Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Truth, not verifiability


Current page says direct opposite of what Verifiability policy says. This seems to only serve to confuse the reader. While I recognize that the page is merely an essay, and that the author is likely making a reasonable point about 'veracity', Verifiability is a core policy and as such, pages that comment on it should be written to a higher standard than this page. It is poorly written and not an essay that I can see as actually being helpful to guide people toward a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. Avanu (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Essays contrary to policy should be in userspace. jorgenev 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I read the essay, and it seems to be pretty much in line with WP:V. The title is somewhat misleading, but beyond that, the essay doesn't seem to contradict policy.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace - sufficiently different from policy that it should not be in main space. --Surturz (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid essay.  Consistent with, and even explanatory of the opening line of WP:V.  It has widespread support, and challenges to the startling phrase are not a reason to delete, but to edit.  The essay has strong support, not just as-is, but to be linked from WP:V, evidenced both at WT:V (before someone removed the section) and again in the poll at Verifiability/First_sentence.  This essay clearly expresses a view opposed to one held by the nominator here, and so this is a disruptive nomination that should be a speedy keep.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you certain you know what my point of view is, SmokeyJoe? The insinuation that I am opposed to this because I'm opposed to the nominator or his goal is not only against our "assume good faith" motto, but it is incorrect as well. Exclusive of how you might feel about any of the issues at the WP:V page, this is simply a very poorly written essay. That and the fact that in its beginning it directly contradicts an existing policy in its lead, make it worth Userfying or just removing.  Our author here can make whatever points he likes, but if he's going to put it up as an essay for others to embrace, it needs to be written better than a 5th grader's essay on bears. -- Avanu (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I just reviewed the diffs you posted, SmokeyJoe. This isn't even the same essay as what you are referring to in the diffs.  Maybe you saw the similar name and thought it was? -- Avanu (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Avanu. Wrong tree.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Although there may be some support for the critics of the first sentence, by reversing the order of the concepts the essay begins with a self-contradicting sentence. "Whether reliable sources state it to be true, not whether individual editors think they can verify it." If there are reliable sources that state something to be true, then the second line is pointless, as it is something that may be verified. It is highly different from "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." from the policy page, because thinking that something is "true" is highly subjetive (thus we do not rely on it), but verifiability is not: either you can bring reliable sources to support an assertion, or you can't. "editors think they can verify it" means "editors can not provide reliable sources, but they are sure there are", which is nonsense, wikipedia can not find out the "real truth" of things, but it can find out (we do that all the time) if there are reliable sources supporting a given assertion. I vote for deletion because expansion will hardly improve an essay based on a wrong isea: it should be started from scratch, under a a more general name. Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote this thing, mainly in order to show that the wikimantra "verifiability, not truth" is nonsensical, or at least fails to express properly what it is trying to say. You'll note if you read this essay that it isn't against policy - it says exactly the same as what the policy says, but in different words. (You need to remember that "to verify" something doesn't mean, in real English, to show that reliable sources say it.) I'm happy for this to be userfied, though feel it's a pity that Wikipedia is becoming this kind of Orwellian world where proper explanations are replaced by meaningless slogans, and anyone who dares question those slogans is silenced. A better solution would be to merge it with WP:Verifiability, not truth, allowing that essay to point out, correctly (but probably blasphemously), that many editors dispute the appropriateness of that phrase as a description of Wikipedia's aspirations.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It amazes me that nobody else realized this; it was pretty obvious to me that it was just explaining it in different words. It seems that some people just have problems reading further than the title.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my critizism is not formulated over the title, but over the sentence defining it. Not that there is much more than that that may had been left unread... As for the term "verify", do not forget either the common usage within wikipedia: unless it is noted otherwise, when we say that something can be "verified", we are saying that we can find reliable sources supporting it, not that we can verify it ourselves. Besides, before merging there should be something to merge, besides a mere play on words. Verifiability, not truth does the work of explaining why "truth" is such a problematic concept, and why when "reliable sources state it to be true" we can't yet take it as the final word on the topic. There are opposing points of view (each one stated as fact), half-truths and other rethorical tricks, outdated knowledge, simple mistakes; you choose it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the essay actually clearly says that it's not policy ("You may have noticed that the Wikipedia policy on Verfiability puts this the other way round – "verifiability, not truth" –..."). This seems to be an understandable position, and there's no reason not to keep essays that go against Wikipedia policies. In fact, it should also be pretty clear from essay that it's not a policy. