people read and accept as the truth. Since wikipedia is non-verbal, the whole concept should explained in the page. pluma Ø 02:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

242. Support. While I've never understood the present wording to be intrinsically misleading or problematic for new editors, the objections raised about this change seem a little overly cautious. It might not warrant such a long debate, but such being the case, nonetheless, it is flattering evidence for the editor community's passion and involvement. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     ...the objections raised about this change seem a little overly cautious. It might not warrant such a long debate,...

     Perhaps you might find the following to be both relevant and persuasive. From the top of this page (emphasis mine)...

     The policy associated with this talk page is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. These have wide acceptance within the community, and are relied upon every day to make editorial decisions and resolve disputes. Stability is therefore paramount. For that reason, please do not change the meaning or focus of this policy without clear consensus.

     JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

243. Support - the current wording sounds like Wikipedia is more concerned with what someone said than its truthfulness. That is, it sounds like we can put in anything that someone said, regardless of the truthfulness. This is sometimes used to make a wp:point. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     Do you have examples of that problem? Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     I do not have any examples at hand, but I have seen it used in arguments on talk pages, citing "verifiability, not truth" as a reason for putting something in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     There plenty of examples in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 52, and even one on this page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     The clearest case I recall was on the 2011 Norway attacks where a user correctly challenged the veracity of closed roads and halted public transit. He was met with the following: "Can you provide a reference for this? At present we are citing refs which disagree with you. They could easily be wrong of course, but we are required to go with what the valid refs are saying until a better (or more timely) ref is found" (emphasis mine) Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     So are you seriously saying the encyclopedia would be overall improved if the policy were to disregard all external checkable sources any time that one editor anonymously claims to have overriding personal authority/expertise on the topic?! Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     Thay is a straw man. I have suggested no such thing. Nor does this policy proposal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

     Could you please clarify your position/suggestion? I was trying to ascertain the existence or severity of the problem motivating Bubba's support. In your example I think Manning's reply should be considered best practice (although I gather you disagree). If DES's claim to personal expertise is legitimate then DES should be trivially able to cite Norwegian sources to demonstrate those less authorative sources were mistaken on the issue; I don't think DES's say-so should alone trump the professional reporting (so I fail to understand why this example motivates the proposed change). Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

244. Support - Suggested change is a more mature and nuanced explanation, the current is sensational and easily misunderstood. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
245. Support - It's about expressing the spirit of what's intended; the terribly literally-minded will still take it the wrong way, but eh. --moof (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
246. Support - Clarifies the wording. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
247. Support - makes a clear policy even clearer. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
248. Support - Some clarity was needed here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
249. Support - It seems to me, the casual observer of Wikipedia, that the manner in which this policy is currently written is contradictory nearly to the point of paradox. Verify, the root word of verifiability was first used in English manuscripts that date from the early 14th century. The word was an import from the Old French word verifier itself derived from the Medieval Latin word verificare meaning "make true". That something can be "verified" and "not true" is a peculiarity of the Wikipedia-world that only serves to obfuscate rather than enlighten. Dispense with this jargon or, at the very least, don't over-emphasize it. 129.64.204.12 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
250. Support - Definitely support, it definitely clears the meaning. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
251. Support - it understands the meaning Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
252. Support - Cleans up the meaning Fumitol|talk|cont 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
253. Support - although I wouldn't have any particular objection to keeping some form of "not truth", maybe with a link to WP:TRUTH, involved in some way. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
254. Support - "Verify" means to ascertain whether something is true. The current wording is sophomoric. It's rather absurd - and insulting to us editors - to imply that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth. The problems about how to determine what is true, remain - but denying that goal doesn't help. Postpostmod (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
255. Support - A much needed step in the right direction. I still dislike the "initial rationale" "initial threshold" but regard it as less problematic than the language being replaced. Abbenm (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
256. Support - This clarification is much needed and will prevent editors retaining clear falsehoods on the spurious ground that the falsehood has been verified. (e.g. Where a dubious positive assertion is made and can be verified using a qualifying external source but the converse is unverifiable because suitable sources rarely gratuitously assert negatives.) PRL42 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
257. Support - Sensible. Thank you to the drafters of this proposal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
258. Support - I think this change makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
259. Support - The proposed clarification is a useful improvement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
260. Support - The previous wording is OK, though the proposed one is more clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
261. Support - Still plenty of room for improvement, but it's a reasonable amendment which makes it just that little bit easier to rebut the (nonsensical, in my opinion) assertion that "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, only verifiability" as if it were a policy. If that really were to become a policy of Wikipedia, I for one would have nothing further to do with it. David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
262. Support - The clarification is a good step towards having everybody understand the policy Zxcvasdfqwer888 (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
263. Support- This is a must. I think that rules concerning the Editing of Wikipedia articles must be as straightforward as possible. The pervious wording was somewhat ambiguous and, in my opinion, did not place enough weight on Wikipedia's goal to provide readers with information backed by PUBLISHED TRUTH. Perhaps some encouragement should be made to use Talk Pages when a statement is disputed and seen by an editor an untrue, but that is another topic. This edit brings much needed clarification to the topic and is a rational compromise. z'Comandif l'Statentaru l'Zeklingtonum! (talk) 2:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
264. Support. I think it will clarify things for readers, in line with the spirit of our WP:LEAD guidelines, which ask us to be clear and accessible in describing things. Jesanj (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
265. Support I obviously understand the intended meaning, but taken out of context it does give the impression that we prefer to publish lies when possible.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

     Yes, taken out of context it could give that impression. To some. Doc talk 08:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

266. Support, but don't stop I think that the new wording is an improvement, but I think there are still many problems that aren't addressed by the change, and hope that a Yes closure won't be thought of as "Ok, WP:V is perfect now". In particular, many people still get very confused about V, N and RS and the subtle distinctions between them (for instance, I've seen sources objected to as "not notable", and as for the arguments we get into around lists and comparison articles...). I realise that this is a difficult problem, but WP:V is apparently still misunderstood by many editors (even some rather experienced ones). There are also some issues with the policy itself (for instance, WP:SPS/WP:SELFPUB is broken) but those are of course out of scope for this RfC. PT 09:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my statement above[3]. I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable views. It is not the wikipedia editors job to evaluate whether claims published in otherwise reliable sources are true. That is the job of researchers and scientists who make science progress by critiquing the claims of other researchers - that is not what we do in wikipedia. If an editor finds that a claim in an otherwise reliable source conflicts with his view of reality then what she needs to do is publish a research article about the topic, not bring wikipedia in line with their own view of reality. Certain editors are already arguing here that certain kinds of OR is ok and that this policy should back that notion. In my view this argument is 100 times more damaging to wikipedia than the odd pov pusher citing WP:NOTTRUTH in order to include a fringe view. We would be turning wikipedia into a publisher of original thought. Here is the citation I go by in my relation to truth here on the encyclopedia[4] "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." Jim Wales. I would support a proposal that makes it clear that verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for inclusion of information in an article AND that the decision of including a piece of verifiable information has to be based on whether the view is significant, not whether it is objectively correct. I think this can be done by including a description of what is meant by the V not T slogan after the first sentence of the guideline. Such a phrase should both deter usages of the slogan to keep insignificant sourced views "because they are verifiable" and it should deter the usage of the slogan to remove verifiable information "because its not true". I.e. it should clearly establish the kind of reasoning that is acceptable when arguing for inclusion or exclusion of information based on "V not T". Basically I think that it is impossible to avoid that some users misuse the essay in one of the problematic ways, but it is possible to make it very easy for others to spot when it is being misused, by explicitly stating how not to use it (i.e. neither to support original research based on primary sources nor to justify inclusion of insignificant/erroneous but verifiable views)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think this debate represents a big problem not only with wikipedia but with a lot of people these days as a results of our school system. The ratio seems to be about 2:1 of those who are capable of independent thought, and those who can only depend upon authority. Bensaccount (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Wikipedia does not just care about views, it cares about views of reliable sources. It privileges views of reliable sources over non-reliable sources because they better approximate the truth. Per WP:RS, it privileges sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," sources that involve "people engaged in checking facts" or that "have been vetted by the scholarly community," and it emphasizes verified information over gossip. To interpret these statements as not emphasizing truth is bizarre.

   Moreover determining the objective factuality of whether people have certain views (e.g. whether they've been accurately quoted) involves the same wrestle with factuality that comes with checking the truth of other things, such as events and facts. It would be very strange if we allowed this emphasis on truth for the purposes of establishing which views are held, but refrained from extending it to other things that can often be confirmed the same way.

   Both sides seem to agree that the policy should not lend support to subjective and flawed opinions of The Truth. It seems to me that what supporters of the V not T slogan really mean is "don't replace Wiki policies for truth-approximation with your personally preferred means of truth-approximation." Abbenm (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I highly commend Blueboar in particular for this well-reasoned proposal, but I feel that the current wording is fine and widely understood by the majority of editors: especially if they read beyond that sentence. I still think the only change that might help clarify the strength and meaning of that first phrase might be to put "truth" in quotes, but that was shot down. Doc talk 03:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Opposes:.

   adding "initial". Verifiability is the starting point of inclusion - it is the threshold. After the starting point we have other process that material may encounter in order to remain on Wikipedia, but they are not thresholds, because the starting point of verifiability has been passed. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" is a simple, clear statement that loses effectiveness when qualified with the tautological "initial". Verifiability is basic. It is the essential and major inclusion criteria. It all starts from that point. We need to drum home that unverifiable material should not be added. People can quibble about the value of the material later - but let's let people know that inclusion or formatting or editing discussions shouldn't even take place without the threshold of verifiability being passed.

   We're looking at the possibility of more tweaks to follow - for example replacing "threshold" (which implies that once you've crossed it, you're in) with something like "A fundamental requirement" (which clearly leaves room for other requirements, but is absolutely ... well, fundamental. Bear with us - these extra things are on our agenda. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

   adding "not a guarantee of inclusion" / "other policies and guidelines". The essence of this policy is that material must be attributable - discussions about how the material is handled, edited, formatted, questioned, etc, do not belong here and simply cloud the issue. It is inappropriate to try to cram the whole of Wikipedia into one policy. This policy page is about verifiability, not notability, which is a different page. Awareness that material may be subject to further scrutiny is covered by the elegant "threshold".

   removing "not truth". The phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is simple, elegant, and powerful. As far as we are concerned, it doesn't matter that your local band exists, and that you are staring right at them: if there is no means to verify their existence, we don't have them on Wikipedia. While I agree that a section expanding on "truth" is worthwhile (and I support that section), removing "not truth" from the opening sentence removes a simple clarification, and removes a powerful phrase. We can change "truth" to "existence" or any other such synonym, if people are uncomfortable with the word "truth", but that distinction needs to be there, and it needs to be in the first sentence. We define things by what they are not as well as by what they are. We need to make clear that truth/existence by itself is not verifiability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   I believe that the new proposal "agrees" with and furthers all of the principles which you just described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose per User:SilkTork. Roger (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal is trying to force this policy to do the job of WP:RS (and a bunch of other policies and guidelines). The supporters seem to be under the impression that this is the be all and end all of content policy. Roger (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Maunus: "I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable views" Moreover I object to the wording of the first paragraph - what we are verifying is not that there is material documentation, we are verifying that it is a "significant view." Reliable sources (which are typically some kind of publication) are a means for documenting that it is a significant view, but what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Note I appreciate the hard work Blueboar did and I think that these objections can be resolved with some relatively minor rewording of the text Blueboar wrote. If we can modify the text in lines with these objections - which I think affect just a few sentences - I would support it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Slrubenstein, you are confusing a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE) with Verifiability. These are not the same thing. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   No, they are not the same thing. But V derives from NPOV and they are linked, which by the way is true for NOR as well. I think you are confusing V with Cite Sources. These are not the same. I stand by what I wrote. It expresses the principal that has guided my editing since we first agreed on a V policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   First line of Encyclopedia: An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

   It's a sad state of affairs when apparently many editors seem to think that an encyclopedia is nothing more than a collection of opinions, biographies, views on historic events, politics and popular fiction.

   While I can understand the need for rules focussing on the areas where most problems arise, when "truth" becomes a dirty word for many editors, maybe some change is in order. I was going to comment on the absurdity of "verifiability, not truth" when applied to articles about mathematics, but I'll save that for another time. DS Belgium (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is sophistry. First of all, the line you quote does not mention truth. No real scientist claims that they know the truth or teach the truth. Second, everyone knows that if they want to read a great encyclopedia written the conventional way, by actual experts on the topics, they would be better off reading Encyclopedia Britannica. When WP was created, the idea was clearly not to emulate EB but to try a whole new model. As a "wiki"pedia there is no requirement and thus no guarantee that the editors be experts. WP:NPOV was the framework that would not only enable editors with conflicting beliefs to work together, but the principle that would distinguish WP from other encyclopedias. And that principle is neutrality, not truth. NPOV demands that we include all significant points of view. period. Even if we think one view is false, we include it if it is significant. Even if one view says another view is false, we include the other view if it is significant. This is how we achieve neutrality. And if we keep our NPOV policy, then we cannot take it upon ourselves to verify that the view is the truth, and most of us are not qualified even to judge one view as better than another anyway. The only "truth" we can verify is that "it is true that someone holds this view." This is what we are verifying, not that a view is true, but that the view is significant and accurately represented. If you do not like this you should have sought a job at EB rather than volunteer here. And if you want to change this, then we have to get rid of NPOV too. We would have to change it from "neutral point of view" to "truth point of view." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   Seems I was wrong, thinking you and the others were defending "Verifiability, not truth" because it was useful in keeping the wackos and fringe theories out and trying to make WP a trustworthy source. Looking at your user page, I realise you want the opposite, every opinion that is notable should be represented, because you believe in "great truths". And that's why you say "no real scientist" claims they know the truth or teach the truth, yet in the next sentence you acknowledge that "actual experts" would use such judgement to decide the content of an encyclopaedia! Since I don't think works of fiction and arts express some great truth, you see me as an idiot ("I think of those people who would answer "no" to my question whenever I read this passage from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum: Idiot... How could you fail to kneel down before this altar of certitude?")who doesn't understand a thing ("If the person answers no, I know that they understand nothing."), so there's no use in talking to you any further. I just hope you stay away from science topics, especially maths, if you think formal proofs are based on opinions, and the truth or falsity of conjectures can never be determined. DS Belgium ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I certainly am defending "Verifiability, not truth" in order to make WP a better source of knowledge. Moreover, one reason I think we should keep some kind of "not truth" formula is precisely because I think the real solution lies in clarifying and elaborating on what we mean by verifiability, the criteria for reliable sources (which must include other criterion besides publication or even publication in a respected venue) - better guidance concerning fringe views is precisely one of the ways I think we can do this. Yes, I do believe in "the truth." But for reasons that Jimbo and Larry laid out a long time ago, and that are still central to our NPOV policy, I do not believe that my own view of the truth should ever influence my editing. If you think that is the meaning of my user page. I will not discuss my user page here as it is not the appropriate venue but if you actually cared about what I think you can ask on my talk page. Suffice to make three key points: first, I never called you an idiot and that you feel a need to put words into my mouth says more about you than about me. Second, you clearly do not understand the quote from Eco — the capacity for so many WP editors to believe that they understand what a quote means when taken out of context is in my view one of the major problems with Wikipedia (eliminating "not truth" will not address this problem and I think it will actually make the problem worse). Third, I never said formal proofs are based on opinions, although I do know that they are based on axioms and I appreciate the implications of that fact. Would I ever argue against including in an article a statement like "Mathematicians agree that Euclidean geometry provides a proof for the Pythagorean theorum, or a proof that the sum of angles a, b, and c of a triangle is 180 degrees? No. But – and this is the key point – "verifiability, not truth" in no way can support removing such a statement from our article, and, indeed, our policies in their present form help us write great articles that include just such statements. So I do not think your comment is rational (and no, I am not calling you an idiot), and it certainly is not constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose – to me, the proposed version seems more cumbersome than the current version, and it seems like we're trying to make this more complicated than it should be. –MuZemike 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Slrubenstein, Maunus, MuZemike. Obfuscates rather than clarifies, and places undue prominence on whether sourcing exists, not what is verified by that sourcing, if you follow. I would support a modified version of the 1st paragraph second suggested edit, but strongly oppose the change to the nutshell verbiage opening paragraph, which has lasted for many years for excellent reasons - because it is clear and concise. I see no reason to change it so that it is neither clear nor concise. . KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Question for KillerChihuahua... the proposal does not call for any changes to the nutshell... but perhaps you were referring to something else... could you clarify your comment? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is what happens when I'm editing in three windows while on the phone. Apologies, I have corrected my statement. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks... your views are much clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   They would have made sense before, if I'd actually typed what I was thinking. Sometimes I have a brain=keyboard disconnect. Thanks for asking for clarifying so politely. :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose, and indeed absolutely, utterly oppose. Avoiding the statement that "Wikipedia is not about truth" will open the door to untold of headaches and debates on many, many pages. My real concern is that the Wikipedia community is by and large unaware of a scary phenomenon that is creeping up on us: "we may soon run short of editors who are generally familiar with the policies". In most systems, there are usually underlying processes that drive the system and Wikipedia is no exception. Some time ago I came across a paper based on a thesis by a student about Wikipedia and he had done some studies that made sense. As I recently searched again, I only found a summary of the thesis here, but his main argument, supported by various graphs was that as the number of Wikipages and Wikiusers increase, reality will catch up with us, and he predicted that there will be:

   an untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, as time passes by. This trend may eventually cause that these authors will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month, thus starting a decreasing trend in the number of monthly revisions, and an overall recession of the content creation and reviewing process in Wikipedia.

   So as more and more IPs require comments, the level of effort to support them may become a burden. If those IPs feel that "they know what truth is" and try to do good by setting the record straight in Wikipedia, the effort to explain things to them will be tremendous.

   It is essential that the millions of new IPs coming in be told upfront that what they consider to be "truth" will probably differ from what someone 3 blocks away from them considers "truth", let alone someone three continents away. It is essential that the idea that "your truth may be different from the next guy's concept of truth" be stated upfront to save us the effort of repeating t again and again to new IPs. I personally feel like a broken record player repeating it again and again.

   And I would go further and point out to the new readers/editors that in some fields "there is no truth". Period. A suitable case is monetary economics where truth is all but elusive. Nobel laureate A says X and Nobel laureate B says Y and usually X and Y are not equal: there really is no "concept of truth" in monetary economics, just ideas and references. And Wikipedia can not even begin to pretend there is truth therein. This must be explained to the new editors upfront.

   We must remind users upfront that Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability, to save the explanation efforts again and again. That effort is really needed elsewhere: improving content.

   I would, however, also keep something like the 2nd paragraph to repeat the same.History2007 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose does more harm than good. There is wikilawyering where people use sources to push known untruths. But a much more prevalent problem is editors bickering back and forth about what they know to be true, and never checking what a reliable authority would say on the matter. You're focusing on the small problem to the detriment of the bigger problem. You saw the dam leaking, so you decided to tear it out and replace it with a towel. If there's a problem with the occasional wikilawyer, put an explanation in the body of the policy. Don't obfuscate the intro to the policy which has worked well for years. Dzlife (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose Adds more verbiage contrary to WP:CREEP. The policy should be simplified, not bloated. Warden (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
11. The creepier our policies, the harder it is to edit. The proposed changes do not make it any easier for any inexperienced user to edit, and only add verbiage to be parsed by axe-grinders. No. -- Y not? 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The possible benefit of this particular addition is definitely outweighed by the negative effect of the instruction creep it introduces. Shorter is better. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose the new section "Assertions of truth and untruth". Too much emphasis on the term truth that would be better referred to as majority or minority viewpoints. No need to open up a remote possibility it will be misinterpreted to squash multiply-sourced, minority viewpoints on the grounds that it is not true. WP:UNDUE already does a wonderful job with only one instance of the word truth. I am OK with proposal in the first part for changes to the opening paragraph. Willing to reconsider opposition if truth is removed or de-emphasized.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose as unnecessary. The best proposal I've seen was to link "verifiability, not truth" to the essay that explained the topic quite adequately. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I concede that the "not truth" maxim can be taken the wrong way. So can anything if one does not want to take the point, but the point here is clear enough. My real objection is that the proposed new section is a CREEPy digression to wade through before getting to the nuts and bolts of sections on when a citation is required and what sources are reliable. To the extent that issues in the proposed new section need to be raised at all, they would belong in the "other principles" section at the end of the page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose I think the new wording is less clear and actually moves us in the wrong direction with this policy. This is not the place to say that we don't include everything in every article. And I really prefer the idea that just because you think it isn't the truth you still need to source it. I think the current wording does that better. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose. The discussion below (at my previous neutral comment) makes it clear that this would be a major change in policy, wherein a statement could be challenged or removed not because it was inadequately sourced, and not because any reliable source contradicts it, but simply because an editor claims it to be "untrue". This is a complete reversal of the way our policy has worked for many years. I'm shocked that we would trust some Wikipedian's assertion of "truth" as a reason to censor or exclude sourced content, and more shocked that so many Wikipedians would approved of such a change. The Italian Wikipedia recently shut itself down rather than submit to a proposed law that would mandate removal of material based on an unsupported claim that a statement is detrimental to someone's image. But when it comes to the English Wikipedia, do we really want an unsupported claim of inaccuracy to be a reason for removal, as S Marshall clearly supports below? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I did not say that an unsupported claim of inaccuracy is a reason for removal, and that is not my view.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    There's no change proposed to the policy, just the wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

18. Oppose I think you are right Quadel. I think the great danger to Wikipedia’ usefulness is unfaithfulness to reliable sources because we know the truth. This leads to two blights on the project unsourced statements in articles, and misrepresentation (and ignoring) of sources in articles. At least where an untrue statement is sourced, the reader has the tools to review reliability for themselves. Sourcing requires uncommon effort; anything that denigrates that effort should be rejected. “Verifiability, not truth” is a strong reminder that Wikipedians, for all their ego, still need humility. We are not tellers of truth; we are faithful recorders of what others "out there" have studied -- we merely claim to understand it enough, so that we have recorded their (those out there) truth faithfully.

    Verifiability is the ability to verify -- in the current policy, the ability to verify that a reliable source has said something. Truth is not the ability to verify, it has no ability in it - it's an assertion, an ipsa dixit. In the scheme of what editors are doing, it makes sense that we first require them to come to agreement that a reliable source has said something, and agree what that something is (no misrepresentation or mistake because, we know the truth). This is the humility required of us -- we must first take the source on its own terms, even when (especially when) we agree or disagree with it because we know the truth, because in most (all) cases we don't in fact know the truth, and we should in any case assume we and our readers do not, when first approaching the source. Moreover, in practice, and by the dictates of this policy, one editor cannot convince another editor that they have the truth (don't tell me the truth, that's irrelevant, convince me with reliable sources). Only then can editors proceed to agree on correct representation of the source, relevance to the topic, POV and other considerations for putting it in or leaving it out of an article. Unfortunately, the present proposal does not promote these values, it is increased license for editors to promote and propagate unfaithfulness (as if such license were needed) to reporting on reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    "We are not tellers of truth"; true, Wikipedia articles are tellers of WP:NPOV, which is a reasonable approximation most of the time, and probably the only practical one for a tertiary source. A more appropriate mantra would be «NPOV, not "truth"». Plenty of WP:V-verifiable information is consciously excluded from Wikipedia based on editorial judgement guided by WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. So, while the humble Wikipedians may not actually decide what is true, they often decide what is untrue, or perhaps more accurately, Wikipedians routinely decide what information is [probably] far from the truth. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    "'We are not tellers of truth"; true'" Yes, right. As for the rest, you misstate Wikipedia policy; WP:V requires RS; and WP:NPOV is not to be read in isolation from WP:V -- "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs)

    Which of my statements misstate Wikipedia policies? "jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles" implies that verifiabilty alone may not be enough for inclusion. Which is what I said. Are you saying that excluding sources is not permitted by the WP:OR or by the WP:NPOV policy? I very much doubt that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Where you fail to faithfully summarize policy is in suggesting that WP:NPOV operates without WP:V. WP:V also excludes things from being in articles. All the core policies both include and exclude. Wikpedia articles don't only "tell" WP:NPOV, they also tell WP:Verifiable (as well as, the other policies) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

19. Oppose. "traditional" working "verifiability, not truth" concisely says what is required. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Current wording is pithy and iconic. The proposed wording is longer, less clear, and hides a significant policy change. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    Curious what significant policy change you think the editors of this proposal are trying to hide in change? how do you believe this policy change will be misapplied? Crazynas ^t 21:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

    There's no change to the policy, just to the wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

    Please do stop commenting on the "oppose" threads with identical messages, Pesky. It's... annoying in a very pesky way. Doc talk 07:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

21. Oppose. We only trust experts to do research, we trust editors to summarize what the experts have published. By "we" I mean the editors, so we could safely assume that many editors can be trusted to understand the opinions of the experts. If an expert makes a mistake, how does it come that one has to rely upon original research instead of finding another expert who points out the mistake of the former expert? My understanding is that according to Popper scientists constantly work to reject (falsify) the work of other scientists. So it is very improbable that the bulk of experts who read scientific papers for a living cannot see a gross mistake and a Wikipedia editor is needed to cry "The king is naked!" Perhaps this is a bit too exaggerated, but I guess you see what I mean.
    
    An example: in string theory there is simply no fact yet discovered, so we cannot say that even a jot of string theory is proven true. As S. James Gates, Jr. said, "string theory is applied mathematics, it isn't physics yet." And we generally assume that physics is the most reliable of all empirical sciences. So there are clearly areas in physics wherein there lies not a single truth, but they are filled with opinions expressed by scientists. All such opinions could be deleted from Wikipedia "because they aren't true". This would mean proposing the whole string theory article for deletion. Obviously, these opinions aren't true, but this does not mean that they aren't informative. Above I have simply bracketed the idea that one cannot prove truth, but one can only prove falsity (according to Popper). The idea is that scientists have to prove the falsity of string theory, this is not the task of Wikipedia. Experts have to agree upon what counts as falsified in a discipline, and we render their views.
    
    By adopting the idea that truth matters, we open largely the doors for relativity theory denialists, see here. There is a whole society of fringe theorists who claim to have proven Einstein wrong, using plain mathematical calculations (often limited to the math one learned in high-school). The same way, all sociology articles could be deleted, since no sociological theory is consensually accepted as the true one by sociologists. And psychology consists of many competing schools of thought, so one could erase psychology articles, too, since there is no school consensually accepted as the true one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I think it's better off the way it is; since it 'gets to the point', readers don't have to read the whole page just to find the core principle of the policy. WikiPuppies! (bark) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Oppose. The sort of editor who needs to be sent to this page really needs the "not truth" to be in the first sentence and in bold. That's because the concept is so very counterintuitive. I know, because I was one of those editors. I was send here after one of my first IP edits and I really needed to be hit over the head with`verifiability, not truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

    Even though I am mildly supporting the proposal, I agree with that, a lot. Assuming the proposal is adopted, I think that it's very important that the new section be easily linked and easily seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

24. Oppose on the whole. I would, on balance, support adding something very like the new paragraph without removing not truth from the lead. Let's see how that looks and works for a few months and then see whewther we only need to say "V not T" once. (I say "very like" because, for example, some errors in reliable sources - such as the wrong year - can be so obvious that correcting them and adding a footnote will be sufficient, rather than cluttering the talk page. A good idea, but this is too hasty an implementation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

    One sign that this proposal needs more editing before it is consensus is that we cannot agree (and this even applies to people with the same !vote) whether it changes policy or not. I accept that Blueboar does not intend to change; but is that what the proposal says? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

25. Oh, Lord, how I oppose this idea! The present lead is perfectly understandable, and much shorter, too. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Oppose It's not broke, don't fix it. This policy is already long enough without having to add more. If someone wants to type this up in a user essay, that's fine, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
27. Oppose I do not think the proposed change is an improvement. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Oppose Cannot really see why this is causing a fuss. There are plenty of statements that are true but not reliably sourced, and just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it has to be in Wikipedia if it fails other guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Oppose This has always been a badly expressed statement, mainly because there is not a genuine consensus about the policy. My view is that Wikipedia aims for accuracy by means of verifiability, in that statements which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need to point to evidence for their accuracy; in such circumstances the simple truth of a statement is not enough. Other think that nothing which is not cited is acceptable and (at the extreme end) most things which are can be. The proposed wording moves too far in the wrong direction for me and looks designed to merge this policy with RS.--Rumping (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

    The current form is shorter and easier to understand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose. I like the idea of refactoring the sentence to deter disingenuity, but I don't like the wordiness (and) (so) (many) (clauses) (in) (brackets) of the above proposal. I would have it simply say "For inclusion in Wikipedia, all information must be verifiable." I don't think it needs to even go into how truth is also required, or how verifiability not truth is key; it just leads the policy into unecessary tangents and repeated clarifications. fish&karate 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    I believe the proposed change is a step towards your main points, albeit with compromise type wording. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    That's fair to say. I think things are heading in the right direction, so I will strike my "Oppose" but still would like my point to stand that I believe this is an overcomplicated and brackety solution, albeit better than the current status quo. fish&karate 12:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

30. Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" has kept Wikipedia safe for years. It makes clear that our articles must present an overview of the relevant literature, and that editors' opinions about the contents of that literature play no role apart from deciding whether the sources are reliable and appropriate. Making clear that "truth" (as seen by Wikipedians) is not the aim keeps fringe views out, and also protects significant-minority views from being overwhelmed by Wikipedians who disagree with them. The counter-intuitive nature of the phrase helps to underline this for new editors, and as many have said over the years, helps them finally to "get it." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    Also, "initial threshold" makes no sense, and is odd writing. Something is either a threshold or it isn't. The point of the threshold concept is that "verifiability, not truth" is the necessary condition, the minimum requirement, for entry into Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    It's worth adding that several of the proposers of this have made it clear that removing "verifiability, not truth" is a first step ("baby step," as they put it) toward removing it entirely from the policy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what happened with this RfC. I just noticed that the RfC bot tags weren't added, so it's not clear where this was advertised so that everyone saw it. There was an agreement that it would be wiki-wide because it was a key change to a core content policy. I would suggest leaving it open longer than the 30 days to make sure people get a chance to comment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    The RfC tags were there, and it was properly listed, from the start of the RfC until a few hours ago, when the RfC was, at least temporarily, closed. Anyone who looked at the RfC-policy listing, or at CENT, could have easily found it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you. I see it now on the RfC policy page, but I can't see it on any other. Blueboar promised a wiki-wide RfC, and one with two sections, one of which would ask whether the current first sentence is fine as it is. Neither of those things happened. A little extra time for the RfC will help with the first. Not sure what can be done now about the second, if anything. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

31. Not truth is far too important of a concept to leave out. It needs to be there as a clear succinct point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Having read the changes and the proposed new section, i cannot help but find the new section more complex and unclear as the original statement. The current lead contains the - for me - most important aspect of the entire verifiability policy, being that all article's are based on verifiable sources rather then basing them on (claimed) truths. In one line it manages to inform the user that any content must be backed by reliable sources, that an encyclopedia is always based on and dependent on other sources an that while someone may be correct, it may still not be included. The new lead on the other hand would seem a tad unclear if i try to think as a new user. For me, it raised some questions: What guarantees inclusion if this "verifiability" doesn't guarantee it? What are these other "Policies" that are mentioned? What does "Specific material in a specific article" mean? Without knowing about the existenceWP:GNG policy, the content specific notability policies and some others i believe that people would only get confused over those references. I have similar issues with the new proposed section; it may be due to the nighttime at which i am reading this, but i feel like reading a typical law that references all over the place. Just have a look if i rewrite the section while replacing some of the words:
    
    "When party A(editor) commits crime A(Mistake) to Party B(Editor noticing mistake), Party B should file a report if Crime A is not supported by evidence A. Dependant on the the type of Crime A a report must be filed to place A(BLP Violation - remove) or B(Random statement - Tag), which is detailed in statement A (Linked burden section) below. If on the other hand Evidence A is present party B should should move to place C(Discuss it somewhere) to discuss the issue with Party A, stating why evidence A is not valid due to for example Law A (NPOV) and Law A.1 (Due Weight) among the other possible laws. In these cases altering crime A to conform to Law A and others is often enough to legalize crime A.
    
