Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Verifiability, not truth RfC

RFC Proposal re first sentence

• Current policy
• Proposed policy

A proposal to:

1. change the opening paragraph to remove the phrase "verifiability, not truth"
2. insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth (including the phrase "verifiability, not truth"). Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

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)
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)

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)

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 SPI 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)
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)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my statement above[2]. 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[3] "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. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 6 October 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)
30. The current form is shorter and easier to understand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
31. 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)

32. 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)

33. 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)
34. 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)
35. 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)
36. 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)
37. 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)
38. 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)

39. 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)

40. 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)
41. 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)
42. 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)

43. 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)
44. 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)
45. 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)
46. 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)
47. 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)
48. 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)

49. 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)
50. 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)
51. 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)
52. 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)
53. 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)

    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)

54. 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)

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)

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)

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.

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:

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

"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)

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}

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)

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)

reliable sources and list entries

An editor who has done some excellent research in creating the list of Christian hardcore bands seems to be of the opinion that a phrase in a single album review that loosely associates a band with a related genre is sufficient to adding that band or artist to this list. Some other editors feel that the music should be representative of the style at the time and that several articles, particularly of contested artists, should be provided.

Granted, most lists don't even have a single reference for the entries, so this article is outstanding. Could we have a few people step in on the article to discuss? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the RfC

The RfC is now closed. I thought that in cases like this it is up to the person who initiated the RfC (Blueboar) to close it, but I don't think we are going to attract many more comments.

But I am concerned that some people think it is an up-down vote. According to the policy, *"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines."

• "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes."

Well, we succeeded in soliciting a good deal of thoughtful comment. Apparently there is no consensus, but I interpret the comments to mean that (1) the current explanation of "Verifiability not truth" needs work and (2) Blueboar's proposal represents an important step forward. Nevertheless, it is still up to us to discuss how best to make use of the proposal. I believe that with some ammendments, we may be able to address most of the criticisms of the proposal, while also responding to the need for better clarification and guidance.

First, I think it is clear from discussion that V cannot be reduced to RS. Therefore, I would propose changing Blueboar's proposed first sentence to:

• The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia represents significant views that have 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 following paragraph links this policy to NOR. But V and NOR are only two of our three core content policy, each of which supports the others.

Second, I think that there is considerable support for "not truth" but a need to explain it more clearly. This is where there is a need to explain how this policy relates to NPOV. I think if we do this, we clear up much of the confusion over our long-standing slogan. Therefore, I propose adding to Blueboar's proposal a new second paragraph:

• The essense of this policy is traditionally summed up as, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia does not claim that any of the views in its articles are "true," we only claim that they are significant views (which if need be can be specifically attributed), presented in a neutral way. In order to include a view in WP, we avoid arguments over whether they are true or false and instead seek to verify that they are indeed significant, and that we are giving each view due weight, and that we are providing accurate accounts of these views. And in order to verify these things, we look for reliable sources.

Some significant views make explicit claims about what is true or false, or what is fact or opinion, and we include these as views of the truth or the facts. We also avoid distinguishing between facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms, what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white. Instead, we try to assess and acknowledge degrees of controversy. Some propositions are so uncontroversial that we can put them in without citation or attribution. Some things are so controversial that not only must we provide a citation, but a quotation and specific attribution. And between these two extremes may be many degrees. In all cases, it must be possible to verify the views expressed by the article.

Finally, in the new section that Blueboar crafted, I would suggest changing "Assertions of untruth" to "Assertions of inaccuracy" and generally consider changing "truth" or "untruth" to "accurate" and "inaccurate."

It is my hope that combining these proposals with Blueboar's will move us much closer to consensus, without abandoning the work and thought Blueboar put into her proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate time to close?

• I object strongly to your reversion of Sarek's closure. There has been discussion, there is consensus by a very broad margin – and reversion rather than improvement is, frankly, disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  Absolutely and strongly agree with Tryptofish. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is clear that there was a fairly strong consensus in favor of making the changes I proposed (I would not classify the consensus as overwhelming, but it was a clear consensus), and I thank Sarek for closing the RFC and implementing those changes on my behalf. Now... does this mean we must stop working on the policy?... No, of course not. And if Slrubenstein wishes to propose further changes, he is welcome to do so. That's how a collaborative project like Wikipedia works. However,I would respectfully suggest that after almost 6 months of debate, and having finally reaching a consensus on compromise language, now is not the time to consider further radical changes. I think it best to let the issue sit for a while... see how the new, compromise language works in practice... and then, in a few months, we can return to the issue with some perspective and see if we can improve upon what we now have. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, consensus does not mean "unanimus" but neither does it mean "majority" When one third of the people who responded to the RfC do not support the change, it is just folloy to make the change. But I do welcome your point that collaborative processes are ongoing projects. I proposed some changes to wht you wrote, and some additions, but I was also trying to wok with what you wrote. My changes were meant to respond to the comments of the 33% that SarekofVulcan ignored in making her changes to the policy. I understand that some people feel frustrated that, after months of discussion, we have not reached a consensus. But this does not mean that we look for some short-cut, to impose a change without consensus. There is wisdom in keeping the policy as it stands until we reach consensus for a change. Maybe a more efective approach is to break down your proposal to specific parts, and discuss each part separately — yes, I understand that your parts fit together, but the point is we have still not reached consensus and if the RfC did not reach a consensus, we should look for other processes that miggt lead to a consensus.