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any comment on the fact that it is just poorly written as well? To comment on your statement above, it may say it is an essay but it declaratively says "The primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability – whether reliable sources state it to be true, not whether individual editors think they can verify it."  It declares this as if its true, and then tries to act as if it has fooled the reader, who obviously must know the wording at WP:V by heart to get the joke.  Overall, the essay is barely 3 paragraphs that spend too much time setting up a joke that most people won't get.  -- Avanu (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay doesn't go against policy, actually. It is just a different way to word/explain it. Avanu, if it is badly written, go edit it and fix that.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was anything to save, I would certainly try to save it, but this is just a poorly made point. While I see the point that people should be able to write essays on whatever they like, shouldn't we also have a standard for how well written something is? -- Avanu (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I glanced at this essay when it was previously mentioned and nothing grabbed my attention.  I believe that nominator is engaged in attention-seeking behavior regarding the first sentence of WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a perfectly reasonable argument and I'm not biased for or against the first sentences of WP:V. I'm wondering if you read the essay; it's only 3 paragraphs and SmokeyJoe rethought his opinion when he realized which essay this is. Personal attacks, like claiming that I'm doing this for attention, don't have a place in this debate. Please stick to the issues. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To repeat, "I glanced at this essay when it was previously mentioned and nothing grabbed my attention". I don't have any records to refer to to document exactly how much, if not all of it, I have read.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's just 3 paragraphs, not even long ones. A glance should be enough time to read it completely. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (responding to the edited version of this comment) I thought I'd already made a thorough response to this question, I don't have any records that will tell just how much of the essay I read when I looked at it before, why is this not clear? The fact remains that there was nothing of importance to pay attention to, there was nothing startling, nothing incomprehensible, nothing that raised a concern that it was other than an appropriate essay.  I hope this clarifies this issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want to delete WP:LIE, then? The fact that an essay is short is not a reason on its own to delete an essay.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not saying the length was the problem. It is poorly written and makes its point in a way that intentionally confuses the reader. -- Avanu (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(due to edit conflict, the version of the text to which I responded is being inserted)::::OK, but it's just 3 paragraphs, not even long ones. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Essay is purposed as a serious statement and serves to promote understanding of Wikipedia. I wondered if irony was the rhetorical technique being used, but I'm not sure.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I get what the essay is trying to say. If you look at it, however, about exactly half way through, it refutes everything it said previously.  'truth and verifiability don't matter', and then starts talking about WP:RS and unsupported editor claims. Its just a mess, and if I could improve it, I would, but there's barely anything there to save, and the other essays do a much better job of explaining the same thing this one is trying to explain. -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you say that you get what the essay is trying to say, but in your nomination you claimed that it was too confusing to be understood, while acknowledging that there was "likely" a reasonable intent. Seems inconsistent.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, editor Peter Strempel makes an excellent argument about the same thing this essay is trying to say. I would actually say his 1 comment would make a far superior substitute for the language in this essay now, and would express the points better. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That essay-like comment concludes, "My conclusion about all of this is to leave the word truth alone, or excise it completely from the verifiability stipulation." Yet the author of the essay here states that the essay exists "to show that the wikimantra "verifiability, not truth" is nonsensical, or at least fails to express properly what it is trying to say." I see no way to reconcile the conclusion of the comment that the mantra could be left alone, with the basic idea of the essay that the mantra is poor writing. You state that a substitution "would express the points better."&mdash;what are the points that would be expressed better? Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The core of this essay at MfD is "Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge"