    The above states more or less the exact same thing as the porposed section, but the amount of references elsewhere and the amount of IF THEN ELSE statements make it quite a bad read, at least at this time of night. Besides, i cannot shake the feeling that the section seems to trail into other policy terrain trough the extensive explanations. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
33. Strong oppose, "verifiability, not truth" is a perfect and longstanding way to clearly and succinctly get a key and extraordinarily important point across; as others have more eloquently pointed out above. Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
34. Oppose Verifiability, not truth, is indeed the first threshold for inclusion of content and sources. At some level I think it's ok to say there's only one truth, but we see or understand only wee slices of it and these do shift, narrow and widen all the time. Hence many sources (even scholarly ones) are riddled with mistakes. Verifiability of the cited sources (that it's true they can be found and checked, not that they are "true") is the only means open to both readers and editors for handling these. Anyone who tries to game this and knowingly put "untrue" information into an article, whatever the sourcing, is editing in bad faith to begin with. I see no worries with this longstanding wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
35. Oppose The order of relevant information matters. Information presented first is more influential, not least because people are more likely to recall information presented first. I don't understand why someone would want to move the wonderful catchphrase Verifiability, not truth down in the policy. When I first read the policy, verifiability, not truth was the only thing that stuck in my mind. Plus, how many editors who don't understand WP:V right away will read further than the first paragraph? I know I did not when I started. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
36. Oppose - What this proposal boils down to is "Too many editors are too obtuse to figure out what verifiability, not truth means so let's dumb it down". Leave it the way it is; if you can't understand it, then you shouldn't be here. Tarc (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    We are talking a lot about the newbie editor wanting to add stuff they know first-hand without citing a source, who needs to have the counterintuitive "verifiability not truth" hammered into them. Fair enough. That wording is still there in the proposed change, and is sufficient basis for keeping OR out. But we also have to be cognizant that over the years, an equally pernicious tradition has grown in Wikipedia that has editors quoting "verifiability not truth" – at newbies and others – to keep stuff in an article, even if it is plain rumour mongering, or contradicted by more reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's garbage or true, you see? Newspapers in particular inevitably and regularly get biographically and encyclopedically relevant details wrong, given their tight deadlines, and their need to present a catchy story. There has to be an end to using "verifiability not truth" as a kill-all argument preventing further source-based research and debate. Saying that editors who use the phrase that way "shouldn't be here" fails to take into account that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can -- and does -- edit. --JN466 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    That is the function of WP:RS WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I have said it elwhere but it bears repeating here - This proposal is trying to force this policy to do the work of other already existing policies and guidelines. This policy is not the "be all and end all" of content policy. Roger (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Frankly, throughout this nine-month discussion, it has been my impression that it is those wishing to keep the status quo who want to use WP:V to do the job of WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, by including a policy statement in it that enables them to prevent anything verifiable from ever being deleted. And I have multiple times pointed this out in exactly the terms you have just employed: that they are wanting to coöpt this policy to do the job of other content policies, and in a way that, frankly, contradicts them. This policy spells out minimum requirements for what may be included; it does not specify what must be included. Yet this is the use that "verifiability not truth" is most commonly put to: to argue that something must be included, just because it is verifiable, and that it simply does not matter whether it is true or not. "Verifiability not truth" was never intended to mean that, but that is how it has increasingly come to be used, and understood. Now, we do not include everything verifiable. We delete poorly sourced rumour and innuendo, tabloid coverage of the latest cure for cancer, or things that were demonstrably written in plain error, in full accordance with policies and guidelines like WP:BLP, WP:IRS, WP:MEDRS and others. Blueboar's proposed version does not make this policy do the job of the others; it refers readers to other policy considerations that may apply, and that is exactly as it should be. Regards, --JN466 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

37. Oppose. This proposal is a recipe for edit war. "Yes, I know four reliable sources say this is true, but I know it's false, so there." --GRuban (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't see how "Yes, I know four reliable sources say this is true, but I know it's false, so there." can be consistent with the proposal, which says: "The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article)." Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Just as it says. "Even though four reliable sources say something is true, that's not a guarantee of inclusion, so my objection can keep it out if I fight hard enough." That's a terrible policy. We're here to be the sum of the world's knowledge. Not to be the sum of the world's knowledge except the parts we really really don't like. --GRuban (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Merely saying that you know that something is false, is not going to keep material out of Wikipedia, that's not what this proposal is saying. Obviously you do need to make a convincing argument that while four sources are saying that something is true, we should still not include it in Wikipedia. And, we do need such a provision, otherwise a lot of nonsense that does regularly appear in reliable sources would have to be included in Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. This proposal is a blank check to all the POV pushers. "If I can just make a convincing argument, I can keep this information out of Wikipedia." Trust me, they all think their arguments are convincing, and they will keep arguing until hell freezes over. Right now, we can at least say - sure, Dr. Plutonium, you sound convincing, but it's not good for you to convince us, you need to convince Science magazine or some other Wikipedia:Reliable source - and at least some of them do go away to try to do that. You're telling them they just need to stay and argue harder, right here, that if they can convince Wikipedia, that's enough, they don't need to convince anyone else. Terrible idea. --GRuban (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

38. Oppose per Guy Macon, Gwen Gale, and Tarc's comments above. Compromise is often a good thing, but never when it dilutes or obfuscates. The truth vs. verifiability distinction has long formed a fundamental tenet of WP policy on content. It's extremely important, and it should be up front where new editors and potential editors will see it immediately. If it confuses them, they'll either read on or ask for clarification and learn something—or they won't bother. Those who don't bother are unlikely to be productive editors. Rivertorch (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
39. Oppose per Rivertorch. Many users directed to this page are those who, acting on good faith or not, intuitively edit to their versions of the truth. Not everyone habitually reads a page in its entirety from start to finish. As such, removing the crucial distinction between verifiability and truth from the lead may mean that those who most need to grasp the concept won't ever end up reading it. I do not oppose adding the proposed clarification about verifiability to the lead, but it should not replace the "not truth" text that is already present. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
40. Vehemently oppose. Per GRuban. "Verifiability, not truth" is the absolute crux of content evaluation, and is essential to editing. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 05:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I couldn't disagree more. Your "absolute crux" means accepting every piece of spam and nonsense that got printed/published somewhere. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

41. Oppose - I like the existing phrase at the start; I think it sums up the essence in very few words - as such it's not comprehensive or perfect, but I think it's good. I can appreciate how some may misinterpret it, but I don't think the change is a net positive - some people can, and will, misinterpret anything. I think the additional paragraph has the potential to cause more confusion than elucidation.  Chzz  ►  08:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
42. Oppose - The proposed wording does nothing to clarify the issue. It merely makest harder from the reader to understand the concept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
43. Oppose per Slrubenstein, others above. Verbige creates more opportunities to game it. There's nothing broken that this change fixes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
44. Oppose Almost all the arguments in this section have merit, but Tarc's comments hit it on the head for me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
45. Oppose Makes extant policy dance on its head. (COI note: I wrote WP:KNOW dealing with the base issue.) Collect (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
46. Oppose Those advocating a change claimed the current wording (paraphrasing) seems to prohibit contributors casting doubt on verifiable references which assert something they know or believe to be untrue. It seems to me that challenging verifiable references would be a clear lapse from the other core policy that prohibits the publication of original research. Consider two notions that were, at the time, represented as ideas "everyone" knew to be true -- (1) the Earth is obviously flat; (2) it is not a sin for American plantation owners to use African people as slaves, because God made them subhuman.

    In 20 years, 50 years, our grandchildren will look back and scratch their heads at our crazy notions, because, count on it, our current notions of what is true, will turn out to include notions that later seem to be laughably obvious falsehoods.

    The effect of this major change in our wording, would be a major change in our policy -- a very bad change. We aren't experts. I don't want us, any of us, to be allowed to challenge published, verifiable WP:RS, unless they are doing so by neutrally presenting opposing ideas from other WP:RS.

    Consider continental drift -- when first advanced it was considered a kooky notion, and is now widely accepted. This proposed policy revision would allow wikipedia contributors, non-experts to insert their own challenges to ideas like this. Given that we are not experts, it is far better for us to stick strictly to previously published ideas. With an idea like continental drift we would be far better to include the proponents and opponents of ideas, and let time tell as to which are correct. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think the proposal prohibits contributors from casting doubt on verifiable information (an assertion of untruth)... What the proposal does is clarify that when you do cast doubt, you should support your challenge with a) contrasting verifiable information, and b) make reference to all the other policies that relate (NPOV, NOR etc.). Both of these are already SOP, but for the first time we are actually saying it in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

47. Oppose. I appreciate the well-intentioned revision efforts, and in practice I agree with much of Blueboar's formulation, but ultimately I feel that the current formulation is more appropriate, succinct, and workable as policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
48. Oppose. It is far, far easier to point a new editor to a policy that makes it clear in the opening sentence, in 3 simple words, what the policy means. Verifiability not truth chimes. The proposal begins to bury the vital message. By all means tweak the sections but doubling the number of words in the opening para. is not helpful. Leaky Caldron 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
49. Oppose Not to wax too philosophically here, but what is "truth?" I ask the question rhetorically because truth is something that many people believe they hold, and that often times conflicts with what is verifiable. The practical application of the truth clause is that it can be used to explain to POV pushers that even if something is true to them, and they are convinced it's absolute fact, unless it's published in RS it's not relevant. I commonly use a reducto ad absurdum involving the color of the sky to demonstrate the importance of V over T. For example, I'll say something along the lines of "We all know the sky is blue, this is truth to us, but if every reliable source on the subject said that the sky was red, then that is what we will publish." Without the truth clause, it makes it a bit harder to explain to people a core value of WP. Also, just for the sake of the AN/I discussion, I didn't know about this RFC until I saw it there and that's why I'm here. nowON^oformation ^Talk 22:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
50. Oppose: I see an argument up above arguing that the original intent—to discourage WP:OR from editors inserting unsourced material that they claim is true—to no longer be necessary. I strongly contest this point and have rarely seen a heated debate on a controversial topic that did not feature editors making arguments based off of truth instead of verifiability. I have often seen "verifiability, not truth" quoted to combat this, and believe it still serves its purpose well. Additionally the proposed wording seems to hack out the core of this message and replace it with a more convoluted, less straight forward message. The message already clearly confers to the reader that we take what a reliable source thinks to be true over what an editor thinks is true, and this new wording distracts from that.AerobicFox (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
51. Oppose The idea that people trying to add OR to articles is not much of a problem anymore is laughable. If someone is too dense to understand the difference between verifibility and what they believe they are too incompetent to edit here and rewriting policy to dumb it down to their level isn't going to fix that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    We don't have to say what verifiability is not, we should stick to stating what it is. And if we want to emphasize that people should not write what they believe to be true, then it's this "belief" that is the real problem that we should emphasize that, not the "truth". If people know something to be true, and they are correct then obviously, they can point to reliable sources that prove this. If they can't, then it's just an assertion of a truth, the problem being that the assertion is then not verifiable. So, however you look at it, the problem is never "truth", it's always the unverifiable belief in a truth. Count Iblis (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    Disagree. The truth is the problem because people go around inserting truth into articles, without regard to anything else. And why shouldn't they? This is a wiki that anyone is invited to edit. Verifying is too much work, when you know the truth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    The proposal has no change with regard to the verifiability requirement. It just explains that "not truth" means verifiability rather than the other common wrong mis-interpretations. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    But you said explicitly several times that removing "verifiability, not truth" from the lead was a "baby step" toward removing it from the policy entirely. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

    I would strongly resist removing the wording "verifiability, not truth" from the policy, as it has provided an essential "Aha!" moment to hundreds of newbie editors, including myself. However, I do support this proposal, because it does an excellent job of explaining what "verifiability, not truth" means – i.e. that unsourceable statements and original research have no place in Wikipedia. At the same time it prevents a common misinterpretation and misuse of this phrase – i.e. that it does not matter whether what we write is true or not, that it does not matter whether a source is competently researched or not, that WP:DUE policy does not matter as long as something has previously been published in a reliable source, and that it does not matter whether we violate BLP policy or not, as long as an anonymous rumour included in Wikipedia has previously, verifiably, been published in a newspaper. Such misrepresentations of "verifiability, not truth" have become too common. They are in direct conflict with other key policies, and they are as harmful to this project as the original intent of "verifiability, not truth" is useful. The proposed change removes the ambiguity that opened the door to these misinterpretations. It makes as clear as ever what may be included in Wikipedia, and puts questions of what should be included in Wikipedia back into the purview of the core content policies that were written to deal with these issues, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, as well as associated guidelines such as WP:IRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and others. Editors wishing to defend sourced material in an article against other editors wishing to delete it on the grounds of incorrectness will just have to get used to saying, "This is a significant view from a reputable source, and therefore it stays", rather than saying "This is verifiable and Wikipedia does not care whether it is true or not, so therefore it stays." --JN466 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    There being no change to policy, there is no reason to change it, but most agree that the purpose of this policy is to stress the importance of verifiability, not truth, and the proposal does not support that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

52. Oppose — The current wording serves its purpose well in that it is very strong statement, condensed into one phrase; it is the most useful one there is to repel those who simply "know" stuff. It's those people whom this phrase is for, and in most cases those are the ones who need it clear, simple, and blunt. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
53. Oppose per Maunus and all others who see 'not truth' as vital to the project and essential to keep it to the fore. I also endorse Seb's comment immediately above. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
54. Oppose agree that "not truth" is a cornerstone of this project. Removing it would undermine what Wikipedia is all about -- a neutral reporter of what has been reliably published, not what its contributors believe or think is "true". This is what sets Wikipedia apart from the common internet blog or forum, and what made it a success. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    Please note that the proposal is not about removing "verifiability not truth" from the policy, but about moving "verifiability not truth" to a separate paragraph, and explaining it there. --JN466 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    Removing it from the prominent position it's in is demoting it; that phrase is critical to what Wikipedia is about, and should not be relegated to some footnote or lower section. Crum375 (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

55. Oppose. I think the current wording is more powerful, with the emphasis that Wikipedia is not seeking "the truth". I remember that made a major impression on me as a new Wikipedian. I don't see the concerns outlined as too major, as there is always the potential for conflict between policies. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
56. Oppose.The phrase "verifiable not truth" has enormous impact first because of its placement, it opens the policy, and second because it is highly succinct and memorable. Many newer editors especially, won't read much further than the first few lines, so it should be placed first in the policy. If we were advertising this policy as if it were for example, Corn Flakes, where would we put the phrase that summarizes everything we're getting in the box where it can be seen and understood immediately. Right away. Embedding the phrase in text further in the article will deaden its impact. At the same time I am very well aware of the gaming that has gone on using the phrase "verifiable not truth" with out the contextual word threshold, and as a way of giving permission to include anything just because it has a reliable source. I don't see that moving the key phrase later in the article and embedding it in a lot of text will improve the misue of the phrase. Obviously, as a first step the other policies cannot be ignored and we should be pushing harder in situations where supporting policies should come into play, in concert with this poilcy. I would also bold threshold so it can't be overlooked and will seem to carry the same weight as verifiable and truth. And while this hasn't been proposed in this RfC, I would add to the first proposed text, part of the second so it looks like the below:(olive (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).

57. oppose per Maunus, Doc9871, Cwenger, and Quadell, among others. Verifiability not truth is the main thing that prevents the project from falling into a completely war. You believe that God exists? That's not. WP:V. You think that religion is a lie made by the powerful to keep the masses in check and that's the Truth? That's nice. We care about verifiability. You think that 9/11 was an inside job? You think that 9/11 conspiracy claims about the bombs were made by a shadowy branch of the government so no one would look for the real conspiracy? You think that cancer can be cured by homeopathy and acupuncture? You think that the Democrats or Republicans is the source of all evil in the world? Etc. Etc. Watering this down is not a good idea at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
58. Oppose per Doc9871 and others above. I think "verifiability not truth" is an important cornerstone of Wikipedia and is important enough to stay at the beginning of the policy for everyone to see. As JoshuaZ says above, watering this down is a bad idea. I'm open to add some elaboration about "truth" and "untruth" to some explanatory part of the rules but the main message that everyone reading this policy should see is "verifiability, not truth", not "mainly verifiability". Regards SoWhy 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
59. Oppose: the simple phrase "verifiability, not truth" is one of the handful of iconic phrases that define Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors, and virtually all readers, do not read the minutiae of our policies, nor should they have to. Simple phrases like "verifiability, not truth", "citation needed", "neutral point of view", "assume good faith", and so forth, are the memorable foundations that guide real editors in their real edits for the vast majority of the time. The 'soul' of our project is defined in those handful of words, not in the endless paragraphs of supporting text. Happy‑melon 21:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
60. Oppose. This proposal conflates two unrelated changes: (1) taking out the "not truth" part, and (2) adding wording clarifying that verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. I support the second change but not the first. We haven't yet escaped from our problems with editors who think that their beliefs are "the truth", especially on highly charged subjects such as religion and politics, and the language in this policy is important as a way to help control those problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    In religion or politics one can usually find sources to state the version of the "truth" desired. So, "not truth" isn't really helping much with that, but NPOV is. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

61. Oppose. Changing the opening sentence dilutes the whole message. Every day one of us has to cope with someone saying "Never mind your sources, this is how it really is." We need to be able to point to that emphatic opening sentence in WP:V. Scolaire (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
62. I Oppose any suggestion that removes "not truth" from the lead. Such a removal undermines the foundations of an encyclopedia, that we document the world as neutrally as possible, that we don't include or own perspectives nevermind how true we think them to be. I'll acknowledge that "verifiability, not truth" is sometimes an over simplification; but that's its strength: it is simple enough so that even the most novice of editors will get it. Rami R 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
63. Oppose. The core phrase should stay, as it summarizes that part of the policy in a very short and distinctive way. If new editors really are confused about this phrase, a clarification as offered in the second paragraph could be useful. GermanJoe (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
64. Oppose - "Verifiability, not truth" is a phrase so important to this project that it justifies its current inclusion in the lead. So often have I found new editors getting the wrong end of the stick about content and writing articles based on "truth", with been unwilling to read through policies properly. I have found the "verifiability, not truth" phrase to be an important but simple way to get through the spirit of verifiability, neutrality, and the ban on original research in one go. CT Cooper · talk 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
65. Oppose the change to the lead but support the new section of explanation. The current lead gets straight to the point of the policy; replacing it with lawyer-talk will only confuse people. Also, I think the problem of people adding non-verified but true information is a lot more common than people adding non-true but verified information. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
66. Oppose: In my opinion, the phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is more easily comprehended and less complicated than "The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". I agree with SilkTork's comment that it is a powerful phrase and that "truth" or a similar synonym should be there to make that distinction, and with Maunus' rationale that it is important to establish that Wikipedia does not make any judgments or evaluations of what is true, which is why "not truth" is important. Jfgslo (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
67. Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" has been the policy for over six years. It is an important principle which should be placed prominently in the policy. Many new editors do not understand the concept, and seek to add the "truth", regardless of what's verifiable.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

    If some statement about the World is not verifiable, how could the person making the statement possibly know that it is true (barring exceptional circumstances like the person being an eyewitness)? So, a solid claim for something being true about the World always implies verifiability from reliable sources. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, but that covers only part of the equation. Editors should only add material which is verifiable, but they don't need to also prove that it's true. This comes up when an editor protests that material must be excluded because the sources, no matter how reliable generally, are wrong in this case. They may even demand that editors prove the information is correct, above and beyond the already provided sources. It's even more of an issue on topics where some people believe there is only one truth, meaning every other view is untrue. The point is that we may add sufficiently verifiable material, regardless of whether it is true or not. We can report what high quality reliable sources say even if we also have contradictory information.

    That may sound shocking or cynical, but as a project we have no way of knowing what is true. Arguments over truth are difficult to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, and often become contentious. So this text says, right up front, that we do not include or exclude information on the basis of truth.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    This is the wrong policy to say that. This policy says, in a nutshell, that "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It defines a minimum standard for inclusion. The policies governing exclusion of verifiably published information are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Allowing editors to use the potential ambiguity of "verifiability, not truth" as an end run around WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is not helpful, and sets core policies against each other. --JN466 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    As Wikipedia editors, we have no way of determining truth. There's nothing in the existing language which conflicts with NPOV or BLP. NPOV says we should include all significant points of view, with weight according to their prominence in secondary sources, and without endorsing any view. BLP says that all assertions about living people should be well-sourced. No policy requires us to determine "truth", nor does any policy suggest how we could do that across millions of articles created by anonymous editors. Suggesting that editors seek to subvert other policies or good editing practices seems like a wholesale assumption of bad faith. There's no clear evidence that this policy, properly applied, has caused any problems.   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

68. Oppose. Comments on the proposed rationale:
    • On the Background: The proposal incorrectly assumes that interpretation of "verifiability, not truth" depends on the context. It does not. In all scenarios, verifiability is the bar, while truth is not.
    • On the first Concern: This paragraph starts with a ridiculous sentence. It is totally inconceivable that from "verifiability, not truth" one can reasonably derive that verifiability guarantees inclusion. This becomes particularly ridiculous given that, as readily acknowledged in this paragraph, other policy and guidelines statements already invalidate such interpretation.
    • On the second Concern: The rationale presented in this paragraph conveys a complete lack of understanding of what truth is to Wikipedia—by itself, truth means nothing. Using verifiability as a standard nullifies the value of truth as an accompanying standard, and hence the phrase "verifiability, not truth". In this context, not discussing truth is the intent. Truth is discussed, as argued in the Counter Concern, only because it can reflect the conflict between ideas. This latter point is definitely not at the same fundamental level as verifiability.
    • On the third Concern: It is not introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede that is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. Using verifiability as a bar for determining worthiness of inclusion is /not/ a common phenomenon in a world where people primarily argue over truth. "Verifiability, not truth" is a differenting feature of Wikipedia. "Not truth" should be emphasized in the lede, instead of being diluted.

    A proposal purely based on unfounded concerns is worth nothing. Kxx (talk | contribs) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

69. Oppose The "verifiability not truth" phrase needs to be in there and it needs to be prominent- near the start when people are still paying attention. It's succinct, it makes an important point and it makes new-ish editors like me stop and think. It certainly helped me when I started writing articles- knowing that it wasn't enough that something was "obvious" or "common knowledge" helped me avoid the pitfalls. Taking this phrase out could lead to a lot of sloppy editing.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
70. Oppose. The slogan (being "pithy and iconic") has become a rallying cornerstone of this community, and the fact that it sounds counterintuitive encourages people to think, read further, and understand the pillar and its necessity. The proposal diminshes the appeal and convolutes the readability in the policy. On its own, the word "verifiable" is ambiguous (in common language it is equivalent to "true" - hence it is so critical to distinguish those) and in practice it is also likely to change how the policy is interpreted, hampering the major issue of material that contributors think they can "personally verify" (i.e., unsourced "truth", original proofs and arguments, etc). "-not truth" is also a powerful tool for avoiding a great deal of disagreement on articles of any extremely controversial topic. The minor problem of incorrect sources is comparatively rare, and of course, should only be addressed by again finding further sources which assert that the others were incorrect (whereas downplaying "not truth" begins to open the door to trying to judge untruth by our own original expertise. I'll concede that cases can occur where all known sources are believed by most editors to be in common error - but these are likely resolveable with the first and fifth pillars).Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
71. Oppose. No evidence or statistics have been provided that show that the current wording causes problems for anyone but sophists and those who choose to feign ignorance of its meaning. I am not persuaded that a problem has been shown to exist. The proposer does not provide a list of editors or edits illustrating the problem. Therefore, I believe the problem is largely imaginary. That "verifiability, not truth" is a catchy phrase has been claimed to be a fault, when it is in fact a benefit. All attempts to rephrase or expound upon it are doomed, without focus on brevity and clarity of thought. The larding on of more words before it not the answer: first, the title of an article is usually not delayed by exposition, it is stated straight away, second, the explanation should flow naturally after it. This RfC is an unnecessary distraction from much more urgent matters here. In my 8000 edits I have encountered:
    • only one new editor who believed "verifiable, hence must be included", and they were educated about that by referral to WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT.
    • zero editors who believed "verifiable but untrue, and therefore not discussable"
    • most editors and even most non-Wikipedians seem to immediately "grok" the idea of "verifiability, not truth" as being comprehensible, memorable, and a useful benchmark for Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. --Lexein (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
72. Oppose The proposal is more cumbersome and seems unnecessary. 'verifiable' is tacit in differentiating between what someone knows and what someone can prove. Everton Dasent (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
73. Oppose The first sentence needs to catch attention, hold attention, and have one strong, clear message that will remain. It may not be quite right at present, but the alternative is not better (20040302 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)) I'm not very good with all of the processes used at WP, but I think that there is some learning that can be done from this RfC., regardless of the outcome, especially regarding policy wording. (a) RfC that have two proposals, even if they are related, are going to cause a lot more deliberation. (b) It maybe useful to have a 4th type of vote Eg. "It needs changing, but not to what is being proposed". In other words, it's a good call, but it still needs revision. (c) WP:CON involves spirit, not numbers. IANA(WP)L but there's always got to be some fluidity regardless of the very stubborn but the stubborn may have a good point. (d) A change of policy wording is a change of policy (20040302 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
74. Oppose Whereas there are legitimate concerns for this proposal, I fail to see how it would solve the perceived problem. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV do regulate the inclusion concern, it may be more appropriate to amend these policies so to state clearly that some views (fringe theories, minority opinions amongst scholars) do not merit inclusion at all. I don't see how this would conflict with the "Verifiability not truth" concept since it is a general principle that comes with other policies in practice and not a guarantee of inclusion to whatever that has been published and I think it has always been applied that way, in most cases. The drawbacks of this proposal is that some knowledgeable editors can and might successfully argue against the inclusion of certain views on the grounds that it is wrong which they can demonstrate using their expertise and thus impose their opinion, this would be particularly the case in articles where only a handful of editors participate and where there isn't much scholarly material to begin with. When scholars do not agree, wikipedia cannot allow itself this kind of practice. I hope I did not misrepresent the proposal but that is my main concern with it, I've already seen cases where some editors cut out some verifiable material while using their knowledge to demonstrate how it is wrong, I think this change would only comfort this practice and get us into endless discussions about the details and merits of each view. Stuff can always be shown wrong if you get into the technicalities, so it is vital to keep the "Verifiability not truth" part, it is also a clear warning to readers on how to use Wikipedia properly i.e. even if it is cited to a rs it doesn't mean it is true. Tachfin (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
75. Oppose, but... I agree entirely with the view that the "Verifiability not truth" part of the existing policy is so important that this phrase should be at the very start of the article. So if the only choice is between the existing and revised versions, then I'm in favour of the existing version. On the other hand, the addition of "initial" is important; verifiability is clearly not the final threshold for inclusion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
76. Oppose - 'verifiable, not truth' is a threshold. This is the verifiability policy, not the notability policy. It is not an 'OR clause', it is not a 'XOR clause', it is an 'AND clause' - things have to be verifiable ánd notable enough for inclusion. I believe that the 'not truth' part of the introduction is an essential part of WP:V, and that anyone who argues for all non-notable information 'but this should be included because it is verifiable' should be publicly trouted for Wikilawyering. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
77. Oppose. V not T gets the point across quite simply. I've had to use it more than once when new editors were pushing unverifiable info that they "knew" was true. Taking out the "not truth" will make it harder to get the point across. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    I can understand your point, but there is another phrase "... Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion" - there to balance it. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

78. Oppose - Per Coemgenus, what I was going to write is fairly similar to what he said. The way it is now is simpler to get across to newbies. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
79. Oppose, per Coemgenus and Sergecross73 above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Comment It seems that a number of the editors above (Coemgenus etc.) are !voting on a different proposal; the actual proposal is not to delete "V not T", but to explain it. Uniplex (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Comment - No, we just feel the explanation is unnecessary, and only complicates it's message. (Or that's my take on it, I can't speak for the other ones...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

80. Oppose - If any change is warranted, it's elevation of "Not Truth", not subjugation. This will, invariably, strengthen the hand of exclusionists/censors at the expense of article breadth. I might be able to live with something akin to "Not incontrovertible truth" but the concept currently resides precisely where it belongs. (P.S. I had NO idea this was under consideration until the recent mention at the top of my watchlist.) JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should put this policy, and any others you care about, on your watch list... then you would know what is "under consideration" sooner. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    That's just being WP:POINTy - and it's uncalled for. It was your communication strategy that was ineffective. Leaky Caldron 14:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Leaky Caldron, please do not pour fuel on the fire. Blueboar made a good-faith effort to publicize it. Some people think it was not publicized widely enough, and they took measures to do so. We all make mistakes or overlook things, which is why WP has to be collaborative; we rely on others to fill in. So there is no point in blaming Blueboar for the original communication strategy. If you haven't followed the past few days' discussions this has become very acrimonious. JakeinJosey had a right to explain why he came to this vote several weeks after it was first announced, and that comment gives Blueboar a right to respond. Blueboar made a constructive suggestion and I do not think it was meant to be dismissive or disparaging. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

81. Oppose - Anything I say would be a repeat of what has already been said by someone else. Spidey104 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
82. Oppose - but with regret. (Switched from neutral) Kudos to all those (particularly Blueboar) for putting this proposal together. However I can't support it as I think the proposed section (==Assertions of truth and untruth==) is confusing - rather than clarifying the issue it complicates it (in my view needlessly). Furthermore on reading the long discussions here I feel strongly that keeping the 'not truth' phrase in line 1 is a good idea. Again while i sympathize with the motivations behind this suggestion I don't believe it is the right move--Cailil ^talk 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
83. Oppose. I could support the new paragraph, which reads well, but I don't want to drop the VNT wording from the lead. It's extremely valuable to have that front and centre, as others have noted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
84. Oppose because already too easy to lob off WP:RS info for POV reasons. However, more specific language like this might be added to paragraph: Verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion because other policies and guidelines like LIST THEM might affect how appropriate material is for the article." CarolMooreDC 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
85. Oppose. The original wording is brief and bluntly clear. Such bluntness is very helpful to the project. The proposed wording is not as clear. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
86. Oppose - seemed fine to me the way it was, and I definitely don't like the implication of WP:NOTE trying to WP:CREEP its way further into policy. BOZ (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
87. Oppose - I like the straight forward simplicity of the current wording. The new wording introduces ambiguity. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
88. oppose - Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it is true. There are many cases where truth is In the eye of the beholder. Neither WP nor the editors are arbiters of truth. WP should just report what is, according to reliable sources. What is is not necessarily truth. SmittysmithIII (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
89. Oppose. I decided to check this out after getting the notice. Wow! Didn't realize this was such a deeply felt issue.

    So I read through it all with the intent of actually casting a vote, as I think we all should where such a core policy is concerned.

    The more I did, the more I saw a solution in search of a problem. There are some legitimate concerns, but the most frequent ones seemed to, as suggested above, rely on an assumption that this is the only editorial policy that can possibly govern content. To give some examples:

    • From Crazynas: "I think this page addresses two classes of users, Garage Band X and The Truth™er's. For Garage Band X with a listing in Podunk Daily, this proposal nullifies their ability to say see, put it on it's verifiable (the policy change nips a certain SPI argument in the bud)" I don't know how much experience with garage-band editors this reflects, but it's certainly not mine, because I would say it's unnecessary: WP:BAND would not support the inclusion of a band purely on the basis of one writeup in a local newspaper (and I believe we also used to cite regional notability not being sufficient grounds to have an article on, say, an otherwise unsigned band). I also don't see what SPI argument we're talking about ... just what does sockpuppetry have to do with this?

      As for The Truth™ers, if you really think they'd be deterred by just a slight policy tweak, or even if you think they'd be deterred at all, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.

    I meant SPA not SPI... struck out and changed, thank you for pointing that out. Regarding the first class of users, I feel that the change since this is the only policy likely to be read before a user hits save (since it's the only policy linked in the edit window), the wider the userbase this addresses the better. Saying it fails BAND is true, but if this (...is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee...) stops one percent of users getting ready to write (and waste time writing) an article only to have someone (waste time), notifying them and AFDing or CSDing it, because the content creator read the current lead and said "well I have this newspaper article, I'm good to go" the change will have been a good thing. I'm not saying there isn't going to be willful ignorance of the policy, even in the best formulation, however if the purpose of our polices is to formulate best practices and to instruct others in building a better encyclopedia, then I think this will help.

