Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Notability section

Notability section, tweaking

[subsection inserted above] Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I tweak the writing of the part in bold? Or do we even need it? I had difficulty understanding it when I first read it.

"Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline says that the subject's notability is established by the publication of independent, reliable sources, regardless of whether the names of any such sources have yet been typed into the article.

I assume it means notability depends on whether published sources exist, not whether they've been added to the article. But that's what the first part of the sentence says already. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that's what it means. Considering this is a summary of another policy, if it is to be an actual convenience to readers, it should include the critical points from the other policy. It is a critical point that articles should not be nominated for deletion if nearly everyone knows the topic is notable, even though the independent sources are not cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the recent edit history of the page, it went from this to this. What would the "tweak" consist of? It might be best to put the proposed wording here, in talk, first. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to tweak it, but then realized it doesn't need to be there in the first place. The first part of the sentence says: "the subject's notability is established by the publication of independent, reliable sources." The bolded second clause just repeats that, but in an odd way. No one would assume that, if I created a stub that said only, "Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of England," that the lack of sources on the page at that moment in time would mean Queen Elizabeth wasn't notable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from the editor(s) who made the change about why they wanted to add that wording, before making a decision. I agree that it sounds odd, as written, but I have a feeling (ie, guess) that the idea was to point out that sources can exist even if they haven't been added to a page, so a page shouldn't be deleted without checking for sources first – as though these editors have had experiences where your hypothetical Elizabeth II stub was nominated for deletion (and stranger things do happen). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant, but AFD has significant and persistent difficulties with people who do not (choose to) understand this relatively simple point. Repeating it seems to get the point across more effectively than stating it once. The point that needs to be made is that {{unref}} and {{nonnotable}} are completely separate issues. If you want more formal language (which I've been finding less effective recently), then something like "Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources have been published; it does not require the citation of any sources at all in the article" would probably suit.

There was discussion earlier about removing the entire section, since there's no particular reason to for WP:V to say anything about all about WP:N. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to go back to the previous text, which simply said: "If no reliable secondary source can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That's the only part of the issue that concerns V. It was expanded on August 7, [1] and again on August 8. [2]

If we can't have the old version, I'd like to tweak the new sentence to say: "Wikipedia's Notability guideline says that a subject's notability is established by the publication of independent, reliable sources, not by whether such sources have actually been added to the article." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts... 1) Does not the existence of a tertiary source on the topic (such as an article on the topic in some other encyclopedia or almanac) go towards notability? (if so, we should avoid the word "secondary"). 2) There is a difference between "I can't find any sources" and "No sources exists".

I think the point of this section is to tell editors: "Don't create an article if you (the creating editor) can not find any sources that discuss it"... but it is being misunderstood as saying "I should nominate an article for deletion if I can't find any sources about it". The first is correct... the second isn't. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the original is one diff earlier, and it says not one word about secondary sources. It refers to WP:Third-party sources (aka independent sources), not WP:SECONDARY sources, and as you know, WP:Secondary does not mean independent. A first-party secondary source (and there are many in the hard sciences) does not demonstrate notability.

"Can be found" has unfortunately been interpreted as "can be found by lazy deletionists who refuse to look any further than a section named ==References== in the current version of the article". I suggested "have been WP:Published" last month, and the discussion was de-railed by a long digression by one editor who wanted to ban unref'd articles entirely, and the distraction of the endless not-truth discussion.

Similarly, I'm concerned that "whether such sources have actually been added to the article" may be more susceptible to misunderstanding than "whether someone has typed the names of such sources into the current version of the article". I had a long and discouraging conversation last month with an experienced editor who seemed to have trouble distinguishing between adding content from a published book (e.g., typing "Only 5% of women die from breast cancer" into an article) and actually WP:Citing the book (=typing the author's name, the title, and the date into the article), so my belief in the average editor's ability to understand plain English is at an all-time low. Someone might well think that "adding sources to the article" referred to including the full text of primary sources rather than to typing up the author, title, date, and publisher for any source that you used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For years it said "third party sources," and that would be my preference. But someone recently changed it to secondary sources, and I don't mind that either. The only concern I have is extending it to say things covered by the guideline. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The long-standing version was "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" (e.g. here). I also wouldn't mind: "If no reliable secondary or tertiary sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." But I don't see the need to say more than that here. The details are dealt with in the Notability guideline. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think these comments by both Blueboar and WhatamIdoing are very helpful to me in understanding the issue. Perhaps the key issue, then, is the wording about whether WP "should" have an article on a subject. That does, indeed, sound like an invitation to lazy AfD. Instead, maybe the wording should be about whether "content" (as opposed to article) should be "added" (as opposed to exist), with the "added" part what is most important. What I mean is to frame it in terms of adding material, as opposed to responding to material previously added. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go back to third party sources, as the issue of the independent coverage is pretty essential. And I concur with Tryptofish's last observation. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How about: What matters is whether such sources exist, not whether the article presently cites them.? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So, delete the bolded part above, and add that sentence in its place? I like that. I think it's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability section, WP:V is content policy

WP:V is content policy, see WP:N#NNC.  If the purpose of the notability section in WP:V is to repeat parts of the WP:N guideline, the section can be deleted.  Blueboar has mentioned that "the language...originally...was meant to relate to how the concept of WP:Verifiability could be applied at the article level (as opposed to a sentence or paragraph level)."  Given the burden of deletion at Wikipedia, I think we need to be moving in the direction of encouraging more sourcing by article creators, which in the absence of new proposals is best done by leaving the current language.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Its a guideline not a policy. Lets not mix the two up. I say eliminate that section altogether. Its also misleading because it only covers the GNG, when if you click on that link it says an article is notable if it meets the GNG OR one of the secondary guidelines listed on the right. Dream Focus 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Two points: first, the policy now says that the GNG says something that I can't find it saying. Does anyone have a link to where the guideline says this: "that the subject's notability is established by the publication of independent, reliable sources (regardless of whether the names of any such sources have yet been typed into the article)"?

Secondly, a bit of historical context. This policy contained the sentence about "no third-party/secondary/reliable sources = no article" in some form since at least Feb 2006, six months before the Notability guideline was created. So this sentence of ours—"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"—[3] is a verifiability issue, entirely independent of whatever the Notability guideline might say. We therefore shouldn't say anything here that implies this policy follows that guideline. That's why I think we ought to return to that one stand-alone sentence without elaborating. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering where that sentence got to - that's a very critical sentence that outlines fundamental verification policy. That needs to be put back in. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That a notability issue was described here when no other suitable page existed does not mean that "we should not have an article" is actually a matter of verifiability rather than notability. It could merely be a legacy of what seemed convenient at the time.

I do not believe that this sentence deals with verifiability. Material can be 100% verifiable without coming from a third-party source—exactly as this policy has said for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is the can be found part. It's find to use first-party, dependent sources as long as they are reliable (SPS comes into play here, for example), as long as we know there also exist third-party sources that discuss the topic; the first party source may be the best source to use in that case (such as using the award organization's list of winners on their webpage than a newsreport reporting the same - the key is that the newsreport has shown interest in it. Without any third-party sources in existence, a topic has no relevance to anyone but those directly involved with the topic, and thus there's appropriateness for an article on that topic. That's a key aspect of verifyability, that someone else has at least considered the first party source as factually correct. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that we made a mistake in trying to tie the sentence in question directly to the WP:Notability guideline. I think the original intent of the sentence was to say:

• If no Verifiable information exists on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

While that idea is similar to the concept of notability, it isn't quite the same. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I have no idea why the idea was tied to notability. "Third party" source is one, by definition, would have had to do some research to validate the facts since they were not privy to the first-hand details; the more reliable that source is, the more fact-checking they have likely done. Requiring that some third-party sources exist is a basic metric for verification of a topic, and has little to do with notability which is more about how deeply that topic is covered in sources as to make for a good encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That sentence was never meant to be tied directly to the Notability guideline. It spent a lot of its life under Burden of evidence. I moved it not long ago to a subsection called Notability under the "Verifiability and other principles" header, but the intention was not that it derived from the Notability guideline. Perhaps we should simply move it back to Burden of evidence to break that connection. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability section, proposal to put sentence back under "Burden of evidence"

The proposal is to delete the notability section and move the sentence back to the "Burden of evidence" section.  The sentence is:

“ If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ”

• Support  Unscintillating (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support retaining that sentence and not elaborating further about notability; and I have no objection if it's moved back to the "Burden of evidence" section, and the Notability subsection is deleted. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Aye.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Moving it works for me. I still strongly prefer that "can be found" be replaced by "have been WP:Published", to alleviate the problems that AFD is reporting with a small number of editors who apparently want to believe that "can be found" means "can be found without me needing to look any further than the ==References== on the current version of the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only interpretation of "topic" for which this statement is correct (never mind which policy it belongs in) is the article as a whole. But it would be too easy for people to interpret as the topic of a specific addition, or a topic that is broader than the article. Also, the statement only belongs in the notability policy, or a summary of notability in this policy. It is not a statement about verifiability. I could give a perfectly verifiable statement about the location of a state highway culvert, from a first-party source (the state highway department). The reason for not having such an article is that nobody cares, not a lack of verifiability. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with notability, that's the thing. A lack of third-party sources means we have no assurance on the reliability and verification of the information on the topic, and thus should limit its coverage from "none" to "part of a larger article". --MASEM (t) 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• A Supreme Court decision is a first-party source, but is absolute proof of the decision. It is certainly verifiable, although there are many reasons, which fall outside this policy, why reporting just the decision would make for a bad article. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• But at the same time, a SC decision will be covered by third-party sources as well, even though we'd likely to use the actual decision for sourcing statements about that decision. The issue is when only first-party or second-party sourcing is available. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• A SCOTUS decision is not a first-party source for everything. It is a first-party/affiliated source for the new decision it contains, but it is is a third-party source for (e.g.) any prior court case the decision describes, laws it mentions, facts relevant to the specific case, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, SCOTUS is a part of the US government, so is a first party source for its own decision, and any federal court decisions, quotes from federal prosecutors, federal legislation, etc.

• No, that's not enough to make them first-party. SCOTUS is a first-party, primary source for what SCOTUS says; it is a third-party/independent source for what some independent branch of the federal government, i.e., the Executive or Legislative branches, says. And it's certainly not "affiliated" or first-party with respect to the claims put forward by the opposing sides in the case. When they wrote in Brown v Board that "This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment", SCOTUS was not a first-party source for that material. (Primary, yes. Affiliated, no.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would say an appellate court is a secondary source when describing the evidence placed before a lower court, and it's a primary source when discussing the arguments made before it, and its own decisions. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• If it merely repeats what was said by someone else, then it is not a secondary source. It's not merely a matter of counting up chains in the link. If I quote Masem, and you cite me, then that's still primary material, even thought your step is third-hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - the removal of this line drastically changes how WP:V is to be applied. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• That sentence is about notability, not verifiability, so it does not belong in WP:V. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence is not about notability, it is about the existence of third-party sources to provide an unbiased and reviewed facts about a topic, needed for WP:V. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Here is what the first paragraph WP:Notability says about the sentence.

"... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics."

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • Third-party sources are only needed to show notability. An article written using entirely first-party sources (e.g. a biographical article using only a published autobiography by the subject of the article, or an article about a scientific experiment sourced only to a reliable, peer-reviewed paper where the experiment was published) could meet WP:V without meeting WP:N. There are many reliable first-party sources (and unreliable third-party sources). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Such an article would violate V, because of the lack of at least one reliable third-party source. The point of requiring this is to make sure someone other than the primary sources (the authors) deem the material worthy of comment; the requirement is also in place to avoid OR. The requirement has been in this policy (a core content policy) for years, since before the Notability guideline existed, and was regularly acted on. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, WP:V has nothing to do with "third-party" sources, that is purely the domain of WP:N. It may be that this policy had language about notability before WP:N existed, but that is years in the past and no longer relevant. Now that WP:N does exist, we have a distinction in policy between verifiability and notability: it is possible to have a verifiable article on a non-notable topic, and an unverifiable article on a notable topic. These independent considerations are covered by separate policies, and language about notability doesn't belong here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• N is a guideline. V is a core content policy. It has been the case for as long as I remember that articles had to be based on reliable secondary sources. We are meant to offer an overview of the literature, and to do that a literature has to exist, at least in the minimal sense that a third-party source—someone other than the primary source and the Wikipedian who created the article about it—has deemed the issue worthy of mention. That's not just an N issue. It is a V and NOR issue, which is why this policy has included mention of it since at least 2006.

  You can't (by definition) have an unverifiable article on a notable topic, and I can't think what a verifiable article on a non-notable topic would be. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mostly, I agree with SV's analysis, but it is certainly possible to have a verifiable article about a topic which is non-notable for encyclopedic purposes. Millions of newspaper pages of "society events" and such drivel have been published, rendering the parties described verifiable. Some of these were even written by reliable journalists. But the parties would not on their own merit be notable topics for WP, would they? There needs to be a little more to it if we don't want Emma Smith's 1875 cotillion in New York City. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:N is only a guideline, not a policy, because if a separate article is created on something that is non-notable but verifiable, no great harm is done (provided other policies, such as NPOV, are followed). Another way of saying this is that if a few facts that really belong as a heading in a broader article are instead a separate article, this is merely a guideline non-compliance rather than a policy violation. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Apart from society events (like LeadSongDog mentions) another way to get a verifiable article on a non-notable topic is to take a paper in some academic journal, on a topic that has only ever been studied in that one paper, and write an article that directly summarizes the results of the paper. We often delete or merge articles like that for lack of notability, but nobody argues that they are unverifiable if every claim they make is literally present in the paper being used as a source. Regarding "You can't (by definition) have an unverifiable article on a notable topic, ...", that brings out the fundamental difference between WP:V and WP:N. N is about the article topic, independent of its actual content, while V is about the actual content, independent of the worthiness of the topic. These should be treated separately, which is why we have separate pages for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in tying ourselves in knots, because this isn't rocket science. If someone creates an article on "John Smith's fishing technques," it needs a source that isn't My Fishing Techniques by John Smith, or Smith's wife's blog. That is, we need a reliable, published third party—not John Smith and friends, and not the Wikipedian who created the article—to tell us (a) that this issue is worth mentioning, and (b) what kind of thing we should saying about it to avoid OR. That's the only issue that V has ever commented on. All the details belong in N. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We both agree that article needs another source besides that one. But I am saying that fact belongs in WP:N, not here, because it is not related to whether the material that is included in the article is verifiable. Knowing whether "the issue is worth mentioning" (that is, whether we should have the article) is entirely a WP:N issue. The other thing you mentioned seems like an NPOV issue. If Smith's book is the only source in existence, then (essentially by our wiki definitions) its viewpoint is the NPOV viewpoint on the matter, and descriptive claims taken from it are verifiable and not original research. My response to the RFC is that this policy should stick to verifiability, not repeat things that belong in other policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree, actually. Per WP:SELFPUB, a primary source is a perfectly good source to V itself and the basic facts about itself. I have a dictionary here. I don't need a third party source to tell me that it exists, nor what year it was published. I can cite the primary source itself. That's neither enough to 1) comment on specific controversies, awards, etc. or 2) demonstrate notability. But the "we need secondary sources to meet V!" mantra is just not correct. No matter what the particular wording of V is changed to, it doesn't make sense to say that a published work is not an authoritative source on its own existence and publication date. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just meant that article needs more sources to meet WP:N. I agree with what you said. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To take the example of "John Smith's Fishing Techniques", if the only sources are the book and the blog, we have way to consider if this source is even close to reliable, working on the assumption that John Smith here-to-date was a unknown person. Ergo, without any third-party addressing the book, we cannot even assure it meets the basic "verifiability, not truth" aspect. Maybe the entire book is a work of fiction published as a non-fiction title, maybe it plagiarizes Joe Jones's Fishing Techniques, we don't know. We'd not be able to verify that what John Smith has written actually took place; we'd only have John Smith's word on it, which is not sufficient. A reliable third-party source that would at least consider the work, determining if the account is legit or not but without otherwise introducing additional analysis (eg a primary third-party source) would at least provide something towards verifiability. Furthermore, a third-party source would still show the work existed even if only ten copies were made and destroyed without the original text surviving; without a third-party, in such a case, even if you can remember the general ideas of the text in your head, there's no way for any other user to validate it, ergo, it would fail. However, even for a published book, there is nearly always an ISBN number, and therefore some record of the book's existence in a third-party catalog (maybe LOC) even if that is just a primary source.

