Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments

Option A — Current version, with "verifiability, and not truth"
[ Click here to edit this section]

Support Option A

 * 1) Weak support as a possible compromise version. Indirectly explains the widely accepted meaning of "verifiability not truth" which would reduce mis-interpretations and mis-uses of it. Has a few bugs is sidebar areas, but I think that under any scenario they would be allowed to be fixed later. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support. I don't have big problems with this version, but it carries various flaws that got embedded as a result of the full protection of the policy page. In my opinion, all of those flaws have been fixed in Option C. I'd say the most conspicuous flaw here is that kludgy "and" inside "verifiability, and not truth". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A late comment: as I've read the discussion on this RfC page, I've become increasingly convinced that we really can and should do better than the "status quo". Therefore, my enthusiasm for this option, already "weak", has diminished further. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A lot of time and effort has been spent trying to find faults with this version, but it accomplishes the job just fine. Nothing wrong with this version that an essay clarifying what "truth" means hasn't already dealt with appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Adequate. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support. In a scientific context, especially in mathematics, "verifiability" and "truth" have not the same meaning as in Wikipedia: A theorem is true if and only if it has been proved, and a proof is correct if and only if it is verifiable by anybody. This ambiguity makes, sometimes, content discussions very difficult with unexperienced editors and also with some experienced editors with insufficient mathematical knowledge. A policy is aimed to make discussions easier, not harder. This version resolves partially this ambiguity but other versions do that better. D.Lazard (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support - Every time a policy changes it seems to bring in unforseen problems, often more than it resolves. Yes, this policy is, deliberately, misread by some editors, but I'm not sure it is so bust that it needs fixing - unless the fix introduces a significant improvement. IMHO Option D is slightly better, but I would be as happy to stick with this tried and tested option as change for changes sake.  - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support - We need to start tackling veracity. Otherwise, truth is a word that leds down the horrific path of, oh I saw it on the internet and thus....no. You can, in all probability, verify, a non true statement, is non true AFTER, you have determined veracity. IF we are equating truth and veracity, and we use the truth the way it is propopsed now, there will be problems, lots of themCoal town guy (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support It contains the critical phrase "verifiability not truth" but it's a little verbose. Option B is more straightforward. Ashbrook Station (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Ashbrook Station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 7) Support It's OK pretty much as is, and I would support it as long as some minor grammar and logical mistakes get cleaned up. LK (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support This version is perfectly functional, even if the word "and" seems to be there to soften a cognitive shock when the cognitive shock is the point of the exercise. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support If it ain't broke don't fix it. This has correctly conveyed our message for ten years and running. I think it has stood the test of time. We should either replace or it keep it, not add caveats. Steven Walling &bull;  talk   04:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support. This would be my second choice. It retains the essential truth-vs-verifiability distinction, but I find the wording less direct and not as clear as the wording in Option B. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Although the current version could use some copy-editing, retaining "verifiability, not truth" is crucial to achieving a high quality encyclopedia. Aside for helping reduce original research, Wikipedia is frequently used by fringe theorists to promote crazy conspiracy theories, bad science, etc.  Lowering the bar to allow such nonsense does no one any good.  Further, opponents of VnT have not even identified any actually problem with the wording.  I have been asking for months - literally months - for VnT opponents to identify which articles where VnT is causing a problem, and how changing the wording would fix this problem.  Thus far, no one can point to a single article where VnT is a problem, let alone the dozens I would expect to warrant such a major change in this policy.  In short, there is no problem.  There never was.  It's not broken, don't fix it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak support. It is better than some of the other options on the table, but not as good as Option B (see my reasons for support of B, #18).  RJC  TalkContribs 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Option A with revisions