    Regarding the second class of users (Truth^TMer's) I guess I wasn't clear, but I feel that the new wording won't negatively impact them, although I don't see it as an particular improvement for them (see also my additional comment under my support about section linking). Crazynas ^t 22:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

    • From Short Brigade Harvester Boris: "It addresses head-on the old "it's been printed in a newspaper so it's gotta go in" argument that we hear so often". OK, it does, but, as I suggested with the more specific example above, there are other policies that can filter that sort of thing—is the newspaper reliable, is the fact relevant, is it in violation of BLP, etc. The only thing possibly sadder than an editor who thinks that "verifiability, not truth" trumps all is the editor who lets that editor get away with it.
    • From Pichpich:"It's not atypical for a newbie to be scolded about his edits and asked to read WP:V. These editors come here, conclude that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth and leave" Uh, it almost seems too ironic, but ... is this verifiable? Do you have something to support this? This is the sort of thing we put {{fact}} on in articles. As such, we should not be relying on it to make policy decisions.

    I do see one legitimate concern: that, as worded, the policy suggests we must keep inaccurate information in articles even when it is very obvious that the sources are wrong (we call them reliable sources, not infallible sources, after all. I have had personal experience with this in writing NRHP articles, where the nomination form may be several decades old and out of date, or just get things like the name or number of a road or the side of a house confused. In many cases other information in the article (like a contemporary photo) or linked to from it (like the GeoLinks) will be enough to support the correct information. I'm hardly suggesting something like this will work in every case, but I am suggesting that a global policy change is not yet needed. Perhaps we need a subpage on what to do when a reliable source is clearly wrong or out of date and yet no other source can be found. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Please review WP:Inaccuracy.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

90. Oppose VnT was an easy way of explaining what verifiability was. It also meant that Wikipedia-normal views did not simply come into being as verfiability means that a piece of information can still be included even if a large number of interested editors really dislike the piece of information. JASpencer (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Just want to be sure you are aware that the proposal does not remove VnT from the policy... The proposal includes it in the second part. If this does not change your opinion, no problem... it just sounds like you were misunderstanding what the proposal was saying. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

91. Oppose, this looks like rewording a policy to accomplish UNDUE POV via attribution, similar to what was seen years ago in the failed ATTRIBUTION debate.(Redacted) Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information. This view holds that if we attribute verifiably untrue information, even in the face of higher quality sources that reveal the information to be false, then we can still include the information-- hence accomplishing POV via attribution. (Redacted)This looks to me like a backdoor approach to accomplish what the ATTRIBUTION debate of years ago could not, and it will allow us to POV articles as long as we attribute undue weight and false statements and opinions to the authors and advocates who make such claims, even when they are UNDUE, even when they accomplish POV, even when they are verifiably untrue. <span title="Content was removed for the following reason: See the FAC for Female genital manipulation, objections that it overattributed statements in order to include false data, and particularly the talk page at that FAC, and notice the attributed claim in the article that 10% of women who undergo female circumcision die from it. When asked for a medical source to back that claim, and when it was pointed out that no medical source appeared to support that data, SlimVirgin withdrew the FAC nomination rather than NPOV the article. This has happened before; see the discussions linked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#SG: Timeline showing FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin actions. What is curious to me is that this attempt looks like a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia more reliable, but in fact, it can easily be manipulated to result in the opposite-- opinions which are false included because they are attributed.

    This is a new and clever presentation of the ATTRIBUTION page that was defeated several years ago, because it allows for UNDUE POV via ATTRIBUTION (that is, opinion that is potentially false).">(Redacted) And, by placing the argument on the article talk page-- rather than at the Reliable Sources noticeboard-- the burden to get the false opinion out of the article is higher, because the article guardians predominate at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Sandy, I think you may have misunderstood. I oppose the proposed change. Not entirely for the same reasons you do, but for some of the same. I think the relationship between the current policy wording and NPOV works well, when both are applied carefully together, rather than reading them in isolation from other another. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    Ugh, redacting my mistake, apologies forthcoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

    And now that I've fixed my mistake, I oppose the sentence about attributing opinions that may be false (it opens the door to POV via UNDUE), and switching the burden to article talk, but agree that "not truth" should go. So I guess that makes me a partial oppose, partial support. If the final "attribution" sentence can be cleaned up, I'll support. "Not truth" is a real problem, but the devil is in the details here, and we need to be very careful about what we add to the page when we get rid of that dinosaur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    Sandy, I believe you need to read the proposal and its rationale more carefully. Part of the reason for the proposed change is that the present wording is even more liable to be used to keep unreliable material in an article. I won't comment on the specific example you gave, but in general terms, if an editor like you says that a source making a scientific claim is unreliable and in conflict with the academic literature, they will often have the present lead sentence quoted at them: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". In other words, "You may have a PhD in this field, and know the peer-reviewed literature backwards, but we don't care what you think! The Daily Bugle printed this, and therefore it stays in. Because according to policy, Wikipedia doesn't care whether something is true. All we care about is that someone has written it before." It means that anyone daring to suggest that an article on a medical matter in some newspaper might be nonsense, and in conflict with the entire academic literature, is automatically accused of a policy violation for caring about "truth" rather than verifiability. The proposed change is a compromise that mitigates the problem you are concerned about, and tells the reader that other policies and guidelines may apply. So, please have another look at Blueboar's proposal and reconsider its underlying rationale. Cheers, --JN466 00:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    But Jayen, that's only half right. The current policy does make clear that material is not added just because an editor who says he has a PhD believes it. But it does not say that just because the Daily Bugle publishes something, it must go in. The "threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means verifiability is a necessary condition (the minimum). But it's not a sufficient one. As Sandy says, there are other issues to consider: whether the source is the best and most appropriate, how we balance the sources per NPOV/UNDUE. V and NPOV always have to be read and applied together. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    You're right, but I find that the wording "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" is too often interpreted wrongly. People take "threshold" and "not whether editors think it is true" as an iron-clad guarantee that they get to include anything they can find in a nominally reliable source, and when they quote or link to that sentence, it sounds plausible and cuts discussion short. (I think that's the reason why Blueboar spoke of an "initial threshold", to make clear that verifiability isn't an iron-clad guarantee of permanent inclusion.) I would like to add that I don't agree with some of the support rationales, but I feel the proposal itself is as sound as it can be, for now at least. --JN466 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

92. Oppose. The proposal doesn't fix the problem. I would support replacing the existing with "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is reliable sourcing so that readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a dependable source". The verifiable v true debate is meaningless considering the number of thesauruses which indicate they virtually have equivalent meaning. Moriori (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
93. Oppose. Every so often, WP:OTRS gets complaints that Wikipedia is "distorting" the truth on this or the other, and the appropriate reply is that we represent "verifiability, not truth". I feel that our claim that we verify facts, but don't claim to present any one "truth" is a core value and should remain in focus. It's an essential reminder both for editors and readers. Asav | Talk 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    I sincerely hope that is not how OTRS is handling complaints about errors in the encyclopedia. If it is handling them this way, then your oppose comment should influence hundreds of supports in order to change this flawed policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    I obviously was't talking about factual errors, but about correspondents who claim the WP generally misrepresents the "truth". Assume good faith, even in discussions! Asav 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    No that wasn't obvious at all. In fact what you wrote suggests the opposite. You wrote on this or the other implying specific instances not general criticisms. So AGF right back at you. What Vriditas understood is what I understood as well.Griswaldo (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

94. Oppose "Assertions of truth and untruth" is a mess, even if it wasn't, I'm not sure about the first half of the proposed change. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
95. Oppose Truth is entirely relative on this encyclopedia. Changing that in any way is insane. I don't want my views presented as 'fact', nor do I want those I oppose being presented as 'fiction'. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate club, as would inevitably arise from compromising a core principle. Toa Nidhiki05 01:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    Hey there. Then you should love the proposed version since it states,

    "An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth"."

    --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

    The argument against is twofold: (a) removing an iconic expression from the lead weakens the policy, like removing from the lead of NPOV that all articles must be neutral; and (b) it's a stated aim of the supporters to eventually remove it from the policy entirely. They say moving it out of the lead is just a first step. Those are the two concerns.

    Plus it's not clear what an "initial threshold" is, as opposed to a threshold, and the cognitive dissonance of the phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" helps new editors understand that they shouldn't add their own opinions to articles, or remove opinions they don't like. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

96. Oppose. What we regard as true sometimes takes a backseat in Wikipedia. "Verifiability, not truth" is short and clear and emphasizes this. The low priority of truth, versus reliable secondary sources, should be front and centre as a core value and reminder to all editors. New editors, especially, benefit from this mantra. --Ds13 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
97. Oppose - I don't see the need to cahnge anythign. The emphasis on Verifiability, not truth is an essential part of WP, and should not be watered down. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
98. Oppose. I find Silktork's argument on elegance persuasive. It is the grabline that encapsulates the policy. Further explanation should come later, we don't want the lede swamped with the small print. SpinningSpark 09:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
99. Oppose The most honest thing WP does is admit it is not able to arbitrate on what is, or is not "the truth". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
100. Oppose Primarily because removing "not truth" and the issues (arguments) that will bring, and because the new version seems to be more vague and open to interpretation. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
101. Oppose The first concern could be addressed by the simple change from "The threshold" to "A criteria" and the second concern can always be thrashed out on the discussion page if a need arises. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
102. Oppose I support the goals espoused, but do not think that the proposed change achieves them. Instead, it dilutes a pithy statement of policy by burying it under a subheading. Anoyatu (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
103. Oppose. The proposed change weakens a statement of principle that is core to the success of the project. Most importantly, it also dilutes a simple message that readers should understand. Thparkth (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
104. Oppose. I'm not exactly the most familiar with the policies, here, but that's sort of my point - the existing wording is clear and concise and I immediately knew what it meant, even taken out of context (I checked after), context which is already really... long and scary. The proposed revision, on the other hand, actually seems less clear to me, and just makes it even longer and scarier. Before reading through some of the arguments/comments/things, I wasn't even sure what the new thing was trying to say, and after, I'm inclined to agree with those saying that it's too much. Removing the 'truth' thing from the start removes a distinction that needs to be made, but while the meaning of it seems rather self-explanatory to me, perhaps it really isn't to a lot of folks... but in that case, why not link it to another page explaining; an essay or something like someone mentioned up there? Somewhere. *gestures vaguely* Safeguarding every interpretation of what's being said needn't (and shouldn't) all be on one page, either, and the more it winds up on one, the more likely new users and readers and other less serious folks are to simply be scared off by the thing and not read it at all. I should know. Although I've been scared off by single sentences before, but still. -— Isarra (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
105. Oppose The current wording is accurate and its conciseness is very useful. However, I won't lose sleep if this is changed as the proposed compromise is a decent one. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
106. Oppose' — this removes clarity from the lead for no benefit. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
107. Weak oppose. While I agree that perhaps this oft-used saying needs clarification, I oppose the proposal of removing it from the lead. Maintaining a hard line on this standard provides an easy deterrent to those who would use unreliable sources and original research to advance fringe viewpoints which compromise the integrity of the project. Having dealt with such individuals in the past, I can say that being able to categorically say "verifiability, not truth" and have it backed by the intro to this policy carries a distinct weight, and I personally should like to be able to retain said weight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
108. Oppose. The phrase has been there at least since I became active in 2003 and it's a good one. The concept of verifiability is often difficult for newcomers to understand. It takes a while for a newcomer to become acculturated enough to read policy pages in detail. "Verifiability, not truth" is a perfect introduction; it captures the essence of the policy succinctly, and it has a certain shock value that is helpful in getting people to understand that it's not an obvious thing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
109. Oppose. The current wording conveys what needs to be conveyed to the sort of person most likely to be sent to the page. While the welcome templates and how-to documents point users to the core policies and guidelines, I think that most users learn the policies and guidelines through use—other editors point them towards them. I think the opening paragraph ought to be structured so that it conveys what most people will need to know once their are directed toward the policy. The reason "verifiability, not truth" was moved further and further toward the beginning is because most errors occur on the side of "I know it's true so I put it in." While there is the concern that someone might say "it may be false but it is verifiable," I have not run into that as frequently. I would say that the frequency and seriousness of the misunderstanding ought to determine the wording of the policy. I think this proposal has things backwards. The concerns that the compromise seeks to address should be dealt with further into the policy, while the phrasing "verifiability, not truth" should be retained up front where everyone can see it in big, bold letters. The phrase may sound paradoxical, but it should be a bit jarring. It is part of our attempt to break a misapprehension about how Wikipedia works that is widespread among new editors. It is not arcana that editors needs to learn only once they become more engaged in the project, but the core of the project. Moving the phrase further down into the policy is more likely to obscure the importance of the distinction between what you can verify and why you feel is true from the very editors who most need to be made aware of that distinction. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
110. Oppose I really don't see a problem with the existing text, it's clear, concise and to the point, which is what we need the opening paragraph to be. The proposed text seems ambiguous by comparison. It is hard to explain to newcomers who don't don't see why "I know it to be true" is not sufficient whereas the existing text rarely needs any further explanation. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
111. Oppose Though I have to admit I don't spend a lot of time mulling over policy and guidelines, I've always liked the bluntness of this one's current wording. As Indiana Jones said, if you want truth, the philosophy class is just down the hall... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
112. Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" is wikt:pithy and gets the point across clearly. The truth is that a substantial proportion of the people who are sent to read that page will never read past the lead; why in the world would we move the "nutshell" version of the point below the fold? The contrast of "verifiable" and "true" is the point here. The concerns cited in the rationale above strike me as somewhat post-hoc rationalizations. Squinting and saying "yeah, but someone COULD read the word to mean this other thing" as a rationalization for removing a meaningful word seems a bit silly; if people are concerned that readers might take "verifiability, not truth" to mean "we must include everything, ever," then it would make more sense to change the word "verifiable" to "reliably-sourced", or to add the proposed "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion" comment to the lead. Removing "truth" from the lead would decrease, not increase, the policy's comprehensibility. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
113. Oppose. The current wording is succinct and clearly summarizes a core principle of Wikipedia. It allows me and others to clearly present to newbies and pov-pushers the consensus of the community that the editors of wikipedia are (in the context of Wikipedia editing) not the ones who should worry about the truth but about the verifiability and how to fairly represent all significant views. This has nothing to do with notability as it is covered elsewhere. I'm concerned that changing the policy in the proposed manner will lead towards unnecessary and complicated disputes. The interpretation of the general policies must be as concise as possible. There's no need to discuss the basic principles on every article talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
114. Oppose. Take for example: "really did throw up all over himself in the debate". That is neither literally true nor pleasant, but it is verifiable, widely noted, and a good indication of where the lamestream flows on a certain issue. Therefore it needs to be included. Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
115. Oppose: "verifiability, not truth" is a vital concept on Wikipedia and means exactly what it sounds like in a handy, concise way with no ifs, ands, or buts to dilute it. Wikipedia's rules need to be simple and to-the-point if we're to expect anyone to possibly follow them, particularly new editors, young editors, and editors for whom english is not a first language. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
116. Oppose VNF is an easy-to-understand way to introduce and summarize the main point of the policy. Of course it's not complete - that's what the rest of the page is for. It belongs in the lead sentence, bolded, because of tl;dr. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
117. Oppose If something is to be changed, I would make it "... not simply truth" or "... not just truth" and I endorse the phrase "reliable verifiability". Softtest123 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

     Unfortunately, resolving this is not as simple as one would hope and might first think: there have been many months of discussion without revealing a simple fix that is broadly acceptable. The suggested change is deliberately a compromise, a best effort to get as many people on board as possible, with the view that conciseness, a smaller problem, can be worked on in due course. Uniplex (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

118. Oppose - the new wording complicates things and I think the original wording is clear enough. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
119. Oppose - The change seems too Obfuscated; too wordy; succinct and simple works as it is. The modifiers might still have to be re-worded and re-expressed to encompass the issue...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
120. Oppose - Our policy of not getting involved in deciding what is and isn't true is extremely important. This proposal doesn't seem to change that policy, it just tries to de-emphasise it and make it harder to find. I don't see anything to be gained by that. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
121. Oppose - While I agree with the removal of the unnecessary reference to truth, I oppose the addition of the phrase "it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).". I have not seen clear rationale for why this sentence needs to be added, and I think it highlights the weakest and most open-to-manipulation of all wikipedia's policies - i.e. WP:N. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
122. Oppose The current statement is clear and strong in its assertion that an editor's job is supplying information supported by reliable, verifiable sources, not deciding what the "truth" is, even if that "truth" is a simple factual matter. There is simply no way of determining "truth" without doing OR and any change in wording that even slightly encourages editors to start making their own decisions about facts or opinions is problematic and I think that obfuscating the clear precept we have now will do exactly that. Some of the statements I have read in the Support section above only convince me that the policy that editors are not here to decide on the "truth" needs to be emphasized as strongly as possible since several presumably veteran editors don't seem to have absorbed that simple "truth". Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
123. Oppose One of the concerns listed for phrase "Verifiable, not truth" is that new editors can be confused. Well in my mind, this is one of the the big, hard lessons about Wikipedia, because life has taught us that the inverse works, truth, not verifiable (how many times did you have to verify your answers on tests, especially standardized ones?). It needs to stay in the lead, in bold. Birdman1011395 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
124. Oppose The original is clear and succinct. I find the proposed new version actually kinda confusing as it refers to some vague "other policies and guidelines". I also think the new version conflicts with the core policy of a Neutral Point of View. If a fact is verifiable and conflicts with another fact, both should be presented with the proper weight to maintain a neutral point of view. This seems to be clouded to me by the phrase "not a guarantee of inclusion". dissolve^talk 02:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     Facts conflict all the time. Editors can often (but not always) resolve the contradiction by evaluating the source(s) and checking for accuracy, currency and other criteria. If we have, let's say, two sources, one of which claims Pluto is a planet and another which does not, we will discover that the latter is more current than the other and eliminate the former. We would not, in this example, present both with proper weight. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     There's actually a whole section on how Pluto was once a planet but has been re-classified. Both facts are presented, maintaining NPOV. An article about Pluto that only presented the "truth", the current classification, would be woefully lacking. Clouding the importance of a neutral point of view in the lead of the Verifiability policy is not a step forward for the project, IMHO. dissolve^talk 15:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     I find it hard to believe that you took this example literally to mean that the notable topic of Pluto's reclassification should not be discussed. Clearly, that is not what I said nor what was meant. And how could the change to the wording of the lead section in this policy prevent such a notable topic from being discussed? The point that you either missed or ignored is that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, and it is false to continue to claim that it is a planet using older sources which have been superseded by newer ones (IAU definition of planet). You claim that it is a "fact" that Pluto is still considered a planet, however it is not considered a planet by the IAU, which is what matters. To conclude, our article on the Solar System was updated and changed to reflect the newer IAU definition in August 2006, which at this time currently reads, "Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris, are recognized to be large enough to have been rounded by their own gravity, and are thus termed dwarf planets." Please note, both POV are not represented. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

125. Oppose. I actually like the rest of the language, but I totally oppose the removal of "truth" from the first line. "Verifiability, not truth" is the battle cry in the fight against the very tiresome truth-bearing SPAs that always seem intent on enlightening us with our mistaken views on (article name here), whether we like it or not. Trusilver 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
126. Oppose. I hold strong views on many subjects, and i know that there are many untrue articles on Wikipedia currently. But the reason why they remain is exactly because the editors managed to bully everybody else into submission by saying that regardless of the research on the subject, their views are true, and researchers are pushing some agenda or what-not. While there should be a project for publishing original research articles, this project should not be Wikipedia. Beta M 05:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)

     The proposal doesn't weaken the protection against including "true but unverifiable" material. Not even slightly. What it does is clarify that we don't want "false but verifiable" material. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

127. Oppose as reducing clarity, and using the most bureaucratic and WP:CREEPY of solutions to address a relatively minor problem. Could easily solve the same problem by saying "Verifiability, not just truth". This is an instance where the cure is far worse than the disease. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
128. Oppose Evaluating truth claims should never be the business of the editors. Untrue verifiable information can be included as well as true verifiable information depending on relevancy not truth/untruth evaluation because truth/untruth claims can never be evaluated or settled. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     This, imho, warrants a Bingo! Thank you...and I'll add "dogmatics" to the list of those whose position will be strengthened by this suggested revision. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     Knowledge Examiner, editors evaluate sources which contain true and false claims every day. If I have two sources, one of which claims Pluto is a planet and another which says it is not, I can, as an editor, evaluate this source for currency and decide to make an editorial decision to include one source over another. And if I find three sources about a biographical subject, one of which is an interview with the subject who claims he was born on Jan 1, 1910, and a tabloid blurb which says he was born on Jan 2, 1922, and finally an obituary that says he was born on Jan 1, 1910, I can choose to exclude the date that doesn't fit as an error. And if you've ever written an article on Wikipedia, then you've dealt with true and false claims all the time. Verifiability is all about getting the most accurate information in the encyclopedia by doing good research and evaluating sources for accuracy, not repeating errors or false claims because we aren't interested in "truth". That's an incredibly misleading statement and it damages the reputation of Wikipedia. We have always been concerned with truth, in the sense that we rely on the best, most accurate sources to write our articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     Viriditas, sources evaluation is different from truth evaluation. Sources evaluation rests on known policies like WP:RS and once you have recent reliable sources you cannot just exclude some sources because they are not true. Instead you apply policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:VALID. You cannot just exclude information in reliable sources because you know that they are not true, because this is not objective as Wikipedia does not itself define a truth criteria. If you know that something is not true then you should find reliable sources stating this instead of judging it yourself. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     On Wikipedia, source evaluation is truth evaluation. RS isn't a policy, it's a guideline, and one of the reasons we are having this discussion is because this policy (WP:V) is separate from RS, when in practice, it is conjoined at the hip. I've said this was the problem for years, but my name must be Cassandra because I'm always met with silence when I point to the problem. We exclude information in RS because other RS substantiate that exclusion, as I demonstrated above. I don't know how you could possibly misconstrue what I wrote to read that we exclude something because we "know" it's not true. I have never said that. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     Actually if you opened WP:TRUTH, you will find that it is a humor page not redirecting to WP:RS :) If you mean by source evaluation truth evaluation, then it should be stated clearly as source reliablity instead of truth. The same misconception that we had in our discussion is likely to happen thousands of times on talk page - specially on highly disputed contents or religious contents - when readers read a statement like If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source! How can it be dubious if it is supported by reliable source? The answer is: when it contradicts a lot of other reliable sources, but this is not clear. We should clarify this by removing misleading words like untruth, dubious .. etc and state clearly what we mean by untruth and dubious. Statements like When the information in a reliable source is in conflict with information from other reliable sources is clearer than If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source. Also the expression verifiability, not truth should still be there on the first paragraph beside any changes that we may do to the first paragraph, as this statement in its place is stopping hell of dogmatism from invading Wikipedia. Knowledge Examiner (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

129. Oppose While the phrase's form might be abrupt to some, to me the original is an easy-to-remember summation of a complex concept. After all, look how many words all of us have written in our various posts about the three words "verifiability, not truth" on this page. --Shearonink (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
130. Oppose No change is required. The current statement already both confuses and devalues the notion of "truth". I have on more than one occasion encountered arguments that the inclusion of information from a source viewed by some - but not all - to be authoritative is somehow reflective of "true" information. There is a procedural presumption that the Wiki process will arrive at "truth" by the free inclusion and edit of information. This process does not often achieve its end. There are many sources which have traded on the perception of authoritativeness and have asserted information to be true when it is not otherwise verifiable. Wikipedia has larger issues to resolve than the mere attempt at a stylized word change in an opening statement.16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
131. Oppose I've changed my position, after remembering a time I fought to retain data, from reliable sources, that was completely false. It was falsehood perpetrated by a P.R. guy and dutifully reported as fact, in reliable sources, by journalists relying on puffery in a bio written by the P.R. guy, who worked for the subject's employer.David in DC (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     I don't understand why you've changed your position then, because the present policy wording, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." could be used to keep precisely such material in Wikipedia. --JN466 18:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     The existing policy does support keeping the information. Bur keeping the information is dumb, where, as here, the reliable sources are demonstrably wrong, whether about the "fact" that a girl went to a particular school when, in fact, she did not, or about the "fact" that compositions have been nominated for Pulitzer prizes when in fact, they have not. So the existing policy DOES need changing. But the change that is the subject of this particular RfC doesn't improve the situation. After this train wreck (er, excuse me, this robust, diverse, wide-ranging conversation) is closed, perhaps a better proposal for change will be proposed. In the meantime, mammals who edit wikipedia will have to exercise editorial judgment, as good editors of any reputable publication do. David in DC (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     From the discussion here, I don't think there is much chance for a 'better proposal' which will be stronger. As with others, I do feel the proposal improves the situation, in fact cases like yours are one of the reasons why I support it as I think did others. Personally I remember the specific case of Talk:International Trade Union Confederation#WCL was third largest? where I removed a sourced fact which from memory seem to have quite a few sources saying it was true (it was from AFP) but even the source's statement itself combined with a little OR suggested it was not. I believe there have been similar cases where sources supported something but OR or using primary sources suggested it was not, including in BLPs although I can't remember any specific examples (although there was one case where someone suggested uploading their passport to demonstrate something). Yes if you can be bothered often these can be resolved via discussion and a healthy application of IAR, undue weight, questioning over whether something is really an RS etc and BLP has the provisions of BLP to help, but IMO this change supports a move away from the idea only verifiability matters and is particularly useful for new editors. In the case I mentioned, as well as in the case you mentioned, I still or would have supported excluding the info, but if there was opposition I'm not sure I would have bothered to defend my view so I suspect the info would have been kept even though it was apparently untrue unless other people took it on. However I also think there is little chance for a change which further moves away from the importance of verifiability and gives a lot of emphasis to the truth as I believe you want simply because there is actually a good reason for the original wording which is that it helps defend against editors trying to push their pet POV or idea because it's 'the truth'. In fact I'm not sure I would support an even stronger emphasis myself. In other words, we do need a balance and IMO this proposal strikes a better balance then the existing wording and is probably the best you can hope for. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

132. Oppose Any change in policy suggests we can conclude something is untrue without having a published reason why it is untrue. So how do we know? One of the examples given on Jimbo's page was with a list of bizarre deaths, that someone couldn't possibly have exploded himself with hair peroxide no matter what some news reports said. How do you know? Maybe V not T can be abused, but T not V is a nightmare. All the career deletionists are lined up on Jimbo's page licking their chops, because it means that every time you add a sourced statement, they can refute it by saying "I don't think so, so there's no consensus to include it in the article" There's no refutation to that - all you can do is close the Wikipedia window and go out and do something useful. The only thing left to measure is how quickly they can deface three million articles of anything they don't like. Faster than you think, I bet. If you want a meaningful reform, then set up - either here or on Wikinews - a "Verified Interview with Biographic Subjects" system akin to OTRS, where 'trusted volunteers', as we put it, verify that a celebrity is who he says he is and says what you say he said, so that it is a reliable primary source suitable for referencing in an article. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     "T not V" is a serious mischaracterisation of the proposed edit, and I assure you that this is not part of an evil plot invented by career deletionists to help them stop you adding sourced statements to the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

     However, the fact that the proposed change can be read in this way (and is clearly read in this way by some of those commenting here), however wrong this reading is, does constitute an argument against the proposed change (but not an argument for the existing wording). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

     I really don't think very many readers will misunderstand this phrase as converting VNT into TNV, and I'm having quite some difficulty working out how Wnt would have thought that.—S Marshall T/C 09:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

     Don't spend too much time thinking about it. IMO, Wnt often plays the part of a contrarian, and it is difficult to tell if he is serious or not. I'm often reminded of Armond White. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

     The proposed edit says "If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page". It doesn't say what happens in the meantime, but in the hands of the deletionists I think it is abundantly obvious that the "contested" material will be kept out of the article in the meanwhile - and they will never accept that discussion is over. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     Wnt, you know perfectly well that the burden of proof is on the editor adding content. Dubious/contested information should always be discussed on the talk page and there's no hurry to add it. Is there a reason you appear to be concerned about how fast dubious content gets added without discussion? What other editors will or will not accept depends upon how good your sources are and how well you can construct persuasive arguments. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

133. Oppose — I can support some of the wording changes and additions, but the whole package falls short of being a net improvement. We're proposing replacing a strong sentence that gives examples of what an inclusion threshold must be and must not be, with a weaker sentence that gives only a 'must be' example. It's as if we're proposing the removal of one of the two rails of a plastic Hot Wheels track, and expecting the car (the Wikipedia editor) to be better guided. The present "not whether editors think it is true" wording serves an invaluable purpose, and does so most effectively in the first sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
134. Oppose, but there needs to be a pithy explanation, at the top, of why it is verifiability not truth. Maybe it should be something like, "The reason is that one editor's 'truth' can often be another editor's 'falsehood.' Therefore we need to verify what people put in articles, from reliable third party sources, not personal observations, family documents allegedly held by editors, or, in most instances, primary sources." ScottyBerg (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

     Err, but if one has to go at lengths to explain and qualify the statement...then it sorta defeats the purpose? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

135. Oppose. A succinct and shocking way of getting the point across is needed; "verifiability, not truth" does the trick, because it draws a line between the two. "Verifiability? Of course it's verifiable, because it's true." Making it clear to would-be fringe theory pushers that the verifiability part has precedence is important. Don't describe everything in fluffy positive terms; setting two positive terms against one another is powerful for making the rule clear. SnowFire (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

     True, which is why the phrase is retained in the suggested wording. It is no less valid not being in the first few sentences. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

     It would be less emphasized, or why take it away from the first sentence? The intro is all most Wikipedia editors who bother to read the policies tend to read anyway. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

     Others have suggested that, and I can see the point, but I disagree. I think it is most likely that most editors' first exposure to the phrase is in a discussion on talk page. That was the way I first saw it, and then I came to the WP:V page to read more, and I think you pretty much have to be told or shown a policy to know that it exists in the first place. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

     No, "verifiability" means nothing and is certainly not a "shock" if you only pit it against truth! These two must complement each other, work together and the lead must reinforce that thought. Otherwise, as I said in my support of the point, it simply states that Wikipedia cares only about verifiability and not truth. Then who dictates what is "verifiable"? I have seen verifiable idiocies, with no one to moderate the truth contained in them - so they stay in the articles. No, this has to change! Djathinkimacowboy 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     To clarify, I believe in the rewording of only "verifiability, not truth" because it is mainly that phrase which I find to be stupidly worded. It is not a question of complicating the form, but of clarifying it.