Note that this is nothing about secondary, transformative sources. Third-party != secondary. WP:N asks for secondary sources as a basis to build a good encyclopedic article. WP:V asks for third-party so that we know we're putting in facts that the reader can check themselves. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Masem commented, "WP:V asks for third-party so that we know we're putting in facts that the reader can check themselves."
• The subject sentence is, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
• And here is the subject sentence in the first paragraph of WP:Notability, "... if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics."

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An ISBN catalog is not a third party source, nor is a library catalog. Those help Wikipedians locate the primary source, but that's essentially it. I could probably get an ISBN for my cat (if I had one, which I don't), and then get it cat-aloged (ha ha) somewhere, but those entries wouldn't prove the existence of a work: the ability to look up, purchase, check out, or otherwise acquire the primary source for verification is what's really happening, and catalogs and listings are merely aides to that end in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This seems to have consensus, so I'm assuming we can go ahead and do it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So long as "this" still refers to the proposal at the top of this sub-section ("to delete the notability section and move the sentence back to the "Burden of evidence" section"), then I think you're right about the consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Time to centralize discussion

STOP... it seems that there is a debate at GNG that is centered on what this policy says about notability.... and a debate here that is pointing to what that guideline says. I suspect that both pages are being improperly edited in order to skew the debate at the other page. Please, do not edit one policy or guideline in order to win a debate at some other policy or guideline page. Instead, we need to create a centralized discussion so editors on both pages can reach a consensus as to what should be said on both pages. Given this confusion... I am going to revert both pages back to their last stable versions while we centralize the discussion and reach such a consensus... I suggest that WT:Notability is the better venue for that discussion. Once we figure out what the notability guideline should say, then we can come back and make any edits to this page that are needed. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith! First off, different people are editing these articles. The debates for each page should be on that article's talk page, not mixed together. Dream Focus 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK... I suppose it is possible that it is not a deliberate thing... but the problem remains... both discussions are pointing to similar bits of language that exist in the other policy/guideline page. Neither page can have a meaningful discussion or resolution when both sections are being edit warred over. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing "not truth"

I plan on removing the not truth from the beginning paragraph. Below is my current proposal. I plan on editing the article in one week unless someone can explain why the not truth helps make wikipedia better.

Old:

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.

Proposed New Text:

The goal of Wikipedia is truth, to whatever extent that word has meaning. This is achieved by making it possible for readers to verify statements in the article. Therefore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors claim that it is true.

I have a hypothetical question: which would you rather have: a unverifiable encyclopedia that was always true, or a completely verifiable encyclopedia that was always false? I would rather have the true encyclopedia. Of course, the choice is a false one, since an unverifiable encyclopedia anyone can edit will quickly get full of false information, and if it is easy to verify, false information can be weeded out much quicker. The first non-stub version [4] had: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete, accurate encyclopedia. We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which cannot be verified." The current version does not mention that the whole purpose of verifiability is that it helps make wikipedia more accurate. Jrincayc (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you aren't so much removing 'not truth', as adding 'truth'. Confusing, contradictory, and containing a logical fallacy. One moment you are suggesting that the word 'truth' may have no final meaning, and the next you are stating outright that Wikipedia achieves 'truth'. I think you had better think again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence needs work but overall this does a much better job than the current wording. And correct information (to whatever extent that has meaning) IS the objective. Verifiability is a means to that end. Many folks try to reverse-engineer a mission statement out of wp:ver wording, (and end up with things like sourcing being the end rather than the means) such is backwards. North8000 (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I think if you re-read you'll see that the wording was actually that the goal of Wikipedia was truth, not stating outright that Wikipedia achieves truth, as you said. I'm sure that was just an oversight. As far as wording goes, I;d prefer this: The goal of Wikipedia is verifiable truth, to whatever extent the word "truth" can have meaning in that context." Second sentence seems OK in my view. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I like your wording. Jrincayc (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, of course.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest an end to these constant proposals to remove this, since it has become clear from many earlier discussions that this will not fly. Asking the same over and over again until one day you get lucky is not really the same as achieving consensus. Fundamentally, the goals of wikipedai is not truth, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide a compendium of what is the currently accepted knowledge, a summary of what we (the world, and the scientists in it) currently know. Whether what we know is the truth (or a truth) is not relevant to this aim at all, searching for the truth is what researchers do, we just compile, summarize, present the information. Hence "verifiability, not truth". Our mission is not to present correct information, that would make WP:OR invalid. Our mission is to present information that others (experts) have agreed on as being the most correct currently available: whether they are right or wrong is not our problem, nor our mission to find out. Fram (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The trouble with that view, Fram, is that it rewards the behaviour of those who either (a) refuse any significant compromise at all or (b) refuse to take part in the discussion at all, but revert any changes, while punishing the behaviour of those who engage on the talk page. There are conduct issues on this page.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Conduct issues should be dealt with separately, and have no bearing on my view. As for a "significant compromise", I have tried to find one in the past, but the trouble is that those people who incorrectly believe that the truth is our actual goal can never support any version of "not truth". Fram (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, there's the problem all right: the phrase "those people who incorrectly believe that the truth is our actual goal". Personally, I have no patience at all for those who think we should tolerate an encyclopaedia full of lies. I think the whole point of an encyclopaedia is to present readers with short, distilled versions of the published, mainstream view of each topic, as established by reliable sources. And you can't decide which source is most reliable without deciding which is most likely to be the truth.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lack of "truth" does not necessarily implies "lies" though, it may well be uncertainty or incompleteness. "you can't decide which source is most reliable without deciding which is most likely to be the truth." No, not what is most likely the truth, but what is most commonly (in scientific or mainstream circles) accepted as the current approximation of the truth: no one has to agree that that is the truth, but they have to accept that that is the version we will present here. E.g. evolution: editors don't have to believe that evolution is the truth when compared to creationism, even if not all the details are known: but no one is allowed to remove verifiable scientific info from the evolution article because it is not "the truth". We are not interested in truth vs. lies, and if you think along those lines, you are starting from a wrong position, and introducing either original research or personal bias (religion, morality, ...) into articles. Fram (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, wording suggested completely undermines NOR, and we've been over this many times. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In my mind, No original research, and verifiability are separate issues. The goal of the verifiability page is verifiability, that is making it easy to check that something in Wikipedia is accurate. Jrincayc (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite... the goal of verifiability is to make it clear that whatever we state in Wikipedia is stated accurately... this includes accurately presenting note worthy minority opinions and material that we may think is inaccurate. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that presenting note worthy minority opinions is important. The majority view is not necessarily the truth, and wrong views can be historically important. Jrincayc (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that about half the folks in the large RFC wanted to completely remove "not truth" , and presumably a larger amount would support a smaller-change compromise (e.g. that leaves those words in but mitigates their unintended non-policy negative effects) the "100% status quo" folks who have actively stomped out any compromise can take responsibility for the inevitable and reasonable continuation of the discussion on this. They should certainly certainly not complain when such occurs. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with "reasonable continuation of the discussion", I have problems with people still misunderstanding some of the basics of Wikipedia and restarting the discussion from that position. Additional explanation of why "not truth" is added and what it means, fine: but simply removing it (or,as in this case replacing it with nearly its opposite), never. It is a fundamental part of the actual purpose of Wikipedia that we don't pretend to bring you the truth, but that we are a collection of information from other sources. We try to accurately represent and summarize the opinions, the research, the knowledge of experts in a field; we don't judge whether that information is, in fact, really accurate or not. Note that an earlier proposal (from June 2011) to stop discussing this fior a few months actually had majority support (3-2). Fram (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - for all the reasons I have stated multiple times over the last four or five months of discussion. In any case, when it comes to allowing "truth" to be a metric for inclusion, my answer remains a resounding "no". As for compromise... over the last few months, there have been numerous attempts at compromise (some of which I proposed) not all of them have been rejected by the supporters of "not truth"... a lot of them were rejected by either North or S Marshal (or both). There are two sides to this coin. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let me say it loud and clear: Wikipedia does not seek the truth. Which does not mean that it welcomes lies or deceptions. Contrary to common belief, the boolean values of "true" and "false" do not work at all topics and circumstances. In maths, a statement must be true in all cases to be a truth, and a single counterexample is enough to prove it false. In social sciences, it is not so simple. In other topics, we can't say the truth because we don't know which is the truth, such as in cases of clasiffied information, or things that science has not discovered or explained yet. In those cases, requesting that the article reflects the "truth" conceals ambitions of imposing a point of view or making original research Cambalachero (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does seek accurate information, to the extent that accuracy exists / is relevant. Why else would the sourcing requirement exist? Do it exist to get true information, false information (which by most definitions is not information) or the ultimate circular logic, is the mission of sourcing requirement to categorically get sourced information, including false sourced infromation? North8000 (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not limit itself to "accurate information"... it seeks to present information accurately. Creationists are never going to accept that all the information presented in our article on Evolution is accurate, but since the information in that article is verifiable, they will have to accept that it is presented accurately. Conversely, a scientist is never going to accept that all the information presented in our article on Creationism is accurate, but since the information in that article is verifiable, they are going to have to accept that the information is presented accurately. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A collision between faith and science on "matters of fact" is the ultimate quandary for nice people. I go anywhere but there. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So do you consider the wrong score on the ball game to be "information"? North8000 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If we have only one source, and thet presents the "wrong score", and you were at the age and know the right score, tough luck, but you are not allowed to replace the wrong score with the right score (and you have no reliable means to prove that you are right and the source is wrong: your score is the truth, but it is not verifiable: the other is verifiable, even if it is not the truth). If, on the other hand, you have one source with the wrong score, and many with the right score, then the many win. As always, for grey areas, use the talk page and find a consensus. Fram (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You are answering "what to do" which was not my question. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "wrong score" can indeed be information, sometimes very important and note worthy information... we actually have at least one article that is all about a "wrong" score (not in a ball game... but the analogy is apt). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's an article with correct information about a piece of false information. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While wikipedia theoretically does not seek the truth, it often does a better job of finding it than other methods. For example, I posted an article on patents on kur5hin, and several mailing lists, and then referenced these on Wikipedia. It was in Wikipedia that my mistake [5][6] on handling patent continuations and divisions was caught. I would also like to make the comment that achieving verifiability is not a goal that really motivates me. Achieving truth is a goal that motivates me (and I am willing to work on making sure that the truth I achieve is verifiable). Jrincayc (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying question. I would like to pose a question to the "not truth" proponents to see if there is an underlying conflict outside of the term. Let's say I'm the only editor on a ship article. I want to put in the length of the ship. The only wp:RS I found in my limited time had a figure (3,100 ft long) which I know to be false (implausible). So I decide to put NOTHING in about the length. Would you say that I just violated a principle of Wikipedia? I didn't violate any policies, but I did violate several common chants like "our job is to just summarize what RS's say". North8000 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you know it patently to be wrong, either simply don't include it, or attribute directly in the text who made that claim, and let them be wrong. Given a figure so out of whack with common sense as that lenght, I wouldn't include it at all. But say it was the difference between the claim of a 1000 ft length boat to the actual 500 ft length, which is at least in the realm of possibility, then I would include it but again, specifically mentioning who claimed this. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Masem, I posed a question to see if there is an underlying conflict outside of the term. This could provide a tiny step forward rather than trading and parrying talking points forever. You answered "what to do" instead of my question. If you (and other propoents of the term) are willing to answer my "Would you say that I just violated a principle of Wikipedia" question as written I think it might be helpful. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, no... you have not violated a principle of Wikipedia by omitting the ship's length... We are not required to include every iota of verifiable information. In fact there are multiple polices and guidelines that explain about times when we shouldn't include verifiable information. For example, when including it would give undue weight to an overly fringe viewpoint, or when it could be considered trivia, or turn the article into a collection of indiscriminate information. However, an assertion of "but it's not true" is not a valid reason to omit... just as asserting "but it's true" is not a valid reason to include. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. But (assuming that you are implying that "not a valid reason to omit" is based on a Wikipedia principle) doesn't the second half of your response conflict with the first half? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a conflict; it's knowing when to include and omit information given how much it is present in the sources. If only one book out of hundreds gives the length of the ship and the length is patently wrong, omission is fine to avoid given excess weight to the issue. If 90% of the books give the wrong length and discuss this length in depth, but no other source counters that information, it would not be appropriate to omit, but wording can be carefully chosen to put the onus of doubt on the wrong fact ("Several reports give the length as X (ref ref ref))". But I think this comes down to the idea that just because something was published does not require it to be included in the WP article, but must judge the weight to which the sources cover this; if the sources give a lot of weight to a wrong fact, we should be mentioned the fact as presented by the sources but not attempt to counter it with our own OR. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, my example was highly simplified (there was no dispute, nor even other editors, there is no wp:npov balancing situation involved, so "weight" doesn't kick in, I only found one source, it was a piece of information that I was seeking (= stayed out via a specific decision) and so the only real factor in the "exclude" decision was my judgment that it was false/implausible.) I recognize that if any of those other factors were present, "excluding" might often be improper. (for example, in a wp:npov balancing situation, wp:undue would kick in and override it and probably dictate inclusion) The key point is that unlike wp:ver (which says that my opinion that something is true is irrelevant if wp:ver is not met) it IS valid to take into consideration the editor's belief that it is false when deciding whether or not to exclude material. Note that I said just take into consideration my belief-in-falseness, not that my belief-in-falseness should rule. Do you agree/disagree with me on this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Within reason. It would be improper for me, if I really really really really hate the movie Casablanca, to omit the opinion from several sources that it is considered one of the best movies of all times. But that's one person; I'm not the only one writing the article. If the argument is taken at the level of group consensus, and the consensus' opinion of belief-in-falseness, then it makes more sense. This would include the case where a notable but obscure topic (like some of these ship articles) may have one author (where "consensus" is that one author until more join), while the film article could have hundreds (and thus "consensus" is clearly of the entire group). It likely depends overall on the actual article and topic, the sources that are saying the false information, and to the degree that it is taken. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is technically about what you include, rather than what you do not choose to include. If only one source exists, and that source says 3,100 feet, and you rationally believe that is wrong (as it would be double the length of the longest ship in the world), you may use WP:Editorial discretion to skip it. You may not, however, add some other number that cannot be found in any source—even if you visit the ship and take a tape measure to it—and then say WP:But it's true!, so it meets the threshold for inclusion. Merely being true does not meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both of you 100%. Now, I think that the main concern / problem expressed by S Marshall and myself (just picking 2 people, S Marshall, correct me if I'm wrong,and other please chime in) is that it is widespread in Wikipedia to say that it's improper to even take into consideration claims of falseness (=even allow them into the conversation) in conversations about exclusion of material. My focus is that such is widely done as a tool in POV wars, and S Marshall's focus (as I understand it) is that this is done to force inclusion of fringe material. More to come. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As an illustration of this, let's logically analyze two widely used/accepted statements, taking them in the context of a "battle":

• "Our job is not to decide what to put in, it is (just) to summarize what RS's have said about it." Logically, this encompasses some things that we all agree with. (verifiability as a requirement for inclusion, how to proceed in wp:npov-balancing situations) but it also overreaches into saying other things that are not. For example, it logically includes a statement that opinions of falseness of the material can never be even taken into consideration in discussions about possibly excluding material.
• "Revert removal of sourced material" In the context of a battle situation, this is implicitly a statement that being RS'd is a sufficient condition to allow somebody to force it's inclusion into an article.