• • What you call "the new, compromise language" is a radical change. And I do agree with you that we should not be making radical changes. That is, we should not be making any substantive changes without consensus. The purpose of the RfC is to invite comments and we received many comments. Our guidelines tell us it is not a vote. our comments tell us that after we receive commnts, we should discuss the comments to see if they help us reach a consensus. Let's stick to our guidelines. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish and North8000, I can't stop you from repeating, :I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. But your complaints would have some value if you would explain why you don't like it with reference to policy. I quoted the WP:Rfc guidlines. and I am also following our WP:BRD Principle. SarakofVulcan was pretty bold in violating our guidelines in closing the RfC and unilaterally changing the article. I reverted. Now let's discuss. But if you want to discuss, try providing atual reasons' based on policies and guideliness' I quoted the rules, above. You have yet to explain why you don't like editing according to our rules. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am editing according to our rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• The RfC should stay open for 30 days, and there should be final push to make sure it is properly wiki-wide, as you promised it would be, Blueboar. Also, it should be closed by more than one uninvolved admin who is willing to read all the comments. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's been advertised wiki-wide, in the centralised discussion box, linked from here, linked from AN/I too I see. I'm afraid that I don't think waiting to raise this objection until after the discussion's been open for two weeks, extensively discussed and finally closed by an uninvolved administrator is appropriate conduct at all. We have a clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• • If the close has been reverted then surely the subsequent edits to the policy should also be reverted? Roger (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• For what may be the first time I've ever agreed with S Marshall about WP:V, I agree with S Marshall. It looks to me like just two editors are popping up after discussion has been going on for a long time, with listing on WP:CENT, and discussion petering out, to stomp on what many editors have been discussing constructively. And there's an ironic symmetry, considering how some editors who have argued for change were not long ago told to shorten the discussion. But, that said, sure, let's discuss this some more. I doubt that consensus will really change, but there's no harm in more discussion. I say this as someone who was never enthusiastic about making a change, but as someone who also respects consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• And it's been open for a lot more than two weeks. It opened on October 5. It will be the full month in just a couple more days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• The timing of the revert and the sudden shift to purely procedural objections are fascinating. Now that it's gone this way, any attempt to close it before 5 November will be a violation of WP:WW, and the insistence on a multi-admin close increases the likelihood of dissent and a no-consensus close, preserving the status quo. It's frustrating, but you also can't help admire it, seeing this game played by a master.  :)

  But I don't think this can succeed. What's another two weeks? Consensus can change in that time, but I'd be amazed (and very, very suspicious) if there was a sudden flood of opposers now.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I first reverted the closing not because Sarekof Vulcan had closed permaturely (although this was clearly the case) but because Sarek closed in an inappropriate manner i.e. by stating her own interpretation of the outcome as if whe were an uninvold party. This is not the proper way to close an RfC on content. Uninvolved parties summing up the outcome is the procedure for RfCs on conflicts between two editors, not comments on changes to content. With changes to content, an RfC is typically closed thirty days after it was opened or earlier, if consensus has ben reached, and by the person who initiated the RfC.

It is clear that RfCs on content are not substitutes for reaching consensus. They are requests for comments from outsiders, in the hope that these comments will help people working on the talk page to reach a consensus. Once the RfC has closed, our guidelines tell us to discuss the comments, to see if they can help us reach consensus.

We have clear guidelines for how to close an RfC. I just want us to follow those guidelines. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• When you see an important RfC about core policy drawing to a close with fewer and fewer comments (suggesting people may not know about it), you ask for more input, you don't rush to close it early. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin. This is a crucial RfC about core policy that has not been announced widely enough. I didn't know about it until just now, and I've been moderately active. I'm sure there are very many editors that would be shocked this is about to change. --GRuban (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's still not being widely advertised. I added it to several other RfC pages, but the RfC bot is listing it halfway down all the pages it has added it to, because of the Oct 5 date. That is, even though it has been freshly added, the bot is reading it as an old entry. But I don't want to change the date and complicate things. So we do need to get the word out further. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• And now there's a sudden flood of opposers, and accordingly, I'm very suspicious. Response rates in opinion polls don't behave like this. In the three weeks up until this afternoon, we had 66 supporters and 31 opposers for an overall 32% oppose. This afternoon, after the definitely-not-canvassing measures we've seen, we have had 5 supporters and 8 opposers join the debate, or 61% oppose for that period. This could be a statistical fluke, but if it continues, I would see it as a very loudly quacking WP:DUCK for targeted off-wiki canvassing by an editor or editors unknown.—S Marshall T/C 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no off-wiki canvassing, and please stop these allegations. What happened is that people didn't know about it, because it was not advertised widely enough. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, on Oct. 6th (the day we "went live" with the RfC) we advertised it at the Village Pump, at WP:NOR, and at WP:NPOV ... how was this not wide enough? What did I miss? Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You remember what we did for ATT? It was more that kind of thing I had in mind. Certainly at least asking the RfC bot to add it to more pages than just the policy one. And then following up several times whenever you saw comments drying out, to make sure people had seen your notices. And actually telling people in the notices what the RfC was about. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're confident there's been no offwiki canvassing, SV. AGF is not a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the obvious. Blueboar's messages of 6th October led to a consistent 32% oppose rate. Today that's suddenly doubled. Therefore the messages are reaching widely different audiences. You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to see this, do you?—S Marshall T/C 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I find your alleged evidence of off-wiki stealth canvassing to be sadly lacking in AGF. Seriously lacking. Doc talk 11:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Going from a proportion of 8:5 to 5:8 does not seem a big swing - it just indicates that there's a soggy centre. Whichever way round the ratio is, it does not represent a genuine consensus. Rather, it indicates a lack of consensus. If, after all this fuss, we don't have a clear outcome, the matter should be closed as no consensus and we should move on. Warden (talk) 11:51, 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 closure. Colonel Warden is absolutely correct: we do not have consensus. I think the real question is, which of the comments that we received raise constructive points that might help us to reach a consensus? This after all is the purpose of an RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The notice was very broad. But folks who don't like the outcome will say that it was required to hire skywriters to post it in the skies of all of the major cities of the world. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No skywriters could be hired on this budget. It is, after all, run by volunteers. Doc talk 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Blueboar made a good-faith effort to publicize the RfC. But we have not reached a consenus. The purpose of an RfC is to invite comments from outsiders that might help us reach a consensus. As Blueboar points out elsewhere, the RfC mostly reveals that many people are uncompromisingly for getting rid of "Verifiability, not truth," and others are uncompromisingly opposed. Blueboar's interpretation means that the comments we received do not suggst a path to consensus. I word it this way not because I mistrust Blueboar, but because I have not read over all the comments carefully. I believe that the wuality of the comments is more important than the quantity - North8000, in her support, commented that many people express support or opposition without comments because the reasoning has already ben provided elsewhere. Well, that is a good point - but it still means we can disregard those people (on both sides, support and oppose) and focus on the comments that are constructive. I would still like to think that within all those comments, there are some that point towards a way to reach consensus, but Blueboar seems to think not.

This leaves us with a simple choice: (1) we continue the RfC and try to attract more outside comments in thehope that some outsider might actually make a constructive comment that could lead to a consensus involving people on both sides of the issue, or (2) we end the RfC for the simple fact that it is not helping. It was worth a try and I am glad we tried, but if it didn't work, so be it. Tht means we who watch this page just have to seek another path to consensus.

If the question is "remove/keep this iconic phrase" only divides us and does not point to consensus, I propose we change the question. I have suggested that we change the question to, "Can a better explanation of this iconic phrase address the concerns of those who don't like it well enough that we can reach consensus?" If no one else thinks this is worth trying, I invite people to propose other questions we can work on that might lead to consensus.