 * 1) It's retrievable, but the logic is mixed up. The word "cited" ought to go or be qualified (much information in Wikipedia is not supported by explicitly cited sources, at least, not yet). I would also make it even more clear that the word "verifiability" is being used in a specialized wikijargon sense, and certainly not in its normal English meaning. The rest is a mishmash of random thoughts in no particular order and with no apparent desire to explain anything to the reader, but I don't see anything specifically incorrect in it. Victor Yus (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I would consider merging parts of the relatively clearer Option B into the more complete Option A. Here's a try at something I think is somewhat clearer: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—a reader's ability to confirm that material on Wikipedia can be traced to a reliable source that directly supports the information." I'd then go on to elaborate on what this policy means in practice. Something like what we already have: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. In practice, however, it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." These three sentences clearly set out what verifiability is and what it means in practice, which I think is more critical for editors than the philosophical differences betwen verifiability and truth, which can be addressed later in the lede. I'd then put in the bits about OR, etc. (second sentence of the second para), because this elaborates on the reasoning behind the policy. Then, once we've established what verifiability is and what it means in practice, I think it makes sense to discuss the exceptions and nuances, including verifiability, not truth. Here's a try: "Note, however, that truth of itself is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. Verifiability, not truth is a core requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." And then maybe something like: "Even verifiable information may not be appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia, because other policies and guidelines also influence content. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy."--Batard0 (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Remove the word "and", and I would support this Option. However, this is also support for Option B.  The "and" adds little meaning, if any. Simpler is better. --Ds13 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Option A should be retained, but with the first and second sentences transposed to reflect the necessary emphasis on "verifiability, not truth". Further, Option A seems to be the only option that properly regards Wikipedia's core values in their correct order of precedence.  We have far too many green editors who (a)insist on adding content simply because they can source it and then (b)aren't able to grok WP:BIT, even when it is pointed out to them repeatedly.  We need better, more concise policies that spell out the message of BIT.  WP:V could become a more useful resource for newbie education with a small adjustment in emphasis.  Belch fire  21:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Option A

 * 1) Currently has the line "but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" injected in an awkward place, which interrupts the logical flow leading up to the "not truth" issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a complete mess.— S Marshall T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with others who think this is awkwardly written. But I would also agree that it is better than Option B.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Causes confusion. Not constructive. Joja  lozzo  17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a mess; easy to misunderstand, awkwardly-worded, room for much improvement. Pesky  (talk ) 07:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Verifiability may conflict with other policies, but if so, I am not persuaded it is verifiability that should give way. There's a lot of WP:NOT that could be given the axe tomorrow and it would hurt nothing at all, such as the invariably misinterpreted "NOTNEWS" stuff.  So I would rather leave out the explicit loophole that anything and everything could mean that verifiable content gets thrown out of the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) It has been very disappointing to me that this version of the policy has been locked into existence for so long. This 'tweak' edit, which survives in this version, changed the entire meaning of the concept, so that instead of referring to our ability to assess that article content is consistent with existing reliable sources, we are lead to believe that article content is only verifiable if it is consistent with cited reliable sources. We should do all that we can to put an end to the idea that a verifiable article is a cited article, because that's not what the concept means. The first sentence of the second paragraph is on the mark and I'm happy to see that, but it is not enough to make up for the scatter of the first paragraph - which defines the term (incorrectly) and jumps haphazardly into tangential assertions when verifiability itself should be further explained. NTox · talk 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - I understand 'Verifiability, and not truth' doesn't really mean what it says but that can be no reason to keep it as it is. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak oppose: this version is too chatty, so it does its job worse then the previous revision (Option B). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose This wording goes off track in the first sentence. "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources.... "  It has nothing to do with the reader's personal abilities.  The key point is that sources that meet certain standards must be cited (except when statements are unexceptionable and probably unlikely to be challenged).  (Just to be fair I will mention that I also oppose specific wordings I find in the four other options. There is no option I fully support.) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Support vote #3 above says it all. If the current wording is so confusing it requires an ancillary essay to be understood then need I go on? Formerip (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Too prolix. A guideline should be the clearest possible distillation of what's expected of an editor, not a discursive treatment of the underlying philosophy. That's for a supporting essay. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. No, just no. "not truth" has to go. period.Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose It's time to replace 'verifiability, not truth' with something that is more clear and accurate. First Light (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' is self-conflicted, & only makes sense if one likes Wikipedia kōans. Please see my talk page comments, Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. Peaceray (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Grammatically uncomfortable. And this version has been fiddled with a lot, and was not particularly stable. I don't consider this the original version or most used version.(olive (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC))
 * 17) Oppose -- This is an unreadable mess. The only reason that this convoluted thing exists is because people are irrationally clinging to keeping comments about "truth" in the policy at all. We should just say that verifiability is a requirement, and call it a day.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. The current version is a complete mess. Furthermore, it emphasizes "verifiability, and not truth", which is very misleading to new editors who think they can add any information as long as it has a source to back it up. Truth is one of Wikipedia's core values, yet it just so happens that verifiability is more of a problem currently than truth is. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. I strongly prefer a lede without reference to “not truth” in that it is unnecessary verbiage that creates ambiguity and leads to confusion. If it must be kept, I prefer the simplicity of A over C. Location (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) I oppose all five versions because they fail to clarify that inline citations are not needed in cases where the statement can be verified directly, such as by running the indicated software or watching the indicated TV episode. Also, the wordings of all five versions are not clear, especially because some of them start with a subtle clarification (such as what the requirement is not) instead of starting by saying what the Verifiability requirement is. I have written a proposed alternative and posted it on the Verifiability Talk page. It is posted there because this page does not allow a full alternate wording to be proposed. As has already been pointed out, my proposed version needs some wording and formatting refinements, yet bringing the best of all six versions together would produce a wording that clearly states the Wikipedia vision of Verifiability that we all share. VoteFair (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Of the four alternatives to the original, this is the only one that has not been agreed. It has just been edited willy-nilly over the months, and that's exactly what it looks like. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose; this in effect creates an entirely new verifiability guideline, with only statements directly supported by a cited reference allowed. - Peter077 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 23) Oppose; prefer D.  J N  466  16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to drafts