Do you agree / disagree with: 1. The logic of the above? 2. That it is a common problem? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose First, it's not broke, don't fix it. Second, I'm categorically against anything that can be used to give undue weight to fringe theories whether they be truthers, birthers, deathers, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The main objection to "not truth" is that it gives undue weight to fringe theories. It's been exhaustively discussed above how the phrase "not truth" benefits the young earth creationists, the climate change deniers, and other bizarre nutters by giving them a licence to add anything that's been published to an article.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Giving proper weight to fringe theories is not the province of WP:V. If you're finding problems with UNDUE weight being given to fringe theories, then you need to go fuss at the folks working on the WP:UNDUE policy. WP:V needs to maintain its scope as not being the policy about the neutral point of view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Marshall: I have no idea where you're getting that from.
• User:WhatamIdoing: Policies can't be viewed in isolation. If someone is proposing watering down WP:V to the benefit of fringe theories, they should also propose how to strengthen WP:NPOV. I don't see that here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Quest, what is happening here is the opposite of what you suggest... the proponents of change are proposing altering WP:V to the point that it would contradict WP:NPOV... by allowing editors to delete potentially relevant and verifiable information reflecting minority viewpoints purely on the grounds that they think the information is "untrue". That is not acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and am tired of this perennial discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal as written, and see nothing being accomplished by this tiresome discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I cannot support the proposal as written either. The point is not (as some have suggested) that Wikipedians as people don't value the truth, the point is that under the conditions in which Wikipedia is produced, it cannot be the truth. It is dangerous, muddled thinking to pretend otherwise. And when I say "the truth", I mean what is most commonly accepted by experts as the current approximation of the truth. Wikipedians are not even equipped to deliver that. There is no scholarly rigour in Wikipedia. However I do think that the policy needs additional explanation, and I thought Fram's comment was very good:

  "I have no problem with "reasonable continuation of the discussion", I have problems with people still misunderstanding some of the basics of Wikipedia and restarting the discussion from that position. Additional explanation of why "not truth" is added and what it means, fine: but simply removing it (or,as in this case replacing it with nearly its opposite), never. It is a fundamental part of the actual purpose of Wikipedia that we don't pretend to bring you the truth, but that we are a collection of information from other sources. We try to accurately represent and summarize the opinions, the research, the knowledge of experts in a field; we don't judge whether that information is, in fact, really accurate or not."

I would support another amendment to the policy based on this. Rubywine . talk 22:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current text "verifiability, not truth" is very useful guidance to the intended audience of this page. "Truth" and a nebulous, debateable, contentious concept that is not suitable as in intial goal. "Verifiability" is a well defined concept that we can agree on. "Verifiability". Before suggesting such changes, please ensure that you are familiar with truth and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Cambalachero states it very well above, as does Rubywine (I'm sure others have also of course, these are just the ones I noticed immediately that reflect accurately my opinions). We need to be explicitly clear that Wikipedia is not about somehow magically delivery the truth to its readers. It's an impossible goal for many potential article subjects even under the best of conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What various people fail to get is that "verifiability" is just as much a nebulous, magic concept as "truth" is. The contrast should not be between verifiability and truth; we don't supply "verifiable" statements any more than than we supply "true" statements; in fact the two things mean pretty much the same thing. What's reasonably verifiable (and by the same token, true) is not the statements themselves, but the fact that the statements are supported by the reliable sources. The fact that the "verifiability not truth" wording seems to be acceptable to many editors only implies to me that many editors are easily led down the path of muddled thinking by way of verbal conjuring tricks.--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I strongly disagree. Verifiability has a mechanism behind it, we know something is accurately reflected from a source by verifying the source. Anyone with access to the source can have a crack at this, and we can argue about wording, and no, it's not perfect. Discovering the truth does not have a clearcut mechanism--science has a method it uses, but as I recall, they don't call the results they get truth. Rather, they run experiments to test hypotheses and develop theories. And as has been pointed out, other areas of knowledge use different criteria to come to conclusions. I know the truth, but I cannot pass it to you in a jar. I have to convince you of what I know. How I do that is determined what where we are and what we are doing. Here, I don't convince you that I know the truth, I show you that what I am saying is accurately reflected in a reliable source, and we argue on those terms, which strikes me as a damn sight easier than convincing you of the truth.

And as a side note, suggesting that other editors with whom you disagree are "...easily led down the path of muddled thinking by way of verbal conjuring tricks" is pretty rude. End of rant. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So when you are convincing me that what you say is accurately reflected in a reliable source, you are not convincing me of the "verifiability" of what you say any more than you are convincing me of the "truth" of what you say - you are convincing me of the verifiability (and indeed the truth) of the fact that what you say is supported by the source. So the condition that the first sentence of the policy is trying to describe is not of the form "that X be verifiable, not that X be true" but rather "that Y be verifiable, not that X be true" (where Y states that X is reliably sourced) - and it's the difference between X and Y that matters more than the difference (if there is one) between "verifiable" and "true". If we were to adopt the novel habit of actually saying what we mean, we would say something like "Information in Wikipedia should be supportable by reliable sources, not merely by the personal thoughts and convictions of editors." The nebulous concepts of truth or verifiability don't really come into it at all. (Not that I think "reliability" is any less nebulous.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. What the hell is this, keep proposing it every five minutes until you get the result you want? —chaos5023 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Verifiability, not truth' is an absolutely core and vital principle to writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is only as good an encyclopedia as its sources can support -- "this is true", in the absence of anything verifying it, is never a basis for including something, and it is absolutely vital to emphasize the fact that only verifiability matters in the strongest possible terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquillion (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. There's clearly no consensus to remove this, and the repeated polls have become disruptive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Slimvirgin, just above; also per others in opposition above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The single most important lesson some new editors need is "verifiability, not truth". I was one such, and once I got my head round this concept, editing became much easier, and handling disagreements with other editors became a whole lot easier.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though there might be a better way of stating the principle so that nobody infers that it is OK to have incorrect statements (even lies) for which a source can be found, this is not it. --Boson (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This new text is not an improvement. It muddles up things for new editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose not an improvement. New editors should learn that arguing about truth on Wikipedia always ends in "your word against mine". Dzlife (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New² proposal

• The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which cannot be verified. Therefore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors claim that it is true.

I would like to thank everyone who has commented on my question, especially S Marshall, Pesky, Fram, Blueboar and WhatamIdoing.

I do appreciate that verifiability, not truth is a good Kōan to try and explain both the concept of truth and verifiability. That said, I disagree with it as a fundamental policy. In my mind, verifiability is a tool that helps achieve goals like making wikipedia as true as possible, and making sure that it is complete and accurate. Jrincayc (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent restoration of the above two proposals and poll

The above withdrawn proposal with poll, and inactive proposal were recently restored, resulting in two copies: here and on the subpage.
1) Edit by SlimVirgin,
2) revert by Bob K31416
3) re-revert by SlimVirgin.

Comments? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep it here on this page, please... An RfC, especially one that calls for a major change to a core policy, should never have been removed and "hidden away" on a sub-page where editors are unlikely to find it when searching the archives. The poll originally took place on this page and it should remain part of this page's history. As it has been withdrawn... it can probably be shifted directly into the archives... but it should go into the archives of this talk page. If duplication is a problem, then remove the copy at WT:Verifiability/First sentence, not the original (improperly moved, and now restored) version here. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Offhand suggestion: instead of a special Archives by topic archive, how about a Withdrawn proposals or Closed discussions archive? That could contain an intro explaining that it only includes material subsequent to [date of its creation]. Such a special archive could be further subdivided into major topic areas (e.g., Lead sentence), or not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's already in the archives of this talk page, as is everything else, whether discussed here or on the subpage. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Seems like a miscommunication between you and Blueboar, possibly because he didn't know it was already in the archives here. We now have three copies. Could you fix it by removing the above copy, removing the copy on the subpage, while retaining the copy in the archives of this page? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

... or perhaps such a special archive page containing redirects to withdrawn proposals and/or closed discussions organized by topic, possibly with item-by-item summaries where appropriate. That'd make it easier to answer the question, "Has this been discussed previously -- if so, where?" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I support the creation of the new page, there was premature archiving at the same time that this RfC was moved.  The prematurely archived material should be restored thus allowing editors a chance to finish commenting.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating, The RFC wasn't moved, it was copied and pasted. We now have three copies of an RFC that hasn't been commented on for week, except for someone who voted opposed a week after the proposal was withdrawn with strike outs, i.e. strike out. Anyhow, what would you like to do with the three copies. Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please leave it here until the bot archives it, then we can remove the duplicate copy from the archive. It doesn't matter that it's currently on more than one page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What about the one that you copied from which is still on the subpage? Shouldn't that one have been deleted after you copied it and pasted the copy here? Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to all... I was under the (incorrect) impression that that this RfC had not been archived. Now that I see that has been... I happily withdraw my request to reinstate it here. And I have no objection to removing the duplications. In fact, since it is already in the archives of this page, I don't really see why we need any additional copies (whether on this page or on the WT:V/First sentence sub-page)... Suggest we delete them both, and simply point to the version in the archives if we need to refer to it. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Remove the two copies not archived.

Update: We currently have four copies, including one in this page's archive and one in the subpage's archive. They seem to be breeding. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe we can gather them up in a cardboard box, take them to a street corner, and offer them for free to loving families. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Not sure what your point is about the word "moved" vs. "copied and pasted".
(1) As you know, the material was inserted at WT:V/First sentence on 2011-08-19T01:52:41

(2) The material was manually deleted from here (WT:V) two minutes later:

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Revision as of 2011-08-19T01:54:29 (edit) (undo)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=445597293

(3) Another two minutes later, an archive was done to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 50.  Since this archive did not include the RfC, and the RfC was added to the archive two days later, I presume that this archive was unintentionally incomplete.

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 50

Revision as of 2011-08-19T01:56:06 (edit) (undo)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_50&diff=445599495&oldid=445114917

(4) The archive Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 50 was amended here, which is where the RfC was actually archived:

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 50

Revision as of 2011-08-23T06:54:20

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_50&diff=next&oldid=445954275

(5) There is yet another location of this poll at a new file called Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence (April–August 2011).  While August is not over, this file is being intermittently updated with additional material.

IMO, we should currently have only one copy of this RfC, which should be here.  This RfC should remain here for at least five days, as per the default archiving cycle of the robot. 

Additionally, there is more material that was prematurely archived on 2011-08-19T01:56:06, material that did not stay on this page for five full days.  There was so much archived, that I'm not sure how to tell what should not have been archived, so the simple approach is to return all of the material.  The material should probably be kept as sections instead of subsections so that the robot archiving can go routinely.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.  Except that the section "Let's end the "Verifiability, not truth" topic" has been moved to WT:V/First sentence so should be handled there.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Unscintillating, The section in question concerns a withdrawn proposal with a poll that ended 9 days ago. It proposed to do more than just remove "not truth" and wasn't even supported by those, like me, who would like to remove the first "not truth". Singling it out for special attention only serves the purpose of misleading people. I'll be taking a break. Good luck and best regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's end the "Verifiability, not truth" topic

• Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:V/First sentence. Please continue there.

Discussion about the new sub-page

[above header inserted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)]

Is there a reason why all the discussions are being moved to a sub-page? Blueboar (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Following suggestions from several people, it's to let this talk page return to its normal function. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I agree with moving existing discussions to a subpage. It is disruptive to expected archiving. I think highly focused, extremely length (bytes and time) discussions are better handled at a similarly highly focused essay, but that is in respect of moving forward, not refactoring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Do you have an example of such an essay/discussion?  (2) The essay you mentioned seems to be a biased starting point since it has language in the title that we want moved to a footnote.  (3)  When I proposed that we pick a subpage name for a future discussion to start on September 15, the model I had in mind was like at the mediation cabal or an AfD discussion—they start such discussions on a fresh page.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the title of the essay, or did I misunderstand the question? (2) The essay is, yes, POV with respect to the issue. It represents the long standing status quo. The challenge to anyone who seeks to change the status quo is to make the essay NPOV. In general, the best essays are NPOV. They state the issues, the facts, the opinions, without reflecting the bias of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Do you have an example where people have used an essay to build consensus for a policy page?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:N (not policy-proper but pretty close - it is enforced by policy) was built using essays. Uncle G's was early and the most influential. WT:N (especially 2007) was a complicated, noisy place. Regulars maintained positions. Newcomers (not familiar with the regulars' positions) engaged by writing mini-essays all over the WT:N. Essay writing became popular, and it was useful. Once a regular had an essay, it was so much easier to understand their position. When disgruntled newcomers wrote essays, it quickly forced them to adopt a logical framework. There was competition to have your essay cited by the policy page.

There was no single essay that was used to build consensus, that's true. Here, I am suggesting focus on a single essay because I read a dispute about an extremely focused issue, which is the subject of that same issue. Perhaps multile essays could be used. However, what is important is the use of essays. Threaded dialogue needs something, like an essay, or a proposal, to give it direction. Normally, per WP:Consensus, it is the article, or actual edits to the article, that are the subject. This doesn't work with policy because experimental edits to policy are not welcome. WP:BRD therefore doesn't work with policy, or at least, anymore with established policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not pleased at the prospect of having yet another page to keep track of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it just two clicks to add the other page to your watchlist? And this way, people get the option of watching only one of the two pages, if they want. Though the downside is that people who might be newly watchlisting this page won't be aware of the pertinent discussion taking place elsewhere. --Kotniski (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but with more than 2,000 pages on my watchlist at the moment, the mere fact that the page is listed there does not mean that I notice it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the endless discussion... Given that the proposals under discussion have the potential to completely reverse current policy ... I am not at all sure that it is proper for discussions of such magnitute to take place "hidden away" on a side channel. But I suppose I can live with it... as long as it is understood that any consensus that might be reached there will have to be reviewed and fully discussed here before any major change is implemented. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any fundamental change being suggested, just an improvement of the wording (though even that seems unlikely to be accepted, given how religiously people seem to cling to their received scriptures). A better thing to discuss would probably be merging this page and its fork, WP:OR, into one, and hopefully eliminating the odd perversions of language from both at the same time. This will no doubt also raise the ire of the devout, but at least the potential gain would be something large rather than something small.--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If the purpose of the subpage is for people to work out a proposal to present here, that seems fine to me. But this discussion has been going nowhere for many months now, and I think continuing to push for removing "not truth" is tendentious. If editors working there reach consensus there about what to bring here, no problem. But any decisions about what should be changed on the policy page should be vetted here before they are implemented. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If the discussion has to be here before it can be implemented, then all discussion must take place here. Using the subpage discussion as an excuse to create extra obstacles to change is unacceptable.—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not setting an obstacle, it is recognition that editors may not be aware of the discussion. I think it would be fine to work out the wording of a proposal, either for the text or for an RFC on a subpage, even beneficial, but we will need to hold an RFC on any suggested change at this point, I think it's fair to say. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A sentence that was added without a RFC ought to be removable without a RFC. The phrase "not truth" was added with a unilateral WP:BOLD edit, which was followed by individual discussions with the individual editors who objected, which discussions were conducted on their personal talk pages. You'll notice that some editors are still free to unilaterally edit the page, and take objections to individual editors' talk pages. Other editors are autoreverted and then directed to this page, where their proposed additions can be mired in eternal discussion. I learned this when I was trying to add the phrases about copyright, and I was only able to achieve change by extreme persistence on this page. The experience has taught me that the only route to success is to individually persuade everyone who will listen until we outnumber those who will not.

The stance that the current version of WP:V is carved in stone, and can only be changed after everyone who's ever edited Wikipedia has been personally notified of the discussion and given a chance to object at a long series of RFCs, is understandably popular with editors who like the current wording. But in fact, that kind of process is not necessary to improve a policy page. A local consensus is quite sufficient.