     What does it mean as presntly worded? That verifiability, no matter what, trumps truth. And that is clearly not what Wikipedia desires to say - the very next clause in this is clear and well expressed now when it says it means a reliable, verifiable published source. Why not just say that as an expression of Wikipedia's criteria of verifiability? Why say "...not truth"? It leaves a bad impression. Djathinkimacowboy 15:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     (de-indent reply to Djathink) Yes, "verifiability trumps truth" is what Wikipedia desires to say (and what Nuujin claims will be kept in the proposed new policy anyway, but emphasized differently.). Every fringe theorist is convinced that they are the next Galileo or Einstein. For 1 in every hundred million of them, they are right. By saying "verifiability not truth" that shifts the discussion. Thus conversations with fringe theorists can then go: I don't care that you're "right." Maybe you are right! Sure, take it, you have the "truth." But it doesn't matter, because you need verifiability. Many fringe theorists can't offer that, and thus the policy serves is purpose. It also defends the "conventional" accounts; it doesn't matter that you think this is "untrue," because this verifiable reliable source says so. If we're wrong, blame it on them. SnowFire (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     SnowFire, it doesn't sound like you've read this discussion. The whole "if we're wrong, blame it on them" approach is the reason we've got so many supports for this proposal. In other words, the community recognizes that this POV is flawed and needs to be corrected. Editors must use sources judiciously. If we're wrong, then we are wrong, not the sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     Viriditas: It sounds like SnowFire has it exactly right. If we make this change, we risk handing over the project to the Truthers, Birthers, Deathers and every other Tin foil hatted fringe proponent. Do you really need to be reminded of how this proposal helps the Charlie Chaplin time traveler proponents who believe that reliable sources are wrong and that they know The Truth©? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     I'm afraid we are looking at the same world quite differently. There is nothing in the proposal that changes the policy, so your concerns are completely unjustified. The point which you are avoiding is that SnowFire's attempt to place the responsibility on the sources rather than the editors who choose those sources and add them to Wikipedia, is precisely the problem. If we are wrong as Wikipedia editors, in our use of these sources, then we take full responsibility. We don't blame sources as SnowFire is doing. Jimbo has addressed this so there's no need for me to repeat it. Editors need to be conscious of their actions, and they need to be informed about their roles as editors. We don't just repeat what sources say without thinking like automatons. We do research, and we sift, weight, and compare what the sources say, and evaluate which ones are reliable and which are not, and construct an article that best represents the topic in the most accurate way possible, including representing the most significant viewpoints and attributing their POV in a balanced manner. We've had this conversation already, AQFK, and it's clear that we don't see the world in the same way. The world I inhabit, is a world where the editors are ultimately responsible for their edits. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     Re "SnowFire's attempt to place the responsibility on the sources rather than the editors:" I do no such thing. And I entirely agree with your later points about editors being responsible for their material, and nobody thinks editors are automatons. *However* you are describing how to write a good article, which isn't exactly the same thing as Wikipedia:Verifiability. This policy doesn't forbid editor flame wars either - is that a problem? No, because other policies handle that. I see WP:V's job as being simple and pure: *here* is the bar for any content to be included on Wikipedia. It is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. If content cannot be verifiable, it gets kicked out, period. Now you're talking about sculpting which content to keep - presumably, on a topic with enough work, among various verifiable statements. As pointed out, not everything verifiable should be in articles, like Pluto being a planet. But that doesn't have anything to do with WP:V, this policy. Why do we need to blur what this policy does? Let it set the minimum standard to be considered at all. Let other policies, like WP:NPOV, forbid doing the Conservapedia Barack Obama article, which has plenty of citations but would not be considered a good article by Wikipedia standards. SnowFire (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

136. Oppose additional detail is not needed. All this new policy or rather update does is create a larger more confusing bureaucracy. Also it does not clearly state that it is an update to verifiable content in an article and not the merits of the article subject itself and its notability. I oppose any random verifiable but entirely practical or necessary content being added ad nauseum but this policy is not the way to go about it.Westernstag (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
137. Strong Oppose - the current form is short and clear. No need for a more obscure form. Adrian (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
138. Oppose The problems that do arise when new editors angrily cite "Not Truth" usually stems from experienced editors requesting that the new editor provide a source for the information. And then the new editor cannot, and gets angry, and lashes out at "Not Truth" instead of their inability to locate a source. As hard as editors try to not bite, some people will always fail to understand the reliable source and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. Moving "verifiability, not truth" will not placate those who refuse to learn the policies and abide by them if they want to contribute. For those who do want to contribute, it does succintly explain how Wikipedia works. Also, the preceding words, The threshold for inclusion is... are typically ignored, which explain why the information needs to be verifiable to be included. Why should we change the reading of this policy if people aren't fully reading it? Angryapathy (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
139. Oppose - the current wording is concise and easy-to-remember and explain, which is a useful attribute of main policy. The new wording is unwieldy (and really bad writing as well) and is an unnecessary change that increases bureaucracy while obfuscating policy. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
140. Oppose Wikipedia is riddled with "verified" inaccuracies that come from external sources. There are even sites that cite Wikipedia itself as their source. Errors become compounded and the Truth is often lost and misrepresented. The word "verifiable" alone gives a false sense of security and lends authenticity where it may not be merited. Currently it is modified with "Not truth", which is indeed an important juxtaposition allowing readers and editors to reflect on the difference where perhaps they would not if the latter were removed from the original sentence. Keep it in. Veritycheck (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

     Like many other editors who have opposed this proposal, you've confused the policy on verifiability with the reliable source (RS) guideline. If we evaluate a source according to its accuracy, relevancy, currency and neutrality, and use it appropriately, inaccuracies outside and apart from attributed opinions, will be greatly minimized. "Not truth" is the opposite of verification. On the one hand, we want to confirm or deny that a source supports the content in an article. This implies that a RS has been used judiciously and without editorial bias. Your objection concerns how we use reliable sources, which has nothing to do with this proposal, but because how we verify content cannot be separated from how we use sources, the RS guideline should redirect to this policy to make it clear that it is a policy and an essay/guideline should be split out to suport any elaboration. This split between V and RS is at the root of a great deal of this misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     I haven’t confused anything. Perhaps we have a different opinion. Until inaccuracies are eliminated from Wikipedia – which will surely never be the case, I will continue to support any statements that show and stress to both readers and editors alike that the vast collection of articles here does not unanimously represent the truth but merely what has been stated elsewhere. Furthermore, I suggest that your viewpoint is rather idealistic. It would address the situation with more weight if RS was not such an issue which it clearly is as is shown by the ubiquitous disputes regarding it that take place on Talk pages daily. First and foremost RS needs to be addressed. The fact that guidelines exist does in no way suggest that they are being fully practiced. Verifiability and the Truth are two different creatures at this point in time. It’s paramount that this reality is clear to all. Veritycheck (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

141. Oppose I haven't seen examples of major problems caused by the current wording, while the range of potential problems caused by the proposed change is unknown. I am particularly concerned for articles about pseudoscience and the paranormal, etc. where people already propose deleting articles because they interpret "verifiability" to mean the truth must be verifiable rather than the claims. I realize that wasn't the primary reason for the "not truth" wording, but the policy justifies the very existence of articles about notable but untrue subjects, so I'd like to see "not truth" remain prominent. Maghnus (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
142. Oppose Verifiability can not be compared with truth. The truth must be a priority especially the source is open to the public to correct and edit. I find it is inappropriate to make this comparison. Verifiability is the least that can be done in order to find the truth. It is either the truth or not truth. Verifiability is a part of the process but it can't justify myth and false claims. Shahrulazwad 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
143. Oppose. The whole "truth, not verifiability" bit needs to be right in the front so it's easy to point at when explaining why people can't include (whatever) in Wikipedia just because it's true. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
144. Oppose Expressing a key concept in a less succinct way? Not a good idea. Nevard (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

     Comment The succinct phrase is not going away; you'll still be able to refer to it. It's simply being moved down the page a little to allow the concept of verifiability to be first introduced, and then compared with other things (including NPOV, not just truth/untruth). Uniplex (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

145. Oppose While the current version expresses an satisfactory aspiration, it does reflect the reality as it stands at he moment. The vast array of verifiable bunk on Wiki, especially on articles that attract controversy is astounding. The proposed change is really just an effort to paper over the cracks and would inaccurately reflect the current status quo.Fourisplenty (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
146. Oppose while I agree with much of the reasoning behind the proposal I don't think that on balance it represents an improvement on the existing version. "Verifiability, not truth" is one of the most important differences between Wikipedia and other information resources and new editors should be introduced to it quickly. The proposed new section is going to provide ammunition to fringe theorists and other advocates of unusual views. I'm sure that's not what the authors of the proposal intended but nevertheless I'm pretty sure that's what's going to happen. Hut 8.5 11:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral (Switched to oppose, above.) I agree with some of this. I agree that verifiability is an "initial threshold for inclusion" (while sometimes verifiable information may not meet other thresholds). I agree that verification is not a guarantee for inclusion (though that fact is mentioned elsewhere, so I'm neutral about its inclusion here). My concern is that the proposed wording intends to de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion -- but it could effectively remove that criterion by basing it only on an essay that will no longer be accurate. See my question below. I might switch my comment to "support" if my concerns are adequately resolved, or to "oppose" if they are not. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but as the primary author of the proposal, I can assure you that my intent isn't to "de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion" (I firmly agree that it is not), my intent is to address the opposite side of the coin: whether untruth is an acceptable criterion for exclusion.

These are two sides of the same coin... The "unverifiable truth" side of the coin has a black and white answer... if the material isn't verifiable, we shouldn't include it, no matter how true it may be. But there isn't a clear black and white answer to the "verifiable untruth" side of the coin... sometimes we should exclude verifiable material that is untrue, and sometimes we shouldn't. It's a case by case determination... and the determination is (in most cases) based primarily on policy concepts other than verifiability. The problem is that the current policy doesn't mention this. It only discusses one side of the coin. The point of the proposal is to address both. It may not do a perfect job of doing so, but at least we try to address it. Does this resolve your concerns? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I misrepresented your intentions. I want to be clear here... it sounds like you're saying that there are times that verifiable statements might still need to be deleted based on the claim that they are untrue, and that this wording change is designed to facilitate that. Am I correct in that? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly the case. An example that the working group came up with, in discussion, was the statement that "Pluto is a planet". That statement is verifiable and I can prove it by reference to otherwise-reliable sources, but it's also been false since 2006 when the definition of "planet" changed. The proposed wording allows for that kind of situation, and more controversial ones too.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the truth of that statement matters, in terms of whether it should be included. It's a matter of the weight of the sources. Certainly statements should be challenged if more recent sources contradict it, if corrections are issued, etc., but not merely based on a claim of untruth. To make a simplistic example, if I claim "Cromulent widgets tend to be blue", and I provide a reliable source, and Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear. The proposed wording, while having some advantages, seems to open the door to the possibility that Joe's claim of untruth has weight. If so, I can't support it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Quadell's comment, "Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear." - Not really. The current wording discusses what is necessary for inclusion, not what is sufficient for inclusion. In other words, the current wording doesn't say whether or not something can be excluded based on a claim like Joe Blow's. The present wording only says that something can't be included based only on a claim by Joe Blow that it is true. Both the current wording and the proposed wording are neutral on the issue of excluding material from a reliable source because someone claims it is not true. The current wording says nothing about it, and the proposal says it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, with reference to other policies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording, on the other hand, does address this somewhat... it says to discuss the issue on the talk page with reference to other polices and guidelines. Yes, it is passing the buck to those other policies and guidelines, but at least it is more than is in the current version. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Quadell, I submit that there are three flaws in what I believe is implied your "Joe Blow" statement. One is implying that Joe Blow could unilaterally remove the statement over objections based just on his claim of falsehood. Nothing new or old supports this. Second is is that a simple "I say it's false" unsupported claim of falsehood is a sort of straw-man rarity....inevitably such a claim includes something to support its veracity. The third is overlooking the more realistic option which is simply that Joe Blow's statement of falsehood is allowed to enter into the conversation (doubtless gauged based on what Joe includes to support his assertion) that the editors are having about potential exclusion of material. Currently a common mis-read is often used to completely exclude that from the conversation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you can support it, but I want to say that I completely disagree with you. Jimbo expressed my view very well when he said: "We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what sources say. We want to only write true things in Wikipedia, and we want to verify them." My position is that wikipedians are educators, and there's something sinister about an educator who doesn't care about the truth. We absolutely can, do, and must, make judgments about what's true. Oh, sure, we can put it in terms like "weight of the sources" and try to judge which source is "most reliable", but in fact what we mean when we say that a source is "reliable" or "deserves weight" is that that source is "likely to be true". Thus we put a semantic layer in between article content and truth. But when our judgment about what to include depends on which source is the most likely to be accurate, then the difference between that and making judgments about "truth" is semantics and nothing but. And my position is that we should be intolerant of those who wish to introduce lies into encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. When we say that a source is reliable and has weight we do not make a judgement about its presumed veracity, but about the degree to which it represents current consensus in the relevant field. I must say that I am surprised at Mr. Wales in my view rather naive understanding of what truth is. To make judgments about what is true is the job of specialist researchers - not wikipedian editors. It is implicit in the word "editor" that we make editorial decisions - of what to include and what not. But editors do not overrule professional researchers conclusions even if they disagree with them, they leave that to the scientific community. You are trying to give wikipedia a function of knowledge creation in addition to its role of knowledge transmission. That could be fine given that that is what a majority of wikipedians feel it should do, but it is not what I signed up for. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, where there's a controversy in any field, Wikipedia prefers the mainstream academic consensus. It's right that we do that. We present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative ("Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor...", quoted from Evolution) and the alternative views as reported speech ("Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates (sic) lack of common ancestry", quoted from Baraminology). From my point of view, the reason to use reported speech is because the addition of "some advocates believe" turns what would be a false statement in the simple indicative ("The major differences... indicate lack of common ancestry") into a true one. And from my point of view, the reason to present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative is because we default to believing that the mainstream academic consensus is the correct view. But if you take away the value judgments about "truth" from this process, then actually there's no reason to treat the mainstream academic consensus about evolution any differently from baraminology, so either both belong as reported speech, or else both belong in the simple indicative (presumably the latter, since if we don't care about truth, the simpler construction is to be preferred).

This is why I believe the what is truth? view is logically inconsistent and fails to document good practice as well as a truth-based view.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "verifiability" does not include a brief review of whether something cited by a source is accurate or not, is and always has been an erroneous POV. Verifiability implies much more than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. It also implies that such a statement can be evaluated based upon other, corresponding criteria, such as the authority of the author, the reliability of the publisher, and the relevancy and currency of the statement. In the Pluto example, such a statement fails the currency criteria. We can verify it, but it is no longer current, and this means, it is no longer accurate. This is very simple to understand, so I am unable to grasp its opposition. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is quite easy to see how editors come to the conclusion that Verifiability is nothing more than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. WP:SOURCES (ie What counts as a reliable source) covers the authority of the author and reliability of the publisher issues but makes no comment regarding accuracy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Abstain. (Moved from Oppose until final opinion is formed.) Verifiability, not truth may be a slap in the face when reading it the first time – it certainly was to me because it gave me the impression that the Wikipedia community does not care about the (objective) truth but only about verifiability. But you quickly start to understand the rationale behind this, and the meme becomes a powerful and appealing one. While I understand that not truth provides futile grounds for wikilawyering and a more clarifying version is therefore welcome, I am missing what our current meme delivers so clearly, that "truth" by itself is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion. I am willing to support a version that addresses the issue about truth in its lead paragraph, but not this one. Nageh (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think there is a trade-off between the current wording and the proposal. The current slogan is powerful in that it makes newcomers immediately clear that "truth" by itself is not a criterion for inclusion. The proposed wording attempts to address the concern that editors purposefully add false information that is presented in a reliable source. The end result for both wordings is the same: whether to include some material is a matter of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Maybe it is the latter part that should be clarified. In the end, it seems all a question of which version is more likely to be misinterpreted. Nageh (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

2. I don't really have an opinion on proposal (2) because the definition of verifiability found in this policy is rather confusing. "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." Is a piece publicly displayed in a museum something "published by a reliable source", for instance? What if it's on public display only for a limited time? Can we write in an article that a piece is found in said museum while the public display condition holds true, but we'd have to delete it thereafter? Also, a I think a policy should not link to an essay inline in its text. Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth should be linked only in the "See also" section. I think that simply adding WP:DUE as an example in the first sentence "(especially whether specific material is included in a specific article, e.g. due weight)." would be a less verbose way to mention a concern that is not central to this policy. Proposed addition is in bold here, but I don't suggest actually using bold in the policy text. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Generally, things made available to the "public" have been "published". The words are very closely related. You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Published. On the specific example, the answer is yes for most circumstances: signs or items that are displayed in a museum (or street corner) are published. The items on display are primary sources, so you have to be very careful how you use them. However, if the exhibit is closed later, then they are no longer accessible and thus ineligible (exactly like a book is no longer eligible if every known copy is later destroyed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   As someone training in the museum profession I should point out that in general museum exhibits have source material for what information they provide so a museum exhibit is NOT going to be your only source for information. If the information is so obscure that the source the museum used cannot be found then you have to ask if it meets Wikipedia:Notability. For example I would love to have an article here on Doane R. Hoag's "Random Time Machine" articles that ran in several papers for nearly a decade starting in the 1970s but other than the paper it appeared in there is nothing on it and so because it fails Wikipedia:Notability we don't have an article on it and likely never will.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

   Verifiability applies to far more than "shall we have an article entirely about this subject" (=notability). You could use a museum exhibit to support, say, a single sentence in an article about fossils or history if you wanted. It might not be the best possible source, but it's probably adequate, and you must WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, even if better sources might exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I agree with the sentiment of this change, but I don't think it will work. The verifiability, not truth mantra will continue, as it is effectively true. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   The mantra is not true, it's verifiable... (sorry I couldn't resist). Crazynas ^t 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

   Mark, the purpose of the proposal was never to discontinue the mantra... but to explain it better, so that people understand what it means and use it appropriately (and not use it inappropriately). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Just a comment: I've had more than one person I know who is the subject of an article try and fail to correct basic facts (in once case, his own birrhdate) because some newspaper or such got it wrong in print, and be rebuffed because they hadn't published anywhere. The verifiability criterion in combination with an extreme interpretation of NOR can be a real problem. - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

   Is it that real (big) a problem? And even if it was vast, what would you do about that. Would you think a rule that says, 'anyone with special knowledge can correct errors known only to them,' would work? What would you propose? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

   In that case, couldn't they use the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org about the issues? Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral (with regret). (Switched to Oppose) Kudos to all those (particularly BlueBoar) for putting this proposal together. Unfortunately I can't support it as I think the proposed section (==Assertions of truth and untruth==) is actually confusing. Moreover I feel keeping the 'not truth' phrase in line 1 is a good idea. Again while i sympathize with teh suggestion I don't believe it is the right move--Cailil ^talk 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Neutral - I appreciate the work that went into this, but the new proposed section ==Assertions of truth and untruth== in its attempt clarrify the proposed change to venerability, not truth only makes it worse. This is why we have WP:CREEP. If it were just the rephrasing of that one paragraph it would be enough, but with the added section it just muddies the water.∞陣内Jinnai 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral only in so much as the solution clearly has not yet been found. Sure everything must be verifiable, however something can be verifiable yet be untrue, i.e. inaccurate. We are all human and we all make mistakes. Including reliable sources. Wikipedia should not require something that is untrue. If something is verifiable yet inherently false and wikipedia editors recognise that then there should be a discussion on the appropriateness of the inclusion of that information. Wikipedia editors are not robots. We can think for ourselves and make decisions. We should always question sources and information, verify it and strive for accurateness and truefulness. The idea that something that is verifiable is automatically suitable for inclusion is naive, since we should not be in the business of promoting false information. Never trust sources, even ones that meet the criteria in WP:RS. Strive for truthful knowledge, strive for perfection. Any policy that includes any idea that untruthful information is acceptable in wikipedia since it is supported by some "reliable sources" is a poorly formulated one. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Is it worth considering retaining "verifiability, not truth" while otherwise modifying(expanding) the lede? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Neutral. The section on Assertions of truth and untruth is too poorly written for me to agree with the proposal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I agree with both Nageh and Polyamorph in that the current wording may be strange, but the proposed solution is not ideal either. Really, the current wording is fine, but the proposed wording is fine too. I agree with both, and therfore am neutral. Mathmitch7 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Neutral. While I am not against the idea of change here, I don't see from the proposal how the suggested change would be a change for the better. Perhaps it's better to deal with the wording and improve it before making the change. Cloudz679 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Neutral. The rewording of the first sentence is more in keeping with WP:RS, but I'd like to see verifiability, not truth restored. The proposed section, however, doesn't address what's problematic in that formulation, and that is the distinction between questions of truth (which aren't our business to decide) and questions of fact (which are). The relativism of truth claims that can never be universally definitive is already addressed by policies on neutrality, undue weight, fringe and so on. Questions of fact are those that can be answered, or could be answered if sufficient evidence existed. Question of truth: What caused the American Civil War? (range of interpretations in RS, some contradicting each other, to be represented in article). Question of fact: When did the American Civil War end? (answerable depending on how you define "end"). We already recognize that WP should not perpetuate an error in questions of fact even if it's "verifiable" in some sources (see for instance List of common misconceptions), nor allow editors to decide questions of truth—but the wording of WP:V should be improved to reflect this better. So I do support the effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Neutral. The proposed phrase "initial threshold" is a tautology. Threshold means a "minimal requirement. So, "initial threshold"= "initial minimal requirement". I would support if it were removed. Ruslik_Zero 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
13. With every word added to a policy, we reduce the number of editors willing to read it. In light of that, I'm not convinced that the increased clarity of the currently proposed wording will pay off. (In case anyone replies to this, please, inform me about it.) Goodraise 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Neither proposal is satisfactory in my mind. There is a world of options to consider beyond the wording that is on the table. People have stated that adding words will steer readers away. I don't agree with this. Things that grab our attention and maintain our attention is what works, length is one factor not necessarily the overriding one. Neither proposal offers good guidance to settle dispute. They both claim the threshold (i.e., "the point at which a stimulus is of sufficient intensity to begin to produce an effect"[5]) is verifiability, but fail to give clear advise on what to do when you cross that threshold. The second option suggests that there are other guidelines and policies, but that just leads to more questions and endless debate. What do you do when you cross the threshold? I like to think that we are guided by our tenacious and collective pursuit of truth and reliability using the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.Thompsma (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

    I would also like to see this start over again. Many have stepped in only recently into this debate that affects us all. I see this point has been raised below and I support that initiative. This is a global wikipedian issue, give time for people to join in and set the threshold before the question is asked. "A majority vote of X will mean that this will pass. The date will be set from..." The rules need to be set in advance so that everyone can agree with the results of the outcome.Thompsma (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

15. Neutral but close to oppose. The current version needs to change, however, the current, as well as the proposed change, both do a disservice to the "truth". Verifiability and Truth are of equal importance in my mind. Both must be weighted equally in any Threshold. Both need further explanations for (esp.) the new editors. Adding additional links to essays (that several editors have mentioned above) would be acceptable, if the essay themselves are current. Can we start over with this process? I would hesitate to vote at this time on "Oppose" or "Support" if this discussion is now closing. GenQuest ^Whassup? 2:32 pm, Today (UTC−6)
16. Neutral It is a particularly complex issue and any decision for amendment should not be taken lightly. While I understand the criticism for the existing wording of the verifiability guideline, I do not think the new definition is satisfactory. Instead I believe that the aims of Wikipedia would be much better served if "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" was changed into "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not necessarily truth: in other words, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, which the editors can trust and believe upon their honest judgment that it can be true".--Agnostosgnostos 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnostosgnostos (talk • contribs)
17. Neutral It's a fallacy to believe any wording will keep folks from misinterpreting it, but I appreciate the effort folks have put into this. I'll note the second sentence, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. needs work, as it is borderline self-contradictory as written. Gerardw (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
18. I must also be neutral on the proposal as stated, because of the disagreements over what is "reliable." I would like to see there be some other criteria - at least one along the lines of "more sources that agree with the material than those opposing". I guarantee you I can find all sorts of things in all sorts of sources that all sorts of people find reliable - & yet could also find the same number of cites/sources that contradict whatever it is that is being proposed (Yes, this is a general statement, this isn't & probably cannot, be true of everything - but I am making a point, rather than a specific example)FlaviaR (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Linked essay bases itself on the current wording

• The proposed wording for this policy links to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth in order to explain that truth is not enough for inclusion (a clearly important concept). But that essay bases itself on the current wording here; it's initial sentence is "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as verifiability, not truth." How will this discrepancy be resolved? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, clearly, by editing the essay. We need to see what the consensus wording for the policy will be before we can fix the essay, though.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Does it make sense to propose a change to a policy's wording that would both link to an essay and make that essay inaccurate at the same time? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it makes perfect sense. Essays are not rules... however, one of the main purposes of essays is to explain the thinking and intent behind the rules. The essay in question is a very good explanation of the the thinking and intent behind the phrase: "Verifiability, not truth". Linking to it will help readers gain an deeper understanding of what we mean by that phrase. Now, we will need to amended the essay slightly if this proposal is passed, but that does not mean we should not link to the essay at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Although this isn't exactly responding to Quadell's question, I'd like to suggest that, assuming the proposal passes, we have a shortcut that goes directly to the new section about truth. Currently, WP:NOTTRUTH directs to the top of WP:V. I'd very much like to see it target, instead, the proposed new section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Unless I'm missing something, the proposed wording does not link to that essay. The rationale does, but it is not a part of the proposed change. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement

• How do you propose to resolve the case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement? I remember a case where a statement was made about Wikipedia by a reliable secondary source that was directly contradicted by the primary source of the page histories. (I'd give more details, but I don't feel like digging through archives until I remember). Easily verifiable, but in contradiction to the way we're supposed to be working here. I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If a source is demonstrably wrong it is ipso facto not a "reliable source" - that is explained in WP:RS. I really wish people would stop trying to force this policy to do the work of a different policy. Roger (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Where in RS is there any guidelines on that? I think RS does a very good job in explaining who to judge a book by its covers, and that's what is needed most of the time, but nowhere in Wikipedia, even not in this proposal, is there particularly helpful advice on what to do when a secondary source is contradicted by primary or raw data sources. Vesal (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually have a clear policy on that: What we need to do if we find that a peer reviewed publication is contradicted by primary sources is that we write an article about our interpretation of the sources arguing that previous interpretations are wrong and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And how is checking a primary source to see if it aligns with a secondary sources description of it not Original Research? Are we not in effect saying that our skills as researchers trump the ones of peer reviewed professionals. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem everyone here is grappling with is the misuse of reliable sources. The simple fact that something is published in a book or journal article is not always sufficient to establish that this is an appropriate source or that the view it expresses is significant. I think everyone would agree about this. But whatever our solution is, it cannot be one that promotes original research, I agree fully with Maunus. I think the problem is that people have turned publication, which was a minimum criterion for verifiability, into the maximum criterion. The problem is that we need more information to know whether the source is appropriate or the view is significant. This requires more research, but not original research as Maunus describes. It means reading enough secondary sources to understand what exactly makes any given book or article important and to whom, perhaps. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about conflicting views expressed in secondary sources. Sarek's question is about when a reliable source is contradicted by a primary or raw data source. To simplify the example, assume The New York Times, and a bunch of outlets repeating it, state that Jimbo Wales edited the entry of president Obama to say Obama is a really nasty piece of work, and you check the contribution logs and see this edit was made by an impostor, such as User:Jim Wales. What would you do? Wait until New York Times retract their statement? No other views are published in secondary sources, so it is up to you to decide whether you want to repeat untrue information. What kind of research, based on secondary sources, would help us here? What kind of NPOV considerations? Vesal (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an editorial discussion and decide whether the statement in the Times is significant enough to be notable- If we decide that it is then we write "On february 10th the New York times published a piece accusing Jimbo Wales of dissing Obama". And we do it because that is a fact. When Wales then decides to retort via the press then we include his statement as well. Any other approach would be Original Research. (you could for example write your finding in a letter to the editorial staff of the times - thus making them retract the statement)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty good answer, although perhaps my example was too harmless and does not adequately reflect the situation that Sarek was referring to. Still, I would not say any other approach is original research: there is no attempt to include something in the article, and one should try to avoid repeating libelous information, even attributed, until of course the situation reaches such degree of notability that it can't be avoided, but instead Wikipedia is one of the first places that reports, and escalates, such controversies. Vesal (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that we handle it this way. The Wikipedia log is a primary source, but in this hypothetical case its reliability trumps the reliability of the secondary source The New York Times. We should always use the best and most reliable source when we try to verify something, and if that source refutes the allegation that Jimbo Wales vandalized the Barack Obama article, then that is the version we should go by. The next questions are "Is the NYT allegation notable?" and "Is it notable that someone impersonated Jimbo Wales?". If the answer to these questions is "no", then I would probably exclude that content altogether. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal attempts to deal with all of this in two ways... first, by noting that Verifiability is a requirement for, but not a guarantee of inclusion... and by noting that we should look to other polices and guidelines to make the determination as to whether to include a specific bit of verifiable information. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But the policy needs to state specifically that untruth is not in itself a valid reason for exclusion, we can include untrue statements if they are notable and attributed to their specific source, and weighted with any contradictory statements according to significance. For example we can include in the article about Monical Lewinsky that "President Clinton stated I did not have sex with that woman", and no one can remove that statement because it is a lie - because it is vrifiable fact that he made the statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a true statement. President Clinton did state "I did not have sex with that woman". Therefore the policy supports its inclusion.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It is also true to write "the national inquirer wrote that Leonardo di Caprio has been analprobed by aliens". The reason we don't include that is not that it is untrue, but that it is insignificant. For that reason the question of "truth" is not relevant - only the question of verifiability and attribution. User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. Similarly we don't remove Clinton's statement because an editor happens to have a photo of a sexual act betwen Clinton and Lewinsky, falsifying Clinton's statement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This kind of example got discussed to death by the working group over a period of about eight months. The situation is that if an editor writes, "Clinton stated, 'I did not have sex with that woman'," then the statement is true; but if an editor writes, "Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky" then that statement is very arguably false and certainly needs to be refactored. Even though it's sourced to the President of the United States himself. The proposed policy wording clarifies how to deal with such situations.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does. On the contrary it suggests that wikipedians can remove statements that they "know" to be untrue regardless of whether there are any reliable sources supporting that conclusion. This undermines both WP:V and WP:NOR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, this is really important. Wikipedians really must remove statements that they know to be untrue from Wikipedia. That's one of our first and foremost moral responsibilities. If a consensus of Wikipedians agrees that a source normally regarded as reliable has gotten something wrong, we must not rely on that source in the usual fashion: we must not make false claims, knowing that they are false, relying on some bizarre epistemological construct that has taken on a ridiculous life of its own. There are many classic examples, and the counterarguments do not hit at this core point at all; rather they are arguments that go towards a deeper and wiser understanding of how to handle difficult sourcing situations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems in this discussion is that there is a persistent conflation of criteria for inclusion, and criteria for exclusion. If we exclude material, we are not saying it is incorrect, we are withholding comment. If we have enough grounds for thinking a source has got something wrong, we don't say "source X is wrong", we just ignore it (unless the source statement itself has gained significance/notoriety in sources secondary to it). Of course, evidence that a source has got something wrong needs to be verifiable, ie directly and unequivocally related to the error, not a production of OR synth. In some subject areas we are obliged to follow a "he said, she said" pattern, because that is the nature of the subject. In others, we don't need to be quite so precious.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, the case you are talking about is now part of the WP:Inaccuracy page and is where Peter Knight's direct statement "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909" could be proven wrong as the phrase "conspiracy theory" could be shown to have appeared before 1909 with the earliest RS The Journal of mental science (1871)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Inaccuracy is intended to be a response to this type of discussion.  This essay currently says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  And

* Levels of exclusion regarding potentially inaccurate material

• We don't use Wikipedia's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution.
  
• We mention the anomaly in a footnote.
  
• The potentially inaccurate material has so little prominence (WP:DUE), that we don't mention it at all.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This policy with which I was not familiar should be integrated much more prominently in the proposed text of WP:V then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This essay is purposed as a guideline to be linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV.  It is new and needs more eyes.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Elevating this would go a long way towards alleviating the problems that are driving this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Reply to the original question: there is a statement in WP:PRIMARY: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • We need to stop using "secondary source" to mean "good source". Secondary sources can be truly lousy: biased, inaccurate, incomplete, non-independent, and more. If the primary source is more likely to be correct than the secondary source, then we should go with the better source. A secondary source might tell you whether a given piece of information is important (DUE), but it is not automatically the best possible source. For example, if you're quoting a line from a poem, it's often better to cite the original publication, not the (possibly mistaken) second-hand reproduction in someone else's book. We all know how the telephone game works, and anyone who doesn't recognize the problems that secondary sources have with quotations should be sentenced to cleaning up errors at Wikiquotes until he or she becomes achieves enlightenment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I fully agree especially when "secondary source" = "good source" is used to curb stomp NPOV issues such as those seen in the Jesus myth theory --BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)article.