I have to say I am geting tired of some editors simply shooting down or attacking any suggestion I make. I am not here making any demands. I am making reasonable observations and showing that we have a number of choices in front of us. Is it possible for us to discuss thse choices in a reasonable and respectful fashion? I will agree to any choice people here agree to, as long as it points to the possibility of consensus rather than an attempt to intimmidate people into accepting any change to the policy that is not supported by a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments... first, if you have not done so, please read the rational that accompanies the the proposal. This RfC is an attempt to change the question away from "remove/keep this iconic phrase". And it is an attempt to create a "better explanation of this iconic phrase". You have made some good suggestions... and I agree that they should not be "simply shot down" or "attacked". But this RfC is designed to gauge project wide consensus on a different set of suggestions. Its a case of one step at a time. We can examine your suggestions once we determine what the consensus is on this proposal.

Second, may I suggest that you should actually read the comments. When you do you will discover that the "opposed" comments are fairly evenly split between those who think the compromise goes to far, and those who think it does not go far enough. What that split indicates is that the lack of consensus is among the minority who oppose the compromise. There is no corresponding lack of consensus among the majority who support it (ie the opposed comments tend to cancel each other out... which, I think should give more weight to the support comments). Closing an RfC is not simply a matter of counting heads (although a simple head count is useful information). Actually reading the comments is important. And when you actually read the comments, you discover that there is (currently) a much stronger consensus in favor of the compromise than a simple head count indicates. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate characterizations of the opposes. Who disagrees with who in the oppose column? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An 'oppose' is an oppose, no matter which direction it goes in. If you want to 'compromise', then a newly worded RFC needs to be put into place. Perhaps one that is actually a 'compromise;' instead of this inaccurately worded RFC...it's not a compromise. It's 'out with the old, in with the new". That's not a compromise at all. Dreadstar ☥ 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Any change, however minimal, amounts to "out with the old in with the new." People seem unwilling to discuss any proposals that move the phrase "verifiability, not truth" out of the lead. That's a legitimate position to have, but if it is honest it admits to an unwillingness to compromise, regarding that issue at least. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to read and understand the comments preceeding mine, there are two purported positions in the 'oppose' votes, that's where the compromise is being discussed but not in the 'official' RFC, which denies both sides that are being identified above. Both those purported positions are being ignored in favor of this "out with the old and in with the new" non-compromise. Dreadstar ☥ 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The compromise was between the folks who wanted "not truth" completely out of the policy and the folks who wanted the status quo on that. The statement about a division in the "oppose" folks was saying that there is a group within that group who support the core change but opposed the specific proposed change for other reasons. North8000 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:NOTTRUTH has long been (and still is) one of many shortcuts to this page. After the close of the RfC, I changed it from going to the top of the page, to going to the new section just after the lead. I also put a template box in the new section, showing that it is a shortcut to there. Bob reverted my addition of the box. I fully understand, of course, that the issues surrounding "not truth" have been a matter of contention. (After the ongoing discussions, how could I miss it!) But I think there may have been some misunderstanding in that revert. It's just a shortcut, not a statement, and it refers directly to the language that is prominently featured in that section. Bob's edit summary suggested some other possible shortcut names, and I have no objections to adding those. Unless someone wants to start a deletion discussion for the redirect page, the link still goes here, so I see nothing wrong with telling readers that it does so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a link to the section that includes and explains "not truth" is better. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So do I, but Bob has now changed the redirect so it goes back to the top of the page, which seems to me to be going from bad to worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that although there was previously a redirect of NOTTRUTH to WP:V since 2007,[4] NOTTRUTH was not mentioned as a shortcut on the Verifiability policy page until it was put there today.

Mentioning WP:NOTTRUTH as a redirect anywhere in WP:V would give the contentious phrase more support. The shortcut WP:ASSERTIONS that was recently added should be sufficient as a shortcut without having a shortcut based on the contentious phrase "not truth". Please remember that the title of the section is Assertions of truth and untruth. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, things are still in flux, because as of the time of my edit, the consensus of the RfC has been reverted. But thanks for, at least, explaining your position in talk. I don't buy the argument that the shortcut name does anything to give support to anything other than what the text created by Blueboar says. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth." It means simply that "Wikipedia's discussion of 'verifiability, not truth' can be found here." Having a shortcut is helpful to editors (including those who are reverting the RfC!) who want to point those who say "But my edit is the truth!" to the correct place on this page. In fact, my reluctant support for this proposal was very much based on the understanding that, if the discussion of "not truth" were taken out of the lead, it would still be possible to point readers to where it is discussed. Your current edit, [5], which I believe should be reverted, does nothing about what appears on this page. All it does is (assuming the new text is eventually restored) target the shortcut to the wrong part of the page, forcing the reader to look around for what they were looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I think we share the same feelings on "not truth". But the IMHO new change puts it in a section which clarifies its meaning which reduces the problematic misinterpretations. My thought was that IF a wp:nottruth redirect exists, sending it to that more specific explanation would be less problematic that a redirect to the general policy which could be taken to imply that wp:ver overall is about "not truth". I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What we have now is the WP:NOTTRUTH shortcut shown on the page, but not directing to where it is shown. To me, that makes no sense at all. We can discuss whether the shortcut should be shown on the page or not, but I think it's nonsense to have it direct to the wrong place. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually we should not "discuss whether the shortcut should be shown on the page or not" because removing it would cause thousands of instances of the shortcut on talk pages and in edit summaries to become meaningless redlinks. Roger (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I suppose an argument could be made to keep using the shortcut, but to just not display it in the box on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the shortcut WP:NOTTRUTH should point directly to the section: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Assertions of truth and untruth (as that is the only section of the policy that discusses the issue of truth.)

Lets be logical here... any previous links to WP:V using the shortcut WP:NOTTRUTH were made with the intent of pointing the reader to the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... as that phrase has now been moved to the "assertions" section (and more fully explained), it makes sense to redirect the shortcut there as well. And, we should list it in the section shortcut box so people know it exists as a shortcut. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose addition to policy  Previous evidence over the course of this year has shown that it is not possible to just say "not truth" without massive ambiguity.  On the last day before the RfC, Blueboar objected to the characterization that was being used for the quote, "not truth", in the Rationale; and changed the characterization to "the two words".  So there is already history to guide us.  The current choice is whether to add a massively ambiguous phrase to the policy in an infobox, albeit without the context that would demonstrate ambiguity; or to leave it unreferenced in the policy.  I see nothing close to a compelling reason to add something to the policy that already has a record of associated misunderstanding once it is given a context.  Since [WP:VNT] is already taken, maybe we can find something else, for example, WP:VnotT.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily close the RFC, give people the time to read and discuss and then re-open the RFC

SlimVirgin has been posting notifications about the RFC, asking people to vote soon because the RFC is going to close in days. I think there is a problem here. This invites people to vote based on their gut feelings instead of considering the discussions and thinking deeply about the issue. Particulary the people who would rather keep the "not truth" statement will feel that all is not lost if they are quick to oppose.