I don't mind the subpage, on condition that there's a reasonably prominent note directing editors to it. That seems like a suitable way forward to me. However, if there's concern that interested editors might fail to find the subpage, then there's no reason why we shouldn't make the dispute notice more prominent to ensure that it gets noticed. Shall I put a red warning triangle on it and a border around?—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, will you look at this behaviour. She refuses to participate in the discussion; she will not allow the discussion to take place on WT:V; she will not allow her wording to be flagged as disputed; and she will not allow a pointer to be added to the place where she requires the discussion to take place. What manipulative, controlling behaviour. I see this as an extremely bad faith and obstructive edit.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that way, take it to one of the noticeboard such as ANI. And while I believe that there is obviously no consensus to remove not truth, which would be required to remove not truth, even though there may be no consensus to keep it either (which I myself do not believe), I think it's pretty clear that we will need yet another RFC on the issue, should anyone manage to pull together some semblance of a proposal to hold an RFC on. And at this point, I'm pretty certain that we'll have to take this through dispute resolution or a similar board, because this is clearly going nowhere. Some of us have tried to work on a compromise only to have those efforts rebuffed, and continuing to push a position after it is clear that there is no consensus for it is disruptive. I think we pass that point months ago, myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At present there are two brief sections on this page that refer editors to the respective sections on the subpage. When new sections are added to the subpage, new brief referring sections can be added here. When sections on the subpage are archived over there, then the brief referring sections on this page can also be archived here. Perhaps this is sufficient? Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but given that Blueboar and Nuujinn have both objected, it seems that the new page should only be used for background discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if this sentence is to be protected through the banning of discussion about it on this page and the suppression even of notices regarding the fact that it is being discussed on some other page, then its supporters ought to be able to do more than "like" the present version, they ought to be able to defend it logically. As far as I recall, no-one has yet given any satisfactory explanation as to:

1. Why we want to say "the threshold", when (if threshold is to be interpreted as "necessary condition") this would imply "the" (only) necessary condition, and hence a sufficient condition, which is not the case;
2. Why we use the word "verifiability", which means something else in English (and is therefore being used unnecessarily and misleadingly as jargon for sourceability - much like the twin phrase "original research" has had its ordinary meaning perverted in the same way);
3. Why we say "not truth", when, out of all the things which the threshold is not, truth is actually one which we don't have any particular objection to (again we are taking a word and making it mean something other than it does in English - what "truth" is supposed to refer to here is something like "editors' unsupported opinions").

The rest of the sentence kind of makes up for points 2 and 3, at least, by explaining what it is we actually mean - but why go to the trouble of misleading people first? --Kotniski (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kotniski, I think your points are excellent, but there is an expectation after the last round of RfCs that there would be a break in the discussion for a while.  This break has not yet happened.  Would you be willing to hold off on content discussions until September 15?  Note that both S Marshall and North8000 are currently on Wikibreaks.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind not discussing this for another month if no-one else wants to. But I hope that when discussion resumes, people will try in good faith to find a wording of these policies that meets all the genuine concerns raised, not just oppose all change on the grounds of "it's always said this".--Kotniski (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, with all due respect, I feel like a large number of us have defended our views logically, and have expressed ourselves clearly and some of use have explicitly and opening tried to work out wording that would address some of the concerns of other editors even though we do not see a problem that needs to be fixed. And those discussions have been derailed by those who are insisting that "not truth" be removed. What I want to avoid is a discussion with a limited number of editors in a subpage who declare consensus and then foist the result on others. I strongly endorse the idea of a break until Sept 15th, and I would strongly suggest that we use the subpages to hammer out proposal to bring back here at that time. Then we can list the proposals and hold an RFC on which is the best of the lot. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• tl;dr. So, we are having a discussion about discussion? I'm all in favor of moving that stuff... anywhere else. When someone actually has something that's ready for prime time, as opposed to being a waste of everyone else's time, do please post it here for serious review. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for moving forward productively

Just a straw poll, please !vote yea or nay to see how everyone feels. Who supports the notion that:

• We cease all discussion of the wording of the first paragraph of WP:V on this page until 15 September in order to let everyone collect their thought.
• Editors work on proposals for wording of that paragraph anywhere appropriate, in groups or alone
• We find a venue for discussion of the proposals and ask some uninvolved admins to act as moderators of the discussion
• We bring the proposals to a section here starting on 15 September
• We begin an RFC on the submitted proposals starting 17 September

The goal is to wind up with some number of concrete proposals about which we can gauge consensus without falling into endless discussions as we have for the last months. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer a new venue for the discussion on September 15, one that a moderator can organize.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, amended. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that bringing back too many proposals here will have the problem of splitting the support for change. Those who want change should reach consensus amongst themselves on the best available proposal. Individuals should keep in mind that even though it may not be their favorite proposal, they should support it when it is brought back here if it is an improvement on the present sentence that is in the policy. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I also think that if we are going to work with a moderator or moderators, we should figure out how to hold the RFC with their guidance. Ideally, I think 1-3 proposals would be most appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't the moderator set thing up here? I really dislike the idea of discussions about changing the policy taking place on some sub-page. Drafting of proposals is one thing... but policy changes should be discussed on policy talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I oppose ritualised confrontation. It is not the wiki way. It is not WP:Consensus. It implies seniority of editors involved in the pre-agreement. It discourages outside editors from engaging. If progress stalls, better to make your point, and leave it to later editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest we do? This has been going on here literally for months, with no progress whatsoever. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see virtually nothing for you or me to do here. The policy page works. Editors know that content needs to be verifiable, or it gets removed. The people who want to make a change, they need to offer a better explanation. I cannot find the logic of their rationale. I read flawed logic, but it is hard to hgihlight because I find no agreed explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not verifiable, but properly sourceable. I think that's the fundamental point - this page has the wrong title (and consequently the wrong first sentence) to start with. The same applies to WP:NOR - the only way these two principles can be made to make sense is to redefine English words to mean something incompatible with what they mean in real life. And it so happens that we've redefined these two terms ("verifiable" and "original research") to refer to exactly the same concept ("OR" is that which is not "V"). Hence we have two policy pages where we should have only one; both those pages are wrongly titled; and the beginnings of both of those policy pages are misleadingly written, as editors try to contrive a link between the words used in the title and the actual substance of the policy. What we should do is combine the two pages into a single policy, compact and logically coherent, and with a title which, while not necessarily serving the soundbite addicts, properly expresses in real English (or as close as we can get) what the subject of the policy is.--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We even have that page sitting on the shelf, ready to go. Compact and logically coherent, and with a title which properly expresses in real English what the subject of the policy is. See Wikipedia:Attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, "attribution"?  Seems like there has been recent objection to overloading that word in the Wikipedia context.  What about a new attempt at combining the two called WP:Sourceability?  Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Wikipedia:Attribution. It was very well done. It will define the word "attribution" nicely. Unfortunately, there was a little problem with its implementation, though not so much with its substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Predictably, as one who is never satisfied, I don't believe "Attribution" is the right title either. This isn't (just) about attribution; it's about "attributability" (if that's a word), or "sourceability" (which seems more like a word to me). The fundamental principle (and this page is about fundamental principles) is not that everything has to be sourced, but that everything has to be able to be sourced (which is presumably why we currently call this page "Verifiability" rather than "Verification"). "Attribution" (when, why and how editors should attribute things) is an overlapping but non-identical topic. --Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Predictably, the discussion has wandered off the topic for this section. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll, should this process discussion remain here or be moved to WT:V/First_sentence?

• Move  Unscintillating (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remain ... I don't mind if those who desire change use some other page as a place to draft a proposal... but discussions as to process, and and discussions about any proposals that result from the drafting should take place here on this page, so the maximum number of people are involved and know what is going on. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• No. Any proposal to modify directly WP:V belongs on WT:V. However, the proposal above to alter the few words has failed. To my reading, the case against "not truth" is not clear, is certainly not coherent. A decent explanation may exist, but it is buried. There is a long standing essay supporting the status quo, at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I cannot find an essay challenging. This is why I suggest debating the idea at the essay. I think that debate is very likely to be mutally educational. I did not suggest moving focused debate to a subpage. I think that Slimvirgin's refactoring should be reverted, at WT:V/First_sentence deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not completely happy with people changing the current WP:Verifiability, not truth essay... it sums up the majority view on the the sentence in question very well. But I could definitely see how a separate essay, something that explains that not everyone agrees with the viewpoint expressed at the WP:Verifiability, not truth essay and explains the minority viewpoint, would be beneficial (suggested title: "WP:Truth through verifiability"). Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IF "not truth" should be removed, then the essay is flawed and should be improved. You are free to link to your preferred versions. I recommend NOT forking to lock in different POVs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Expressing different POVs as to policy is what essays are for (or at least one of their purposes). Essays reflect the opinions of various segments of the community... they don't necessarily reflect majority opinion. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't much disagree, except that I think it would be better for the minority faction to try to get traction at WP:Verifiability, not truth, than to taalk in the dark at WP:Truth, not verifiability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the "minority faction", when according to the previous RfCs about 50% want change, and 50% oppose change.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The "minority faction" are the group who know what specific change they want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then I think that you are confused, because twice there has been a consensus for a change, only to have one editor that had not been participating in the discussion to arrive and become a lone voice of objection.  Also, I skimmed the essay, the material in the essay is not the current problem, but since I don't want to drift into a content discussion, I don't want to further elaborate, there is already plenty about this in the archives.  We might want to use some of the material in the essay for proposals.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You only just notice now that I am confused? This place is very confusing. Are we talking about removing "not truth"? In archives, I find text about an undefined "the issue". I see lots of agreements on things that don't seem to be associated with a problem. If "twice there has been a consensus for a change" then please point me to the records. If the material in the essay is not the current problem, then what is the current problem? Was it a past problem, solved or deferred? I'm also confused because I cannot work out your position in the debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)(ec)Comment  There is already process discussion taking place at WT:V/First_sentence, so this straw poll exists to decide if we want to have one place for process discussions, or proceed with having two places for process discussions.  I see no basic problem with having such discussions in two places.  Process discussions do not include changes to WP:V, but rather how we are going to organize ourselves for the likely discussion on September 15.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And I was simply expressing my dislike of the fact that there is discussion going on at a sub-page... and my opinion that WT:V/First sentence should be used for drafting proposals, while all of the discussion part of the process should be done here. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar, except that drafting proposals would go better at WP:V/First_sentence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the concept SmokeyJoe is suggesting: the drafts would be located at wP:v/first sentence, discussions about the wording of the drafts would take place at the related talk page (wT:v/first sentence)... and then, when the drafting is complete, and the drafts are ready to presented as more formal proposals, those proposals would be brought back here (WT:Verifiability) for discussion. That seems to make sense to me... organized but without any seeming impropriety. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (watch capitalisations though). Drafts can go on a subpage. Very specific discussion about the draft (discussion about improving the draft) goes on the draft talk page. Discussion about actually implementing the draft goes on WT:V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Move the discussions to WT:V/First sentence. Per Blueboar, the policy can't be changed without agreement on this talk page. Then again, it can't be changed substantively without discussing it with the wider community anyway, so that's a moot point. But to continue these endless polls and proposals on this talk page has been extremely disruptive, and it's discouraging people from using the page to discuss other issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm planning on starting a a poll to decide whether this poll should be moved to another page, but I'm not sure whether to start it here or on another page. Can we have a poll to decide? (OK, seriously, have all first-sentence discussions on the subpage, but don't keep removing the pointer from the policy that tells people that the sentence is under discussion there.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Move it there for a few weeks or several weeks This could use a few or several weeks to calm it here, get out of the trap of just trading and parrying talking points, for the "change needed" folks to clarify the issues and goals and come up with a proposal and organized presentation. But I certainly am against any move etc. which could get interpreted/quoted as banishing/burying it to an obscure page from the main page which is this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

new page Wikipedia:V/First sentence/Drafts

Please see Wikipedia:V/First sentence/Drafts. Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

new archives

• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 44  WT:V/Archive 44 with only First sentence sections
• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 45  WT:V/Archive 45 with only First sentence sections
• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 46  WT:V/Archive 46 with only First sentence sections
• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 47  WT:V/Archive 47 with only First sentence sections
• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 48  WT:V/Archive 48 with only First sentence sections
• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 49  WT:V/Archive 49 with only First sentence sections
• Archive: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 50  WT:V/Archive 50 with only First sentence sections

Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the above is. All the 2011 discussions about this are archived on one page, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence polls 2011, as well as in the regular chronological archives. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Was the documentation beside the name of the archive helpful if you weren't sure?
2. As far as the "poll" file having discussion in addition to the polls, it hadn't occurred to me to look for such. 
3. The earliest discussion in the "poll" file is from April, that is not all of 2011; for example we reached a talk page consensus for change on January 10.
4. Anyway, they have slightly different purposes and are being maintained slightly differently, so this will give editors a choice, including reading from the original archives.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Long-term sourcing/removal policy

I find a contradiction between different aspects of policy, and between policy and the real world:

WP:PRESERVE says not to remove material unless it's more than merely unsourced. WP:V says "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed... You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references."

Have any of you read this or similar article?

Wikipedia has many, many articles filled with unsourced material, which are almost certain to never be sourced. The community needs to decide what's more important: having a lot of unreliable content, or letting people remove unsourced material which has been appropriately tagged for a (long) period of time.

I'm of the opinion that if material has been tagged as unsourced for a long time (say a year) it should be removed, and that the Encyclopedia is too large to require the editor who removes material to try to source it (per WP:BURDEN). But I was recently informed that such removal is a major issue for some people. Can you help with this, and can we clarify policy on it so I and others like me will know where Wikipedia as a whole stands? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we would deal with such issues on a case by case manner. We're all volunteers so dictating actions can be problematic. Can you point us to the problematic discussion? We may be able to make some concrete suggestions. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a bit embarrassed really... see, I had been just editing according to the principle above: if it was tagged for a year or more, I removed it. I did that on a whole bunch of articles, and was reverted maybe once last time I looked. But when someone thought I was an admin I said I wished I was, and later they said they wouldn't vote for me because I'd been deleting that text. See my edit history. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this isn't really the forum for this kind of discussion, but I don't see much wrong with deleting unsourced material, esp. if an article or section has been tagged for a year or more. But I would say that if you balance the deletions with efforts to find sources and improve articles, too, that's better for the project in the long run. I wouldn't worry about becoming an admin, just focus on being a good editor. Just my two cents, worth less every day. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (; You're right it would be better to source things given time. I'd really like to know if policy can be made clear on this, so is there another place I should post this? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that part of the policy means only that we should ask for sources, ideally help to find them ourselves, and wait a decent period before removing unsourced material (not counting BLP and other pressing issues). But I would say a week or few days, definitely not a year. That's assuming it's something that really needs a source. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi SV, OMG, the opinions are really all over the place on this issue. Any suggestions for how to go about consensus building for policy change? But I'm not sure what you mean by "really needs a source." For example, does a history section on an article about a high school need a source? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 13:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on what you mean by "need a source". all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable... but not all information needs to be actually verified ... in other words, a source has to exist, but the article does not necessarily need to contain a citation to that source. That depends on the specifics of what is said in the article and whether the material is "challenged or likely to be challenged".

In other words... we allow removal of unsourced information, but we don't require it. Whether to remove or not depends on the specifics of the article, and the nature of the information in question. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a bunch of facts stated, and those facts are not common knowledge that any reader will have, doesn't it require a citation? I know you don't have to cite that the sky is blue. I see a problem with the following text: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source," because without a citation, how do you know it's "attributable?" I have been interpreting that to mean "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles which is not common knowledge must be attributed to a reliable, published source or it may eventually be removed." B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's largely a matter of personal judgement, to be applied in good faith and a good dose of common sense. Vast quantities of very useful (and perfectly sourceable) information has been sitting around uncited in Wikipedia for a very long time - by removing that type of information, you'd be making the encyclopedia worse, not better. But if it's not cited because it's wrong (or even if it is cited and it's wrong, which is also very possible) then by removing it you're doing a service. The more you know of the matter, and the more you've made the effort to look for sources yourself, the more capable you're likely to be of judging whether it's case A or case B (though often anyone with common sense will have a pretty good idea).--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's good common sense. I went and looked at one of the articles whose unsourced text I removed. What I see there is that the information is outdated, might have been original research or copyvio to begin with (see the very first edit), and includes so many facts that full sourcing would be a pain. On the other hand, it's fairly detailed information. It might be of use to someone... if it's accurate. I also notice that if it wasn't original research to begin with, it would have been extremely easy to cite (as in one cite per section). What do you guys think of it?