Option B — Recent past version, with "verifiability, not truth"
[ Click here to edit this section]

Support Option B

 * 1) Weak support. I see this version as the long-standing version that has long served Wikipedia pretty well, except for the problem that it can be construed as implying that Wikipedia does not care about "truth". And that's a significant problem, one that is corrected, in my opinion, in Option C. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A late comment: as I've read the discussion on this RfC page, I've become increasingly convinced that we really can and should do better than the "status quo". Therefore, my enthusiasm for this option, already "weak", has diminished further. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support, which would be stronger if it had used "believe" instead of "think". Thinking is just an intellectual pursuit, while belief encompasses faith and other emotions which, in my experience, are at least as important as reasoning issues in needing to articulate why verifiability cannot be subjected to "truth". Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, straight to the point and memorable. Why do we have to turn every policy into a tome of tedious vacillation? Kaldari (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. A good policy that served us well. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Adequate. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Much clearer than the other versions. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, as it is the clearest. Verbosity of other versions distract from the idea and the striking bolded phrase draws editors' attention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - clean and clear. pgbrown (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support This version has balls. There's no bureaucratic language. It makes it very clear in the first sentence that the ability to verify facts trumps anyone idea of "truth". Ashbrook Station (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Ashbrook Station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 9) Weak support I still think the old version was fine, and that the addition of a couple of footnotes would have addressed most objections. LK (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Ashbrook Station. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. The problem has never been in the words. Police more carefully more the policy use in the article.(olive (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC))
 * 12) Strongly Support. The "not truth" component is essential to the policy lead. (Option A is slightly more wordy, with little additional benefit.) It underscores the difference between what we assert on Wikipedia versus how we may assert things in everyday life. Wikipedia's thresholds of inclusion are sometimes unintuitive and this emphasizes that fact. --Ds13 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support. This one's short and sweet; it gets the point across concisely and clearly. It worked well for years, and I don't see any need for changing it, let alone a pressing need to change it radically. Rivertorch (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I still have a fondness for this one. I think it summarises WP:V very well and has a good writing style. Killer opening line! Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong support: I agree that "this ... long-standing version ... has long served Wikipedia pretty well". It also makes it very clear that this religuous concept of "truth" has no place in Wikipedia. There are droves of users here that are engaged with their personal 'truth' and who explicitly state that the facts don't come into it, but that all that matters is that the reader will get their 'truth' (heaven forbid that Wikipedia should turn into a reference). The point that truth is not a factor in creating a reference of any sort needs to be made clearly and strongly. - Peter077 (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 16) Support (See previous comment for longer explanation.)  In short, it's not broken, don't fix it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Support "Verifiability, not truth" is a difficult concept for new editors to absorb. Putting it up front, without hedging, draws attention to it and the fact that there is something about Wikipedia that the editor does not yet understand. Of all the versions, this one conveys the message of WP:V the most effectively, even if it does not explain every point about the policy in detail. In all my years of editing, I have frequently run across people who insisted that non-verifiable information be included because it was true. I have never come across someone saying that something obviously false should be included just because they can find a source for it. I am not saying that the latter never happens, but it is so rare and so easily handled through the normal WP:BRD process and so thoroughly covered by WP:RS that we should not enervate wording that is more useful in the majority of cases in order to address that kind of problem.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re " 'Verifiability, not truth' is a difficult concept for new editors to absorb." — That's because the phrase is unclear. I think most editors ignore the phrase when they have read this version in the past and simply learn from experience when editing. It's an impediment to learning the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob K31416 (talk • contribs) 22:25, July 27, 2012‎
 * 1) Support Its fine the way it is, therefore this whole exercise is a waste of time. It ain't broke, so it don't need fixin'. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support This is still the best lead. It kills the competition already after ten words: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." This is a great start of a WP policy text! All the others start out as if this would be a Wikipedia article about "verifiability." It is not. This article is not a description of anything. It's a tool. One of the main tools by which Wikipedia has been built. Please keep the WP tools strong so that Wikipedia can continue to be strong and reliable. iNic (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Option B with revisions