If the iconic-phrase is divisive, meaning that some fear it has unintended side effects but there will not be a consensus to bury it, this RfC should nonetheless have successfully brought to light together the strong variety of mechanisms already available for countering those feared side effects. Moving forward, it looks a consensus could be built by proposal that, without burying those three words, inserts below in the document a prominent section or passage directly countering those side-effects (e.g., explicitly decreeing those are not valid interpretations, and advertising the specific other policies to use for countering such misapplications). Keep the icon but rid the fears? Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Reliable sources are frequently wrong, and that is a cause for contention. In a BLP I was editing recently, the New York Times was wrong. But I only knew it was wrong because it was contradicted by other Times articles. How you deal with it depends on how you know it is wrong. If you know it is wrong because, for instance, you were at Dealy Plaza when JFK was shot and saw someone on the Grassy Knoll, that is a different situation from a conflict of reliable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Need explicit wording

1. The casual reader needs some help to make the distinction between two definitions of verifiability:

• common: The ability to determine if a claim corresponds to truth.
• Wikipedia's: The ability to determine if a summary of a claim corresponds to its appearance in a published reliable source. patsw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

2. I would also like to see an explicit denial that as a collaboration we are indifferent to truth. My own contribution along these lines is here: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are summarizers not truth finders patsw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On point #2 - I agree that such a statement would be beneficial... but I don't think WP:V is the right place to put it. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both points are common misunderstandings of WP:V. We're not indifferent... appears in the essay. If I see the accusation that Wikipedia editors are indifferent to the truth on- or off- Wiki again, I will bring it up on the talk page. patsw (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the WIkipedia meaning of verifiability is different from wha tis at least one very common understanding and we should make this clearer. I also acknowledge that the definition of the Wikipedia use of the term is wording that the V policy has had since the page was created. I am sorry I didn't argue against it at the time, but I think that this wording has caused us a heap of trouble. It is not wrong, but it skips a step and insodoing turns reliable sources into ends when they are means to an end. I think the missing step is: we are verifying that the claim that we represent is a "significant view" meaning that the claim is not one of our own invention but rather one that is universally held, widely held, held by a majority, held by a notable minority. "Reliable sources" are the means by which we verify this. But what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Without making this clear, to things often happen: (1) many editors misuse sources, using hat may in some context be a reliabl source inappropriately and (2) observers of WP conclude that we include anything that has been published on the web. What we are verifying is that it is a significant view giving due weight to its significance. It is only in relation to this principle that a source can be deemed reliable and be used effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that most would consider this to be pretty overwhelming, far beyond beyond a consensus already. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to close?

Time to close? It received a large number of responses, the results look pretty overwhelming. New responses have trailed off, quantities for the last few days have been:

"Support"

• October 23 2
• October 24 1
• October 25 0
• October 26 0
• October 27 1
• October 28 6
• October 29 16

"Oppose"

• October 23 1
• October 24 1
• October 25 0
• October 26 0
• October 27 0
• October 28 5
• October 29 18

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's very reasonable. Normally, RfCs have to run a minimum of two weeks, and this is well beyond that. You could, perhaps, put a neutrally worded request at WP:AN for a previously uninvolved administrator to do the closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that North8000 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did that. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to close or to announce an immanent close. But I do not consider the results to be decisive. When changing policy we need to reach a consensus. That more than a third of the people who commented are opposed or neutral shows that we are quite far from a consensus.

Many of the comments, pro and con, provide important and constructive feedback, which is a principal aim of an RfC. The question is, how to draw on the critical comments in order to craft a proposal that will generate a consensus? Answering this question may take some time, but that is something we have plenty of. I certainly think that this consensus is achievable. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From the policy WP:Consensus in the lead of the section What consensus is,

"Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the results are pretty overwhelming, and for the specific proposal. Far above and beyond the norm for a consensus. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would point out that the RFC was about specific wording proposed after literally months of long discussion in the attempt to find common ground. I sincerely doubt we will get unanimity on any wording, and as evidence of that I point to the fact that there are two camps of opposes in the RFC who fundamentally disagree as to why it is important to oppose the suggested wording. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bob K31416, North8000 and Nuujinn. There's been more than eight months of discussion followed by a long, long RFC that have attracted a lot of interest and a lot of contributions. I'm looking for a decision now—not a compromise, not the start of a new kind of talking shop, but a relatively final outcome so we can finally make progress and move on.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I never used the word unanimity and I did not think anyone here would misinterpret "consensus" to mean unanimity. I do not think we should seek unanimity. But this is NOT an article. This is a policy. The threshold for change to a policy is much greater than it is for an article. And usually, changes to this page are made through consensus. the fact that we have had an RfC does not mean we abandon that pricniple. The purpose for a request for comment is ... to request comments. The poll does indicate that This issue needs attention, and it indicates that Blueboar has some good ideas. The fact that there are so many people opposed is also significant polls are not up/down votes. I agree that people disagree for different reasons. i also point out that people agree for different reasons. Collaborative editing means, working through all the constructive criticisms and suggestions to make a good proposal even better. We may never get unanimity and that certainly should not be an obstacle to change. But thoughtful criticisms can be applied to revising the proposal, just as thougtful support should never be dismissed.

This is a request for comment. The comments are the point; it is not just a vote. We should disregard everyone who registered support or opposition without reasons, and there may be comments that are empty of meaning, or unthoughtful or unconstructive. Whatever is left is what a request for comment is supposed to generate: thoughtful comments. I see no reason why Blueboar's proposal cannot be imporved upon, and I think many of the comments suggest ways that it can be improved. That is what an RfC is for. It is a stage in the development of a consensus through collaborative editing, in which specific comments are solicited as a way to have very focused feedback. Well, we got those comments. Whether they are in support or opposition is not the point, what matters is that they are thoughtful and constructive. That is what makes an RfC a success.

I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon (even if it is used as our base/starting point — please do not misrepresent my comment to mean we should abandon it). The question is, did the RfC produce comments that could help us improve it? I think it did. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC's are more than just comments, they are also are THE venue for decisions and gauging a consensus. And this one is on a specific proposal. "Further improvement possible" is something for after the change, not a rationale for blocking it. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein said: "I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon..." - Actually about 1/3 of the participants in the discussion believe the best way to improve it is to drop it. Roger (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Clears throat. The opening post of this sub-thread asked whether it was time to close the RfC and how to do so. It wasn't a request for editors who already participated, either supporting or opposing, to try to tell the closing administrator what the decision should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted the premature RfC closure. There is no reason, with a key policy change, to close the RfC before the 30 days is up. In addition, it's not clear to me what the consensus is; not clear that the RfC was a proper wiki-wide one (I was hoping for something not on this page), and it would be appreciated if more than one (completely uninvolved) admin would agree to interpret the consensus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: I was hoping for something not on this page... Um... where would an RfC on a proposed policy change go if not on the policy talk page? Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I had hoped you would open a wiki-wide RfC, along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Verifiability, not truth, with watchlist notices, etc., as you recall we did for ATT. That would have attracted more input, and that was what I understood by "wiki-wide," rather than just another RfC on this page -- of which we've already had several, which opposed change. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in regard to We should disregard everyone who registered support or opposition without reasons, with respect, no, we should not. Simple !votes indicate an editor's position on the question at hand, and while they should not carry as much weight as a well reasoned argument informed in policy, they should be accorded some weight. But I do not think there has been insufficient exposure to the community--the matter was discussed over the last several months in multiple venues, and the drafting of the RFC was public and took a good long while, too, this has been a long and open process. In regard to the duration of the RFC, waiting a few more days seems appropriate, as does a multi-admin closure. I'm unsure of how one would request the latter, but my gut feeling is we should ask for uninvolved admins from pools of admins who handle mediation or dispute resolution, as they have a knack for helping move discussion forward. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We never were in a hurry; even the "time to close?" question was open for several days with nobody against. But I am absolutely angry with and sick and tired of the "more of the same" strong arm, ownership and double standard stuff that I am seeing here. Whenever someone doesn't like the outcome, they invent new rules. The barrier for a change that they are in vavor or is incredibly low, and the barrier for something that they don't like, their personal incrediblyly high standards get invented. We need to take a stand against this. It should stay closed unless there is a consensus (not just a few strong-arm people) to reopen it. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When you see comments on an important RfC petering out, one that will change a core policy, you ask for more input, you don't rush to close it early. Leaving it open for a few more days or a week will make sure people get a chance to speak.

And North, seriously, you have to stop accusing people of ownership issues here. You have posted about this issue more than any other editor, nearly a thousand posts on this page alone since July 2010 (plus on several others), making you the third highest poster overall, though the first two (Blueboar and myself) have been posting since 2006 and 2005 respectively. So it just isn't reasonable to accuse anyone else of ownership when it comes to this issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• SV, you are heavily involved. It was inappropriate for you to revert Sarek's close without even discussing it with him.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a general impression. The RFC has become quite chaotic in the last couple of hours. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An RFC on a policy change should last for the full term as described in WP:RFC, which is 30 days. I don't see any reason to close this early. Dreadstar ☥ 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus may arise from this poll; I myself offered one compromise which may eventually result in a consensus quite like the proposal. But if I see another claim that this discussion is consensus for this wording, I will seek dispute resolution with that person. We would not confirm an admin with this ratio of supporters to opponents; to impose this text, instead of, as WP:Consensus requires, modifying it to attract disssentients while retaining proponents, is to run by majority vote. WP:Voting is evil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify? --Nuujinn (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

To those for whom that is not clear, no explanation will make it clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's a less than helpful response, esp. given that I'm honestly not sure about the antecedents of your thises. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, with respct, yesterday I actually quoted the relevant part of the guidelines, below. But if I may follow up on PMAnderson, I would ask you to read the essay linked on voting is evel and more important, to reread the guidelines on RfC. I respectfully suggest you missed part of them or misread them and I am courteously just asking you to reread them, it is just one page.

As to when to close the RfC, the normal practice is 30 days after the RfC was opened. If Blueboar (or whoever started the RfC, I think it is Blueboar) believes that the RfC has produced a consensus earlier than the 30 days, Blueboar can close it sooner.

I think SlimVirgin's suggestion that the RfC should have had its own page is a reasonable point. However, I do want to note that Blueboar advertised this RfC on other policy pages and perhaps elsewhere as well - so I do think Blueboar and others have made a serious effort to let a wide range of editors know about this request for comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

North proposed closing on the 26th and Sarek closed it on the 28th. That is NOT a lot of time to discuss how best to close the RfC. Maybe this is the time to close, but let's have some discussion before railroading a premature closuer. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This RfC will close one month from when it started at the very least (November 5th). Any sort of "premature closure" isn't on or warranted. It's not time to close yet - no need for a coup de grâce yet, ladies and gentlemen. Be patient :> Doc talk 12:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If it closes that early, I'll try to reopen it. There have been a number of missteps, and we should wait until the activity drops off again before closing the RfC. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A question

I would like to make sure that everyone who commented in the previous RfCs/polls over the last few months is aware of this new one. I don't want to start leaving notes on user talk pages, in case I'm accused of canvassing. I'd therefore like to get agreement here as to how these editors should be informed.

The reason I feel this is needed is that this talk page became so bogged down over the last few months with constant polls that I think lots of people gave up and stopped looking at it (e.g. me). So I think we ought to alert people to this latest one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the people who have commented in the previous RfCs have already commented in this one. If you can think of anyone who has not, I would be happy to notify them for you (which should avoid any accusations of canvasing). Blueboar (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, then it would be you canvassing, not me. Can we agree some wording for a notice? My concern about the one you put up was that it didn't say what the issue was. I would prefer something like:

"There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The RfC is likely to close in a few days, so if you want to comment please do so soonish."

You said you thought it was more complex than that, so what would you want to add, or how would you phrase it? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you try to summarize the proposed change you will inevitably create a biased one such as you wrote above and have been putting elsewhere. Yours gives the initial impression that the change is taking "verifiability" and everything else in that sentence out of the lead. Any neutral notice would say simply that there is a proposed changed in the lead and let people come here and see the proposed change instead of being told a particular person's summary of it. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a neutral and accurate description of the proposal:

There is an RfC here on whether to change the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy as follows:

• 1) Change the opening paragraph:

From: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To:     The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).

• 2) Insert a new section to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:

==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". Assertions of untruth (i.e., an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

The RfC is likely to close in a few days, so if you want to comment please do so soonish. --JN466 14:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It has to be more succinct than that. This has been the problem with this RfC; it lost people before they had even commented, just as (in my view) the point of the proposed policy will be lost on people before they get to the end of the first sentence. I will come up with a compromise between your suggestion and mine. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}

In particular, in what circumstances would it be admissable if an editor is able to state from their own pesonal experience that something is not true. In particular I am currently involved in a dispute regarding the pricing policy of a supermarket chain. This morning I had the opportunity to visit a branch of the chain concerned and the visit showed gave overwhelming proof that the pricing policy as described in Wikipedia had either never been implemented or had been discontinued. Is it sufficient for me to state exactly what I saw, where I saw it and when I saw it on order to prove untruth? Martinvl (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not sufficient to "prove" anything... but it is sufficient to start a discussion on the talk page about it, and raise a concern. And that talk page discussion might well result in a consensus that the text of the article needs to change (or not). Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A heads-up. The editor in question wishes to remove material about a supermarket policy statement about experimental pricing strategies made half a year ago. This issue is currently in mediation. The editor has been repeatedly criticised on the article talkpage for going to various fora and describing disputes both non-neutrally and without the courtesy of informing other parties to the dispute. (Informing others is not obligatory, but if they complain the first time, it's common sense to inform thereafter).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another example of invoking "verifiability, not truth" to override NPOV

Talk:Evolution/Archive 58#Statistical species. [I have !voted in the RfC as "Have mörser, will travel". My account was renamed since then.] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Current announcements of RFC

How is the RFC being currently announced? Please give links to the announcements so that anyone can view them. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The ultimate answer

In case anyone's still unsure about what it is we seek, the answer can be found at WP:5P: it's "verifiable accuracy"—I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this so far. Uniplex (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Page number specification

In that verifiability depends on tracing a quote, point, or other material back to its source, and that such trace-backs are greatly facilitated by citing the specific page, section, or paragraph, the common opinion that page numbers (etc.) should be cited seems quite reasonable. Yet it seems there is no definite statement that they should be used, or even required. Should there be a definite statement that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources? This goes into the details of what should be included in a citation and how to format them. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. At best it says page numbers "should" be given for books. Overall it just gives the impression of something nice if you want to go to the trouble, which many editors take as being entirely optional. In being found in the context of citation it does come across as a style issue. Whereas the few statements for greater specification generally reference WP:Verifiability. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with requiring page numbers is that there are situations where a statement being made in the Wikipedia article is supported by an entire book or an entire chapter. And I can not cite a page number if the source does not have page numbers (an audio recording, for example). We can (and do) say it is "good practice" to supply page numbers, and we encourage it where appropriate, but we can not require it in all cases. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Blueboar wrote and would add that this standard is just as likely to encourge people to quote whatever they can read via google snippets rather than actually reading whole books. But there is a convention for how to address Blueboar's points: if the point made is the explicit and primary point of the whole book or journal, we cite it without any page numbers. if it is an argument made in a chapter or section of a book or article, we provide the entire page range. if it is a point made on one page we cite the page. If this is not already in the CS guidelines, it ought to be. But too often I have sen editors take quotes out of context and while citing page numbers is nice, it is at least as important to verify that the quote or page citation is being used properly which usually requires one to have read the whole work. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Something else to consider... The Policy is that material should be verifiable (ie able to be verified). But we don't require that every statement be easily verified (actually, we don't even require that everything be verified... just material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged"). A citation without page numbers satisfies the requirement that the material be verifiable... it is just more difficult to actually verify.

Also... Policy pages on Wikipedia should focus on explaining broad principles, and avoid getting into too much detail (policy creep). "Correct" citation format is not really a policy issue. It is a style issue... and style issues are best discussed on style guide pages... such as WP:CS. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that for topics that go back before ISBN became standard page numbers don't really help as there is no way to set down just which version of the book you are referring too.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I would be sure to use page numbers for 1) direct quotes or 2) citing to something that might be likely to be challenged by another editor. If you are citing to a more general thought supported in the book, consider citing a chapter or section. If what you are citing is the general thrust of a book, then citing the book as a whole is probably OK.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Folks can challenge the includer to show that the material is supported by the source which then forces them to be more specific. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call: More general points need more general cites, while more specific points need more specific cites. If the book is entitled Sky is Blue by Dr. Light (i.e. the citation is to the general thrust of the book), then I don't think it's necessary to have a page number to support the assertion that "Dr. Light believes that the sky is blue." --GrapedApe (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a theme here that we cannot require page numbers because sometimes a general reference is appropriate. (Or even that some sources are not paginated.) Look, I quite understand that general refererences are sometimes appropriate (though mostly for "further reading"). But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of citations within most articles do not have page numbers – but should, as they refer to specific points or quotes. And all of that is condoned because sometimes a "general" reference might be appropriate?

And most of you responded to the wrong argument. Look again: I did not suggest that we "require page numbers", let alone require them for all sources in all contexts. I asked if we should have a more definite statement -- perhaps even to requiring -- "that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph". GrapedApe seems to understand this, but I seem to have caught the rest of while you were asleep.

Nor am I suggesting that "every statement" should be "easily verified". That is covered by this policy, that "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." (And reiterated at Wikipedia:Citing sources.) Moreover, the WP:BURDEN of doing this "lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (emphasis in the original). If the originating editor is required to add a citation, why shouldn't s/he be required to add a complete citation, grabbing the specific page (section, etc.) while it is at hand? After all, s/he knows where it is, wheras someone attempting to verify the point would otherwise have to search the entire work. Because we condone letting editors make verfication harder we undercut our most basic principle.

The closest any existing statement comes to encouraging specific location (and then only for page numbers) seems to be that at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Which is, as Blueboar describes, in the context of citation technique and format. As the policy here regarding citation is largely "feel free to roll your own", that statement has the clout of a bird fart (as in "who noticed?").

Providing a specific citation (page number, section, chapter, whatever is appropriate) is not just "nice", not just a basic requirement of scholarship, but fundamental to Wikipedia. Why are we not encouraging it?

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• We are encouraging it. WP:CITE is very clear. There is enough wiggle room for exceptions, that's all.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to J. Johnston. Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to alternate between saying it should be encouraged and saying it should be mandated. I think that several examples were given against mandating. I might add another one. This is where the same work is used many times on the article for material that is not challenged or controversial. A common practice is to just cite the overall work multiple times. Requiring page numbers would terminate that practice and force it into IMHO overkill scenarios for that particular situation....repeating the full reference many times (except with different page numbers) or else go to a more complex 2 level referencing system which is difficult/confusing for new editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. I am not proposing to "mandate" anything, I am proposing to more strongly encourage appropriate specification. (Perhaps you were mislead by the bolded excerpt from WP:BURDEN? That is an existing policy!) These objections to "mandating" ("requiring") are irrelevant as that is not what I am suggesting, and I am mystified why you all keep making this invalid straw man objection.

Regarding your "common practice": current policy is that if material is "common knowledge" and not likely to be challenged, then it doesn't even have to be cited in the first place. But if something is to be cited (e.g., all quotations), then it is much easier for the original author to include the page/section/etc. while it is at hand than for a subsequent editor to search for it. This "common" practice of balling up a bunch of citations into one general reference is a very poor practice, even sleazy, and ought to be terminated. Your fear of "overkill scenarios" arises from the very confusing situation here regarding citation generally, and should not excuse sloppiness. (There are ways to do page numbers easily enough, but that is a different issue, and likely an extended discussion.)

As to encouraging "it": hardly. WP:CITE says nothing about specificity of citations. As to page numbers, it says that for books and journals they are "typically" or "usually" included (though I challenge that); a subsequent "should" fails to bring this descriptive factoid even to the level of a faint suggestion, let alone encouragment. And for newspapers: "Page number(s) are optional." In actual reality it is the inclusion of page numbers (etc.) which is the exception.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on several points. But as a point of clarification, when, on 2 occasions you say that "should" is not strong enough, that gives the impression to some (including me) of implying the typical next step up which is mandating. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What? I am saying that current statements regarding use of page numbers, including a single instance of an express "should" buried in WP:CITE under "typically included" and "usually included", are not strong enough to encourage their use. I say that that particular "should" is not strong enough. I am amazed how you can jump from that to an "impression ... of implying ... mandating." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then, albeit an easily-made one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It might help clear up any misunderstanding here if you suggested a specific edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is quite common for readers of our policy and guideline pages to confuse "should" with "must". "Should" is a fairly strong encouragement... "must" is a mandate. I can not think of a word that is stronger than "should", but not as absolute as "must", but perhaps someone else can... so I agree with Bob... we would need to see a proposed edit to move further on this. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully that is now cleared up? Specifically, that "should" does not mean "must" (a word I actually abhor), and most certainly does not imply any element of coercion? (E.g., we might lean on people to do the right thing, there might even be social pressure, but no one is going to be knee-capped, or their work purged, if they simply omit a page number.) Perhaps there was also some confusion in the question I proposed. Note that the first instance ("Should there be a definite statement...") applies to us editors, and is in the nature of "the statement is such a good idea we will be knee-capped by Jimbo ... just ought to do it", while the second instance is about the appropriate use of page numbers (etc.).

I haven't proposed a specific edit because I think we still have general issues to sort out, and that there may be more than "a few simple edits". Assuming we are clear on "should", I am going to pop this out and list some of the possible issues. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Having clarified that "should" does not mean "must", I would like to clarify some other points of possible confusion.

1. "Should" means strongly desireable, but is not (e.g.) a mandate to remove non-compliant material.
2. "Should" is constrained by "as appropriate". E.g.: page numbers are not appropriate for sources that do not have page numbers.
3. The implicit policy issue is whether citations should be as specific as possible. (Alternately: as specific as desireable.)
4. "Page number" is used here as the most common kind of citation specification, but is understood to include all specification of sections, paragraphs, or other sub-divisions of a work, whether numbered or not.

There are other points I will argue, but the points here are for clarification. I pause to see if everyone is clear on these. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Where a statement is sourced to a particular conclusion in a work, the conclusion's position in the work must be indicated for verification purposes. This can include text searching, paragraph numbering, lines of code or law, page numbers (with an edition specified including the city of publication). Where a statement is sourced to the primary motive of an extended work, this should be cited against the introduction, thesis, conclusion with the position in the work indicated. Where a work is cited multiple times for different matters, on each occasion the place in the work needs to be indicated. Where a work is merely cited as existing at all, "Kevin published a book, "On ducks,"" only then is it legitimate to cite the work as a whole. Even then, I'd suggest citing the bibliographic page. The idea that the "vibe" of a work is contained in the work as a whole, but never made explicit by the author, and so the work as a whole should be cited is a very bad one leading to original exegeses of the meaning of the work. Authors who make claims with their whole work, usually take the pain to do so with an introduction or conclusion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to go with Fifelfoo's level of "must": enough information must be given to allow location of the source statement(s), to the degree that the work permits this. If the work doesn't permit much localization, well, we have to live with it, but anything that suggests it is permissible to give no indication of where to find the cited information in an 800 page tome allows people to give themselves permission to include unverifiable references. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From the section Anything challenged or likely to be challenged of WP:Verifiability, "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Fifeloo has propounded the point well: it is a bad idea (and a bad practice) to cite a source generally for some point or "vibe" that is never made explicitly. I would add as a very bad practice the "common" one suggested earliar, of leaving off specific page numbers (etc.) where there are multiple citations of a source. (If adding page numbers and such is too difficult, then one's citation technique needs revision, and I strongly urge getting weaned from named refs. But that is a discussion for elsewhere.)

However, I would be cautious about bandying around "must", for all the reasons we covered above. "Should" implies an obligation, as in one ought to do something, but "must" has intonations of compulsion. I would tell editors that they really ought to provide specification, lean on them heavily, even make GA status contingent on specification. But "must" gets too murky, even electrifying; "should" is (I think) sufficient, and generally preferable. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I would add that named refs that are broken into References and Notes sections work well and are not hard to manage. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the caveats (regarding "should", "appropriate", and "page numbers" as proxy for specification in general) are clear, so I return to the implicit policy issue: should citation be specific? (Don't forget the caveat of appropriate.) That is, given the existing policy that sources should be cited, does that extend into specifying the location within a source?

I argue yes, on the grounds that it is 1) a basic requirement of scholarship, and 2) fundamental to the Wikipedia principle of verifiability. In anticipation of some previous arguments being recycled I would further argue that supposed difficulty of adding a specification (e.g., page number) originally is of very little weight, and much outweighed by the difficulty of subsequently trying to find an alleged point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So possibly no one objects to the notion that citation should include specific location within a source?

It may be useful to think of citations as having two parts: the first part pointing to the source (think of it as a link out to the external world), and the second part pointing to the specific location within the source. The issue I am trying to address is the general neglect of the second part. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What you and Firefloo have said makes sense to me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that citations should specify the location within the source (e.g., a page number), the second part of my argument is that this has not been effectively encouraged. There are three broad indications of this. First, the infrequency of specification when citation is done anywhere adequately. (Which is problem it self – just take a romp through random article and see how many have more than urls for sources.) Second, the frequency with which the need for page numbers is questioned in various Talk Pages. Third, lack of specific authority or documentation that proponents of specification (page numbers) can point to; one is usually pointed either to WP:Verifiability generally, which is unsatisfactory, or to something like WP:Citing sources, where (as I said earliar) any expectation or obligation to cite page numbers is diluted with "usually" or "typically". Furthermore, the location of this minimal statement suggests it is a mere matter of citation style, and therefore entirely optional.

If that argument is accepted, then my suggestion is that the point needs to be made clear at the level of WP:V that the requirement for citation (the existing policy) means complete citation, including page numbers or other specification as appropriate. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC), 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposal re "specification"

There being no objections in principle, I propose the following change at WP:V#Anything challenged or likely to be challenged:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable. Citations should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page numbers, sections, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found.

At this point it might be useful to make reference to WP:Citing sources "for further details." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully support what you are trying to achieve here. But I think it is only in the cases of books and audiovisual material where we absolutely need information about the location in order to verify information. In many other cases (e.g. newspaper articles) it is highly desirable, but maybe not essential. In many further cases (e.g. webpages) it may not be possible. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

the sec::If citing a video a time stamp may be the appropriate location indication. I think that this proposal makes it clearer that the point is to aid verifiability, rather than to create slot that needs to be filled.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? It seems to require that a location should always be given. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but "should" is not "must".   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that how you normally define "clear"?? --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that editors should provide whatever information is needed to make the material readily verifiable.   Will Beback  talk  12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might find this colloquy to be anecdotal to your observation. It frustrated the hell out of me. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We are not asking for the impossible (which I thought had been clarified above, please read point #3). What I am trying to address is the general disdain to providing any such minimal aids to verfication ("because it's not required!"), without which WP:Verifiability is hollow. I am fine if anyone wants to make this point more clearer; feel free to offer an improved formulation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Use original version with added wikilink to WP:CITEHOW and added phrase "for example"?

"Cite the source clearly and precisely, for example with page numbers where applicable."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I do favor a link to WP:CITEHOW, but that link points to the very section previously discussed, where it says that page numbers are "typically" or "usually" included. This is effectively no change. The reality that such statements are contrafactual (i.e., page numbers are not "typically" included) is part of the argument why we need a stronger, more definitive statement here that location specification should be included. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are relevant sentences from sections of WP:CITEHOW:

Book - Inline citations should additionally give the relevant page number or range of page numbers.

Journal articles - "Inline citations usually also include specific page numbers, as described above for books."

Newspaper articles - "Page number(s) are optional."

Web pages - "Page number(s) can be added if applicable."

How would you change the above? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

For now I am trying to concentrate on what should be changed here. If the principle is established here, then the details of implementation can be discussed in their proper places.

A query: I have been approaching this proposed change of text as a clarification and strengthening of existing policy. Does anyone feel it touches on policy close enough that it should be raised at the Village Pump? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom (with "see CITEHOW for further details"). I don't think this touches on policy in any significant way; it's merely a common-sense clarification and encouragement (rather than strengthening) of policy. Uniplex (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support as mod. by Uniplex. It's clearer, J. Johnson, well done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Modification: I am thinking that the proposed change should be in a separate section. I don't much like single-sentence sub-sections, but that sub-section is really about when something should be cited, while second sentence is really about the completeness of a citation. I don't think this is controversial, so I may just boldy do it that way. Perhaps add a link to it as well. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking advantage of most everyone else being engaged in the riot at the other end of town, I have boldly implemented the change, with only minor alterations. I backed away from having a separate sub-section on the basis that the second sentence clarifies what the first sentence requires. I also added the anchor for a "FULLCITE" shortcut, but haven't got the shortcut itself installed yet. Thanks to all for helping to anneal the proposal prior to implementing it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Good advice in general, but putting it here as a requirement would just create more material for Wikilawyers in warfare. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud: You DON'TLIKEIT, so you just rip it out? After all the discussion above, after all the gyrations to establish that "should" does not mean "must", even after I expressly stated that: "Should" means strongly desireable, but is not (e.g.) a mandate to remove non-compliant material (perhaps that needs to be in bold: NOT A MANDATE TO REMOVE NON-COMPLIANT MATERIAL); after all that, oops, there wasn't enough discussion??? After I make the change, oh, you forgot, now you allege it will lead to wikilawyering, so sure, discussion be damned, just take it out.

You think "a requirement would just create more material for Wikilawyers in warfare"? By that argument we should take out ALL of the policies – BLP, OR, NPOV, RS, and don't forget Verifiability – so there is no basis by which anyone can can dispute anything. (Except, of course, on the basis of DON'TLIKEIT.) You forget that Verifiability is the basic requirement of all material here, but it is but a paper tiger without complete citations. You forget that laywers (Wiki and otherwise) appear where law or policy is unclear, and the point of this change is to clarify the policy. So put it back. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP: Sorry, but 1) what you put in wasn't what has been discussed, and 2) if we are going to have free-form editing and reversions (the precedent just established by North8000) then why shouldn't I? Also, I'd like North8000 to have an opportunity to back out his reversion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 02:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Still Support: I haven't seen any new concerns raised that weren't already addressed above. Uniplex (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

latest edits to the October 6 RfC without previous discussion

latest edits to the October 6 RfC without previous discussion, links to WP:V

I have reverted an erroneous edit made to the October 6 RfC.  This edit made it appear that it is part of the proposal to add WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:ASSERTIONS as new shortcuts to the policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit removed the erroneous material.  The edit comment was:

Undid revision 458075713 by SlimVirgin (talk) reverting erroneous representation of proposal

This edit restored the erroneous material.  The edit comment was:

Undid revision 458115832 by Unscintillating (talk) what is wrong with this? It simply allows people to see what both versions look lilke

The answer to the question was being written even as the re-revert to restore the erroneous material was taking place.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

other edits to the Original RFC

Unscintillating has just drawn my attention to this October 13 edit (by WhatamIdoing)... I believe WhatamIdoing's edit was made in good faith (as an attempt to summarize a complex RfC into one sentence... apparently so a bot would be happy), but the edit mis-stated the proposal. Had I caught that edit at the time it was made, I would have objected and corrected this error. (To add to the confusion... yesterday, Slim Virgin signed my name to WhatamIdoing's edit ... not sure why... In any case, I have reverted the RfC language back to what it was when we started the RfC.

My guess is that none of this will change anyone's opinions or comments... but I wanted to point out what occurred in case it does. Please DO NOT EDIT THE ORIGINAL RFC without discussion and consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the additional text, but I copied your sig higher yesterday for the RfC bot. Otherwise it will reproduce the whole thing, because it just copies whatever is before the first signature.

Okay, I see someone has removed the title yet again, which breaks all the notification links, and restored the "compromise" wording that we agreed here on talk to remove. This is getting very silly. Would whoever did that please revert themselves? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, the bot requires only a date stamp, not a username. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

EVERYONE MUST STOP PLAYING GAMES HERE - I returned the title to its original... there were already notification links (dating back to Oct. 6th) that pointed to that original title, and changing it from the original broke those links. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when that issue was discussed yesterday, the response was all the links to whatever title had been fixed and none were broken, using and anchor and redirects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So now fix them back to reflect the original title, that should never have been changed in the first place. The argument Slim made that you are repeating amounts to ... "I stole your house, but you can't move back in now because I called the yellow pages and changed the name on the address to reflect mine and not yours." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. She stole a house? At any rate, I didn't change them and I think someone named Anthony did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, we agreed yesterday (discussion) to remove the word "compromise" because this is not a compromise with the community. Wide latitude is given to the person who opens an RfC, but several people agreed that "compromise" is POV and should be removed. Also, you broke all the recent notifications by changing the title again. Your old links were not broken because Anthony had added an anchor. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Who agreed?—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar proceeded so cautiously that even the title of the proposed RFC was proposed and up for discussion for many weeks before the RFC.

Broken links can be handled with the {{anchor}} template—and since most of you here already know that, I'm not included to believe that your real complaint is that the notification links are breaking. If you've got substantive concerns, please state them outright rather than focusing on the trivially solved problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, we have to deal with the technological realities here. This is what you're currently advertising as the RFC question:

=== RFC Proposal re first sentence

• Current policy
• Proposed policy
• diff

The proposal is in two parts...