Kotniski, what about the good-faith argument that non-subject-matter-experts need to be able to determine the reliability of Wikipedia material, and that the lack of such citation is a basic problem that needs to be dealt with, so that WP can become a reliable encyclopedia, and not just another site? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an aside regarding your example article Salmon High School: The source of the verifiability problems was lack of notability and I added a template. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG, well in that case there are just hundreds and hundreds [7]. I've always had a problem with NOTABILITY, in that it sets the standard way too low: so low that a subject that meets the criteria doesn't have enough sources for a well-rounded article. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, OMG. I wonder how many of the high schools in that list are not notable. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kotniski, but "even if it is cited and it's wrong" is exactly what wp:NOTTRUTH is about. Unless we have reliable sources to show that the cited one is wrong, simple removal is purest wp:OR. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think he was questioning NOTTRUTH, just saying that text has to be in accord with citations. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had in mind the case where a citation was given but didn't support the text; but there are many other reasons for removing text besides that one: not relevant; undue weight; source not sufficiently reliable - and yes, source got it wrong (though in the last case it might be necessary to contrive some other reason, if confronted with some wikilawyering goon who thinks we have to include information in Wikipedia even if we know it's wrong).--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Most frequently, one need contrive not "some other reason", but "a better source". The way we know that (for example) "most women die from breast cancer" is wrong is because we can easily provide dozens of high-quality sources that say only 5% of women die from breast cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And as a further response to Kotniski, those of us who hang around and edit a lot of different articles are the ones responsible for the overall health of the information on WP. We can't be responsible for citing information that might or might not be reliable. That's the responsibility of the person who added the text. Why is it that we wouldn't remove information after at time simply because it hasn't passed the basic criteria for inclusion, which I would say is proof that it is not original research? In other words, it seems to me that it's an impossible task to try and source the contributions of others, because of the volume of text to be sourced and the fact that there are fewer and fewer editors. Isn't that why we have WP:BURDEN? Perhaps we need to slightly strengthen BURDEN:

"You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself, but it is better to remove text which is uncited than to let it remain indefinitely." B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to go searching for sources for someone else's text - I commend anyone who does. The other options mentioned above are good: 1) tag unsourced material (if questionable); 2) wait a reasonable amount of time (1 year?) for the original editor to provide a source; 3) revise (if possible) or remove the tagged text. Sometimes, because the text was interesting even though unsourced, I've moved it to the talk page with an explanatory note. I strongly disapprove of any removal of properly sourced text, even if it's "wrong". WCCasey (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that WIkipedia in the past was not as strict about sourcing as it is now, and in-line citations were even unusual. Many good articles written in those years do not meet today's sourcing standards. Gutting such articles on that basis is not to the general benefit of Wikipedia. The correct approach is to fix them, bring them to the attention of some project, tag them, or leave them alone for someone else to do one of those things. Zero^talk 09:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of the above comments about "responsibility" rather miss the point. This is a cooperative project where we're all trying to make the "encyclopedia" better. You can in practice do pretty much anything you like around here until someone objects, but I think humanity would be grateful if people's edits were directed towards improving that encyclopedia, not enforcing some half-baked rules. The fact that no citation has been given for something for a very long time is not in itself conclusive evidence that it is not good (i.e. potentially sourceable) information. It's quite destructive to the encyclopedia just to remove information at random due to the lack of citations - you ought also to have some reason to expect, based on your own knowledge, research, common sense or something, that it really is wrong or unsourceable. Particularly since once information's gone, it's gone - whereas if it's left (say with a citation-needed tag) it remains visible to other editors who might know what ought to be done with it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I essetially agree with Zero0000 and Kotniski. There is no point in deleting unsourced content just because it is unsourced alone, as this is not is spirit of an collaborative project and it leads to a waste of good content and work of others. If you come across content that it is unsourced but looks ok otherwise, you should simply tag it. But if there are is an additional reason such as the content looks fishy, content contradicts your context knowledge, you have reason to distrust the author, the content is controversial, etc. then should delete it, but only then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we are all saying the same thing... Sometimes it is best to remove unsourced information, and sometimes it isn't. We each draw the line between when we remove and when we retain in slightly different places. That's OK too... The line between Removal vs Retention really is a matter of editorial judgment, based on the specific situation in a specific article. I don't think we can (or should) try to draw that line as a matter of policy. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me and I agree that doesn't need to be codified in the policy. However the policy should make clear that formalistic (mindless) removal of unsourced content is not wanted nor any crusades in that manner.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we make it clear enough. And remember, going through a bunch of articles and assessing whether to remove material that has sat unsourced for a long time is not necessarily "mindless"... or a "crusade". I go into "clean up" mode from time to time... going to random articles and seeing if there are problems. As long as each individual removal/retention decision is made on a case by case basis (remaining open to the idea that sometimes it is best to leave the material in the article with the tag, and asking whether it would be better to remove or retain this specific material in this specific article), doing such "clean up" sweeps isn't wrong. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about going through articles and systematically removing any unsourced content on the sole reason that it is unsourced and not about any systematic (fesired) cleanup. The discussion here is relatively clear, but it also shows that we have editors misreading the policy in the sense that is described above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I have observed before, this policy (and many others) seem to be written so as to be almost deliberately unclear. (And SOFIXIT doesn't apply, since there's a group of editors here who have no intention of allowing anyone to FIXIT.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet how is the policy as you-all describe it to be reconciled with the oft-spoken-of goal of being reliable? What I'm getting from the above could be summarized as "remove only what you have reason to doubt." In such a system, it's guaranteed that vast amounts of original research of dubious reliability will remain (and could be vandalized by anyone smart enough to insert false info in a convincing way, thus raising BLP issues). It seems to me like WP is basically conflicted between the need to retain useful information and the need for reliability. But I'm not really convinced that removing only overtly suspicious material is an adequate compromise (and sourcing it one's self isn't practical).

I also think that there is a possible technical solution: have a  Removed template or marker of some sort. Then one of two things happens: 1) When an editor tries to edit the page, they are presented with a message saying that large amounts of text were removed for [reason], and they might want to review that before editing, or 2) The template simply says that text has been removed for [reason] and gives a link to the page prior to when the template first appeared.

When I get time I think I'll canvass around a little bit. This is a long-term kind of thing, and brought to a head, for me, because of statistics which say our editorship is at best probably not going to expand. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 14:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If people ask themselves whether the material is likely to face a reasonable challenge, it's usually clear whether something needs a source, and how long to wait for it. The problem with trying to generalize is that everything will depend on the particular case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, but that way of doing things overall means that WP has vast amounts of unreliable information. So it's a choice: do you prune the branches which have fruit on them to make the tree strong, or leave the fruit and have a tree that is less sturdy overall. WP is set up on the principle that information is guilty until proven innocent, but doesn't seem to follow through on that. It places the burden on the person who wants to remove text, and what I'm saying is: that might have been a bearable burden in the past, but it's not any more. To improve, WP needs to prune as well as refine and expand. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time, as a reader, I'd rather see something than nothing, so long as it's not harmful or very silly. As editors we might cringe, but as readers we might be grateful for it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well as far as the pruning analogy goes, "mindless" pruning is not yielding a healthier tree or a better harvest, it just kills the tree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to set the bar at "information we doubt"... I may not have any reason to doubt the unsourced information, and still remove it... if I think the information constitutes Original Research. Of course that isn't "mindless" either. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

well you can formulate it in a positive manner, one should not delete unsourced content one assumes to be correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "assuming information to be correct" exactly what we're not supposed to be doing? And how can anyone know what is original research minus a source? You can't tell from the level of detail. Why do we have to have a positive opinion that something is OR, why not just insufficient reason to think it isn't? And given that each editor is informed of our sourcing policy, can't we pretty much assume that anything which is blatantly lacking in sources is OR? As far as SlimVirgin saying she likes something rather than nothing, of course that's true, but is it encyclopedic? Isn't all this "benefit of the doubt" stuff actually, when it comes right down to it, basing Wikipedia content on what we like or agree with? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You write as if policy requires everything to be sourced, but that is not and has never been the policy. It only requires sources for content "challenged or likely to be challenged" (emphasis in the original). So, no, you don't have policy support for assuming anything unsourced is OR. Zero^talk 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced, and I'm only talking about removal of material which has been challenged by way of a request for sources. Material which is not common knowledge does need to be sourced: "a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." Posted a question/request on Jimbo's talk page [8]. It seems like people here are putting the burden on the person who wants to remove text, whereas the overall gist of policy is that it's the person wanting to include text who has the burden to prove that it should remain. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It says "must exist", not "must be given". I believe that is deliberate, otherwise it obsoletes the first part of the sentence. My main concern is that the hard work of editors who wrote articles years ago when there was no culture of sourcing everything should be accorded some respect. The culture has changed now, but we should update those articles in preference to gutting them. Only material unlikely to survive a sourcing attempt should be automatically deleted. Zero^talk 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid concern, however, I'm not aware that the culture has changed for at least 5 years, and I'm not talking about older material- my example was started in 2008 [9]. This is from an essay, but I think its statement is worth quoting here: "Responses must be forthcoming: Editors who wish to respond to the challenge [such as a tag] should do so in a timely manner. If no response is forthcoming, the challenger may tag or remove the statement in question... the challenger should await a timely response prior to removing material.[10]" And WP:OR says "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." [11] Again, I'm only talking about material which has been tagged or otherwise challenged for a good long time. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another break

I have noticed that you are now stating that you are "only talking about material which has been tagged or otherwise challenged for a good long time"; however, your proposal is still that "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." Which view do you really take, because there is a big difference. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also something to be said regarding the reliability as a motivation for "direct sourcing". There is big danger here confuse one tool (direct sourcing/footnotes) with the goal (reliability). Having a lot of of footnotes doesn't make an article more reliable per se. For that we would need reliable editors to check/confirm the sources themselves, i.e. actually reading the the sources rather than just checking whether a source is given. And top of that we need a revision control (flagged versions) to manage which article versions have been proof read.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if it would help to expand this policy and indicate its relationship to PRESERVE with a statement like:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. We would also have to change all the templates, and other parts of policy which say "unsourced text may be removed." And also WP:BURDEN etc. WP should not be saying two things at once. Some editors think that policy is actually saying only one thing, but the discussion at Jimbo's page, where Jimbo and others agreed with me that unsourced text should eventually be removed shows that there is genuine difference of opinion on this. This difference shows in the slightly ambiguous policy, even though there is more support for removal than for perpetual preservance. So, I think it's a bad idea, but I support you trying to have it changed, as that might be a consensus-building and clarifying exercise. What I'm totally against is putting text like that in without making the other changes I mentioned. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Ryan Vesey: sorry I didn't see your post above. My position is one should only remove material which has been tagged or otherwise challenged for a good long time, unless one knows it to be inappropriate. So, one may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it after it has been challenged for a long time. How long varies with the judgment of the editor: I was using a year, Jimbo would use 6 months. What changed was that I had to make clear that I wasn't advocating just removing material before it had been challenged. If you go over my edit history you'll see it in action. Kmhkmh, you're right sourcing is only a step in the right direction, and I would say it's a minimum requirement to keep text. But as you say, reliability requires checking/reading sources, and that supports my position: we can't expect anyone but the original author to thoroughly go over the sources. If the original author didn't even bother to name a source, we should be able to assume the text is original research or otherwise flawed enough to remove. We can't be obligated to read/view the sources ourselves (on say an article on a local high school or Barbie character), it's too much of a burden. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well from my perspective this is simply not how WP (currently) works and probably not even how it should work in the future. Several points here:

• Why should we remove any correct material at all just because it is unsourced? From my perspective that is just a waste of resources.
• The notion that we can only expect the original author to go thoroughly over the sources (and maybe the correctness of the content as such) is imho exactly the opposite of reliability. It is exactly how we cannot work in an open system such as WP. The reliability of articles rests on being proofread by others (the community) over time.
• I can't really see why it would be too much of burden to check sources. Of course since all work here is voluntary nobody is obligated to do that. However I see no reason why we should have less expectation of those who voluntary perform quality control than of those who contribute content. In other words if somebody is seriously reviewing articles then yes we should expect them to check sources or at least corroborate the correctness of the content by alternative sources. If quality control doesn't do this (admittingly cumbersome) job then it essentially reduced to window dressing (spell checking, layout, "formal sourcing"). But frankly in my eyes that's no encyclopedic quality control at all, from the encyclopedic perspective the primary quality control needs to be the correctness of content and citations.
• As far as "if original author didn't even bother to name a source" is concerned I essentially agree but with a caveat. Yes, if an author is unwilling to provide sources, we should delete his contribution. However there's a time window here that matters. As this approach only works if you catch such an author in time (not too long after his contribution and when he is still active in WP). Because only then you can really determine whether he is unwilling to provide sources or not. But that doesn't really work if you catch him late and he is not active anymore, then there is no way of telling ,whether he was actually unwilling to provide sources or whether he was simply not aware of our guidelines. This applies in particular to our legacy material but also to new contribution which have been caught late. Most authors contribute before reading all our guidelines or they might not even read them all. In such cases we should simply judge the content, if it is correct and good material we keep it, tag it and source it over time and if it isn't then we delete it. And yes we can and should approach this rather conservatively, i.e. in doubt always delete it, but there is no reason for are "mindless" automatic deletion independent the correctness and quality of the content in question.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. Ideally, that is how we would deal with everything. So how would we balance those concerns against the goal of becoming a real encyclopedia which is reliable, while acknowledging that most of the the peripheral articles are never going to be improved from the state they're in now? Are they better than nothing? That's a judgment call and I don't think so. They often just aren't content that really belongs in an encyclopedia (but there's currently no way to get them deleted). They should ideally be reduced to redirects, as Ryan says in his essay. My whole thing is future-oriented: how to deal with content long-term when there are few new editors and the old ones aren't going to be sourcing the peripheral articles.

• "Why should we remove any correct material at all just because it is unsourced? From my perspective that is just a waste of resources." Because we value reliability over simply having content. If it's not common knowledge, we should either source it or remove it. If we don't have time to source it, remove it (but let future editors know where to find it: that's very important).
• "The notion that we can only expect the original author to go thoroughly over the sources (and maybe the correctness of the content as such) is imho exactly the opposite of reliability. It is exactly how we cannot work in an open system such as WP." But in articles like some local high school or a Barbie character, that's all we're going to get... we have to be real about our resources.
• "I can't really see why it would be too much of burden to check sources..." It's not on the more important articles.
• "However there's a time window here that matters..." Yes that's a problem. In the current state of the encyclopedia, though, we have to choose between unsourced text forever and deleting it. From now on, we should have a bot that automatically gives new users a heads-up on how to source and edit. Such a bot already exists and is used on other wikis. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, do you understand the difference between "may" and "should"? You may go out on the sidewalk and scream if your Internet connection fails, but you should not irritate your neighbors this way. Similarly, you may remove unsourced material, but you should not remove material that you know or believe to be accurate, sourceable, and appropriate.

Imagine, for example, that I edit Common cold to say that "Very few people die from the common cold each year". For whatever reason—perhaps I think it too obvious to bother, or perhaps I'm new and haven't figured out how to cite a source, or perhaps I've run out of time, or perhaps the source I have in mind is at my desk and I can't remember the title of the source—I do not follow that material with a citation.