 * Peter Strempel expresses this same thought in more interesting and persuasive terms, bringing it together in a way that provokes thought, rather than muddles it. Unscintillating, you took one sentence from a lengthy post/comment and used it as a comparison to a short three paragraph essay. I'm baffled by the responses here that find this essay worth inclusion in the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps we just don't have a wide enough crowd reviewing this. -- Avanu (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's in project space, not mainspace, for one thing. The essay is not confusing, and makes valid points. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-title; the monologue makes sense, but the title is likely to throw off new editors, or users, or cause confusion (evidenced by this discussion here).  —Sladen (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but add banner to say that it an essay and move the essay somewhere else if necessary to a place it won't confuse anybody. Also change the first line from "The primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability" to "The primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia should be truth, not verifiability". --bodnotbod (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and rewrite. The gist of this essay makes a good point, but both the title and the way it is currently written can lead to confusion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a legitimate alternative viewpoint. Perhaps it could be enunciated more clearly, but as long as it doesn't pretend to be policy or a consensus summary I have no problem with it.  Them From  Space  16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy Garbled nonsense essays that directly contradict policy belong in user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. The argument in the essay is valid, and Wikipedia space holds numerous essays, so userfying doesn't seem necessary to me (though perhaps we need an "Essay" userspace).  That said, the title is incorrect, as the essay, imo, argues truth and verifiability.  ergo, should be renamed Truth and verifiability. Resolute 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the essay is a useful reflection on policy, it makes it very clear that it is not the policy by linking to the policy it was made in response to, and it isn't really inconsistent with policy. Monty  845  00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or RenameI was going to say delete as hopelessly confusing, but I suppose a rename would take care of the confusion; when one figures it out, it's not against policy--it merely pretends to be, in order to get the reader's attention. The question is, whether it would have the necessary impact if under another title ? `  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that it should be renamed or reworded to eliminate confusion (simply having an essay tag isn't quite enough), but other than that it's a pretty standard user essay and it's certainly not deletion material. How about it all comes down to truth in the end or the like? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Defenders of the "verifiability not truth" line often say that its chief value is not its logical perfection, but the "jolt" of thoughtfulness it gives. This essay is in line with the same philosophy and is no more illogical. If the aim is to make people think beyond this jolt, then it is not bad. Also see WP:IAR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename per DGG and per a comment I have not too long ago, in which I say that many people tend to conflate "teh truth" with "what they want to hear. Other than that, we're hopelessly confusing users with a pair of contradictions. –MuZemike 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm opposed to allowing permanent essay pages as platforms for advocacy that Wikipedia policies are wrong.  (Especially this one which, as written, would be read by a newbie to mean the exact opposite of what a core policy is.)  Editors should make their case for change in project talk space with the usual give and take, and then let it be archived.  This is a novelty we do not need.  patsw (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy per author Kotniski ("I'm happy for this to be userfied"). Needs to be rewritten before it's suitable for Wikipedia-space. -- Klein zach  00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as fundamentally contrary to policy, and hugely confusing to newbies. New editors can be easily manipulated by editors posting essays and claiming them as policy. This is just a bad idea in general, and even worse if it misleads editors. Dzlife (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title and opening lines are nothing more than eye-catchers. Otherwise, the content actually seems to support rather than oppose the verifiability policy. At any rate, reasonable essays are usually not deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!)  17:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing and misguided. None of the paragraphs are correct. As stated above, the first paragraph makes the false assertions that verifiable sources indicate the truth, and that what editors can verify is somehow not what we're after. These are patently incorrect, we do indeed want 'what editors can verify', regardless of whether it's the truth or not. The second paragraph suggests the distinction is 'not really between truth and verifiability at all', but rather the distinction between the content of reliable sources and the unsupported views of an editor. This is exactly the distinction of verifiability, such that this entire paragraph contradicts itself. The last paragraph contains the only truthful statement, that Wikipedia 'is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say', which is by definition our requirement for verifiability. It has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. Put simply, 'whether reliable sources state it to be true' is not 'truth', but it is verifiable. Perhaps the author intended to convey a clarifying message in this essay, but no such clarification exists. The essay in its current form serves only to confuse and contradict. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's quite amusing to see how many editors either have an impaired sense of humor or are perhaps challenged by reading English. older ≠ wiser 02:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Delete, as we all know there is only a single truth supported by the one true supreme deity. There is already enough confusion between truth and verifiability, lets try not to add to it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy and decategorize from essays this directly contradicts policy in "Wikipedia" namespace. People are entitled to their opinions, but not entitled to express them anywhere. The essays at Wikipedia namespace should enrich policy, propose policy, or be humorous. This is none of that and that is that.--Cerejota (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. What "serve[s] to confuse the reader" is the "verifiability, not truth" line in the policy.  This essay pretty much gets it right, in a slightly humorous sort of way.  Neutron (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.