But this would undo all the work that BlueBoar has put in to find a good compromize. There is nothing wrong with opposing if you have considered this compromize seriously and then still come out against. But I don't think this is going to happen. We have to remember that an RFC simply on removing "Not Truth" was held previously and that doesn't have consensus, instead you're then stuck in a 50-50 quagmire. The consequence of that was never ending discussions on the talk page.

So, I think the best thing to do is to close the vote for week to allow for new discussions and then re-open the vote for, say, two weeks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would rather suggest that we ask some completely uninvolved editors/admins to help us sort out what to do--anyone who has participated in discussions should probably just sit tight for a bit until we can get some feedback. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Iblis, its not like we're discussing rocket science, world peace, or the G-Spot here. It is just a discussion about a policy change in an electronic encyclopedia. I am quite confident in people's ability to read the RfC and weigh in with an informed opinion in less time than it takes to boil an egg. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is not a vote. It is a discussion. It does not have to be closed for people to discuss. --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, we have discussed, and discussed, and discussed... for almost 6 months now... the RfC was essentially a poll to see what the broader community thought of the compromise that came out of those endless discussions. I would say that the results (as of Sarek's closing) showed that the broader community approved of that compromise. The oppose comments seemed evenly split between a) those who disliked the compromise because it went too far, and b) those who disliked it because it didn't go far enough.

In other words, if we actually read the comments (instead of just counting heads)... the opposition was split between the hardliners who want to keep the "V not T" phrasing in the first paragraph, and the hardliners who want "V not T" completely eradicated. I think this would have been clearer if I had set the RfC up as a three way choice... but I had promised Slim Virgin that it would be a "change or no change" choice, and I do try to keep my promises. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That was not my understanding, BB. You promised a wiki-wide RfC, and a separate section that said "keep the current lead sentence," and listed it. It was very important for neutrality to list that as one of the positive choices people could make. See our discussion here. It was after that that I bowed out of the situation, and only when I saw Sarek try to close it today did I realize that neither of these things were done.

I'm sorry to say these things to you. I know you worked hard on this, but I think this was not well set up, not properly advertised, and it was closed early by an admin who had expressed a view on the key issue during the RfC itself. So this is unfortunate all round. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem... I don't take criticisms personally. I am sorry that you don't think the way I set this up matches your understanding of what we discussed. All I can tell you is that I saw the way I set this up as being what we discussed. In any case, you could have spoken up sooner about this you know. You knew this RfC was in the works well before we went live with it... The phrasing of the RfC and the rational were extensively discussed on the sub-page... so you had plenty of opportunity to "remind" me of what we discussed, and object to the way things were going before we "went live". As for promising you a wiki-wide RfC... that is one promise I definitely kept. This was (and I suppose still is) a wiki-wide RfC... exactly as promised. It was also well advertised - at the Pump, at NOR, at NPOV (see the archives of those pages for October 6th). Blueboar (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When I see "wiki-wide RfC", I immediately think Centralized discussion. Did you add it to CD? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cunard added it to {{cent}} on 6th October, so it's been linked from the box at the top of all the centralised discussion pages since then.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. SV, you were aware of the discussions and I'm surprised that you did not even look at this for the last few weeks--when I've taken breaks from these discussions, I have not completely ignored it. I'm assuming good faith, but Blueboar has a good point that you did have plenty of time to make your concerns known and did not do so. I am also confused by your assertion that there is no "keep the current lead sentence" option--since the proposal is for a specific change in the wording, and lack of consensus or consensus against a change is, de facto, that option. You do have a point about the closing, and I do see that this may take multiple uninvolved admins to achieve a close that will not piss off a very large number of editors. And in general I'm very concerned about some of the heavy handed discussion that has suddenly emerged in these last hours. I find it very frustrating that a process that involved so many editors trying their very best to put forth something that might be an achievable compromise for so long a period of time should be criticized at the last for not having done it right, when there was ample opportunity to make those concerns known early on. But so be it, water under the bridge, and we have to move forward.

The RFC has been advertised widely, and I think the last minute rush is not helpful. Discussions took place over months, and discussion had pretty much died down. It has just been advertised widely again, but I think it unlikely that the editors that have come here in the last few hours have really had sufficient time to look through the discussions and thoroughly consider the various points, and it is certainly the case that the there has not been time look through their thoughts and weigh them.

So, I propose that we let the RFC run for at least another two weeks. That will give everyone time to go through the arguments, weigh the options and we'll see what happens. It addresses the assertions that the RFC is for discussion of general issue (with which I strongly disagree given the length of discussions prior to the forging of the RFC and during the forging of the RFC and the simple fact that the RFC was specifically tailored to try to put these extremely long discussions to rest), and allow time for amelioration of any possible canvassing. If the center is soft, as CW asserts, we have more time to find that out, if consensus is really against the proposal, the extra time should make that clear, and if the needle swings more to the change side we'll see that and have a better notion of what to do. But I think a close after a sudden rush of additional voices would be a bad thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues here and they should be discussed in separate sections: (1) was the RfC advertised sufficiently widely. (2) when should we close it. The guidelines say that it should be closed after 30 days or sooner, by Blueboar, if we have reached consensus. If we agree that it should be advertised more widely, then I would agree to delaying the closure.

But I am more concerned with the fact that, as Blueboar points out, there is no consensus on the key change. It does not matter whether we have discussed it one month, six months, or a year - if we do not have consensus, we do not change the policy.

But I would like to propose a constructive alternative: if there is no consensus about removing the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" perhaps we can keep it in the opening but come up with a clearer and explanation of the principle with more practical guidance about how to apply it. After all, Blueboar's proposal was not simply to remove the phrase from the lead. It also included more explanation. I do not entirely agree with her proposed elaboration but I DO think her effort to provide a better explanation was important and points to an alternte path to consensus i.e. do not remove the phrase, but improve the explanaton.