Would Wikipedia actually be improved by removing this sentence? You may remove it, but should you? Does your rule about deleting apparently good, but currently unsourced, material really help you improve Wikipedia? Or does it only allow you to enforce your "right" to remove perfectly good information, regardless of the consequences for the overall project?

Does it really matter if that kind of sentence, whose accuracy should be obvious to anyone over the age of seven, remains unsourced for more than a year? For more than ten years? Forever?

I suspect that Jimbo would leave such a sentence in the article, just like he'd leave the unsourced sentence about how many fingers are normally found on the human hand (which, yes, was tagged as "citation needed" several years ago). Jimbo uses good judgment in articles. He does not mindlessly remove perfectly good information merely because some arbitrary date has passed.

There is no contradiction between these policies and my proposal. One tells you what you are permitted to do. The other tells you what you should do, if you want to be a good editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As a general answer, most of the responses I've been getting don't take into account the basic factors that we're losing or not gaining editors; and that no one is ever going to improve most of these articles. No one has an answer for that, no one wants to address it.

"Does your rule about deleting apparently good, but currently unsourced, material really help you improve Wikipedia?" Oh, very much so: the only way to create a reliable encyclopedia is to prune out the cruft. I think this is a noble project, thus to me, "may" is "should." But it's interesting to me that you admit that I "may."

"whose accuracy should be obvious to anyone over the age of seven..." NO, absolutely not, it doesn't need a source and should be left in. I'm talking about stuff that's only obvious to an "expert" or someone familiar with the sources.

We're getting to the point in this discussion where it's too complex and I'm repeating stuff cause editors TLDR. The stuff I was taking out was about local affairs/conditions, and leaving it in means the encyclopedia is not just unsourced, it's out-dated. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to mainly look at the aspect of too many users contributing questionable (unsourced) content ("cutting the cruft", problematic content contributors). Whereas I'm mainly looking at the aspect of a bureaucratic (often mindless) quality control obsessed with formal aspects and window dressing rather than content or real content improvement ("removing correct content over formalistic arguments", problematic qualiy control). Both are real problems in WP and various methods to address them might be conflicting and the issue is to find an appropriate balance that works in practice.

Moreover I think we also have fundamentally different views and how WP works (and in which time frames), how and why it is used and how to achieve reliability or even what constitutes reliability. From my perspective your approach is simply not offering a (real) solution, it just deprives readers of correct but yet unsourced content. Which seen from my perspective is even deterioration.

Where we agree however that we should attempt to catch (new) unsourced content contributions and contact the authors immediately. A (smart) bots might be helpful here indeed. Any larger text contribution or new article without sources could trigger an automatic notification to the author.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interjection by another editor

This thread has become so hard to follow and there are many issues that need to be addressed so I am just going to do that in this section. First, there are some notability issues about high schools. While slightly disputed, it has been accepted that while all schools (elementary and middle schools) are not notable, all high schools are. To address some questions on removing unsourced information. I think this is a ridiculous idea. Information should not be removed for the sole reason that it is unsourced. Information should only be removed if there is a valid reason to challenge the information. If a citation needed tag has been added it has been challenged. The key assumption to take when viewing unsourced information is WP:AGF. Assume that all information that was added was added in good faith. Deleting this information hints at an assumption of bad faith. If there is reasonable belief that the information is false, or if it is an unverified statistic it can be deleted. It is also important to remember that the citation needed tag helps encourage editors to cite unverified information. Before removing the information, it is often useful to add the citation needed tag instead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on the notability of high schools at Talk:Salmon High School. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was fairly sure this was all covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Other_issues. Removing material without tagging first, leaving a reason=, or a talk page note should only be done under limited circumstances: obvious errors, such as "the Sun is a green gas giant"; vandalism; blp claims that may be libellous or otherwise defamatory; flammable material that might cause a volatile page to descend into chaos, "this country attacked first and committed genocides, the other country was simply defending itself when it invaded them back"; etc.

It seems that fewer and fewer people are reading MoS before starting on campaigns to "clean up Wiki" - I found one instance where an article was tagged with a citation needed and within two days the editor had removed both paragraphs, even though most of the material was fairly innocuous and easy to ref. A reasonable period of time is really related to the amount of editing the page receives - if the last edit was over a month ago and the last talk page post was three months ago, a reasonable period might well be six months. Page views need to be considered also, if such an article is getting 10 views a month it is less necessary to change it than if it is getting 1000 views a day. I also think that editors should try and source before even tagging with a cn, and least put a reason= into the template. Drive-by-tagging is becoming an issue and will only increase as Wiki approaches the point where less and less articles can be created and maintenance becomes the only way for new editors to measure their worth. In the old days it was possible to create a hundred articles in a month and do that for several months, nowadays new topics that are not already covered are much less frequent. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

it has been accepted that while all schools (elementary and middle schools) are not notable, all high schools are'. Perhaps it has been accepted, but that doesn't make it policy or a guideline--is there a policy or guideline supporting that notion. I think it is safe to say one can generally assume that most all high schools meet GNG, but if notability is challenged, sources would need to be produced to show that the school in question has some significant coverage in reliable sources. Failing that fails GNG, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but if someone challenges the info and no one is around to respond to it (for a myriad of reasons), that doesn't mean that that person can then redirect or try to delete the article without bothering to check for sources themselves. I personally feel that WP:BURDEN goes both ways. People should only be challenging something if they have proof that it is wrong, via a source, or can't find any sources for it after checking. If they're challenging something with no backing, then they should be thoroughly trouted. Silverseren^C 10:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Silverseren. Unsourced material is fair game for anyone to challenge - but it should still be up to someone to challenge it. They should have some iota of suspicion that the information is actually wrong, and not just take it out solely due to the lack of a recognizable inline citation.

This is also important because when people are free to take out unsourced information with no further examination, it's very likely that they're going to start taking out information with a citation in the next or previous paragraph... or the next or previous sentence... those old articles with a bibliography at the end are right out. The only way to ensure your information will stay in (at least for this one reason) will be to cite the end of every sentence, even if they're all from the same source. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability is about article topics... Verifiability is about article content. While both are established by citing reliable sources, they are quite different concepts. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, that's a very good objection. How do you differentiate between sourced and unsourced, when sources exist for some of the text (what I did was to remove entirely unsourced content)? I think that if there are sources given at the end of a section, it's usually incumbent on the person removing text to know that the source offered doesn't have the info. And I think that's a reasonably easy principle to put into policy. But, I don't think that one should have to have reason to believe information wrong before taking it out: that requires, for example, that before I took out any unsourced information on a local high school, I should basically live near or be a student there. Requiring that level of expertise isn't practical. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you need to have proof something is wrong; merely an "iota of suspicion". Maybe an unsourced section offers information you can't really picture having proof of, maybe it sounds like someone might have had a partisan perspective; maybe you found something else in the article that was wrong and now you're ticked; maybe the account that added it had a record of Wikitroubles; maybe you think it's wrong. But the point is, whatever reason you choose to challenge a fact, it is a reason. Siccing a bot on the task, or acting like a bot, goes beyond that, and that's a bad thing. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And why would anyone take out any information if they didn't think it was wrong? This gets more bizarre by the day. If there is a suspicion that the info is wrong, do aquick google search, no hits, mark it with a citation needed. Date it and give a reason-, come back in a fortnight or three weeks and if no-one has added anything, put a note on the talk page, find a frequent editor and inform them, come back in two weeks and move it to the talk page...really, removing things today just because there is not ref today is a bit extreme. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "And why would anyone take out any information if they didn't think it was wrong?" - I recall an experience where an editor did that because he said he was a "purist". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be a nice way of doing things, but utterly impractical given the limited number of editors and the thousands of articles. We can't/won't be doing that, so we have to choose between a streamlined way of eliminating questioned/questionable information, and doing nothing. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, to me it sounds like either laziness or POV removal. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does. But engage the argument, and tell me this unreliable text is not going to be sitting there in 5 years, 10, 20... We have to decide between reliability and permanent unreliability. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that you're not talking about "unreliable text". You're talking about "uncited text". That's not the same. Text becomes unreliable only if no reliable source has ever published that information. It is not unreliable merely because no editor has (yet) bothered to type up the bibliographic citation for a published source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of "accuracy is an objective" from a previous version of the policy to the lead

I think that the recent attempt to restore (from a previous version of the policy) that accuracy is both an objective and also the reason for wp:ver to the lead was a good (albeit bold) idea. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not been following discussion about this but, IMO, it is a bad idea for WP to make a judgement of accuracy re assertions made by cited sources, vs. what I would say is a good idea — making a judgement that cited sources actually did make those assertions.

This has nothing to do with judging accuracy, quite the opposite. Essentially it says that accuracy is a goal of wp:ver, and that wp:ver rules. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to remind editors of this fact. Occasionally we get editors who insist on making articles on Wikipedia-related matters contradict our server logs because a "reliable" source got it wrong, or who insist that we have to be agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus because there are so many apparently serious reliable sources that appear to take him seriously. (They just happen to appear mostly around Christmas... .) These exceptions are when we need a reminder of the purpose of the policy. It's not OK to take our policies literally for the LULZ. Hans Adler 12:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe the edit made was not the best way to do it, but I agree that saying accuracy is still an aim could very likely help achieve the aims of those of us who are concerned about this issue (people saying WP does not even aim at accuracy) without needing to break the now established tradition concerning the word "truth".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "accuracy"? The problem here is that "accuracy" can be equated with "truth". If by "accuracy" you mean "we should present information accurately", then I agree... if you mean "we should only present information that is widely held to be accurate", then I can not agree. NPOV often requires that we present theories, claims and information that the mainstream believes are inaccurate... the key is to present such information accurately (or "with accuracy"), which includes phrasing opinions as being opinions, attributing controversial ideas to those who hold them, noting that minority opinions are minority opinions, etc. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We are not supposed to present fringe theories, which is where you almost heading, so we are only supposed to present things understood to be accurate, and yes we are supposed to do it accurately also. The word is quite simple and does not seem to me to require any digression about how to define fringe, notable and various other jargon about how we know when something is really understood to be accurate. That is clearly for other policies and not something where any normal reader is going to be seeing assumptions written between the lines?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that we are not supposed to present fringe theories?... We have lots of articles about fringe theories. We also have a guideline (WP:FRINGE) that is all about when and how to present fringe theories. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Describing a fringe theory in context IS accurate. E.G. "The flat earth society asserts that the earth is flat" is an accurate statement. Ditto for where there is an objective answer but we don't know it (How did the Edmund Fitzgerald Sink?....report on the theories as being theories). Accuracy is irrelevant on matters of opinion, where no objective answer exists (e.g. Is Obama a good or bad President?).North8000 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes, and we could have a whole discussion about it. But it appears to be a different subject, and that is my point. Accuracy seems a pretty clear and neutral word for what WP is trying to achieve. The word does not seem to imply anything about where WP sits concerning notability, fringe, mainstream etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The two of you seem to be using "present" in two slightly different ways. The problem is: Given that the majority of reliable sources speak about Santa Claus as a real, superhuman person, how can we justify not making absurd claims such as that he is one, or that people disagree about him? The simple answer is that Wikipedia isn't a mindless game but an encyclopedia striving for accuracy, and in this case it's obvious what is accurate and what isn't. Hans Adler 14:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than Santa Claus, I am more concerned about the verifiability of allegations presented as fact in biographical articles like Lot (biblical person). Should the section on what counts as a reliable source explicitly mention that scriptures are not reliable sources for statements of fact? --Boson (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As a literary character, Lot is a quite different issue compared to Santa Claus, a modern myth. But in both cases it's not necessary to use excessively guarded language once the context has been set up correctly. The problem isn't that someone with a fringe theory (Santa Claus exists) or dubious theory (the story of Lot is literally true exactly as presented in Bible and/or Quran) might not be disabused while reading the article. The problem occurs when such ideas are actively pushed by the article with explicit statements. Hans Adler 16:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer to "What do you mean by "accuracy"? " would be the definition from any dictionary. There are numerous complexities in applying it, but we should not use those to derail the basic concept and statement of objective. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK... then let's clarify the basic concept and objective... Is the objective to present information accurately ... or is it to limit the kind of information we present? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say simply that the objective is accuracy. Several things further that goal, especially wp:ver. Often or sometimes both of the things you mention further that goal, although both are ambiguous because the term "information" is ambiguous. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear WP aims at accuracy, but I would not equate that aim to the policy wp:ver. This is why the edit which was reverted was not appropriate. It put this aim into this policy page in the first words, before the core of the policy itself. I think accuracy as an aim is context of the policy, not the policy itself. Is this also how others in this discussion would see it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Agree. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, it's an important statement (implicit in the common meaning of "information" which is informative and accurate) that is homeless at the moment. Putting it back into wp:ver somewhere would also be good and appropriate for a couple of reasons. First, wp:ver is the policy that most furthers that goal. Second, it would help resolve the common mis-statements of wp:ver which have been behind much of the ongoing controversy here. But it doesn't necessarily have to be the first sentence. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If verifiability wasn't a decent approximation to accuracy in most cases, then it wouldn't be policy in the first place. By not making clear that accuracy is the reason why we are so obsessed about verifiability, we make the policy vulnerable to wikilawyering that tries to pervert it by making it a tool to force blatant lies into the encyclopedia. Unfortunately this is not a theoretical issue at all. Hans Adler 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

An important point well said. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, the edit included more than just the objective of accuracy. The problem I had was this information. "We can't be sure of our accuracy if we include information which cannot be verified." I believe the information should read

The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Therefore, 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.

Any new thoughts? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it overall. Might need a few tweaks. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not the purpose of individual policies to state the "goal of Wikipedia".

"Complete" is at odds with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Writing this in the opening sentence of a core policy invites people to argue that all sorts of things should be included on the basis of completeness.

"Accurate" is problematic vis a vis "verifiable". What is "accuracy" beyond "verifiability"? It invites editorial conjecture (aka WP:OR), and a place for belief.

"Therefore"? This is an attempt at a logical structure A implies B, but the logic is loose, or at least I don't see it. How does the first sentence imply the second? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ver clearly precludes insertion of unverifiable material based on "belief", "truth" etc. So let's stop shaking that boogeyman once and for all. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

North8000, I understand that you're trying to work under the constraint of not changing anything in the current first sentence of WP:V. Are you OK with "accurate" in the first sentence here and "therefore ... not truth" in the second sentence here? This might appeal to some people who already understand the policy, but I think it would be confusing to those who are trying to learn about it. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to misread something is to start at the top and to stop as soon as you have want you want. Sticking "complete and accurate" in a stand alone sentence (it will be quoted, not even "paraphrased") ahead "verifiability, not truth" is to invite confusion, including willful confusion. Completeness and accuracy must not be encouraged at the expense of verifiability.

Some mention of complete and accurate may be useful, but not before stating the purpose of this policy.

Disagree that WP:ver clearly precludes insertion of unverifiable material based on "belief", "truth" etc. "Belief" has no accurance on the page. "truth" and "think" have exactly one occurance, in the first sentence. The clearness of the distinction between verifiability in reliable sources and the true believer's interpretation of truth is very easily muddied in the mind of that true believer (an important audience of this page). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wp:ver precludes the insertion of unverifiable material, period. If you think that it doesn't clearly say that, then we have work to do. A good place to start would be to stop confusing the issue by not attempting to list the things that don't bypass that rule. (e.g. truth)  :-) North8000 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Answering Bob K, personally I'm open to anything (compromise etc) that at least partially solves the problems. And a mention anywhere in this policy that accuracy is a goal, or that wp:ver is intended to help achieve accuracy would be such a step. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this thread is just another avenue for re-re-arguing the "not truth" thing. Enough already. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish.

Additionally, stating that we want an "accurate" encyclopedia means that every POV pusher should remove all that "inaccurate" garbage about climate change, abortion, politicians, etc.