• 1) change the opening paragraph:

{

Does that look like a useful question to you? Do you think anyone will have any idea what this RFC is about? Do you think anyone is going to respond to that? (Nevermind that what Blueboar would actually like to post violates WP:RFC's direction to supply a "brief" statement of the issue: nobody's seeing any sort of sensible statement at all, much less what Blueboar would like them to see.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we close the current RfC and start a new one with neutral title and a brief statement of the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy...and nor should anyone be (Close and start afresh)

User:Blueboar has removed a quite significant chuck of prominent material earlier, claiming, absolutely correctly that he did not place it there.[6] It is prominent material and likely to influence readers. I reversed this on the basis that, whether or not it should have been there, it has been there sufficiently long that it could have influenced those who have read it and have left support or oppose comments based partly on it. Blueboar has removed it again,[7] stating his personal opposition and outrage “I strongly object. to this addition.. I did not write this material, nor was it present for half the time that this RfC existed”. While I agree with the sentiment I'm not happy with it's sudden removal - mid-discussion.

This entire discussion is reaching the level of a farce. I fail to see how any !votes made since the contentious material was added and since it has now been removed can be considered. The picture is altered significantly enough by the addition and removal of the disputed content. I’m not happy that this discussion has any validity. It should be started again with a clean slate, proper community notification and a routemap for implementing any changes that result from it. Leaky Caldron 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaky... there was proper community notification from the start... The day we went live with this, I posted notification at the Village Pump, at WP:NPOV, at WP:NOR. The community responded to this notification... look at the date stamps on the comments... the RfC received over 50 comments on the very first day (and another 50 within the first week). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point we should all fall back on AGF, even if we don't necessarily feel it.

• Blueboar acted in good faith when he created the title with the word "compromise" in it, thinking of the compromises made on this page, rather than thinking in terms of a wiki-wide RfC.
• North8000 and Blueboar acted in good faith when they asked for early closure, because they believed comments had dried up.
• Sarek acted in good faith when he volunteered to close, because he had forgotten he had commented, or didn't see it as a comment that made him involved.
• The editors who reverted the closure acted in good faith because they (we) disagreed with the early closure.
• I acted in good faith when I posted additional notifications, because I wanted to make sure more people knew about it.
• Slrubenstein is acting in good faith by continuing the discussion.

Please let's agree on the above, or at least act as if we agree, for the sake of moving forward constructively. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Blueboar's compromise was made after several RfCs. There is also a problem with the logic here. Continuing discussion is fine always of course, but I think what is disturbing people is that there is also another thing taking place. Discussion can go on concerning future ideas for improvement, as it always does, without trying to demand that nobody else is allowed to do anything else, and without trying to erase or deliberately misconstrue what has already been discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a consistent theme of the wording of the "let's move on" / "lets discuss more" statements has been "let's ignore the RFC" and its many months of work. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we AGF, regardless of any details. It is at times like this that AGF is at its most useful, when good editors have fallen out with each other, and we need a strategy to keep us on track. So I am going to do it from now on, and I apologize to everyone for not having assumed good faith during this discussion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, I'm happy that you are willing to AGF when it comes to the actions of other editors involved here. However, please do not ask others to put aside the serious concerns that have been raised about your behavior because of that, or perhaps more importantly the damage done by that behavior, which remains whether or not you acted in good faith. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What damage? That more people became aware of the proposal and are now discussing it? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Maunus Slim's posts presented the RfC in a way that was completely inaccurate, by suggesting a much more extreme proposal than what was there. These posts were also made along with accusations of impropriety by the closing admin. The net effect was to suggest that a group of editors were managing to subvert core Wikipedia policy while no one noticed and by way of all kinds of shenanigans (none of which is true clearly). And who am I to make this observation? Someone who had no idea this RfC was ongoing until I encountered all of this and had to figure out what was going on. Also, mind you, as someone who has been an outspoken critic of Sarek when it comes to WP:INVOLVED. You can imagine what my first thought was when I saw the AN/I ... he's at it again. Well as it turned out he was not at it. Someone else was at something quite different. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What damage? If any other result of this RFC is not to close it as it was properly closed by Sarek, then it's a fraud. Because of the actions of SV and a few others(mostly admins) who have taken this basic RFC and turned it into not only drama, but wheel warring, canvassing and pushing other editors who have worked hard on this out of the picture. This whole process is now corrupted and I would support sanctions against those responsible. I don't know the exact venue that needs to be used, maybe some more experienced editors do. The actions that lead up to this point, after the close, are infuriating. Absolutely infuriating. Dave Dial (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. You can see that there is no consensus for the proposal - whether there was so three days ago is utterly irrelevant, since consensus can change. What is mysterious to me is how people can even argue about this - it is obvious that the change does not have consensus and as such it cannot be instated, procedure is completely irrelevant to that fact. Even if we accept Sarek's closing that would only mean that an RfC would be filed immediately with a new consensus bound to appear. It is quite sad to me to observe how people are apparently forgetting that this whole process is about achieving CONSENSUS not about pushing one's favourite policy through at any cost.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a "favourite policy" I'm trying to push. I haven't voiced my opinion on this as of yet. Also, if you believe procedure is "completely irrelevant", what are the rules for procedure even there for? Also, many here have a distorted view on consensus. This isn't a RFA, it's a RFC. Since this was brought to ANI I have went through and read what many editors have done to try and build consensus, only to be circumvented by that outrage at ANI. There was a much better way to ask for more time, but after that happened the reopening and votes afterwards are spoiled. The process was corrupted. Even if a new RFC is opened and the results are overturned, it's a much better outcome than the current course. Dave Dial (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy stating that Consensus means something different at RfCs than at RfAs. Consensus is consensus. I was not referring to your favourite policy, but to the fact that most people who appear outraged at the close being reverted were the proposers themselves (Blueboar excepted - since he has in fact been one of the most reasonably behaved persons in this whole mess).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Every case is different, we have to judge each case in its relevant context. In this case, the issue is that the way the first sentence is formulated is leading to resistance from many well etablished editors for various reasons. Then a proposal for changing it led to a 50-50 stalemate, and that clearly is not a good basis to implement a change. So, at that stage, the lack of consensus meant that things stayed as they were. But because there wasn't consensus for the status quo, indeed the raised problems were not resolved, the discussions on how then to move forward were very much alive.

The problem with this was that many of the supporters of the staus quo didn't like all these discussions, their opinion was that the people who want to implement change had their day in court and they lost, so they should now shut up. But obviously, that is not a good argument to close discussions when the support for the status quo is 50% at best. It is at this point that Blueboar stepped in, working with a few others to come up with something that would have significantly more support than the current version. He has been successful in this, many who previously supported the old version have supported the new version.

So, given the history of this debate, the conclusion of the RFC should be that the new version is a far better basis to make further improvements from than to stick to the old version. Suppose that new discussions to make furhter improvements were to go nowhere, we will at least be stuck at something that has a lot more support than the current version, the support for which has dropped to well below 50%. Count Iblis (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a very reasonable argument - there does seem to be consensus for change, although this precise proposal does not have strong consensus. I think this should lead us to explore more options to build a proposal that can sway people from the "oppose" camp, most of which I don't think are against change, just this particular change.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikispeak#AGF. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the general feeling is that what has been done to the RFC in the last 2-3 days is not right. To me, a proper and fair and by-the-rules process is everything. As can be seen many times even in this page over the last 11 months, when the process is proper, I am at 100% at peace with the outcome even when it is the exact opposite of what I wanted. But when I see what has been done to the process over the last 2-3 days, (in my mind it is an attempted corruption of the process to achieve a particular end) to me it is an issue that is important enough for me to shed my blood over to get a proper process for the sake of Wikipedia. If we don't have that, we're like Somalia. Well, there's a look inside of my brain on this! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So you prefer that we accept Sarek's close and that I proceed to establish a new widely advertised RfC to propose the reinstation of "not truth"? It is obvious that consensus is not for the proposed change. You supporters should be working on how to improve the policy to take care of the problems you perceive in a way that can garner consensus. Not on lawyering a procedure to pass a change that doesn't currently have consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus, you saying It is obvious that consensus is not for the proposed change doesn't make that true. It looks like it was about 65-30 before the shat hit the fan and everybody else showed up. Just an observation. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they did show up, and that is the situation we have to deal with now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

it just seems that after one of these types of RFCs becomes heated or contested or ANIed, folks show up and vote along "party" lines if you will :) I would toss out all the comments and votes after the 24th or so, but thats just me. Best of luck to all with this--68.9.119.69 (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would also be an idea, though I don't agree with your assessment of the RFC results. But I already wrote something else below. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, my gut feel is that the proposal should be put into it's original form (including title)(as it was during its run) , make notices about it elsewhere accurate and neutral, run much longer (another 2 weeks?), and then get closed by a consensus-selected uninvolved, neutral, thorough, experienced person or trio of persons. It would need to be someone willing to spend many hours reviewing this whole thing. One complexity is that being a compromise proposal, weary persons who have been debating this continuously for a year put only brief comments when they weighed in rather than repeating everything that they said, so a review of the history here is also important. Or possibly folks should be urged to succinctly expand their comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As a latecomer I have to agree with North8000. This is a decision that affects many of us editors throughout Wikipedia. I was busy editing and didn't catch the memo. I wonder if others are feeling the same way. This looks like a hugely important debate. It is wonderful to see so many people flocking under the banner of truth and obviously it is something that many of us value. To help resolve the debate among so many people, ground rules need to be set before hand on what is meant by a consensus. There are other proposals and suggestions that could be moved forward and this is the discussion that needs to take place to organize the collective mass that has arrived late.Thompsma (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning regarding edit warring

Note that the page is currently protected to stop edit warring. A request was also filed to protect Template:CENT. I have declined that request as I don't believe we should allow this edit war to do such collateral damage. So, you all can keep edit warring there, and you all will be blocked. Note that having consensus on your side is not a free pass to edit war and anyone who continues will be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if an admin would consider removing the, um, pretty picture that was added to the page? (If nothing else, it really offends me when administrators edit through full protection for something other than a non-controversial and necessary fix.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

rfcid

Continuing to review the edits at the start of the RfC, was it necessary that a new rfcid be assigned?  What was wrong with the original one?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC bot tags

SV states at WP:AN, "...I also note no one had added the RfC tags for the bot (I have just added them), so this was not advertised the way RfCs normally are."  Can someone explain this issue or point me in the right direction?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly this Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#RfC management, RfC bot tags.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#RfC management, RfC bot tags.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#Discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing the tags to this RfC. You need to form a consensus to do so here on this page, not anywhere else, and certainly not based on your continued, unilateral bureaucratic-obsessed obstructionism. The tags were added at the request of multiple editors. You need to get a consensus to remove them here. You've been informed of this many times. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

anonymous ad hoc change to the RfC text

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural#anonymous ad hoc change to the RfC text, regarding a new addition to the RfC text.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Perspective

There are so many well thought-out arguments here. I am undecided as Quid est veritas? is not an exercise in boolean logic. Following are some historical perspectives:

 "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
     — The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I

 "Veracity does not consist in saying,
  but in the intention of communicating truth."
     — Biographia Literaria, Ch IX

 "The truth is always a compound of two half-truths, and
  you never reach it, because there is always something more to say."
     — Lord Malquist and Mr Moon, Ch. 2

 "So very difficult a matter is it to trace
  and find out the truth of anything by history."
     — Life of Pericles

 "Whoever has even once become notorious by base fraud,
  even if he speaks the truth, gains no belief."
     — Book i, Fable 10, 1

 "I heard the little bird say so."
     — Letter to Stella

 "Truth is generally the best vindication against slander."
     — Remark made when requested to dismiss the Postmaster-General

 "That a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies;
  ... But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight."
     — The Grandmother, Stanza 8

 "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
  is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
     — Essay to Leo Baeck

 "I cannot tell how the truth may be;
  I say the tale as twas said to me."
     — Lay of the Last Minstrel, Canto ii, Stanza 22

 "And after all, what is a lie?
  Tis but The truth in masquerade."
     — Don Juan, Canto xi, Stanza 37

 "Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather,
  'I have found a truth.'"
     — The Prophet, p. 54

 "Trust, but Verify."
     — Russian proverb

wikilinks update Sctechlaw (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Get it on, bang a gong, get it on." -  Marc Bolan

Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL! That's brilliant, GG! Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And yours are very good too, Sctechlaw; very thought provoking. Dreadstar ☥ 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Some people have written the story of my life representing as truth what in fact derives from ignorance, error or envy; but they cannot shake the truth from its place, even if they attempt to make others believe it." -- Haile Selassie I

-- Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

THOG'S MASTERCLASS, Detached Viewpoint Dept:  "Isaac threw up his face and swung it around him, 
desperately searching for light." China Mieville, Perdido Street Station, 2000) 

--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died ... 
they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, 
summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped 
thereby to prove that the guilty party was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true." 


- Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A well thought-out argument ......... resolved. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors, Policy, Bla bla bla.

It's a well known fact that most editors on Wikipedia never look at the policies until they are encouraged to, and when they do they read the first sentence and then it's 'bla bla bla'. Likewise, regardless of what we may think about it, many editors have English as their second language. The first sentence needs to catch attention, hold attention, and have one strong, clear message that will remain. Yes, my opening phrase was ironic. (20040302 (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

No. It is editors who need to have an attention span. If they don't they should not be trying to write encyclopedia articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Who are you or I or anyone else to dictate that only people who are able to understand complex policy documents are allowed to edit Wikipedia? Yes, editors need to follow the five pillars, but these must be expressed so that they are easy to grasp. I absolutely agree with 20040302's statement "The first sentence needs to catch attention, hold attention, and have one strong, clear message that will remain." It may not be quite right at present, but the alternative is not better. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, editors without an attention span also tend to misunderstand what their source is actually saying; but doing something about that counts as a hardy perennial, unlikely to be dealt with before WP:DEADLINE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, anyone can edit is the core mantra of wikipedia. It's true that everyone needs to be more considerate, everyone needs to think of the community before themselves, everyone needs to understand and celebrate the differences between us - and we need to stop war, etc. The issue I raised is not about what editors need. They are who they are. The basic fact that is policies aren't looked at, and when they do, most people don't understand them. They tend to be multi-paragraphed (or even multi-paged) semi-legal or pseudo-legal documents that do not demonstrate a clear, distinct message. I would consider that the phrase "V, not T" is a triumph of memorability and sense - it's ironic also, which is a good thing. People remember that their truths count for naught without the ability to contextualise them via Verifiability. (20040302 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Pmanderson, It's not just a lack of attention span - it's also the ability to comprehend complex concepts which tend to be compressed and convoluted. The WP:5P each have a single sentence open which is understandable by a ten year old, which is memorable, and which is ten words or less. They follow with a paragraph that is understandable by a ten year old, which expands on the sentence in a meaningful manner. The remainder of WP policy documents should follow a similar requirement. WP:CCPOL nearly has it, and a part of that which I particularly applaud is the phrase verifiability, not truth along with the gloss that follows. (20040302 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

My problem is, "Bla bla bla" is also writing as if we have not thought of this before. I am quite confident that everyone working on policy pages has striven to explain things as clearly as possible. Sure, in some cases we can doa bettter job, and I am all for that. But editors have been trying to do this. In any case, it has nothing to do with any of the current discussions on this page. People who find the phrase "Verifiability. not truth," are simply unaware of the reasons scholars do not use the concept of "truth" except in sways that would really confuse most people. Look, I think an algebra textbook needs to be well-written. But any reader is going to find that it takes some getting used to. We do not require our editors to have higher degrees to edit. This is something I would agree, we cannot demand of our editors. But that does not mean that we have no standards!! If someone does not know how to research a topic properly, or have other skills required for writing an encyclopedia, sure, yes, i hav eno problem telling them not to write encyclopedia articles. I think many (not all, but many) people who think "not truth" is the reason why so many of our articles are poor are really just blaming policy because it is easier than blaming sloppy editors. It is too easy just to blame policy, as a crutch or excuse. In the end, the quality of ANYTHING: a curve-ball, a cabinet, a cake, an encyclopedia, depends first and foremost on the quality of the person making it. No cookbook is going to help a lousy cook make a good omelette. Sure, anyone can edit Wikipedia. But if they are not willing to put the proper effort into it, should they be? I do not think it is for me to judge someone else, or for anyone. But people should be responsible for judging themselves. Before making that omelet, or getting behind the wheel of a car, or writing an encyclopedia article, each person should ask themselves whether they have the skills necessary, or are prepared to do the work it takes to learn them. And some policies, no matter how clearly written, can only really be used appropriately if one has judgment and experience. One can get this by reading talk pages carefully, and watching how other editors write, for example, or by asking another editor for help. But for many people it requires effort, and this is unavoidable. That is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I hear you. But take any phrase or concept, and spend weeks or months staring at it with a group of like-minded individuals, and even the most innocent looking phrase starts becoming complex, taking on new ramifications, requiring additional thought, expansion, explanation, etc. For the naiive, even those with Phds, the results will be hard to read. I guess I'm saying that there's a lot of trees in the woods, and it's hard, really hard, for the policy writers to remember what most people are looking for - a simple, straightforward guide to the woods. I agree that I doubt that anything I have written shows originality also. If we stripped the hundreds of paragraphs on this discussion down to novel ideas, I would be surprised if there are as many as the fingers on my left hand. In answer to your objection to the word truth, it should be a wikilink to a rewritten, less ironic/humorous version of WP:TRUTH. What I also read in your response is a tension between 'anyone' and 'anyone who should'. I believe (and I know I'm not the only one) that glossing the WP mantra to "the free encyclopedia that anyone (who should) can edit" totally misses the achievement of what WP has become. In the last few days I was involved in moderating a proposed article which was energetically written by someone new to WP, and it was nearly impossible not to say - it' s not the WP way to have a how-to; it's not the WP way to use personal pages as references; it's not the WP way to use images for which you have not checked the licensing, etc. Of course, the editor - who had put days of work into the article - ended up defeated, disgruntled, and sore. This also is nothing new. I have been on WP for only 7 years or so, and I still have little idea about the core policies beyond the 5P, and some little experience with WP:V and NPOV. As for processes, arbitration, etc. They all seem to change every other year, so it's a total discovery each time I try to contact an admin. Nothing new. For those of us who monitor and assist in the editorship of a few web pages (my watchlist is only 250 or so), we spend a lot of time referring new editors to these policies, which -as I've said before- are not understood by people who have a lot to offer wikipedia. Especially when dealing with niche subjects, such as the history of an argument between two medieval Tibetan scholars regarding a 9th CE Indian philosopher, expecting experts to have to learn the WP way before they can contribute just isn't going to happen. (20040302 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

I thought I had written that pople can learn on the job as it were. My point is only that it requires a willingnss to make some effort. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, respectfully, I disagree. I have been editing at Wikiquote for over a year and thought I would try to contribute to Wikipedia as well. I do not claim to be an expert, but there is nothing wrong with my intellect nor my attention span. I saw a notice on an article requesting copy editing to improve the readability of the article. I have good writing skills and thought, "I can do that." I have found "that" exceedingly difficult to accomplish. I would have loved to have someone more experienced contact me and say, "Here is a list of pages that needs work," or "Would you like to work with me on this article..."I have made very small edits so far, and have been absolutely overwhelmed by the number of items that administrators expect new editors to know about, read, or learn before they can "be bold," most of which are never mentioned in the guide to editing and manual of style. I have made a considerable investment of time and effort and the more I have read, the less confident of success I become. So, no, it requires significantly more than paying attention and a willingness to make some effort; further, after reading some of the negative commentary in this RfC about editors, I'm about ready to go back to Wikiquote and stay there.Carmaskid (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why we need "Not Truth"

• Here is a current example of editors arguing that their personal evaluation that an academically published source written by a professor who is an expert in the topic is wrong, is sufficient argument for excluding it. While we do not need to use "Not Truth" to argue against this kind of practice, leaving it out is a clear signal (already described as such by several editors in these discussions) that this kind of argumentation is valid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  Maunus...I could be wrong, but it appears that you are misunderstanding the proposal. Are you aware that the proposal retains "Verifiability, Not Truth"?... the idea is keep it but move it to a new section so that it can be better explained. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what the proposal says, but I also know what people say about the proposal and several editors think that by moving the "not truth" out of the lead we are a showing a degree of tolerance for "truth" type arguments. Jimbo himself is explicitly arguing that this is the intended effect. These arguments are in effect setting a precedent for how the policy change is going to be iunterpreted and used even before it is instated. If this was just about moving text around noone would be having this argument - it is about moving text around for a reason. The reason is the problem - and why we need to cement the fact that unverifiable assertions of truth does not trump sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, just making sure. Doesn't the first line of the proposed new section deals with your concern? It says: "An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth"" Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've said my problem is less with the wording of the change, than with what people are already taking that wording to mean.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're not addressing the other aspect of the "V not T" concept. It means (1) don't add material simply because you believe it to be true. But it also means (2) don't remove material simply because you disagree with it.

Of course we do remove material where the reliable source (no matter how reliable) has made what all agree is a simple error. But there are lots of cases where reliable sources write material that experts disagree with, or which the subject disagrees with (where a person or company is being written about). Those are the cases "V not T" is there to protect. It ensures that Wikipedians publish the debates and disagreements between sources, so that our readers can judge for themselves. It stops Wikipedians from deciding that Reliable Source A is just wrong, and should be given no space. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure that a proposal beginning "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" can be mistaken as one that might allow inclusion on the basis "unverifiable assertions of truth". I can appreciate your concern that some may want to go down that road but let's be realistic. It's not something that's ever going to happen because it doesn't make any sense and so it isn't a hidden sting in the tail of BB's proposal. What the change in emphasis would achieve is some clarification of the misconception held by many both inside and outside Wikipedia that we are happy to publish bullshit as long as someone else did it before us. --FormerIP (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the arguments given by several supporters including Jimmy Wales is that that is exactly the road they want to go down by implementing this change. I agree that it is not a necessary outcome of the proposals form - the proposal is theoretically fully compatible with reasonable OR-free editing. I am worrying about the way that it relates to projected change to practice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But, surely, passing this proposal would settle the matter because it would give a new mandate to the central principle of WP:V. The very small number of editors (although I will agree that it is troubling that they seem to be senior editors) that might like to abandon/compromise that principle will be held at bay. There is no possibility that the wording proposed can be used as a basis for deciding content by editorial assertions, because the wording is crystal clear about that. Those who hold a contrary view will, doubtless, not be silenced. But they will be stuck with the policy. --FormerIP (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I agree with you that we have to be free to change policy, which means that proposed changes do not have to "comply" with the policy being changed (but, we ought to ensure that they do not conflict with other policies. And I o think with policy, we must have consensus to make such a change). But I do not think this was Maunus's point. She opened this thread by pointing to an argument over the contents of an article occuring as we write. As I understand it, the example Maunus provides shows that despite the first sentence of this policy, some editors are still trying to make articles conform to their view of the truth regardless of what reliable, credible sources say. This suggest to me that if anything, we need to make "not truth" an even stronger and clearer component of this policy. This is not an argument for policy inertia, it is an argument that the importance of the value of "not truth" is evient in content disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Maunus's point was not about how to go about changing policy but, then again, neither was mine. I think you might be referring to my comments in another section of the talkpage.

The problem with what Maunus is saying, IMO, is that is can be seen as amounting to "the current policy is ineffective, so we mustn't change it". I like Blueboar's proposal because - although the change is not radical - it shifts focus away from a pithy but confusing soundbite and onto a clearer elaboration of policy. In the Nonviolent Communication example (which I haven't looked at in detail, but let's say Maunus is right about it, for argument's sake) it would actually be more helpful, I think, to be able to quote more precise guidance such as "An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia". That's clear, no-one should be mistaken about what it means and it ought to be effective in settling disputes. The current forumlation "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" is unclear. What is meant by "threshold"? What if a reliable source is wrong? Does it really not matter if editors think information is true. Of course, these questions have answers. But the problem that needs addressing that the process of interpretation is currently too fraught for the policy to be properly authoritative.

"Verifiability not truth" is probably the worst bit (although, have you noticed how the second sentence of the lead is just a pure self-contradiction?), because it offers itself up as a soundbite, yet it fails to capture what it is supposed to mean. "Verifiability", once explained, actually covers everything. Under any situation of the type Maunus is referencing, all you need to do is ask "how is this information verifiable?" That automatically covers the "truth" question. it doesn't need underlining, because the job is done. On the other hand though, "not truth" most definitely does result in editors contentedly maintaining information in the encyclopaedia which they know to be false. So clarification is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a good example

...at least, insofar as I can follow it without reading every last word of everything.

If someone's views are wrongheaded because they have misinterpreted the material, then it's wrong to present them as an authority on the material by citing them in defense of statements about the material itself. As to the issue of whether they have misinterpreted the material, that's going to depend upon the situation. If we can find other people in the field who say that our putative authority has got it wrong, then the material shifts from being a citable authority to being part of the subject of the article, cited because it needs to be presented accurately, but then discussed in the article on the basis of cited material from other and presumably better authorities. If we can't tell who is better (generally because there's not enough consensus in the field, and that's almost always the most difficult matter to determine), then we present it as an unresolved dispute.

The thing is that we also get a lot of cases where someone makes a bald factual error. The problem with the oft-prevailing interpretation of "not truth" is that every such error gets amplified into a controversy, because we get editors who want to ignore the baldness of the error and present the material anyway even though it's wrong. A reasonable reader of the same material, who is not a Wikipedia error, would fact-check the material and reject the manifest errors, and not waste time appealing to neo-Pilatean doubt about Truth.

I'm more of a "when in doubt, leave it out" kind of editor. I think that including doubtful material because it cannot be absolutely proven to be incorrect is more damaging to us than the exclusion of material which cannot be verified (and I am fully in support of the latter, don't get me wrong). Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A compromise suggestion that may satisfy all sides in the debate

Having examined the comments among the supporters and opponents would this suffice as a compromise addition to policy?

1. First two sentences of lead, with a proposed new second sentence (rest of the lead remains the same):

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means that verifiability through a reliable source is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). The source must also be appropriate for the material in question, and must be used carefully.

2. A new summary-style section directly underneath the lead, linking to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, which can be expanded and tided as needed.

=="Verifiability, not truth"==

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

That we require verifiability, rather than truth, as the threshold for inclusion does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect the facts.

Wikipedia's articles are intended as an overview of the relevant literature within the field in question, a summary of current published debate. The Neutral point of view policy, another core content policy, holds that all majority and significant-minority published views be represented in articles. But sources are not infallible. They may make simple errors, or be outdated or superseded. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way.

When there is agreement among editors that an otherwise reliable source has made an unambiguous error, simply ignore that material, and when in doubt discuss on the article talk page, or on the reliable sources noticeboard. The concept of "verifiability, not truth" does not mean that anything published by a reliable source, no matter how mistaken, must be included in Wikipedia.

Thoughts?

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to address all the concerns that are listed above, in particular, the last one. Uniplex (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is an excellent suggestion! It means that VnT is kept ("oppose" position) but not as a standalone ("support" position). May I suggest one small refinement? What if we were to enclose the word truth in quotes: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth"? It would sound the same, and have the same impact, but it should make it clear to the new reader that actual veracity is not being sacrificed. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried that once, as I also think that putting truth in quotes emphasizes the fact that's it's not actual truth we're talking about, but rather the "truth" explained by the second part of the sentence: what people think is true. Doc talk 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of scare quotes, but I wouldn't object if it helped to resolve things. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I love scare quotes, personally ;) At any rate, one would think that putting it in scare quotes would dispel the false impression that what the sentence is saying is, "One can insert deliberate and provable falsehoods so long as they are verifiable." I have never once read the sentence to mean this; but apparently a great many people do interpret it this way. Since it's not at all what the sentence is supposed to mean, it's unfortunate that we have to explain "truth vs untruth". Doc talk 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with scare quotes. MOS people don't like them, so they will attract a certain amount of opposition just for that. Perhaps more seriously, the scare-quoted version will fail to deter the people we need to deter; they will say, That's fine for some "truth" somebody made up, but what I'm insisting on is the truth, plain and simple. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm one of those who favour keeping VnT in the first sentence, so I really hope a compromise can be found which does this but yet rules out the false interpretation that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy. It appears that the use of "threshold" supports this interpretation. For me, the "necessary but not sufficient" explanation just shows that "threshold" is the wrong word. Something like the medical use of the word seems to be natural to many people when faced with the first sentence; it's treated as meaning that once the threshold has been reached (i.e. appearing in a reliable source) then suitability for Wikipedia automatically follows. What you're really doing in the proposed second sentence is explaining away this meaning of "threshold". If I were writing for an academic audience, I would suggest saying "A necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ...", but this wouldn't be right here. "An essential condition for inclusion"? "A key condition for inclusion"? (But whatever we write won't actually deter editors who just want to push positions.) A separate problem is finding words that work for the full range of article domains. "Wikipedia's articles are intended as ... a summary of current published debate." Not those I've worked on recently (e.g. Schlumbergera, Roscoea); they are almost entirely an attempt to summarize currently published information. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How about "the minimum criterion for inclusion..."? Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

    Not "the" minimum, which implies again that this is all that matters. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• My own preference would be "A necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion is ..." But keeping it simpler, if "threshold" is an issue for lots of people, we could change it to something like:

Wikipedia articles rely on verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" refers to the idea that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). The source must also be appropriate for the material in question, and must be used carefully.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I like that, but I think this is better (save for the last sentence which warrants further consideration) ...

Wikipedia articles rely on verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors believe it to be true. "Verifiability, not truth" means that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary condition for the inclusion of material, though not a solely sufficient condition. The source must also satisfy editorial consideration as being appropriate for the material in question. and must be used carefully(strike last as just too self-evident and condescending). JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, too, except that I'm not keen on "solely" sufficient. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "solely" isn't necessary or useful. For me JakeInJoisey's formulation says what needs to be said, but I'm still a bit uneasy about these very techie words ("necessary" and "sufficient"), but can't see how to manage without them. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's statements have to (or must) be verifiable, but that is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I like using those terms, then rephrasing in brackets: "The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' refers to the idea that the existence of a reliable source is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)."

But we could simply use the terms in brackets: "The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' refers to the idea that the existence of a reliable source is a minimum requirement for the inclusion of material, though it may not be enough. The source must also be appropriate for the material in question ..." etc. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I like using those terms, then rephrasing in brackets...

"Rephrasing in brackets", at least to me, suggests a compositional failure to adequately employ appropriate language. Surely the wealth of wordsmithing here can and should do better. YMMV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stop. So far, during the course of this RFC, you have shown highly controlling behaviour throughout. You have changed the way the question was asked and the way it was advertised. You have taken control of the timescale, forcing a re-opening of the debate because it did not comply with an agreement apparently made between you and Blueboar on Blueboar's talk page. You have caused an administrator to resign. During the lead up to the RFC, you tried to incite editors not to participate in the discussion. You successfully forced the discussion to take place on a subpage of your choosing because you did not want it on WT:V. You rearranged questions and discussions to suit own preferences. There has been a constant process of manipulation and micromanagement from you. And now, partway through the RFC, you're trying to change the question. Will you please cease and desist.

  For the avoidance of doubt this means that I am asking you please to cease all attempts to engineer or micromanage this RFC in any way, and confine yourself to expressing your opinion. The debate should clearly go through on the basis of the question we've already asked. If, after the RFC is over, it's found necessary to change the question, or otherwise manage the debate in any way, then neither you nor I nor anyone else previously involved should be the one to do it. An uninvolved editor should take charge, and this should not happen until the RFC is over.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• No more attacks, please. I asked that the RfC stay open for the full 30 days to attract more input. That's happening, and it has led to new commentators not only in the RfC, but elsewhere on the talk page, which is exactly what we need. If there's a negative atmosphere on the page, they will be discouraged from contributing again, so please let's focus only on finding language that might satisfy everyone. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All those of us who have contributed in this section are trying to do, as far as I can tell, is to debate the issues, in the hope of trying to find better wording for an important Wikipedia policy. No-one owns either the current wording or the proposed replacement. If we were voting, then sure, we would vote on the proposal exactly as tabled. But we're not; we're trying to reach a consensus. As part of that it's quite legitimate to consider other possibilities. Neither you (S Marshall) nor any other editor has any right to try to control the debate. (Ad hominem/feminam remarks just undermine your credibility; what matters is open debate, not who said or did what in the past.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be here only a couple minutes per day this week. I think that the RFC should run its course, and run a couple weeks more. And that given the clarification-only nature of the change, the extensive input that went into crafting it, the extensive input that it received, a clear majority should be sufficient to implement it and right now (a landslide favors the compromise proposal) it has far beyond that), all of the wiki-lawyering to the contrary aside. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

At last check, we're at 59% in favor. I can't recall any discussion were only 59% was considered consensus. And this is with the non-neutral title and the non-neutral description of the proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

59% is overly gracious. When the closing admins eliminate the "me-toos" and the "Yes, I agree" comments, supporters like myself will be lucky to slink away with 25%. I'm surprised that my fellow supporters don't already see this. Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that they don't already see this.