If efforts to reach a consensus have failed, it just makes sense to try another approach, and that is all I am suggesting. Either way, we won't change the policy without a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The RFC was clearly and explicitly on making a particular compromise wording change. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Um... Slrubenstein... when you say I pointed out that there is "no consensus on the key change"... what are you talking about? I agree that there is no consensus to completely remove V not T... but that isn't what this RFC is about. This RfC is about my compromise language that explicitly (and in bold letters) retains V not T. As of the (perhaps premature) closing, there was clearly a consensus in favor of the compromise. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I apologize. I think I misread what you wrote. I thought you had pointed out that many people are adamantly for getting rid of the phrase and many are adamantly for keeping the phrase. But if this is not hat you man, I was wrong (and I struck out the mention of your name). For me, the larger point is that we didn't reach a consensus.

The purpose of an RfC is to invite outside comment, in the hopes that it produces a consensus or points to a consensus. We have not reached that consensus and I thought that you had noted that we did not receive any particularly constructive comments, constructive meaning reaching a consensus. But if you did not mean this, I apologixe.

I recognize that your intention was to find a compromise. I hope nothing I have ever written expressed otherwise. I just do not think that there is a consensus for your compromise. That is why I see your compromise as a starting point but one that we must continue to revise ... until we reach a consensus (this is my view, but I think it follows the guidelines for RfC and for editing policy pages). I hve tried to propose changes to your proposal that builds on your tempt to reach a compromise, but by tacking a bit in an attempt to move foreward. If my suggestions are not constructive, I hope others will make more constructive suggestions.

What is clear is that our RfC guidelines say that when the RfC closes, we are to discuss the comments. If the comments help us find a consensus, great. If they do not help us find a consensus, well, we just try to find another approach.

None of these comments should be read as questioning your intentions or the importance of your efforts. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe any of us involved in the discussion believe that the compromise will address all concerns, nor that it will fix the policy in stone. As you say, many people are adamantly for getting rid of the phrase and many are adamantly for keeping the phrase, and this proposal is an attempt to bridge those groups. I guess that some of us, and certainly this is my feeling, are a more than a bit frustrated by this last minute bruhaha just as things appeared to be winding down after months of work (and I did not do nearly so much work as Blueboar, North8000, and Tryptofish and other editors who have been deeply involved for a very long time). And from my point of view, characterizing this RfC as a beginning after so much preparation and discussions seems odd. For example, your suggestion, if there is no consensus about removing the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" perhaps we can keep it in the opening but come up with a clearer and explanation of the principle with more practical guidance about how to apply it was one made a number of times, but rejected by those who find the phrase problematic, and that's why the first part is not in proposal, but the second part is. Any number of us supporting the proposal disagree about the core issue, but have come to agree on a compromise to attempt to satisfy others with whom we do not agree, in order that we can move on to other issues, or further refinements of wording.

But given where we are, I repeat that I think we should let the RfC run a while longer, in order to avoid even the appearance of any intention in this recent increase of activity to push the conclusion one way or another. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I thank you for striking. Here is my take on the situation... leaving aside the issue of whether Sarek closed prematurely or not, I think he had justification for saying that there was a consensus at the time he closed. First, a strait head count indicated a 2:1 majority in favor of the compromise under discussion. While not overwhelming, this is more than just a simple majority. Second, if we go beyond just a simple head count, and actually read the comments, we discover that the opposed comments were (at the time) fairly evenly split between those who think the compromise goes to far and those who think the compromise does not go far enough. This indicates that the lack of consensus is among those who oppose the compromise, and no lack of consensus among those who support the compromise. I think there is a very good argument for saying that, to some extent, the opposed comments canceled each other out. This lack of consensus among the opposed comments should, in my mind at least, give more weight to the comments of the majority who support the compromise. We had a solid agreement among the majority who supported and a split in the minority who opposed. In other words, I think that when we actually read the comments, there was (at the time) a much more solid consensus in favor of the compromise than a simple head count indicates.

Now, the decision has been made that the closure was premature and that the RfC should remain open for a few more days... the consensus that existed when Sarek prematurely closed may indeed shift between now and then. But, at the time that he closed I think he was justified in saying that there was a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of the comments, "Everyone" agrees that 'verfiability, not truth' is the goal of this policy, they just don't agree on how to say it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the events of the last day or two has seriously damaged the inegrity of the process. Editors and even admins appear to be "gaming the system" to unduly influence the outcome. A huge amount of effort and thought by a large number of participants in this process has basically been trashed. (I am expressing a serious concern here, not directly accusing any specific individuals.) Due process must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Roger (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How has the integrity of the process been damaged? It's a wiki, that anyone can edit. More editors are now involved in the discussion. When it is closed, then that will likely be the text for awhile, whatever that is. Eventually a (temporary) consensus will be reached, even as to this. There can be no "premature" close, even if one were to try. But that IS the process of a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not if it is properly closed: Not yet consensus; come up with a draft incorporating the good ideas in the comments. See SIRubenstein's comments above. When we have genuine consensus, we will also have consensus that there is consensus - and so no vitriol on how to close it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree a "more lasting consensus," is by defintion the result of a "proper closure." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Our definition of consensus is "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The agitation here comes alarmingly close to claiming that none of the editors who commented with less than total support have legitimate concerns (and that comprehends several of the supports, as well as the opposes).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. That is what some are saying. Regardless, my question was, how was the process damaged? I take it your response, is that there was a premture closure. But that was reversed. So more people are now discussing the merits. So, it seems the process is working. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think the discussions here the last few days were bad, you should have been here over the last 8 months. In regard to the RfC and the preparation for it, I think that Alanscottwalker is correct that the vast majority of edits agree about the intent of the policy, but there's a sharp division between those who believe that the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' helps and those who believes it hinders implementation of that intent. But I do think that closing at this point will serious damage the notion of that the RfC did or did not demonstrate consensus. Some object to the early close, some object to the reopening. I think SV's posts to other noticeboards the last couple of days completely misrepresented the intent and wording of the proposal, although I'm assuming that was sloppiness and not ill intent. And I completely agree with Blueboar when he says there was "a solid agreement among the majority who supported and a split in the minority who opposed", and that consensus existing when Sarek closed. Roger's point about due process is also well taken, and I would like to see the discussions continue in order to avoid even the appearance that there might have been attempts to game the system in this case. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The past is the past (and is not really interesting to me). But as for the future, since you agree with Blueboar, and I don't see it, can you detail who disagrees with who among the opposes? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For example, Fish and karate (talk · contribs) wants it to just say "For inclusion in Wikipedia, all information must be verifiable." Period. Dreadstar (talk · contribs) thinks that "truth, not verifiability" is a perfect way to get a key point across. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And both agree that the proposal does not help. This reasoning, that all must oppose exactly the same way and the support can support in a multiplicity of ways is faulty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Both oppose, period. Try to find an actual compromise in an RFC, eh? This RFC is in no way a compromise, despite it's incorrect titling. And Sarek, I don't think you should be closing any RFC, much less one on Policy. Dreadstar ☥ 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(left) The place to work out a compromise is in the discussion which precedes the next RFC. It is fairly clear what the reservations of the hesitant supporters and the persuadable opposition are; they can be met. Clearer wording may also leave fewer editors with the impression that this is a change in policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaming and consequences