We do not want what some editor believes is "accurate" or "the truth". The only kind of accuracy we care about is that we accurately represent whatever the reliable sources say. That is, we want an encyclopedia that doesn't deserve to have {{Failed verification}} in it. The sole interest of the community wrt "accuracy" is "matches the reliable sources". The dictionary definition is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(This is more or less re-posting from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence because I would like WhatamIdoing's opinion.) Here is an example of a real misprint that was obvious to me. In the paper "Temperature effect on IG-11 graphite wear performance" by Luo Xiaowei, Yu Suyuan, Sheng Xuanyu, and He Shuyan in the Journal Nuclear Engineering and Design 235 (2005) there is a table that gives the wear coefficients for graphite IG-11 in helium for upper and lower samples (in the experiment, one sample was physically on top of the other, and they were rubbed against each other). In table 2, it states that the upper samples values have a multiplier of *10⁻³ μg/m and the lower sample values have a multiplier of *10³ μg/m. So the difference between the wear rates on the upper and lower samples is around a factor of a million. By comparing the data with other experiments of graphite IG-11 in air, I was able to guess that the most likely factor was *10^-3 mg/m. I emailed Luo Xiaowei, one of the authors of the paper, and he helpfully confirmed my guess of *10^-3 mg/m. So, I know that the actual multiplier is *10^-3 mg/m and the information in the article is a typo. But, so far as wikipedia's current verifiability policy is concerned, my personal correspondence, and the reasoning about what should be the values cannot be used. So, even though there are obvious typos in the data, the verifiable numbers for wear of graphite IG-11 in helium are a factor of 1000 off. As a rational editor (who is willing to break a few rules), I should not in good conscience add any data on wear of graphite IG-11 in helium to a hypothetical article discussing this. Now, lets say that someone did add the data using the *10³ μg/m and *10⁻³ μg/m multipliers. There is information in wikipedia that is orders of magnitude off from the true value, but truth does not matter, only verifiability. What do we do? Jrincayc (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, an essay

Bob K31416 (talk · contribs) has twice now reverted the addition of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, an essay, to WP:V.

This is not a controversial slogan, it is a respectable, informative, well written essay. It is directly relevant to explaining and understanding the opening sentence. The opening sentence, while subject to long standing challenge, is in no danger of being substantially altered. A recent proposal to alter it was overwhelmingly rejected. Proponents for change have agreed to not attempt a new proposal for change until a future date, and this is in effect demonstrates a very strong consensus for the current wording for the current time.

Given that that the opening sentence is a source of controversy and ongoing debate, it is nothing but good that an explanatory essay be included. To do otherwise is to deny the readers easy access to the explanation. If, as alleged, the sentence is misleading, then the hiding of explanation only worsens the situation.

I propose that the essay be listed, alphabetically, in the "See also" section, because it is relevant and needed advice for readers, and because it provides information on a surprising, and possibly-for-some confusing statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree; while I am firmly on the side that believes "verifiability not truth" is a stupid slogan and should be abandoned in favour of something that says what we really mean, as long as we are forced to have this stupid slogan in bold in the lead, it's right that we should link people to an essay that does a pretty good job of explaining what that slogan is intended to mean.--Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's no reason I can see to not link to it. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too - no reason at all not to link to an essay which explains it better, and every reason to link to it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing the first "not truth" from the first sentence is an uphill battle. The links in the first sentence and see also will make the hill steeper. In all fairness, couldn't you wait until the present discussion is over? Also, I don't think it is a good idea to try to patch up bad writing with links. I think that is part of the convolution problem that Wales was referring to. Also, I noticed that the essay makes a special Wikipedia definition for the word "truth" for use in that essay. More jargon to add to Wikipedia's special definitions of "original research", "verifiability", "verifiability not truth", and probably others that I can't think of for the moment. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"The links in the first sentence and see also will make the hill steeper"... I see that as a good thing! Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar. BTW the discussion I was referring to is in the section The phrases "not truth" and "not whether editors think it is true" which is on the sub page Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no current consensus to change.  I suggest that this proposal should be placed on the WP:V/First sentence/Drafts page for consideration after September 15.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". What is your reasoning for not providing a direct link to that essay? It is not a proposal to change or not change anything. Its supports (as in "explains") the meaning behind the current wording. Your page, Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence/Drafts, shows little promise at this stage of a developing new consensus. As the first sentence is allegedly capable of confusing some people, the essay is needed now. If the wording changes on some future date, update the relevant essays as required then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Although I agree that a more specific reason should be given for all reverts here, which I had done in the edit summary of my revert, please see the second sentence in your Essay link for the relevant exception, "Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy" and also note that your link is to an essay, not guideline or policy. Anyhow, for now I don't feel strongly either way regarding having it in the See also section. I'll be taking a break. Good luck and best regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What is the purpose of this discussion when there are people that want to take a break?  Are you ok with waiting until September 15 to continue?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is all discussion supposed to wait until this arbitrarily defined date of September 15? Why? This is not about changing the first sentence; it's about adding a link to what appears to be a perfectly good explanatory essay - if no-one's got any substantial arguments against doing so, can we just do it? (You can add a link to my WP:Truth, not verifiability as well, if you want to give some indication that the wording of that first sentence is not universally loved, though I think that might be unnecessary clutter.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is agreement above that the addition will make the deprecation of "not truth" more difficult, this can be fully understood because proposals that move the "not truth" phrase to a footnote will then also need to note the essay as moving with it.  On the other hand, if we build a consensus to keep the "not truth" phrase in the main body of the article, then I sense that the essay is appropriate.  Right now, there is no consensus to keep the "not truth" phrase in the body of the main article, and I think the next two and 1/2 weeks is not a good time to work on this issue.  Additionally, making this change now would be contrary to the sense of those that want to take a break from this topic.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no harm (and possible good) from linking to the essay under ==See also==. I have no firm opinion about linking to it in the first sentence. We link to other essays, like WP:When to cite; why not this one? Also, if the phrase is actually as confusing as opponents claim (without any proof, despite months of requests), then we should be linking to it, to relieve this alleged confusion while discussions are going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the two questions are necessarily related. We can still link to the essay whether or not the phrase is included in the first sentence. If it is included, then the essay helps to explain it; if it is not included, the essay (appropriately modified) would help explain (to people who remember it as being there) what it was intended to mean and what happened to it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence

Discussion of the first sentence is at WT:Verifiability/First sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"A lot of editorial guidelines… are impenetrable to new users." -- Jimbo Wales

"A lot of editorial guidelines… are impenetrable to new users." -- Jimbo Wales, (Aug 4, 2011) from the article Wikipedia Is Losing Contributors

Would anyone care to comment about how this quote relates to WP:Verifiability? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not? It's not an editorial guideline, but a fundamental policy, and the basics are pretty easy to grasp for most new users in my experience. Doesn't mean that it can't be improved of course. Fram (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Jimbo was speaking to the Associated Press, I think he used common language, rather than the specialized jargon of Wikipedia. So "editorial guidelines" meant policies and guidelines IMO. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting editing Wikipedia is jumping down the rabbit hole into whole new universe. An immense amount of this byzantine alternate universe needs learning. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, rabbit hole. I can just picture the hooka-smoking caterpillar sitting on the giant mushroom saying to Alice, "verifiability, not truth!" Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And I can hear our new theme song "White Rabbit"  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean, fundamental policy or not, it's quite badly written, if it's supposed to serve to explain anything. Like most Wikipedia policies, in fact. There are indeed things you need to learn when becoming a Wikipedian (and other things you might wish to learn as time goes on); but there's no reason why we should make it harder for people to learn those things by concealing the explanations under pseudo-legalistic constructions and unnecessary weird jargon.--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is having too many guidelines (said in plain language), then the way to fix it would be to reduce the number. Rather than using the same forking system we use for articles, we should aim to have long but few policies/guidelines, rather than many short ones. Many ones should be merged elsewhere or demoted to essays; but as a core concept this one should be one of the few that would grow Cambalachero (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, I wouldn't consider the core policies to be confusingly written, other than a few infamous phrases. Probably the worst problems with them for new comers are that, if taken literally, they are detached from the reality of how wikipedia actually works. That disparity also enables bullies and wikilawyers to easily beat up on newbies. One of the things that takes forever to learn is all of the compensating fuzziness (e.g. enforce and interpret by consensus) that has been put in place to make them work despite such issues. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it more of a problem of today's "instant gratification" than the way the net was before the Endless September, where the mantra was "lurk and learn". WP's policies are easier to understand in practice than as written, and seeing how they are applied before making one's own edits go a long way. While we want to encourage editors to participate, we need to be clear that random nonsense is not the type of info we seek. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to encourage people to lurk before they start editing? If we do, we could give them advice on how to do that (which is far from obvious), but I fear that if people were actually to find out what went on around here, they might be put off for ever. Better to give them some brief and clear advice about what the idea is, and let them get stuck in - then hopefully by the time unpleasant things start happening to them, they might be too addicted to let it cause them to give up.--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea of starting slowly is fine, but not trying to use that as a cop out in lieu of fixing that it is unnecessarily byzantine, confusing and hard-to-learn.North8000 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we can ask people to lurk with an anonymous contribution system, only advise towards it. It's more the problem that the average internet user today wants instant gratification, which works against any system that has some type of formal procedure or the like. It is not something we can correct as long as we have formal processes in place - chaos vs order, effectively. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevant and well-taken point. But it shouldn't take an immense amount of time as it currently does. And many of the causes of that problem are the causes of numerous other problems, so fixing them would be a win-win situation. For example, things that lead to "experts" commonly misstating policies to newbies, and the newbies then having to take a long time to learn that they were wrong? North8000 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think that the sheer volume of policy is daunting and confusing, and sometimes very badly stated such as "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia." Maybe one way of effectively rewriting policy in an easier-to-understand form would be to write a very simple general guide for new users. The thing is to make it simple enough. How about something like this?:

What is the basic logic behind Wikipedia policy?

Wikipedia strives to be reliable encyclopedia. This goal leads to all the other aspects of our content policy:

When writing an article, Wikipedia editors should:

• Find the best sources of information.

• Accurately represent those sources.

To accurately represent our sources, editors have to do two things:

• Refrain from adding any of their own thinking to articles, beyond that necessary to describe what the sources already say.

• Edit from a neutral point of view. This means that editors do not present the sources with any type of bias. A person who reads a Wikipedia article should come away with the same general impression as a person who read the original sources.

In order to prove both to readers and other editors that we have been doing our job, all information added to Wikipedia should state where it came from. If you do not tell readers and other editors where you got the information that you put in Wikipedia, it may eventually be removed unless it is common knowledge.

Thus the goal of being a reliable encyclopedia naturally leads us to embrace our policies on reliable sources (RS), no original research (NOR), and the neutral point of view (NPOV), and to cite our sources.

B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That covers a lot of ground, (and scope beyond just wp:ver) so would need work, but good idea to start in one place, which includes what to DO, not just what not to do. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A new editor has a subject they want to get going on, and we just want to give the most basic info to help them do it right, along with point them to more info. Something like this would be the 5 min version of policy. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What you've written there is pretty good and might well fit into the scheme of things somewhere, but we already have various simplified and introductory pages for beginners - that doesn't change the fact that we still have lots and lots and lots of other policy and guidance pages that those beginners are going to quickly come across (for example, by clicking the links in what you've written there, or on the WP:XYZ shortcuts that many editors use in disputes as a substitute for arguments) and be made to feel are important. All that stuff needs to be put in order and made into a reasonably clear and concise description of wiki-reality. @Masem: I don't know what you mean by "formal processes" (by and large we don't have formal processes, do we?), nor do I see how anonymous contribution would count as lurking (it would still be active contribution, just with the absence of various standard conveniences like watchlists).--Kotniski (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

@BeCritical - I really like that, up above.

I'm all for anything which makes our policies, guidelines, and etc. clearer to all. I'm darned sure that, if we really tried, we could actually cut down the length of a load of that stuff by removing repetitions and (sorry!) waffle from the pages, so that they don't appear as a TLDR wall of text. These guidelines / policies really shouldn't take that amount of verbosity to explain, and we also don't need to use college-level language to explain them. We can do it better than that. I think in many cases the concepts are simple - but they way we've explained them makes them look daunting. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BeCritical, Good work. You might want to put that in an essay as collateral reading with respect to policies, for those wanting to learn about editing. Unfortunately, if it gets attention, it may get edited by the same consensus that led to the present policies that are impenetrable to new users. Catch 22. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pesky's remark is consistent with Jimbo Wales' assessment of Wikipedia editorial guidelines in general: they're impenetrable to new users. Writing guidelines by consensus has failed to make them clear. I think that Wales needs to hire a professional technical writer, who has a reputation for clarity, to clean up the mess. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Those of us who think they need a rewrite might just go ahead and do it. It would have helped me if someone had explained the logical structure, rather than just present them as a bunch of rules. Wikiproject:Simple policy. Want to create it? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 15:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with "just going ahead and doing it" is that there are a lot of people who have come to regard the policies in their present form almost as a kind of immutable scripture, and will revert and block any significant attempts to improve them, out of a fear that we're somehow "changing the rules" by writing them in different words.--Kotniski (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Should have left in the fun stuff about the "shadow government in waiting." Took it out because you know how words can get misinterpreted around here or used wrong. I'm not talking about rewriting policy pages, but making a new, parallel complex of policy pages re-written to be simpler and to show the logic of the structure. They'd be designated as essays or whatever at first. The only thing that should draw flack from other editors would be if we linked them to current policy pages. Getting the new pages certified as policy would be way in the future. Probably someone has already done this, but I don't know where to look. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been seriously considering writing a parallel "here are the rules in simple format" user essay for quite some time now! I may just go ahead and work on it ... when I have some spare time and energy! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Trifecta? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's a great idea but to make it really useful you need to figure out what things are really difficult for newer folks to learn and address those. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously "you have to cite your sources" is one that is hard to learn. NOTABILITY is another. MAINSTREAM is another horribly phrased part of policy. NOTTRUTH, obviously. Someone who works more with the contentious articles might have a list for us here? And BTW, is IAR ever relevant anymore? Even a couple or three years ago it might have been, but really.... when is it ever usable? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure the data supports that. That might be what bugs you about newbies, but I don't think that's what bugs the newbies.