Perhaps the expressions of pique and regrettable ad hominem suggest otherwise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What depresses me, and makes me seriously regret ever having got involved in this debate, is that way that so many editors see this as one side versus the other. "Slink away" is totally unhelpful language. This is a key area of policy, which is very difficult to word appropriately. There are a very few comments which suggest that editors want a change in policy (either more emphasis on truth over verifiability or less), but as far as I can tell, most detailed comments are about the best form of words to use. The situation appears to be that there isn't a consensus for the existing wording and there isn't a consensus for the proposed change, given that in this crucial area we need a way of saying what we mean that the overwhelming majority of editors can understand and give assent to. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Viriditas: the whole point of the RFC was to have a vote (or a !vote) on the wording change. Why would anyone ignore votes that say "me too"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." But, you knew that. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas when a proposal has been laid out in detail saying "me too" amounts to "per proposal" or "per proposer." That's very obviously the case. The reason why opposers offer differing rationales is that they don't exist at the top of the page. If they agree with what another opposer has said they say, "per so and so" and there are plenty of those out there as well. So no you cannot discount people who simply agree with the proposal as stated. Their voices of agreement count as much as anyone else's voice here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with a poorly worded RfC. The best RfC's are extremely brief and give participants a choice that requires them to give their reasoning for support. In turn, this makes it extremely easy for a closer to establish consensus and to discard the "yes", "no", "me too", and "per so and so" comments. I have yet to see a closing admin gauge consensus on a major policy RfC by counting heads. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Maybe CBM has not been following this discussion. CBM, if you have not recently, with respect I sk you to review our guidelines on WP:RfC

"I'm surprised ..." may seem condescending, and perhaps unnecessary. But, I suspect Viriditas is responding to the fact that some of the advocates have been crowing about victory for the past three weeks. This is purely a personal opinion but: I wonder whether some people are responding so hysterically about what a debacle and train-wreck and disaster this is, because they had convinced themselves several weeks ago that they already knew with absolute certainty the outcome. Maybe I am wrong, but this would explain why they repeatedly insist that any other outcome is the result of some theft or corruption of the process. Most of my on proposals are shot down or ignored, which is virtually the same thing, so when I expressed opposition to the proposal I had no great expectations that lots of editors would agree with me &mdah; but I also knew that WP is a fluid community and majorities and minorities on talk pages can flip like eggs at a diner. For weeks, up to the apprantely premature closing of the RfC, some editors have been insisting that the decision was clear and "already made" (that "already" is often a slippery word and I think everyone would be better off if we used it more cautiously). I think Viriditas may be responding to this. Sorry to put words in your moutn, V, but I think you are saying that if people who support the proposal stopped leaving comments that suggest that they take its approval for granted, we could discuss things more coolly.

I have my own ideas about how to make V a better policy. I floated an idea during the discussion of the RfC because that is what RfCs are for, comments from people who had not been active in earlier discussions. When I thought that the RfC was over, and it was time to discuss the comments, I floated one of my ideas again. So, I forwarded a proposal. No one liked it, but no one criticized me for suggesting it.

At this point I will not forward my ideas for how to improve this proposal, not until the RfC closes and we discuss the results. But that doesn't mean others, in this case Slim Virgin, don't have a right to propose an alternative. I can't find anyting in our policies or guidelines that say she cannot do it, and given that I ofered my own proposal I just am in no position to fault her for doing the same.

But S. Marshall is way out of line saying "stop." It is cynical, and it is bullying, and has no place at Wikipedia. S. Marshall writes stop in bold, and then has the temerity to accuse SV of "highly controlling behaviour!" Temerity, or true condecension to us other editors, as if we are too blind to tell the difference between SV's forwarding a proposal and inviting comments, and S. Marshall's demand that this discussion stop — how much more controling can one get? She accuses Slim of changing the way the proposal was advertised, but urely, if the purpose of a request for comments is to request comments from outsiders, advertising more widely is a good idea. She accuses Slim of taking control of the timescale, but if Slim has suggested a close date (other than the 30 days our guideline suggests) it has been drowned out by othe editors who are discussing an appropriate close-date, hardly "control." She accuses Slim of forcing a re-opening of the debate, but our RfC guideline says that whenever an RfC closes we have to discuss the comments, so debate can always continue (and it was me, not Slim who first made this point). She accuses Slim of having caused an administrator to resign, an accusation that is hysterical and ludicrous on its face. I have no idea who SarekofVulcan really is or here she lives, and I doubt Slim does either, so I m not sure how she managed to sneak into Sarek's house and point that gun at Sarek's head forceing Sarek to resign (plus, I looked over Sarek's talk page when I learned she had resigned, to try to figure out why, and ithout seeing a clear explanation I saw that many others had been questioning Sarek's judgment concerning several matters); anyway, it was Sarek's decision to make. If you don't like it, blame Sarek. She accuses Slim of forcing the discussion to take place on a subpage rther than V, but all I can say is this is the V talk page and the RfC is here ... that said, RfC's are usually on sub-pages and for good reason and if Slim pushed for this she was pushing only for us to follow our own guidelines.

SV proposed an alternative. If there is a consensus for the proposal at the top of this page, or if SV's proposal is unappealing, people will ignore it, just as they ignored my proposal. But it looks like two or three other people find SV's proposal promising. They have proposed some changes and SV has not stopped them from doing so, although she has expressed her own preferences. I was about to write that I actually liked her proposal a lot (even though it is not what I myself proposed!!)... and then I read S. Marshall's Stop. S. Marshall, feel free to express your own view, if you wish, but do not tell me what I can and cannot do. You can do anything you want to except tell me to stop. Let's be clear: S. Marshall is trying to stop me, and Peter Coxhead, and Jake in Joisey from expressing our own views because S. Marshall just doesn't like it. As is often the case, it is the bully who accuses anyone who disagrees ith her of being a bully. Get used to it. The simple fact that SV has forwarded a suggestion and a few others like it doesn't force S. Marshall or anyone else to do anything — accept learn to live with the fact that they cannot dictate what other WP editors think. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see brevity is still eluding Slrubenstein. Look, politicking aside, it's not exactly news that SV has control issues about this and other pages. My allegations are entirely justified. Shall I repeat them with diffs? I'm not saying that I should control this page. What I'm saying is that Slim should stop trying to.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I very much appreciate what SV is trying to do here... I will remind editors that the goal is to find language that addresses the concerns of all sides in this debate... and that includes both those who supported and those who opposed my proposal. I think SV's suggestion was made in that spirit. That said... given the tensions surrounding this RfC, I think she is a bit premature. We have already had people complain that this RfC was being closed before its time... let's not repeat that mistake. It is possible (even if unlikely) that a last minute rush of comments will change everything (in either direction). So... let's wait out the full 30 days, close the RfC and then we can start discussing how to suggest further compromises and work towards ending this long debate with a consensus that is solid and uncontested. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge. 59%? When did you do the last count. I've been tracking the percentages for at least 24 hours and it hasn't dipped below 60% since then. Right now it is as 62%. A 3% difference is a pretty big misrepresentation when you're dealing with total figures now close to 300. I would very much so appreciate it if people are commenting on these figures, or trends in these figures, that they take the time and look at them carefully before commenting. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: Please assume good faith. I did them about an hour and a half ago. At that time, there was 174 supports, 110 opposes and 9 neutrals. 174/293 = 0.59.38%. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. You are counting the neutrals, while I was not. I'm not sure in this situation that it is meaningful to count people who are in effect abstaining, but what you are doing is probably more conventional here on Wikipedia but I don't know. Anyway sorry about that. My confusion.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: No problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If one reads the neutrals, very few are abstaining. In fact, one of the clearest things about this poll is that opinions about what should be done are almost orthogonal to the !votes: Cynwolfe, at neutral/support, and I, at oppose, have almost identical feelings about what would be the best substantive solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

SV's is a reasonable proposal. It would be useful to know if anybody finds anything actually in that draft which they hold substantively wrong. It is certainly a good start on the next proposal, which should have a wider agreement than this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental reason why I'm against mentioning "not truth" is because the word "truth" here is used in the very specific meaning of "opinion" where you indeed would rather not want that to play a role in editorial decisions. For many Wikipedia articles this is the de-facto way a claim of truth is to be interpreted and clearly don't want this.

But there are also many topics where the de-facto meaning of "truth" is that of a hard fact, and not of mere opinion. This is the case for scientific topics. If someone presents an opinion as a statement of fact within the domain of such topics, that leads to strong counter reactions, precisely because "truth" is supposed to be fact and not opinion here.

Compare the statement "Obama is a bad president" with "Global Warming has been debunked". The first statement is a normal part of political discourse, you can have political scientists discussing this, even though it is just opinion. The statement about Global Warming is not going to be taken as a serious statement within the field of climate science. The person making such statement will be a priori dismissed as some crackpot.

For such scientific topics on Wikipedia, when people think someting is true, we would want to hear from them and discuss the matter further, because by default we are talking about a claim that should be verifiable and thus merits inclusion in Wikipedia if the person is correct and if it is sufficiently notable and relevant. Count Iblis (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Global Warming has been debunked" may not be taken seriously within the field of climate science... but within the field of political debate it is taken seriously. And the fact that it is an opinion held by many people other than climate scientists means we need to account for it. We shouldn't dismiss the opinion because we think it is not true. instead we discuss it in terms of being a note worthy opinion: "Many global warming skeptics are of the opinion that Global Warming has been debunked." Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact/opinion distinction only obscures scientific debates. Science progresses not by opposing fact to opinion, but by constantly revising our understanding of the relationship between facts and theories. And this does not invlve any metaphycical claims about "truth." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Count Iblis' claim that "not truth" means "opinion". Actually, it means something closer to "unpublished". If you know, without any doubt, due to the spreadsheet on your employer's computer and the discussions you overheard in the hallway about what to say in the press release, that they will be re-stating their earnings and are announcing that in a press conference tomorrow afternoon, then you must not put the revised figures in the article about your employer today. We don't care how "true" the information is: it is not verifiable, and thus not permitted, full stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

When we say the threshold (or necessary condition) for inclusion is verifiability, not "truth," we mean it is not enough for something to be true, or for an editor to claim that it is true. Instead, the material must already have been published by a reliable source, whether it is a fact or a value.

I've been having some health issues recently, and have to take time off to deal with them, so I may not be around for the close. I just want to say thank you here to Blueboar for writing up the RfC, and to everyone who helped with it. I think however it turns out, there are some good suggestions above, and below from Jayen, that should nudge us further toward consensus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Leaving aside for the moment the question whether now, while an RfC on a different proposal is in full swing, is the best time to discuss this proposal, I still feel queasy about the following wording –
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
• What I don't like is that "not whether editors think it is true" still implies that any concern about a source being mistaken can be dismissed. As such, it feels a little inconsistent with what follows. I would suggest the following wording to fix it:
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for an editor simply to assert that it is true.
• One could also put it as follows:
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for it to be true.
• I think that is clearer and more in line with what follows. The reference to rules of evidence is a little opaque perhaps, but otherwise, the rest seems good and well-written. --JN466 18:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• The point of the current wording is the parallelism -- the threshold for inclusion is whether readers can check that material has already been published by a reliable source, [it is] not whether editors think it is true. But if you think it's confusing, I'd be fine with your suggestion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been making no secret of the fact that there's a lot that I find objectionable about what's happened with this discussion over the last several days, but I would never find fault with suggesting a new compromise version. Doing so is an entirely good and helpful thing. And what is being discussed here is very similar to what I tried to convince the group working on the RfC proposal to consider. For example see: Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence#Updated version. Unfortunately, the working group by that point consisted of just a few editors who felt much more strongly about removing "not truth" from the lead than does the community as a whole, so my suggestions then didn't go anywhere.
• Personally, I very much like the language that Blueboar came up with to describe "not truth", about the sense in which it is meant in WP:V. I'm less enthusiastic about moving it out of the lead. I think we don't really need an added section after the lead at all. We could just rewrite the lead to incorporate Blueboar's improved wording into it. When I proposed that approach to the smaller group, the objection was that there was "an elephant in the room" that needed to be explained by the new section you see proposed in the RfC. But my reading of the community's comments (both before and after the reopening of the RfC) is that very few editors are concerned with those issues, whereas a very large number of opposes are based upon moving "not truth" out of the lead.
• All of that said, I'm not at all convinced that the RfC proposal is failing. It may well gain consensus. We'll just have to see. Maybe a compromise will be desirable as a new proposal if this one fails, or maybe a compromise will be desirable as a further improvement if this one passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Polling, again

• Woo, 62.5%! Silverseren^C 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  Facepalm I guess the "off-wiki stealth canvassing" organized by the "pro-VnT'ers" is failing miserably. ;P Doc talk 01:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  63.7%! :D Silverseren^C 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  I wonder what the split is among the heavy content contributors (although where the hell one draws the line etc....between "heavy", "light" blah blah blah...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm trying to lose weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're so excited about. 214/356 = is only 60%. And keep in mind, that's with the non-neutral title and non-neutral explanation. We can only guess what the real numbers would have been if the RfC had been written neutrally. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A standard way of expressing the present state of the poll is

60% support

36% oppose

4% neutral

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta Comment - The dialogue in this section has been diverted to yet another debate on characterizing the parameters to be considered in the RfC close. In deference to the section title, this irrelevant content should be refactored elsewhere. Blueboar? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.

This is also a conversation about noise. The standard deviation of this poll is a little under 3%. If it had much less than 5% fluctuation, that would be surprising. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Standard deviations are not measured in percentages. Are you claiming that the standard deviation is 3? What's the mean? Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I an asserting that the standard deviation is about 3% of the whole sample; equivalently, in this case, the standard deviation of the derived statistic, the percentage of favorable votes, is about 3%. Standard deviations are measured in the same units as the base stastistic, which is why I did not discuss variance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, polling results, Gallop polling results in particular in mind, have the standard deviation (estimated as sqrt(N)/N) reported as a percentage all the time. A poll of 1000 randomly selected individuals yields an error (estimated standard deviation) of ~3%. True, few make "measurements" in percentages, but many do frequently "report" in percentages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

If we modify it ever so slightly:

"Verifiability, not just truth". Hm? DS (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we are adding suggestions:

"the threshold for inclusion is verifiability in the persistent quest for truth and reliability"Thompsma (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How about, simply, Caveat emptor? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DS, people like those three words because they are pithy and iconic and fun and because the cognitive dissonance intrigued them to actually read the policy further. All those motivations are lost when you add "just". Also, adding "just" fundamentally misunderstands the major underlying intention: VnjT implies that the editor does know what is true (and presumes contributions should be true in addition to being verifiable), but, to the contrary, a main point of VnT is that no editor really knows what is true (e.g., see quotes by Popper) and that different editors disagree about what they believe is true; reminding ourselves of VnT is one of the most powerful tools we have to nonetheless be able to collaborate constructively under such circumstances of underlying difference (the issue crops up very frequently especially among science theory topics and religion topics for example) without arguing about truth (which is ultimately futile in these kinds of cases, and at any rate requires original expertise).

But you'll notice above, there are a number of new proposals appearing which still retain VnT (without watering it down) in the opening sentence, but then immediately follow with various further explanations. I think those approaches are far more likely to achieve real consensus. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support DS's formulation: in my view, all claims stated as fact on Wikipedia should be both verifiable and true. But I think part of the reason this RFC has become such an irreconcilable clusterfuck is that we're really dealing with rather deep concepts here. When history's greatest philosophers have fundamentally different understandings of what is meant by 'true' (and 'verifiable', for that matter), there doesn't seem much hope that consensus could ever be reached on a mere Wikipedia policy discussion page. Robofish (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's really quite good, DragonflySixtyseven.  It still has the problem that using the lede for sloganeering is advertising that Wikipedia is run by and for amateurs.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And your objection to truth in advertising is what, exactly?

But DS's formulation misses part of the point: truth - plain, hard, factual truth - is not enough for us; neither is verifiability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of DS's proposal is that it prompts readers to think and even discuss what truth means. However, it isn't overly helpful or functional for resolving disputes when editors come to look up verifiable resources; Cesiumfrog raises similar points in terms of intrinsic knowledge of truth. I borrowed "quest for truth" from Popper, but it could use updating:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability in the pursuit of truth and reliability using the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. Verifiable means that readers can check if information in Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Truth is a social virtue, not something that is in itself a permanent fact of reality. Truth in Wikipedia logically abides by the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.Thompsma (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the first attempt for a similar term that uses the 3 words but not in a way that can be construed and used by others and gives negative light by some media as Wikipedia being okay with something so long as something says it even if its false (the Earth is made of chocolate) and not okay if something is obvious (1+1=5364). To those who know its history and are versed the idea it is clear what it means, but not to the average newbie. Read simply as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (since there is a break there) it easily gives the impression that we don't care about truth - just sources. I think sometimes some members seem to place the iconic 3-word nature is on too high of a pedestal.

I made a compromise suggestion a while ago before the latest proposal by blueboar of "venerability of truth" and it was condemned by the same people who think there can be no subsistence for those 3 words ever. I can't remember the details, but it just sounded like they were making excuses why nothing but those 3 words would do.∞陣内Jinnai 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DS, many small tweaks have been tried but have failed to break the dead-lock between the two opposing camps. The current proposal is a good compromise as it incorporates both views—maybe not ideal, but a steadier platform on which to stand now, and perhaps move forward from in the future. Uniplex (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a fresh outside perspective could help.Thompsma (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was verifiability, not "truth" - the quotation marks convey the meaning better than other options I've seen. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate to tell us what meaning the quotation marks convey exactly? "Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it" - is this what you mean? Truth has a different meaning than the one we typically associate with it? How does that help to clarify things?Thompsma (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If I were having a conversation with someone and I said that I was telling them "quote unquote" the "truth", I would think that to mean that I wasn't telling the truth (not not the truth?). Shouldn't the sentence carry clarity of meaning? I don't believe that quotes achieve this. It causes one to pause, and possibly ponder the meaning that truth is something to be questioned, but metaphors like this are not necessarily the right tool for guidance on thresholds and settling disputes.Thompsma (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for many years this policy said that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. No scare quotes. So I think the first questionis, Thompsma, in the traditional wording of the policy, what do you think "truth" (direct quotation" means? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)]

I think that "truth" in quotes, does not mean what people think it means. Hence, I don't think it clarifies things very much.Thompsma (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What the "percentage of total" spin obscures

The "percentage of total" description is a spin version which obscures....it should be expressed as an comparison between those "for" and "against". For example here's what "percentage of total" obscures (assuming "neutral" at 4%)

• "50%" = "fors" are 109% (x1.087) of "opposes"
• "55%" = "fors" are 134% (x1.341) of "opposes"
• "57.6%" = "fors" are 150% (x1.50) of "opposes"
• "60%" = "fors" are 167% (x1.667) of "opposes"
• "64%" = "fors" are 200% (x2.00) of "opposes"
• "66%" = "fors" are 220% (x2.22) of "opposes"
• "70%" = "fors" are 269% (x2.692) of "opposes"
• "95.99%" = "fors" are 959,900% (x9,599) of "opposes"

Anytime "fors" are more than 150% of "opposes", IMHO that's a beyond-consensus landslide which is seldom achievable on any contested issue, and this has exceeded that. If some were successful in inventing rules that even with a a 1.67:1 landslide on an RFC with immense input, a clarification type change can't be made, then this would feel like Libya in 2010 and we'd a need a liberation. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Using a standard form for expressing the present state of the poll, we have

60% support

36% oppose

4% neutral

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. That's a good, middle of the road way to describe it. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are a thousand and one ways to statistically analyze poll numbers ... and (of course) each of us would prefer a statistical method that achieves the end result we would like (whatever that end result may be). The fact is... no matter how this RfC is closed, some of us are going to think it should have gone the other way, or that some other statistical method would have given us a "truer" result. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I have put in a request at ANI, asking for an admin (one who has not yet commented on this page) to volunteer to close this RfC when it is time to do so. That closer will be uninvolved and neutral. That closer can determine which statistical methods to use or not use (indeed the closer may decide not to use any statistical method at all). Please just trust the system. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should give this extra time which would tend to reduce the impact of any "anomalies". North8000 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The decision as to when to close can also be left up to the uninvolved admin who is assigned to close. There are equally valid arguments for closing now vs. extending. Again, trust the system. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what the systems is because it looks like if one has a posse they can make up new version of the system whenever they want. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK... according to this ANI discussion, the RfC will be reviewed and closed by a triumvirate of three uninvolved admins... User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. Based on additional discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:V RFC (an ANI subpage devoted to issues relating to this RfC) they are currently thinking in terms of leaving the RfC open for another week (which is fine with me). I think we can trust those three uninvolved admins to determine what constitutes a consensus (and what does not constitute a consensus), and we can leave it up to them to determine when to close. I trust their good judgment, and I think they understand all sides in this. They will give all sides a fair hearing. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That 78.2% of comments in the last 56.45 hours are analysis of meaningless percentages, means that 89.14% of commenters have nothing to say? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mine was only to make the point out that the high percentage numbers being bandied about call for impossibly high landslides and obscure the fact that they are doing that. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're free to redefine what consensus means, but this isn't the place to do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment asserts a false implied premise that a figure higher than what I said is an established criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that many have arrived late on the scene for this important issue. This is a global issue in the world of wikipedia and many editors who arrived late on the scene have not had the opportunity to have their say, as Alanscottwalker points out. It would not be difficult to start the process over and learn from our mistakes. Teams could organize to assist in the process. Obviously this has turned into a real mess for democracy. Everyone is arguing over what constitutes a threshold and what percentage is needed for a consensus after the poll. How on Earth can a democracy work in that way? Those sorts of things need to be sorted out prior to the poll. People need time to put their proposals together and there needs to be a forum to submit ideas. A prior announcement of the rules will settle and calm disputes. Allow more time to spread the word through wikipedia that an RfC will be taking place that will impact everyone on the matter of "verifiability, not truth". I realize that the announcement was made, but obviously a mass of people didn't arrive until too late. There needs to be stages of development. Rules need to be laid out on what constitutes a fair percentage of votes to accept the change, such as: 1) A 60% vote in favour is required for this to pass. 2) A RfC will be held from date until date after which the polls will be closed. In the stages of development, users should be able to submit their proposals and open lines of discussion on how to move forward. This whole process seems to have swept many by surprise, because so many came late on the scene. Obviously this is an important issue for many people in here and so we need to get the rules sorted out before we can achieve a fair, meaningful, and democratic outcome. Perhaps I am ignorant of rules that may have been laid out before hand, but based on the mass of confusion I see in here - it obviously was not clear to everyone before hand and I'm still confused. Is this open, is it closed, where has this debate gone, and who and when did people arrive?Thompsma (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In it's high-minded quest to have everything consensus based with out specific rules for this type of thing, a Somalia style system of governance has been inadvertently created where posses invent new "rules" when they don't like the outcome. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's one of our oldest policies; if you think you have consensus to change it, it has a talk page. In the meantime, let us pretend to operate by consensus. You very much want something that over a hundred people don't want; if it does not happen, that is not Somalia, but civilization, where there are things majorities cannot do. Persuade us, which amendment still can accomplish; snits about rules you have invented are less likely to work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it is not a democracy, but if we are voting on something here then we are treading into democratic grounds. We all know that democracy is a term that can extend to things beyond governance. In the sense of politics or governance, I agree that this is not a democracy. However, to be fair we need a model that works as it would in a representative democracy, where every vote has equal weight toward a measure of consensus. This is what I meant by democracy with the understanding that discussion is ongoing and needed. If you follow through on WP:NOTDEM you will also read that it states: "Its primary, but not exclusive, method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion." Here we are voting on something that affects us all and people are using the voting system to argue their points. In this circumstance I think that we are necessarily constrained in taking votes to adopt some democratic principles to determine the outcome. No sense in sticking our head in the sand - might as well come out and admit that we are using a form of election to reach an outcome in this particular circumstance. You cannot achieve consensus unless you state what the threshold for consensus is prior to taking the poll. According to the Wikipedia:Consensus the "decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all legitimate editorial concerns instead of relying on numerical voting." So what are we relying on here? We have numerical voting and polling taking place, but this is only a measure of consensus so the discussion and debate can continue. This is like a never ending labyrinth - Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Polling_discourages_consensus. It is also ironic that we are trying to reach a consensus on what constitutes a threshold, yet we are not willing to set out before the poll what the threshold shall be for that consensus. Is there a threshold for consensus? The thrust of my point is that this was set up by a minority before a majority stepped in. We need to take a step back in the "spirit" of democracy (in all fairness) so that the process can play out in an orderly fashion.Thompsma (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not voting; many people call it !voting to remind themselves of this. It is a set of comments; the three headings above sort them (remarkably poorly). WP:Voting is evil, and this sort of quarrel is why. The proper next step is to reformulate the proposal in the light of the comments, not to argue about thresholds; the threshold of consensus is when people stop arguing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Folks are saying that it's a consensus, not a vote, but then proceed to say that "consensus" means an impossible-for-any-contested-issue high numerical result of a vote! North8000 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This IS a reformulated compromise proposal, which is which it received landslide support. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We are not a large country; we are a body of a few hundred. We have no organized political parties which guarantee that almost any measure will be widely opposed. 60% is not a landslide for us; it is a measure we routinely exceed. The closest thing we have to an actual vote is a Request for Adminship, where 60% is far too low a percentage to prevail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe for perspective we need a much-overdue RFC for the controversial addition of "not truth" to the policy several years back which had no consensus and no review. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me see: One enthusiast for change presents a list of a half-dozen attempts to remove not truth, none of which have even gotten enough approval to become an RFC; now we have the claim that it's never been reviewed. Sounds to me like it's been reviewed six times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If there have been six reviews of VNT, then there is nothing in that diff which lists them.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? This link, which I copy, links to a list of polls, Numbers 0, 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are all reviews of Verifiability not Truth; I grant that is eight, not six. This poll can either be added as 12, in which case this poll has wasted a great deal of Wikipedian time, or we can continue working on generally acceptable wording. Slim Virgin tried that above, only to be howled down.

Your choice; I haven't had an experience like this since WP:ARBMAC2, which this mess strongly resembles. Let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

All those discussions were taking place on the same page at the same time and were between the same people. It's a strange and mysterious logic that makes them six or eight or twelve separate reviews! I'm also perplexed by your description of the proposal above as "generally acceptable". It looks to me like it was only "generally acceptable" among the minority who oppose Blueboar's compromise.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: generally acceptable wording is the proper goal of any such process, not its starting-point; it is the proper goal of this, or any, policy RFC. I do not claim that SV had reached it in a step; but she was willing to take further steps. Those who want their own words or none will be happier with a different hobby. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I said it as a way to lend some perspective to the current discussion on the compromise proposal, not to push for removal. The folks that are saying that a double-super-duper majority is needed just for a compromise proposal to move and clarify "not truth" and that posting at wp:ver, wp:nor, the pump and centralized discussion was "not sufficient advertising", I say that it's long overdue time that the addition and elevation of the highly controversial "not truth" to go through that same process/review that they are advocating. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So the two of you have said, many times. Neither of you will accept any position but that proposed; neither of you will consider any other modification than the one before us. Nprth8000 disagrees bitterly, not only with this policy, but with our policy and pracrice for making decisions, and prefers rules which would, in this case, let him have his way. You've said all that; please do not say it yet again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with much that has happened in the last several days, in fact I think it is pretty disgusting. I support the compromise wording not because it is what I would want, but because it is a compromise that was developed and RFC'd via a lot of hard work by a lot of people for about ten weeks on this one particularly, and via an 11 month process overall, and, on principle, I don't (on principle) want to see that trashed or buried via all of the disgusting things that have happened in the last several days. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, if you guys are sockpuppets of each other or whatever, Septentrionalis is a poor disguise. : )

PMAnderson, Did you work on SV's proposal before it was posted here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. All my contributions to this discussion are right on this page. If somebody else wants to try a new draft to absorb the discussion, that would be equally acceptable, and reconciling them would probably come close to the greatest feasible agreement, which we call consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't work on it before it was posted, why didn't you work on it after it was posted? Or did I miss something you suggested to improve it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I don't see much wrong with it. There nay be some flaw in detail, but I could support it as it stands. Accordingly, I expressed general support for it once, and asked if anybody saw substantive problems; I also suggested a replacement for necessary but not a sufficient consdition, which may indeed be too technical; the bext time I looked at this page, discussion of it had turned to an deluge of personalities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Whereabouts up there was your suggestion for "a replacement for necessary but not a sufficient consdition"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the same section as SV's proposal; the suggested wording was Wikipedia's statements have to (or must) be verifiable, but that is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like yet another angle at undermining the RFC. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is; we're all an evil conspiracy to prevent you from having your way. Why else shouldn't we rubber-stamp your just and righteous demands? </irony>

To other points of view, this RfC has done rather nicely in bringing out the various points of view on verifiability and the text at issue, which the unimportant page called WP:RFC deludes us to believe its purpose. Several suggestions have been made as to what would make this proposal an acceptable change; somewhere in them may lie consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to mention what those several suggestions were? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I would not care to. There are several dozen of them, in the !votes; look under #Support, #Oppose, and #Neutral above. Most of them offer some change of wording; some of them also propose to explain verifiability, not truth and also to leave it in the first paragraph (either permanently, or until the wording of the explanation has been settled). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Which of those suggestions would make the proposal acceptable to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See my unvote; that's what it's for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (For reference, it's Oppose number 24.) Initially the discussion was between those who wanted to remove the phrase "verifiability, not truth" and those who wanted no change. The compromise was to keep the phrase but move it out of the lead. So your suggestion of keeping it where it is, unfortunately seems to undo the compromise. I don't think that would win over many of the couple of hundred editors that are supporting the proposal, much less get consensus. Sorry. Just my opinion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It would begin with the support of those who like the present proposal because it explains not truth. Some of them have said so, and expressed a willingness or preference for keeping the phrase where it is; others presumably agree. It will add many of those who oppose the proposal; it may well add some who would prefer the phrase out of the lead but will tolerate having it with an explanation. A better explanation will add some who dislike how Blueboar phrased this one. It will not add the minority who oppose this policy altogether, and want unverifiable truth; but I believe there is consensus against them, as there always has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have different impressions of the situation, so I'll leave it at that. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please quit the "we're all an evil conspiracy to prevent you from having your way. Why else shouldn't we rubber-stamp your just and righteous demands?" crap which is clearly in conflict with reality and bordering on a personal attack. AGAIN, both history and my recent reminder clearly show that the compromise wording in the RFC is NOT my preference; I am supporting it because it is a compromise to resolve the 11 month continuous debate and related differences of opinion. Second quit adding bogus words like "conspiracy" to what I said; please look a few lines up to see what I actually said. To elaborate on that, it DOES look like a tactic to undermine the RFC in progress because the wording includes and seeks to establish several implied premises (IMHO false implied premises) about the current RFC including that it does not have the required support to pass, and that it isn't already a compromise. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • North8000 repeats his own personal attack in this complaint: he and S. Marshall have repeatedly complained that comments which do not lead to immediately installing exactly the text they support are "undermining" the RFC. Not at all; an RFC is not a railroad, and its function is not to ratify the decisions of a self-appointed committee - unless the committee has succeeded, as some do, in expressing what the general sentiment holds. If you want some such change, you will just have to listen to what the people who don't like it think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
      • "Immediately"? Here is a page where we were discussing "not truth" in November 2010. "Exactly"? We've both moved a long way from our preferred positions. "Self-appointed committee" describes the whole of Wikipedia: it's a volunteer project so things are done by those who want to do them. And I think we're both just a little tired of editors desperately twisting and turning and playing the "consensus" rules for all they're worth to try to force the majority to comply with an incompatible minority position. Please desist from this behaviour, Pmanderson, and graciously accept that your view should not prevail over the majority.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
        • • Precisely. You two are so tired that you are inflexible. There is clear support for some change; but so many of the supports above have reservations that it is not clear that even a majority prefer the proposal as it stands; there is certainly no majority, let alone consensus, to change present policy. You two oppose the present policy; do let those who agree with it decide how to reword it. If you want to oppose that result, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
            • We do not "oppose the present policy". Both North8000 and I have been perfectly clear that we feel that Wikipedia should have a policy about verifiability, and we feel that the point of this policy is to say that all material added to Wikipedia should be attributable to a reliable published source. We very clearly support the present policy and we would like to improve it by clarifying a section that is presently of use to POV-pushers who wish to pretend that WP:V means any old rubbish that's ever appeared in print can be added to Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm also unhappy with this business of "generally acceptable wording", because I think there are two quite incompatible views here: (1) that VNT needs to be in stark bold in the first sentence, and (2) the view that it should not appear without a hedge and explanation, and therefore needs to be in its own section. We do need to pick one of these two approaches and go with it. Realistically, if we choose view (1), then some of the people who espouse view (2) will be unhappy, and vice versa. I see no way around it.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• For perspective, there is a third group (I think yourself & me included) who prefers to completely remove "not truth" who supports #2 because it is a compromise. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Precisely; that would be a change of policy by a minority who oppose it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

PMA, I think your logic is mistaken here. Supporting the proposal does not mean, nor does anyone suppose it to mean, that you consider it to be optimum in every aspect (as has been pointed out, many users support it as the best compromise they feel they are going to get). It is true that many users voting for the proposal might envisage a better proposal still. I am one of them, but I think it would be ridiculous to discount my vote on that basis. What my vote actually means is exactly what it says. I am in favour of the change proposed. Notwithstanding that I may hold other opinions on top of that, I am in favour of the change proposed.