I was unaware of this discussion until today when I logged in and saw the thread at AN/I. From an outside perspective I think there has been irrevocable damage done to the process of discussing this change as a result of an editors gaming the system. I don't think there is a problem with naming names and I think those who have disrupted this process need to answer for these shenanigans. An administrator, who I have myself been very critical of in the past (so I'm not saying this out of some allegiance, trust me), gave up his tools because of the spurious accusations made by SlimVirgin in an obvious political effort to counteract the clearly developing consensus in the RfC which wasn't going her way. For shame.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your side issues with Slim Vigins conduct, whoever that is, don't belong here. You didn't name names, you named one. Yet, you smeared "editors." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"whoever that is?" Seriously? It's the editor who wrote the language in this policy that the RfC suggests modifying, and who started the AN/I thread I linked to above in a transparent effort to derail the changes she clearly didn't want to her own writing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. Whoever that is. Your issues just don't belong here. If want to analyze an editor or administrators conduct, take it to the appropriate forum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You've stated your opinion about that several times now. I don't agree. How many times do you need to me to tell you that? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When you respond with a reason, then we can move on. You want the people on this page to, what, exactly? And what, exactly, is the consequence for the policy this page is suppose to be about? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The consequence is for the RfC, which now cannot be taken seriously anymore. You clearly don't like that idea for your own reasons, whatever those are, but that's the consequence of the damages done by SlimVirgin.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "the consequence is for the RfC" mean? What happens, do you suppose, because of that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the process is damaged and it is due in particular to one editor's actions, which are pretty transparent (I do think that people who are complicit are also to blame but I'll edit my comment to remove others from it ...). Call it smearing if you want, report me for "smearing" someone if you want as well, I don't care. I think it is important to consider these events here where the damaged process is occurring. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How is it important to this policy, does it promote consensus on wording here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is important to know that what is going on here is a product of gaming. It is important because decisions will be made here regarding how to proceed given what has happened. Are you suggesting people should pretend that SlimVirgin hasn't done what she did and that this hasn't damaged the process and that we should just carry on? Because that's exactly what I hope people aren't going to do here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)[6] is directly in contradiction with Wikipedia:Canvassing

However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.

Specifically characterizing the debate as 'contentious' is not a neutral way to present the RfC, additionally posting on AN/I for a request to close looks alot like forum shopping since a request to close had already been made at WP:AN. Crazynas ^t 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

How should we carry on? What's the remedy? Do we have any choice but to carry on? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also not aware of this RfC, and honestly with WP:V being as important a policy as it is, it should have gotten one of those site notices. If it did, it should have been bigger.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That matches my thoughts on this. I see no harm, canvassing or gaming done by SV here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine too. Dreadstar ☥ 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you and I think it's a major problem. When an involved user doesn't agree with the result, then they don't normally get to unilaterally revert a close, extend the debate, change the language used to advertise the debate, change the debate's title, and post urgent messages seeking input from more editors. I wouldn't get away with that behaviour. Why should she?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You're misinformed and confused about the purpose of an RfC. It isn't a timed discussion like a vote. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make SlimVirgin's conduct appropriate, does it?—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

changing the name of the RfC

I noticed that at WP:V an editor had modified the link in "Under discussion".  I backtracked the problem to find that SlimVirgin had changed the name of the RfC yesterday.  I have corrected the name of the RfC both on this page and at WP:V.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't change it again, Unscintillating. Lots of pages have been notified using this title/link. If there is insufficient notification of this RfC, it will be invalid, so please leave it as it is, and let people comment on it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SV, Please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin you changed the title 2 days ago. What gives? Did you consider the links that had been made prior to your change? You do not own this page. I find your behavior here quite disruptive and would please ask you to back off the ownership attitude. It isn't clear to me what the more productive title is at this point, but please recognize that you're bullying people to get your way. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Very few notifications were published about the RfC when it opened, but yes, I did republish in those places, to make sure people know where to find it. There is no bullying here (at least not by me). My concern is to make sure people know this is taking place, know what it's about, and have a chance to comment. It concerns me that anyone would object to that, given that lots of people are saying they hadn't seen any notification of this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Why did you change the title of the RfC? Regarding what you did write, lots of people don't see the notification for lots of discussions. So what? It has been pointed out to you that it was listed at WP:CENT since the second day after opening. Not particularly convincing SV. But that's also not what I asked, and what this thread was about. Why did you change the title, and what makes you think you have the right to do that and to enforce your changed title, weeks after the RfC started?Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO several aspects of what Slim has done on this in the last few days have been problematic. Inventing and unilaterally "enforcing" new rules just because she didn't like the outcome. Edit warring to erase the talk page closure text even when it was left as reopened, inaccurate descriptions of the potential change posted an numerous prominent places, unilaterally undoing the closure, unilaterally undoing the change which was clearly the overwhelming majority view with or without closure. I have not run down the latest yet, but apparent retroactive renaming of the RFC. Why has nothing been doing about this behavior? North8000 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I find the new RFC title to be more accurate and informative than the old one; after all, "verifiability not truth" is the core of the issue. I have to add that less than 70% support for a Policy change does not fit Sarek's close, Consensus requires a "higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." Less than 70%, 75% or even 80% is certainly not a 'higher standard'. For example, Bureaucrat elections have an 85% support threshold - how can major Policy changes have any less? Dreadstar ☥ 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That would have been something to bring up a month ago, not now. It appears to be an attempt to push the RfC in a particular direction, as does the wording of the advertisement that SV posted. I'm still assuming good faith, but these actions are poisoning the discussions, not helping them. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea there was an RFC on this a month ago; and yes it needs to brought up now just as much as a month ago or a year ago. If you find SV's wording on the "advertisement" to be problematic, then make a suggestion on how to change it to be more neutral. There's no doubt that this RFC should have been far more publicised than it was. Dreadstar ☥ 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to, Blueboar did a fine job of that. My point is that instead of acting in a way that was clearly above board, SV has acted in a way that could be interpreted as trying to push a POV. Edit warring over the title of the RfC is a similar action--what discussions took place establishing consensus about that change? SV has complained about Sarek's close because he was involved. She's at least as involved as he. This is a touchy subject, and admins running about like bulls in a china shop are not helping matters any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I dare say the new name is much more straightforward and helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what name is better. The RfC was ongoing, for three weeks when she changed it without discussion, and without regard for any links that might have existed already. I was not aware of this RfC either, but then again I'm not aware of tons of RfCs that go on. Am I supposed to blame the RfC creators or commentators for my own ignorance despite their best efforts to follow standard procedures to get the RfC out there? Clearly not. Do you really condone the unilateral action of one editor to change the name of an ongoing RfC and then to edit war to keep that name change in effect, three weeks into an RfC that has already received boat loads of comments by others who all seemed fine with the title? I highly doubt you believe that is correct as a general principle, and SV has no special privileges in this regard over the rest of us as far as I know. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think I "condone" building the encyclopedia, which always comes first. V not T is one of this website's core policies. I'd go so far as to say it's one of a very few beams which holds the whole thing up, so to speak. I don't see any bad faith here, but somehow, not nearly enough editors were made aware of this discussion over the wording on such a highly meaningful policy page. Come to think of it, I unwatched this page many months ago when all I saw as it (often) flashed by on my watchlist was bickering. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The RFC title does indeed count, the old one was inaccurate and uninformative, through no fault of Blueboar's, it was obvously done in good faith. But the edit warring to keep the inaccurate title in place is not good faith and is just plain old gaming. There's been no reason given for not accepting the change except, "ILIKEIT". That's fine, enjoy. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "publicized" it was:

• Thoroughly publicized on several pages at wp:ver, not only when put up, but for several months prior to that as the RFC-in-the-making as it was developed
• Listed in "centralized discussion"
• Listed at the Village pump
• Listed at several other major policy/guideline pages.

As opposed to when the "not truth" wording (which this proposal merely moves) was put in when it was put in by one person with no request for comment or discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know that's not true, North, so it's odd that you keep repeating it. The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" was not thought of by me, not first added by me, and was discussed on several pages by several people in 2005 before being added at all. And you know this, because you've been shown the diffs many times.

The policy on this page seems to have been "repeat personal attacks often enough and they will become memes." Well, it worked as far as my presence on this page is concerned. You managed to chase me (and several others) away from it, after nearly seven years of helping to maintain it. I returned only because I saw a poorly advertised and worded RfC being closed early by an admin who had expressed an opinion about the issue when the RfC opened. That seemed manifestly unfair, so here I am again. But not for long, so you needn't worry about my continued presence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I must confess that on that last point that I was going by summaries of the history by others rather then personal knowledge. But in any event, how does the degree of input and advertisement for the insertion compare with that of the current RFC which merely moves those two words? North8000 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of one editor's conduct (in one instance many years past) is not productive. The substance of the objection to the change was that it was different, and some links would not work, and the response was that it was more descriptive and those links were fixed, to, in fact, work. So, can we get back to discussing that, if such is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted an anchor {{anchor|RFC - Proposal re first sentence}} into the top of this RfC so (if I did it right) links using the old title will find it. I agree with the new title. I didn't notice this until the title was changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We have two headers now, but I'd like to remove the word "compromise", in line with Anthony's anchor, as this was one of the problems with the RfC. It's not a compromise. North8000 et al want to remove "not truth" from the lead, and this does that. So the title is misleading and I would say POV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a fair point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "compromise" should be removed since it clearly is not that. Dreadstar ☥ 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly was North8000 et al's position prior to Blueboar's RfC? If it was something more radical like, let's say, removing that phrase from the entire entry, then of course this is a "compromise." I'm new to this discussion but I've never known Blueboar to play fast and lose with words like this so I'm having a hard time imagining his RfC proposal not being some kind of mid way point between two different positions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So this is now a 'compromise' between North and Blueboar? Interesting. This is out with the old, in with the new. That's not a compromise, I'm sorry. Dreadstar ☥ 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the working group that came up with this proposal (with which I agree, by the way) have put it forward as a compromise, but the word is loaded, it implies something about "a position that all reasonable parties will agree to" which is inappropriate for an RfC question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The long term difficult discussion that this compromise seeks to resolve is between complete removal of "not truth" from the policy vs. the status quo regarding that. The compromise was to keep "not truth" but move it to the next section with clarification. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: Blueboar "reached across the aisle" on this. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Then let Blueboar once again 'reach across the aisle' and change the name of the RFC as it was originally discussed, yet seemingly ignored, and has since then been opposed. Dreadstar ☥ 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think their point was you aren't making a compromise for everyone, only yourself; you (all) are, in fact, proposing to do something to policy, for everyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Alan. Dreadstar ☥ 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the word 'compromise' is loaded and not neutral, it should not be part of the wording of this RFC per WP:RFC. Why is this such a difficult concept?? Dreadstar ☥ 00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• It arguably poisoned the first run of results, because by saying "this is a compromise," you're implying that people opposing it are unwilling to compromise. In addition, several editors asked that any RfC contain "keep as is" as a positive option in a separate section, so that people could vote in support of current policy, rather than in opposition to a "compromise." So this really has not been handled neutrally, in my opinion. The creators of the RfC seem to want to hide, in the title, and in the description, that it's about removing, or drawing attention away from, "verifiability, not truth." But why hide what you want to do, if you think people will support you? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I removed "compromise" per the above; a compromise between North8000 and Blueboar has no bearing on how RfC respondents should or will view the proposal. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."   Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What other editor's comments were edited? AFAICT, the only thing that was edited was the heading, which is acceptable per Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate. In this case, the new heading was far superior to the original. Dreadstar ☥ 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing it 3 weeks later generally is unwise and I certainly object to doing so. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason that we do not editor other edtior's comments on talk pages is because we do not want to misrepresent the view of an editor. As Dreadstar points out, section headings are generally not used to express one editor's views, they are not signed, and we often change them in refactoring or to clarify the discussion that follows. But the key thing is, the name of an RfC is not supposed to represent any one person's view. We prohibit changing people's comments on talk pages i.e. that which comes before their signature because the change misrepresents their views. Are you and Unscintillating and others suggesting that the name of the RfC was Blueboar's "view?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The compromise wasn't between me and Blueboar. It was put out by Blueboar as a compromise between the two groups there were locked in an multi-month debate on this. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Replying to Dreadstar, as per the section you cited at WP:TPOC, "Section headers" is listed as an example of "other editor's comments".  Unscintillating (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to make this a less rancourous discusion? The purpose of announcements is to attract as many outside comments as possible and WP:AGF means we assume that people will comment on the substance of the proposal, which Blueboar posted at the top of this page. We should assume that all comments are on the proposal itself. We should all be able to agree that Slim Virgin's announcement was made in good faith as an attempt to more widely publicize the RfC. We should assume the same about Bluboar. Wikipedia's procedures and policies (like AGF like NPOV) are all based on the premise that editors with a common purpose, acting in good faith, can have different even conflicting ways of achieving this purpose. In fact, there may be no single bst way to achieve our goal. I realize that some people here are not upset about the actual announcement but the way it was announced. My point is, these arguments seem petty. We would all make more progress if we agreed that we all want to attract as many diverse comments as possible. There is no ned to defend Blueboar, or to justify the original way this was announced, because Blueboar did nothing wrong. And the fact that Slim Virgin had another way of doing it doesn't mean that Blueboar was wrong. At Wikipedia, different ways of doing things does not have to mean "right" versus "wrong." People on both sides have already said defensive or inflammatory ways. If you guys want to go on attacking and defending one another rather than discussing how best to improve articles or policies, so be it but I am writing this with the hope that ir might provide an end to this thread and enable everyone here to move on to more productive activities. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO Blueboar's actions all along have been very cautious, seeking consensus at every step on even the smallest of items, and have not even been in question. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we want to attract as many diverse comments as possible. There are better things for most others to do. The change debated here is not a major Policy change. It involved no change in policy, just a change in the presentation of consistent policy. It is mere semantics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