Moonriddengirl (Mdennis) posted a link to comments from newbies at one of the Village Pumps a while ago. Most of the complaints indicated confusion with basic editing/formatting or unhappiness that the pages they tried to create were deleted within minutes, without an opportunity to explain or fix the problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So when not protected by some rule like "all high schools are notable," they basically get bitten instead of cultivated. Sad. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability as currently defined would eliminate large chunks of wikipedia

Applying the verifiability principle as it is written, which is strictly about being able to source a statement from a reliable source, would eliminate large portions of good articles in Wikipedia. For example take a random physics article, Stress (mechanics). The entire section Stress (mechanics)#Equilibrium equations and symmetry of the stress tensor does not cite a source, yet, it my mind the truth of the section is verifiable by checking the provided proof. Yet, it is not Wikipedia verifiable, because Wikipedia Verifiability is strictly about reliable sources. Dig around the science and math articles and many more examples will be found. I believe that the Wikipedia principle of verifiability as currently written is frequently ignored. For mathematical sections and many science articles, providing the proof in terms of first principles is far more verifiable for another mathematician or scientist than citing a journal article since verifying by the journal article requires looking up the journal article, and then the proof in the journal article needs to be checked, which adds a step to the process. The first non-stub version of the page [12] included the sentence "Therefore, include nothing that you cannot verify." and recommended citing sources as an easy way to do that. I think that the verifiability policy should support the very common pattern in mathematics pages of using a proof as sufficient verifiability. Jrincayc (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If the proof of the concept is being published first on Wikipedia, that is strictly against WP:OR. Instead, and more likely, I would suspect that you can eventually find textbooks and papers that have first (or at least, prior to WP) published these proofs. Remember, verifyability is about the ability to verify the information, so pointing to a journal or textbook is completely within lines. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the section Stress (mechanics)#Equilibrium equations and symmetry of the stress tensor need to find a reliable source for satisfying verifiability, or is it sufficient as is? Jrincayc (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone challenges the material in that section for being unsourced, yes, one would need to find a reliable source for the statements therein. If the material is solely dependent on the proof provided by editors here, it's OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, in a situation like that, a general catchall reference (eg defined outside the numbered reflist) for standard textbooks, reference guides, or the like, would satisfy WP:V. Remember, we're a tertiary source - we want to be able to point readers to where they can learn more. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point--the information must be verifiable, but that bar can be met a number of ways. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be also noted that straight forward "calculations"/derivations being obviously true for anybody with "reasonable domain knowledge" are not really WP:OR and are essentially covered by WP:CALC (though that's subject to debate).--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Though, and importantly, if the end line of a proof is a novel statement made purposely to support a topic, even if drawn from these core calculations, that treads dangerously on OR. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes though "novel" is to be understood in a scholarly/scientific sense and not as in it has not been literally written in that way before.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"If anyone challenges the material in that section for being unsourced" is not correct; "If anyone challenges the accuracy of the material in that section" is. Until and unless someone says that a particular unsourced tidbit is incorrect, it is OK to continue to exist as unsourced. It can be tagged, and should be improved, but it only need be removed if someone disputes its accuracy. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For a while, but not indefinitely if we are to continue the project of making WP a reliable encyclopedia. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of (correct) statement does really change or improve by sourcing. The reliability you seem to have in mind is achieved by proof reading by domain experts (and/or reliable editors) and for we need flagged revisions. Sourcing arguably becomes even less important in that context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens, I sooooo wish that you were right, but you are wrong. They can challenge it saying absolutely nothing except that is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Around the loop again, we wouldn't be able to determine if it were accurate without a source.... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Again: verifyability is minimally satisfied by knowing a source exists. I borrow a math proof from my HS calc book and replicate it here for some reason, WP:V is not broken, just bad sourcing (which is fixable). --MASEM (t) 02:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Until and unless someone says that a particular unsourced tidbit is incorrect" - I would prefer "is suspect". It takes far less effort for a bad-faith editor to make up rubbish than it does for a good-faith editor to determine that it's untrue. If I know an editor has a history of making dodgy claims that don't hold up, I shouldn't feel obliged to check all their claims - even cursorily - before requiring a source for the ones that smell fishy. In an extreme case, if I assert that the Axiom of Choice is untrue... well, nobody can ever prove me incorrect, but I think they'd still be entitled to a "cite needed". --GenericBob (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "is suspect" is a better principle. Good faith editors often just do original research. It's often obvious that this has happened, but you can't point to anything specific. Or you may just be at a loss when you see a lot of text but no citations. At any rate, at some point the lack of citation itself becomes a reason to think that it's suspect. The only way to determine the reliability of the encyclopedia is to actually cite sources. In fact, a large part of reliability is knowing that something is reliable, and the only way to know is to see that it's sourced. So it's not true that "Reliability of (correct) statement does really change or improve by sourcing." Actually, it does, because it allows you to rely upon it. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes and no - the fact that it's sourced is in itself neither here not there - it certainly helps the reader to research it, and gives some assurance that it wasn't just a made-up statement added by a one-off vandal (although in some subject areas I would actually place less reliance on a sourced statement than an unsourced one, but that's another story) - but to be sure that the information is reliable, the reader would have to check (a) that it's really what the source says, (b) that that source really is reliable in that reader's world view, and (c) that there do not exist other "reliable" sources that contradict it. --Kotniski (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, it's not a guarantee. But much of the time such verification only takes a glance, especially on non-controversial subjects: "okay, it's a textbook and it sounds right" actually helps a lot. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 13:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The last few comments are stating the intent of wp:ver, not its actual wording. And they deal only with the specific case (where there is an actual concern/question about the material) where the two work together. After years of thinking I've decided that the most high impact change-for the good in core policies would be adding the following two sentences which would bring the two together: "When challenging a statement for sourcing, indicate your concern with the material in addition to noting that it is unsourced. This is just to assure that there is a good faith concern; after that, any discussion about the concern has no effect on the requirement for sourcing." This would keep wp:ver at 100% full strength while eliminating the 100,000's (probably millions) of misuses of it. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to reference that "the sky is blue", and we have a guideline that forbids disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The article Cylinder (geometry) does not reference that the volume of a cylinder is πr²h, but that's trivial knowledge, as trivial and undisputable as the colour of the sky, so many attempt to remove it in referencing grounds would be swiftly undone Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If I challenged you on the "Sky is blue" statement, the policy wp:ver would trump that guideline and force you to source it. My proposed change would force me to sound silly by saying "I question the sky is blue statement" to challenge it, which most of the time would prevent me from doing so. The more real world example of mis-use is to knock out material in a POV war. The clever warrior-wikilawyer knows that this not only invokes basic sourcing, it invokes the more difficult gauntlet of very high bullet-proof grade sourcing. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBLUE. As an aside, I don't feel silly saying that the sky is not blue--today, it's grey. Each time this comes up, it strikes me that sourcing trivial knowledge is, well, trivial. I still just don't see a problem here. POV pushers are going to be disruptive, that's their nature. If I'm challenged on the assertion that Paris is the capital of France, it's trivial to source it and put an end to the discussion that way, rather than arguing about what's true and what's not, or what's common knowledge or what's not. When I taught intro to Lit, we did a segment on Magical Realism, in which a mostly realistic novel contains non-realistic elements. One interesting thing is that none of the students questioned the classification, but when we were discussion specifics, they disagreed with one another about which plot elements were realistic and which weren't. Common knowledge is not homogenous. But I agree it's good form to indicate why challenges a statement for sourcing, but I think we need to keep that as a suggestion, not a rule. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that adding that even as a suggestion would be a great move. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Likely be reverted. Such is life. ;) --Nuujinn (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:MINREF. This policy says only that it must be possible to find a published reliable source that contains the material. This policy does not require that unchallenged material be supported by an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So how's this as a first sentence?

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, i.e. whether readers and editors can independently or collaboratively check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether individual editors have a personal and subjective belief it is true.

Support - cause that's how I roll. -- Avanu (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it any improvement on the first sentence we have at the moment? It seems to retain all of its problems, while adding extra empty words.--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The current sentence is fine. What you call 'empty' words, I believe they add clarity. -- Avanu (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you've changed the proposal, I like it more - but only because you've removed the words "not truth", which as we've seen has been made into such an article of faith that rational discussion on that point is impossible.--Kotniski (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you can thank The Jimbo for that. :) -- Avanu (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Achtung! You have attempted to edit WP:V without permission and have been reverted accordingly. Only certain editors are permitted to edit WP:V. Others are directed to this page for "discussion" which means placing their proposed edits in permanent limbo while other editors wrangle about them. Also, discussion of the first sentence on this page is strictly verboten by order of the Ordnungsamtfuehrerin. This discussion will be moved to the relevant subpage where it can more conveniently be ignored.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, ok. :) I do recall this wonderful approach to consensus that involves editing, called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and since no one is intending to change the INTENT of the first sentence, merely the phrasing, I would say people need to lighten up a little. -- Avanu (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't know why this one crappy sentence is so strongly defended against any changes whatever to its wording. But as several of us have already found, it is (and the "D" stage in BRD usually reduces to an empty "you need to get consensus to change this").--Kotniski (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ownership is not permitted in Wikipedia except here where it implemented via a double standard. Comments in favor of the status quo are good. Comments in in favor of change are considered bad behavior. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but would you all like a nice slice of snark with your whine? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How about we just vote on the suggestion, and I'll have a little Camembert if you please. :) -- Avanu (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)]

Avanu, most POV pushers do not believe that the Truth™ they're pushing is merely their personal or subjective beliefs. When they remove (for example) well-sourced information about Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii, they are doing so because they believe that objective evidence proves he is not a natural-born American citizen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. I think that is why it helps to overemphasize the point. I think the current wording is fine, but I also think this new version expresses the same point slightly better. An aside for a moment, I think Slim Virgin needs to stop reverting possible changes with the only explanation being "not consensus". WP:BRD is an alternative approach to consensus (without endless debate) by giving people something concrete to look at. Since no one has a problem with the intent of the lead paragraph, no one is asking to change policy, and since you guys have been debating this silly thing for months, another approach seems warranted. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the view you are pushing is supported by objective evidence, then you believe not only that it's "the truth", but you also (clearly) believe that it's "verifiable". Hence "verifiability, not truth" is not saying what we want to say. What we mean is that we have a standard of (what we call) verifiability that is based on the direct statements of (what we call) reliable sources, not on the beliefs or interpretations of editors. So if we want this page to be called "verifiability" we should introduce it by saying that on Wikipedia, verifiability means this and not the other. However, simpler would be to bypass that unnecessary concept altogether, call the page something like "sourceability", and state the principle straightforwardly - that information in Wikipedia must be supportable by reliable sources.--Kotniski (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Break until the 15th of September

[above header inserted by Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)]

Not interested, I'm taking a break until the 15th on the issue of "not truth". --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nuujinn... there have been so many proposals and counter proposals about the first sentence over the last two months that I have reached the saturation point. I think a lot of us are at that stage. If you look through at the recent discussions both here and at the WT:Verifiability/First sentence sub-page, there was a general agreement to work on drafts (at the sub-sub page) and postpone discussions for a few weeks. Avanu, despite the snarky comments, your proposal is as valid as any of the other proposals that have been suggested... so post your suggestion on the sub-page and we will get around to discussing it after the 15th... there is no need to rush. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly sounds fine to me, why the 15th exactly? And from what I can tell there wasn't really a consensus to shuffle suggestions off to a sub-page, and there seem to be a few people grousing a bit about it, so I think I will simply say, add a more aggressive archive setting for the main Talk page and let's move on with life. -- Avanu (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unanimity... but an acceptance of the concept (I was one of the ones who expressed dislike about "shuffling it off"... but I have accepted that others want to do it that way, and I don't object strongly enough to make an issue of it). As for the 15th, one of the editors who had been very involved in previous discussions (don't remember who) said he was going to be away until the 15th... so others agreed to wait until he got back. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 15th is pretty arbitrary, but my thought is that taking a break will let us gather thought and come back fresh. The discussion go back further than two months I think, and from my point of view any attempts made to come up with wording that left "not truth" were twarted by those set on removing it. So a break seems appropriate, and I'm enjoying mine. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is no formal consensus, just a proposal and an idea which appeared after the last round of RfCs to take a break.  There was also a proposal at that time to wait six months before a new round of RfCs.  I never personally agreed to that, but now that six months is here it seems to have been a good proposal.  I picked September 15 recently because somebody needed to pick a date.  It is not cast in stone.  I've also proposed that a preliminary round of discussion take place between September 15 and September 29 (Nuujinn first proposed Sep 17), to decide what proposals or polls are brought here to WT:V.  Blueboar has taken the lead in proposing that decisions that affect WP:V will be made on WT:V.  No one has agreed or objected, but I've also proposed/planned that WP:V be marked on September 15 to the effect that a review is taking place at WP:V/First sentence (not WT:V/First sentence) regarding the first sentence.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The last state of the discussion was that there are those who were only prepared to "compromise" if "not truth" remains in the policy, and there are those who are only prepared to "compromise" on something that removes it, and there are those who are generally opposed to compromise and also opposed to further discussion (which, incidentally, hints at the underlying conduct issues we face here, and not just from her either). There are those who have called for the pro-change party to produce diffs illustrating when "not truth" has caused any confusion, and there are those who have called for the anti-change party to produce diffs illustrating when it's ever helped. I asked whether producing diffs would make any difference, and it clearly will not. So we're totally stalled. It's deeply frustrating that stalling means the anti-change party win, but I console myself that until there's a consensus, their position remains subject to repeated challenge. Where there's no consensus, it's appropriate for the pro-change party to continue to discuss, to keep seeking consensus through reasoned debate, and to continue to advertise for opinions from new editors, periodically until consensus emerges. It's also appropriate to flag the disputed phrase as disputed (and my position is that further attempts to remove the disputed tag, which we may well see, represent a potentially actionable conduct issue.)—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The underlying conduct problem is that S Marshal and North8000 are trying to hold WT:V hostage until they get their way. We should not permit this. It's hard for me to believe, but North has actually been disputing "not truth" on this page since at least November 2010. It may be longer, but I don't have the stomach to go back in the history any further. I have been following this page for some time, but clearly this is too traumatic for me to remember as I thought that that discussion on that particular issue had started this spring. I guess I remembered only back as far as the start of the summer of the endless WP:V RFCs. A break is welcome, but when we come back, if S Marshall and North8000 lose, I suspect they will not quit and really nothing will change. Quale (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Policies don't get tagged disputed. Win an RFC first and then you can get the change you want. We already have consensus for the existing wording. You have to demonstrate consensus has changed to your view before you get to change it. This behavior really is disruptive. Quale (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Stop trying to pretend that it's only me and North8000 who have any problem with the first sentence. That's just a lie. There is no reason why disputed wording in a policy should not be so tagged. Note that I have not changed the first sentence: I have merely identified the dispute with a pointer. If you believe my behaviour is disruptive, then you should of course feel free to escalate it to whatever venue you think is appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's right: Bob also dislikes it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• What do you think Newyorkbrad thinks of it? Or Hans Adler? Or SBHarris? Or Kotniski? Or Casliber? Or Unscintillating? Or OrangeMarlin? Or Jayen466? Or ... actually, I'm not going to go through the whole archive listing all the people who have a problem with the first sentence, I'll just ask you to read what editors actually say about that first sentence. It is widely perceived as a problem.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the largest RFC in recent history half of everybody wanted to completely get rid of "not truth", something more sweeping than the recent compromise proposals. So Quale's comment is badly out of line. And in the last few weeks, all of the discussions have been started by yet other people. But I'm planning to take a break on it here at least until September 15th as well. As I noted previously, even amongst the folks that are being nice it has turned into just trading and parrying talking points. Not that that doesn't have value, but I think that some work somewhere else deciding on the key items and working up a organized compromise proposal there would be a good next step. North8000 (talk)

The philosopher in me loves leaving the word "truth" in because it is delightfully full of depth and interesting implications, but on a practical level, if a reasonable case can be made that it confuses people, just change the damn thing. We don't need an overwhelming preponderance of consensus if it is clear that some people can, will, or ARE confused by it. As many people seem to be saying, it is a POLICY, not just a quirky article. Policy should be as crystal clear as possible, and not open to much interpretation but very understandable. -- Avanu (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - and on the philosophical point, the philosopher in me absolutely insists on changing "verifiability, not truth" on the grounds that what we call "verifiability" is not at all the same as real verifiability, which is just as deep and implication-filled as (if not identifiable with) truth.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"if a reasonable case can be made that it confuses people, just change the damn thing. We don't need an overwhelming preponderance of consensus if it is clear that some people can, will, or ARE confused by it. " (Avanu, above). Many people are confused by the sentence, many others think it is just right and aren't confused at all. However, many of those wouldn't have a problem with changes to the sentence if a better one could be agreed on. As it stands now, half the people want to keep it as it is, and none of the proposed alternatives even has the support of 50%. So wy would you change something that has at least some support, to something with even less support?

Suggestion: all those that don't like the current wording, get somewhere together (onwiki I mean), and agree on a sentence or paragraph that gets the widest support out of your group. Then start an RfC to see whether we keep the current version, or switch to your new one. Let someone uninvolved close the RfC based on the !votes, and upfront state that the result will be left unchallenged for at least a year, so that we all can take a break from this. Fram (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's along the lines of my idea. But mine would include assessing the issue(s) to be resolved, the optimum realistic solution, and a rationale and presentation of the results. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds overly complicated, honestly. Sounds to me like the status quo people are saying "what's so bad?", and the change it people are saying "it confuses the dull-minded and stubborn". So let's change it. Simple, yes? Too many people are letting PERFECT get in the way of BETTER. -- Avanu (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)