When I typed "support" and then bolded the word "support", I knew exactly what I was doing and what the meaning of the word "support" was. It means that, if enough editors agree with me, the change proposed will be implemented. Every single vote that begins with the word "support" was made on the same basis, and they are all valid votes in favour of the change. --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That is half true. If enough editors agreed with this change, it would be implemented; if enough editors agreed with it, it would not be controversial. That is what operating by consensus would look like. We are not there, yet; the next version may well get there.

Unfortunately, a small group of editors have been spending a great deal of time insisting that this is the optimum compromise and (in the same post, in the same sentence) that nobody who hasn't been through the development of it can understand why. That is a mark of spurious consenus: We few heroes of Wikipedia agree, and we don't have to listen to anybody else.

Another instance of much the same arrogance is one supporter telling an oppose that he should love the proposal; if he did, he wouldn't have opposed it. The persistent voice that assured opposers that this wasn't a change of policy is a different error: The effect of policy text lies in the text, not in the intention of the proponents; if it can be read as a new policy here and now, somebody will read it as a new policy when it is installed on the policy page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, we've got another new label. Apparently we're "arrogant" as well. Look, Pmanderson, from my point of view the problem is a small number of disruptive editors who will apparently stop at nothing to derail the proposed change. We've had an involved sysop summarily overturning a discussion close, rushing to AN/I, and re-advertising the RFC in different places using different language, and I'm still utterly bewildered how that could happen without sanctions (I'd like to see what happens when an editor who isn't SlimVirgin tries that!) Now we've got you trying to pin sneering labels on us on the basis of diffs out of context, and although less egregious, it's the exact same tactic: if editors aren't supporting you about the content you want, then turn it into a conduct dispute and smear the hell out of them. I would be grateful if you would kindly desist.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess some feel the need to resort to ad hominem, and when there is no material for the ad hominem, they need to invent some. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

PMAnderson, Are you sure you wanted to attack me personally? Anyhow, my message that you linked to was trying to show that the following excerpt from the proposal expressed ideas that the opposer wanted to see in the policy.

"An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth".

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that I wished to deplore your post; telling someone that he ought to love what he dislikes may well be the rudest sentiment (whatever the wording) I have seen on Wikipedia. Please retract it.

A better response might also have noted that the passage you quote does not make Toa Nidhiki05's point; by explaining not truth apart from questions of what Wikipedia's voice should declare as fact, it implicitly denies that the phrase does what he would like it to do. The best response would have considered whether a change in the proposal to cover that point was warrented.

The answer to that substantive question may well be "no"; but the reason I would have given was that the bad habit Toa correctly decries is already covered by WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, and that the explanatory paragraph mentions them. The next draft probably should strengthen the link to WP:NPOV and WP:OR; they don't just apply when an edit is dubious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message was too unclear and didn't seem to make enough sense for me to respond. Just my opinion, sorry. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. You didn't understand me; you didn't understand Toa - and you proceed to condescend to both of us. I suppose consistency is a virtue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the numbers in absolute terms

At the moment, percentages aside, there are 103 more "support" votes than there are "oppose" votes. That appears to be the biggest lead for an RfC proposal in the history of en.wp, unless anyone knows different. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll was 216 to 106. It was, correctly, rejected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't actually an RfC. (And it was vetoed by the WMF board, not rejected by the community). --FormerIP (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, a quarter of the energy used in these vanity posts would have produced a text which would have reached real consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I can't think of a more worthwhile answer than that either. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clever inclusion of assertion of "not a consensus" as an implied premise. And pointing out the numbers of this landslide (my assertion) in comparison to other RFC's is a "vanity post" North8000 (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Advertising RfC

Earlier today, someone deleated advertising with the bot on various notice boards (biography, politics, law and science, etc.). Since "an editor" has in fact asked requests for comment be advertised on those notice boards, it seems wrong and misleading to so delete. Please revert. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Procedural#RfC_extended_past_thirty_days. I'm restoring the listing per your request. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Watchlist notification has also disappeared [8]. Leaky Caldron 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that this diff removed the last two characters of the template.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. More to the point, the template states "display until Nov 5". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be helpful to change that to Nov 10, if the discussion is going to be open that long. Better fresh voices than the same ones repeating themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, 10 November would be better. I only found out about this a few days ago; given that nobody ever 'wins' forever here, it would be better to have as much thought go into this RFC as possible. The losers will, of course, fight back and this will go on forever and ever, but at least a larger number of us editors - especially the newer ones - will have gained an enormous amount of ammunition to be used in self-defense against those editors and just-happened-to-be-driving-by admins who use the whole verify=my world view is OK, true=your world view doesn't count to push their agenda. Goodness, by the 10th, I might even have a solid aye or nay to offer.Pauci leones (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:V RFC, The 10 November closing date comes at the request of User:Newyorkbrad, one of the uninvolved admins who have agreed to review and close the RfC (the others are User:HJ Mitchell, and User:Black Kite). Apparently, Brad's request had little to do with advertising issues or giving people extra time to comment. It was made for a very mundane reason... he is busy this week and will not be available to review until the 10th. Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow this is so exciting...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

About RfC publicity

There is a discussion at WT:RFC#Publicity that may interest editors who are following the course of the RfC here. I think that there are still widely differing views within the community as to how much publicity about the RfC here was really needed, and the extent to which it was necessary to re-open the RfC in order to publicize it more widely. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about publicity but it's apparent that the explanation of the proposed change should be clearer in any future iterations, since the comments show many of those voting do not understand the proposal. Brmull (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If they don't understand the proposal, will editors understand the text when it's in place?

Clearer text would help; so would having the proposed text as a whole (or at least the whole revised section text) on a draft subpage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

lol

I have always been under the impression that Wikipedia allows for published hearsay....just not un-published hearsay. Everything else is the debate on how to catalog hearsay.

LOL

Ultimately, Wikipedia is just as bad as a set of communist encyclopedia's.

Where else do you think people are getting most of the crap they post on WIKI!

"The world is a dungheep and we are maggots that crawl on it" - Aldonza the Whore from 'Man of La Mancha' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneindividual (talk • contribs) 23:08, 06 November 2011 (UTC)

Elisa Gabrielli...Published Articles, and HBO Special Doc...etc

Hi. Elisa Gabrielli here. Below are some of the Published Articles and other sources about the listing that I have been requested to provide. I hope this is helpful. I will update the listing to make it more informative and concise once this is through the vetting process.

• HBO Special"THe Making of "Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa" Running on HBO prior and during the release of the Movie as well as when it was subsequently running on HBO and again later on Network television. An entire section was dedicated to me and the character, with interviews etc, Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhAeBStTcJ4
• Published Book"The Art of Madagascar Escape 2 Africa" by Jerry Beck, Preface by Ben Stiller. Publisher- Insight Editions 2008. Section 1 "Run for Your Wildlife" Nana pg 52-53 "From scene stealing cameo in the first film, to chief adversary in the penguins Christmas short, Nana was clearly destined for bigger things in the Madagascar . "We picked Elisa Gabrielli out of the loop group in the first film to audition for the old lady, now known as Nana. We ended up using her there, in the penguins short and in an expanded role in Madagascar 2. Talk about a success story. She's wonderful"
• Newsday, Nov7,2008 "Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa" witten by John Anderson 3rd and 4rth paragraphs. In this quote, "the mad jewish woman with the purse" refers to the character I voiced, but then he kindly mentions me again by name in the next paragraph. "...But all anyone wants to watch are the crazy penguins, the mad Jewish woman with the purse and King Julien the Meerkat (Sacha Baron Cohen), all of whom inject this Eric Darnell/Tom McGrath-directed comedy with crazy energy and real laughs.

It's no secret in Hollywood that big-name stars are cast in these animated epics so studios will have talk-show-acceptable celebrities plugging the movies on TV. But "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" - in which the animals of the original film crash-land in their species' homeland - shows what really works in these things (and augments the state-of-the-art animation): As Skipper, the mad lead penguin, director McGrath is comically possessed; as Nana, the animals' nemesis, 'Elisa Gabrielli is incongruous and hysterical, and Cohen is a scream. So put up with the life lessons, and wait for the laughs."

• Variety Nov. 3, 2008 Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa written by Todd McCarthy 6th paragraph "... The four-leggeds have occasional run-ins with hunters and tourists, and none among the latter is as mirth-inducing as a take-no-prisoners old granny (Elisa Gabrielli) who takes it upon herself to singlehandedly uphold the combative reputation of New Yorkers with some fearsome martial-arts turns.

Among the other ace newcomers are Baldwin's scheming Scar equivalent, out to thwart Alex, and a two-ton Lothario out to romance Gloria, drolly endowed with basso profundo intonations by songmeister will.i.am,..."

• San Jose Mecury News" Nov 7, 2008 "Madcap Madagascar" by Robert W Butler (Wriiten for Kansas City Star as well, but don't have that date. End of 4rth/5th paragraphs "It's hard not to love...Or the little old lady (Elisa Gabrielli) who had just one scene in the first film but who emerges as Alex's nemesis, a a safari taking grandma who organizes a band of strafed tourists into a feral tribe right out of "Lord of the Flies"
• Mecury News.com Nov 5, 2008 Review:" Madagacar sequel is a decent diversion, but no great escape" by Glenn Whips 2nd paragraph "The resulting animal pileup isn't as chaotic as you might expect, thanks to a streamlined screenplay from co-directors Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath and series newcomer Etan Cohen. The addition of Cohen ("Tropic Thunder") gives this sequel extra bite, particularly noticeable in the expansion of the ninja-nanny character (Elisa Gabrielli) from a subway station cameo to a full-fledged character".

(Also Glenn Whips at the same time article in LA.com on Nov 7th, and others)

• "Newsarama.com" Nov 7, 2008 "Madagascar 2, Second Verse as Same as the First" by Steve 4rth and 5th paragraphs "...That’s 17 characters Darnell and McGrath have to juggle. The good news is most of these characters had some kind of introduction in the first film, so the directors don’t waste time on them. Probably the best of the new though are Nana (Elisa Gabrielli), the little old lady, and that darn sexy hippo Moto Moto, who Will.i.am somehow manages to cross Barry White with Prince and makes it work.
• "The Gazette" ( Colorado Springs ) Nov 6, 2008 "Lions Share of Laughs go to Supporting Cast in Madagascar" by Brandon Fibbs "...Supporting characters should never be more interesting than the mains (manes?). Yet that is the case with "Madagascar 2." Sacha Baron Cohen returns as Julian, the nutty king of the partying lemurs with a hilariously enlarged role culminating in an attempt to appease the water gods by tossing one of the main characters into a boiling volcano.The old granny (Elisa Gabrielli), who so efficiently dispatched with Alex in the first film, returns as a vacationing New Yorker now single-handedly keeping the jungle at bay with her formidable martial-arts moves.
• "The Baltimore Sun" Nov 7, 2008 "The menagerie in Madagascar 2 is a hoot" by Michael Sragow 4rth paragraph "Even the human characters, usually a drag on creature cartoons, add to the spirited anarchy. In her take-charge attitude, Nana (Elisa Gabrielli) represents the best and worst of New York rolled into one feisty package. She wields a handbag like a mace."
• Cafe Mom.com The Stir Blog Dec 3, 2008 " Madagascar Character Inspired by Love" file:///Users/elisagabrielli/Desktop/Documents/Madagascar%202:%20Nana%20Character%20Inspired%20by%20Love%20%7C%20The%20Stir.webarchive
• "Animated Views- State of the Art" Feb 27, 2009 "Nana's Back. Elisa Gabrielli on Madagascar Escape 2 Africa by Jeremie Noyer (also published in France) file:///Users/elisagabrielli/Desktop/Current%20Projects/Madagascar%202%20Reviews:Press%20etc./Animated%20Views%20»%20Nana’s%20back!%20Elisa%20Gabrielli%20on%20Madagascar:%20Escape%202%20Africa.webarchive
• Toon Zone News Feb 24, 2009 'Toon Zone Interviews Elisa Gabrielli..." by Ed Lui file:///Users/elisagabrielli/Desktop/Current%20Projects/Madagascar%202%20Reviews:Press%20etc./Toon%20Zone%20-Interview...on%20being%20'Nana'!.webarchive

There were also other reviews and Radio Interviews, guest appearances at Cartoon Conventions for work done on Gargoyles, Batman, Ironman etc as well as a few "local girl made good' news coverage on Television stations back east when I did 'The Brady Bunch Movie"...but I don't have all of that compiled with dates and links and such. OK, hope this is in the right format Thanks. Juniper99 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Where were these sources requested? Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Juniper99's contribs, it appears to be a followup of this message in this section. Perhaps the above message of Juniper99 should be moved to Talk:Elisa Gabrielli and a note left at User Talk:Juniper99? (Although there is currently a red link for Talk:Elisa Gabrielli, the article Elisa Gabrielli currently exists.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I copied the above message of Juniper99, pasted it at Talk:Elisa Gabrielli, and left a note of this action at User Talk:Juniper99. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone find the deletion discussion? It's not linked in the talk page of the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent use of current first sentence of policy involving an editor active here

Recently at Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution, there was use of the current first sentence of this policy WP:V, in the second message of this section by an editor in his debate with PMAnderson. Its use seemed to be ignored by PMAnderson. Perhaps PMAnderson could comment? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An effort to insist that talk-page comments be footnoted. Unless somebody is willing to claim that this policy should apply to talk-pages, this is largely irrelevant to the issue here.

It is one of many examples which show that verifiability, not truth can be abused; so can all our policies, as experience will show. A paragraph of explanation might profitably address the point; however, the proposal at hand doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a paragraph would be useful; one of my reasons for opposing this one is that it is flawed. This may well be another flaw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of verify and truth

When I first came here, I was confused. I didn't even know what an RfC was - request for comment. Hence, I am here to comment on the proposal at the lead to this article. The proposal is to remove "not truth" following verify as a threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia. This is an important bit of terminology for Wikipedian editors as we enter into our discussions and direct others to policy of what can and cannot be justified for inclusion into the articles. We know of some examples where verified sources turn out to be or seem to be false (e.g., User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#.22Verifiability_and_truth.22. Therefore, I will give my humble overview on "not truth" v. "verify" in context of the philosophy of science, which is my focus of interest. There are a few idioms that parallel this debate: Carl Sagan famously stated that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Ashley Montague (Anthropologist) stated in 1984: "The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof."[9], and this follows from the Baconian idea on the idol of certainty or that science seeks "truth without certainty", it is false to think that science seeks certainty - it avoids certainty. Science is considered one of the highlights of human intellect and often thought one of the most reliable resources on "natural truth". Facts are empirically confirmed observations that can be proven false. They are sub-hypotheses on "natural truth", but "observations exist only as interpretations of the facts of nature in light of present theories, not as the facts of nature themselves."[10] Science avoids the idol of certainty in establishing truth by falsifying and contemplating probabilities, likelihoods and calculating theory. There are different forms of knowledge acquisition: deductive (what must necessarily be the case), inductive (from observation to generalization), and abductive (causal explanation of the data). All three forms are drawn from the facts, but can be falsified not verified. Using these foundations, how does science achieve its perceived standard of "truthiness" and can Wikipedia achieve a similar measure of public trust? Science, like Wikipedia, is a collective enterprise, it is its own beast governed by its social contract that itself evolves, steady and punctuated over time. The dimension of time X people is what seems to be missing in this debate on truth and verifiability. We have billions of people on this planet that can freely come to edit and fact check every article from now until the foreseeable future. I've often wondered what Wikipedia could look like in a thousand years. What news organization has that kind of power? We can do better than the "tabloid" news style articles and can compete against professional encyclopedia's. Why? We have time and people on our side. This is a human enterprise and people over time in pursuit of truth building on the good will of humanity to share our knowledge is a worthy investment. It is an amazing testament to what we can accomplish through so called "free-labour". Truth is a worthy pursuit and this engine called Wikipedia powered by people and time are up for the challenge. It is true that "not truth" is valid in the sense that truth should and cannot be used as a threshold for inclusion, however inclusion of this pithy statement leaves the impression that "truth" is not a worthwhile virtue. I don't support either proposal on the table. The proposal to remove "not truth" fails because it speaks of "a guarantee of inclusion", which is an odd statement in itself. Who is seeking and conferring a guarantee? Neither proposal does justice toward truth, the former ("not truth") even less so. Truth is the formidable prey that deserves our respect as it has us locked us into a perpetual Red Queen of inquiry. Hence, I have offered my suggestion above, but I tweak it here in consideration of the "guarantee" component: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability in the pursuit of truth and reliability using the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. Verifiable means that readers can check if information in Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. A verified source does not automatically lead to inclusion of the material, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article)." I have no idea if this RfC is closed or how a decision can even be reached in this mess. I plan to get back to editing articles and thought I would just leave with this final summation of my thoughts on the matter.Thompsma (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As clarification, the main RFC proposal moves (and explains) the phrase that includes "not truth" to a following section. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand your position, the current main proposal takes a baby step towards what you are saying, but does not fully accomplish it. It's a compromise proposal. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks North8000 (talk) - you understood. This is being discussed in evolution as theory and fact. There are conflicting verifiable scientific publications through history stating evolution is a fact, evolution is a theory, evolution is not a fact, and evolution is not a theory. The science of it requires deeper investigation, but neither proposal above would help to solve this problem. References to primary and secondary sources (whatever that distinction may be) makes matters even more complicated. What about timing of publications? If one was in 1973 and we have a publication in 2007, does the later publication supersede the former? Is the former now a secondary publication because it has been cited to such and extend that it has a page of its own: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution? All the authors of the papers making these claims would agree (I believe, after reading through the material with a critical eye) that evolution is true, that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and evolution is one of "the most reliable facts in the biological sciences referring to an experimentally proven reality of nature."Thompsma (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There are ways to write material that conforms to the pursuit of truth, but "not truth" and verifiability on its own will fail in this respect.Thompsma (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one author to date may disagree with the last component that evolution is one of "the most reliable facts in the biological sciences...", but only because that author has a different schema of fact, not because he does not believe it to be true. The point to this is, that this single author holds a view that is novel and inconsistent with others, but the matter is being debated and discussed in the scientific literature. This is where the time factor in wikipedia helps. Is it true that evolution isn't a fact and why would that be? It has to do with inductive, deductive, and abductive modes of inferrence - evolution possibly being of the abductive modes, but few authors have commented on this new development in scientific literature. These are the kinds of issues that the lead set of instructions should give guidance on.Thompsma (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is useful to include contradictory reports

The idea that verifiable information should be excluded if it is untrue would seem to suggest that contradictory information shouldn't be incorporated in an article. The editor should do his WP:original research to figure out whichever one of the reports he thinks is wrong, then leave only the remaining one. I disagree with this: I think contradictory reports have value, and if both are published, the reader should hear them both, without the editor making up his mind for him which is right. For example, recently I added some information to Anonymous (group) citing a threat they'd reportedly (AP wire) made against Los Zetas; then the next day read an article saying it was bunk and most Anonymous members in Mexico disagreed with the idea. What I did was leave both sources, side by side. I can't imagine it would make sense for any responsible amateur historian to do anything else. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that any part of the policy or proposed change says to categorically exclude material because it is inaccurate. But neither should any conversation between editors regarding falsity of the material be blocked by a mantra that potential inaccuracy may not be discussed when discussing how to handle or not handle material. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it useful to include contradictory reports, but it is a requirement per WP:NPOV. We do not decide which report is correct, but rather we report all significant points of view. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, often, but wp:npov applies when there are points of view. But there are other cases. Let's say it's about the length of a ship of the height of a mountain, and 4 good sources say the same figure, and a 5th source said a different figure that is implausible. The editors could certainly discuss this and also the editors can also decide to not include the erroneous info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What if there are five figures and all of them are plausible?

Obvious typographical errors should not be included. If we find a source which says "Beorge Washington was the first US president" we're not going to include that. But that's not about establishing "truth". It's just a matter of culling clear errors and unreliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so we should cull clear errors. And, in regular Wikipedia style, discussions of varying degrees of pedantry and tediousness may first be required in order to determine whether something counts as a clear error. --FormerIP (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't cull clear errors, we decide if they are insignificant errors.  Significant "clear errors" are encyclopedic.  See WP:Inaccuracy  Unscintillating (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've run into "contradictory" reports when posting articles on U.S. Navy ships from WWII. Specifically, reliable and verifiable sources often make conflicting reports about a ship's armament. This is easy to understand, since in those days many changes were made over time to the kind and number of guns on various ships. (Some types of guns were found to be ineffective and were replaced by other types, or new guns were developed that were better than the old ones and replaced them as time allowed, etc.) My solution is to pick one of the reports that seems best, and put it into the article, along with a citation. If the conflicts are extreme, which they usually are NOT, I put a note in there. This doesn't seem to relate to "truth" as much as to "accuracy" and "editorial judgment". Lou Sander (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lou, your solution is best practice. If this isn't part of the policies or the guidelines, then it needs to be added. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with Will Beback's post strongly and in every respect. We can and do decide which report is correct. That's why evolution uses clear and positive language ("Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins...") but baraminology uses reported speech and negative language ("Baraminology is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, as the evidence for common ancestry of all life has widespread scientific acceptance.") You'll also notice that evolution doesn't even contain the search string "baramin" at all. You will see similar effects with articles such as bigfoot, moon landing conspiracy theories, etc. We quite clearly do take a view about which source is correct, and we quite clearly do decide to omit significant points of view. "NPOV" does not mean "take an average of all the POVs". Neither does it mean "No POV". What NPOV means is that we follow the most reliable sources, and by "most reliable sources", we mean the sources that reflect the most recent mainstream academic consensus, have a reputation for editorial supervision and fact checking, and in all other respects are most likely to be true.—S Marshall T/C 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles which omit significant points of view, including conflicts about facts, are in violation of WP:NPOV. While obvious errors like typos should be omitted, other differences of opinion between equally reliable sources should not be judged by anonymous Wikipedia editors. If one good sources says there were 10 guns on the ship and another says there were 12, then we should not say there were 11 nor should we say there were 10. We should say there were 10 or 12. If we have more information we could say there were 10 in 1944 and 12 in 1945. WP:FRINGE covers fringe views, which are a special case.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Another option, of course, is to omit discussing the number of guns completely... thus avoiding the entire issue. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if it's a trivial point. However sometimes the disagreements are significant in themselves. Historians do not agree, for example, on the date of birth of Alexander Hamilton, and they probably never will. We don't paper-over the disagreement, but instead we list both dates and describe the disagreement. That's how Wikipedia should work. Very few of us are expert enough on these topics to second-guess published authors and decide which of them is inaccurate.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In further reply to S Marshall, we can and do evaluate the quality of sources, based on issues like the authors' credentials. But that isn't the same as evaluating the facts, independently of the sources. If two high quality sources disagree then we should not deem one to be slightly higher in reliability and discard the other. If they are both good sources then we should report both views.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is only going to be sensible some of the time. We ought to describe genuine disputes as to fact on the one hand. But wasting time reporting the errors made in reliable sources is another matter. --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If we can reasonably determine that they are errors, yes. But in many cases it's not clear which source is in error. Sometimes both sources may be right, for example when the number of guns on a hypothetical warship changes from year to year.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely right. Obviously, we should only remove errors where we know or can reach a consensus that they are errors. But we should definitely not leave them there. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Will, I disagree. In many cases, it is clear that we are dealing with simple errors and they can be discarded. I've previously given many examples of this and can provide many more. If we know, for example, that a biographical subject, according to an interview with the subject and at least several supporting secondary sources, had a daughter named Jenny, even while several lazy wire stories report that her daughter's name was Janny, we can assume that this was a typo/error and avoid mentioning it. Same goes for similar errors that we can safely spot and discard. Lou's recommendation above, that we make a note of this error somewhere, is best practice, and within the last year, I've been creating "errata" sections on the talk page so that I can keep track of them and not have to add them to footnotes.[11][12] On the other hand, I recently ran into a problem that could not be resolved, specifically in regard to the number of children a biographical subject had, so I made note of the conflict in a footnote.[13] Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In cases where some sources are clearly superior to others, such as an interview with a parent in which they give the name of their child, then we'd definitely use those. Not because we "know" the right name, but because a much better source contradicts less reliable sources. Regarding errata sections, those may be good ways of handling issues that come up again and again. (If we didn't include them at all then random readers would add them back.) But I don't think that simple cases of clear errors in good quality sources occur that often. More frequently, it isn't so obvious which version is correct.   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What is it when expert editors "know" something? It is the weighted integration of dozens or hundreds or thousands of sources. While such is not a basis for INCLUSION of material, it certainly can be a part of the discussion between the editors about potentially leaving out the erroneous material. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion/exclusion of verifiable information in/from an article is a function of WP:DUE. The inclusion/exclusion of unverifiable information in/from an article is a function of WP:V. This is a distinction that that the proposal tries to explain. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:UNDUE is the proper standard, but I don't read the proposal that way. The reason why we would ignore "Beorge Washington" is because there are so many other sources which would say "George". If he were some obscure personality footnoted as the inventor of wooden teeth in only two or three sources, and one said Beorge and one said George, then we would need to include both versions. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there's an acid test here. Do we know the information is wrong or don't we? That determines what we should do about it. --FormerIP (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. And, as an institution, the only wat we know anything is through published sources. So it comes down to evaluating the relative reliability. If they are close then a determination may be impossible, in which case both views should be presented.   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Will Beback, that the process of evaluating sources is the process of deciding which one is most likely to be true. Which of course makes a bit of a mockery of "verifiability, not truth". Actually our objective is to achieve truth through careful analysis of sources. With minority points of view, there's more than just the question of whether to include them. There's also the question of how to include them—how much weight to give each source—and this is something the working group discussed in detail over the course of the preceding nine or now ten months that we spent building up to this RFC. It's what Blueboar is trying to express with his very compressed phrase, "opinion rather than fact". Now that you've stepped back from including "all significant points of view", you really aren't telling us anything we didn't know or hadn't taken into account.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't stepped back from including all significant points of view. That's a core policy. Determining which sources are most reliable is not the same as directly determining which assertions are "true", with the exception of obvious errors.   Will Beback  talk  17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is counting fairies on the head of a pin. In many cases, we can easily determine whether something is true and, yes, in many cases we can't. Fair enough. But, for practical purposes, if any editor is defending the inclusion of false information in Wikipedia, even after all the policies have been wikilinked and all the suggestions about attribution and adding confusing wording have been made, that editor is wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Will, it's uncontroversial that not all articles must include all significant points of view. The theory that the moon landings were hoaxes is a significant, if wrongheaded, point of view, and it rightly has its own article. But it receives no mention in Apollo program, and that is as it should be. Baraminology is a significant, if wrongheaded, point of view, and it rightly has its own article. But it's right that it receives no mention in evolution. Yes, significant points of view are to be included somewhere, but it's important to ask where. And it's also important to ask how they are to be included. (Compare the simple declarative used in nuclear fusion with the cautious and dubious phrasing used in cold fusion for an excellent practical example of what I mean.) It's clear that these articles are NPOV, but it's also clear that the editors who wrote them have taken a position on what's true and what isn't.

The process of deciding which sources are reliable is evaluating things like editorial supervision, reputation for fact checking, peer review, and so on. But the thing is that everything that makes a source more reliable is also something that makes it more likely to be true. Indeed, if we disregard the concept of "truth", reliability is meaningless. It seems quite obvious and incontrovertible to me that we use reliable sources as a route to the truth, not as an end in itself.

I also think that encyclopaedia writers are educators, and I think there's something very sinister about an educator who doesn't care about truth. I have no time at all for editors who wish to introduce lies into the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to look at a list of sources and decide whether one of them has a reputation in general of being a less reliable source when trying to decide whether it would be undue weight to include it. It's a very different thing to look at what two sources say side by side and then decide that one of them is unreliable because you happen to think the other one is right. True, sometimes you want to do the latter, when the logic in a particular news article is particularly pseudoscientific - but if the source is otherwise viewed as reliable, it is better to "name and shame" the source by saying who it is and what their 'logic' was. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Some folks are going to great lengths to say that editors are confined to being just transcription monkeys when it comes to leaving out material. They are either saying that you need a source-based reason to leave something out of an article, or giving examples of the other extreme. Since editors for any given article will "leave out" about 99.99999999999% of all of the material in the world, get ready for a trillion talk pages for each article with the rationale for leaving those other things out. Or they list the other red herring extreme, where someone is assigning far too much weight to their own knowledge/opinion in a contentious situation.

And then there is the ambiguity of the mechanics of exclusion based on probable falsity. Does such mean that it gives someone license to unilaterally exclude something where wp:npov balancing is in force, or where there a difference of opinion on exclusion? Of course not. Does it mean that on a single-editor non-contentious article the editor can decide to just not put in something that they found based on irrelevance or implausibility or .... that happens all of the time and IMHO is not only fine, but how quality articles get built. Does it mean that, in a discussion about potential exclusion, that an editor is allowed to merely discuss possible falsity of the material? IMHO yes, they can discuss it, and should not be shut down by people saying that policy prohibits such from entering into the discussion. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What to do when "cite request" template is repeatedly removed?

I have found myself in a situation where an editor has repeatedly removing my cite request templates, claiming that end-of-para suffices. I do not agree with him, as I think the end-of-para is not sufficient, and the information in question may even be controversial/red flag and requires end-of-sentence ref. I do not want to edit war with him, but he is adamant in removing my cite requests. What should be my next action? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RS/N can handle reliability claims, which seems to be an issue, that the source may not be reliable due to its distance from potential content. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On investigation, the issue relates to issues to do with courtesy to readers, a matter of opinion between editors on which they can reasonably disagree, however, good advice for editors exists at WP:Citing sources#Text-source integrity and WP:Citing sources#Bundling citations. Editors should bear in mind the standard of their field of editing, and, what they would want to read if they were newbies who were terribly excited about the article and wanted to read every claim from the original texts. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And a published source is.....

The first sentence says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source......" and that word published is sprinkled throughout the text. We need to explain what published means. We mention "a document, article, paper, or book" but not TV, radio or You Tube etc. Maybe this is a good opportunity to cover it here. Moriori (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Publish means nothing more or less than the dictionary definition of the word: something made available to the public. The old diary in a box in your basement is not published, but putting something on Youtube or broadcasting it on TV are forms of publishing. Radio is a bit dubious, as radio broadcasts are generally not recorded (or at least not publically available), which makes it almost impossible to accurately cite or verify them. Yoenit (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)