North is correct above that there was real compromising between large groups, and many efforts were gone to, in order to ensure that it was so. Discussion took place over a long period, and there were even votes on many smaller points, which gave all participants a feeling for what opinions were most strongly held. That was the background to the compromise. Many people with widely varying ideas described Blueboar's compromise as a compromise, including people who did not like it. If that is not a compromise what is? What's more SlimVirgin was aware of that whole discussion. Why does SlimVirgin only participate in this matter on the basis of legalistic procedural claims and actions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"compromise" is a point of view about Blueboar's intentions. I happen to hold this point of vieww; I do think Blueboar's intentions are to forge a compromise, and that her proposal is in her view a compromise. In fact, it is my view that the proposal is a compromise, even if it is one that does not satisfy me. Nevertheless, that I view it to be a compromise is a particular point of view, that not everyone responding to the RfC may share. I don't question Blueboar's intentions, but I don't think that one's intentions are a particularly informative way to describe an actual proposal. After all, as collaborative editors aren't our motives or intentions always to seek some kind of compromise, or at least, often? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

description of the RfC at Template:Centralized discussion

Seeing that SlimVirgin changed the name of the RfC on this page, I started to wonder if there were other confounding edits taking place, and I had to look no further than WP:CENT to see:

• RfC about revising the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability by removing "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

Fortunately, someone else had spotted the problem and beat me to fixing it.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So lets look at what has been done to this RFC in the last 2 days

• Closure was reverted by someone
• Change as a result of the closure was undone by someone
• Proposal was renamed after 3 weeks, and the change retained by edit warring rather than discussion/decision
• Someone put notices out at the pump and 2-3 other policy pages incorrectly stating that the proposal removes "verifiability" from the lead of verifiability
  • Not true Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • At the Pump is says: "There is an RfC here about whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "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."
    • At wp:nor and wp:npov it says: "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." North8000 (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Though there never was a hurry (and no mention of a 30 day rule when the question of closing floated for 2 days), someone promulgated a 30 day rule after the closing.
• Opposes have gone from zero for three days in a row (and a total of 2 in five days) to 18 in one day (and 23 in a 36 hour period) despite not being posted in any new venues except I believe wp:npov.
• Someone modified the proposal itself, deleting the statement of proposed action
• Someone modified the statement at centralized discussion to incorrectly say that the proposal includes removal of "verifiability" from the lead of wp:verifiability

If this type of thing prevails, then what kind of a place is Wikipedia? North8000 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

what kind of a place is Wikipedia? Nomic? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how does this topic helps improve the situation? Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO sunshine on what has been happening always helps. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at another starting point

Quite some time ago another editor wrote:

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.

This was obviously with reference to NPOV. But it seems to me that the first sentence is what motivates many people who support the "Verifiability, not truth" phrase (the third line, too). I do not want to propose anything specific, since my last attempt to propose specific wording (above) gained no traction. But I would like to invite everyone to consider how our Verifiability policy does and should be a support for the approach stated above (NPOV is our one non-negotiable policy, so it seems to me that it is always a good starting point for thinking about our policies). I propose the following: Verifiability is not only meant to prevent OR, it is also meant to provide guidance for people who want to add encyclopedic content in the spirit of the above conviction. I see V as a lynchpin, the guarantee that content added is "encyclopedic."

Blueboar sought to craft a compromise, and I think it is still worth discussing her compromise proposal and the comments it has attracted. So this is not meant to negate Blueboar's work. But some editors have said that we have been discussing this for months without reaching consensus, so it seems to me that nw ideas cannot hurt. That is why I am forewarding this - perhaps this provides another direction, from which we can reach a compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A common implied statement in nearly everything you say is to sidestep that this proposal is for a specific set of changes, and that this proposal already IS a compromise proposal. Also to imply that the results do not show a consensus, and to try to discount or negate this whole RFC and the months of work that led to it. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. I have often found Slrubenstein's comments such as the one he has posted immediately above to be helpful and thought provoking. I would even say that for me the better ones help justify my support of Blueboar's proposal. The Blueboar compromise is not a major change of policy, it is a compromise, and it is very widely agreed with as a wording improvement. It has jumped through a lot of hoops to get where it is. To claim otherwise is at least a minority position compared to most people who have discussed these points at length.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

North8000 keeps identifying herself with Blueboar's efforts at compromise — and then does everything possible to derail or stifle any other discussion, a tactic that is itself uncompromising, inransigent, and disruptive. You are just firghtened of anything that might move discussion away from the ay you want it to move. It must frutrate you a great deal that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Andrew, if you think that Blueboar's proposal is consistent with the above that is great! As I said, I am not forwarding it along with nay specific proposal, but rather as a point for more productive discussion. Maybe if you can convince many of those who oppose Blueboar's proposal that the proposal is fully consistent with this, it will lead them to change their opposition to support &mdasn; I cannot speak for them of course. Maybe others can propose other changes to the policy that along wtih Blueboar's will attract more support. Maybe not. But the fact is, we do not have a consensus. And the fact is, RfC's are supposed to be followed by discussion to reach a consensus. Whatever the actual outcome, my only intention is that the above quote might help move us closer to a consensus. So, thanks, Andrew. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)