 * 1) Support - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is the key phrase, and is said immediately. I think the problem is that some people understand this phrase, while others don't get it. I suppose it's like a Rubin vase, and those seeing the vase don't understand why others are seeing the faces, and vice versa. I would support any version which keeps this simple, elegant and powerful phrase foregrounded, and then worked on the best way of explaining that "truth" means "existence", so that it doesn't matter if your cat exists - if your cat's existence cannot be verified via reliable sources then it shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the trouble with that is that "truth" does not mean "existence". You are redefining the words of the English language in order to make them fit the slogan, rather than changing the slogan to make it fit the English language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Option C was the one intended to keep the phrase but explain it better etc. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I have long held that verifiability, not "truth" (quoting the word truth) would be the best approach, because it remains pithy, memorable, and concisely reads as "verifiability, not so-called truth", connoting an editor's personal knowledge or beliefs. --Lexein (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Option B

 * 1) Oppose. Was previously used and caused many problems.  Unnecessary/confusing example of what verifiability is not, ambiguous in it's meaning of "not truth", has done a lot of damage.  Widely mis-interpreted and misused, especially misused. Has no clarifying wording (as other versions which retain this do) to reduce the mis-interpretations and misuses.   North8000 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Revised North8000 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Not particularly good. In addition to the "not truth" issue, I also don't like the wording about "check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", because the use of "material" suggests reference to textual expression rather than facts – as if it was prescribing that all texts in Wikipedia ought to be plagiarized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Precisely per Future Perfect at Sunrise.— S Marshall T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. For the usual reasons: it puts snappiness above clarity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) This seems worse than Option A. We should define (Wikipedia's meaning of) "verifiability" before making statements about it. "Threshold for inclusion" is also weird. Victor Yus (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Still confusing. Joja  lozzo  17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Much room for improvement and has the same problems as Option A. Pesky  (talk ) 07:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose We need "clear explanations, not slogans." First Light (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose. In a scientific context, especially in mathematics, "verifiability" and "truth" have not the same meaning as in Wikipedia: A theorem is true if and only if it has been proved, and a proof is correct if and only if it is verifiable by anybody. This ambiguity makes, sometimes, content discussions very difficult with unexperienced editors and also with some experienced editors with insufficient mathematical knowledge. A policy is aimed to make discussions easier, not harder. D.Lazard (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. This is a backwards step - it was changed for good reason and the change has proved to be a significant improvement. Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - 'Verifiability, not truth', will fail the Santa Claus test. Interesting concept is the inclusion captions - without exception! Please cite articles that have references on the image captions, this doesn't happen in practice, so I'd say this option is in part overengineered. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi SunCreator. I'm intrigued - could you explain what the "Santa Claus test" is? This is the first time that I've heard of it. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SunCreator, I occasionally footnote captions, and wish others would more often. In particular, works of art are subject to interpretation, even as to who or what is being depicted. Commons descriptions are sometimes wrong and often incomplete or less than informative. I've seen OR smuggled in through captions too. (This is neither yea or nay for the proposal.) Cynwolfe (talk)
 * 1) oppose - Specifically I have a problem with the first sentence of option B: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  To me this wording with the word "threshold" suggests that anything verifiable should be included in Wikipedia. There is a vast amount of verifiable information which should NOT be included in Wikipedia.  For example, great realms of modern "pop culture" trivia are well-documented and thus easily verifiable but I don't think they should be in Wikipedia. (Just to be fair I will mention that I also oppose specific wordings I find in the four other options. There is no option I fully support.) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I really do try my best to understand why anyone is in favour of "not truth". Honestly, I do. But going to the extent of actually opening the proposed intro with a statement that is not true is a step too far. Formerip (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I know that first sentence holds gnomic power for some long-time editors, but that's what's wrong with it: the mystic quality of the "threshold" one must cross, and the potential paradox of "verifiability, not truth" that one must contemplate. This version states the purpose of verification in the negative, as if the goal is to squelch OR. But "no OR" has a positive purpose: to guarantee quality through thoroughly vetted content. The whole air of prohibition and mystery is just wrong. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Probably the sentence in Wikipedia policy I found most grating in all my days here was the one containing the phrase "verifiability, not truth". We are in the !business of providing information that is both verifiable and true, and our catchy buzzphrases should reflect this. Chubbles (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. No, just no. "not truth" has to go. period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' is self-conflicted, & only makes sense if one likes Wikipedia kōans. Please see my talk page comments, Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. Peaceray (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose -- We shouldn't say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", because this is a lie. Verifiability is not the threshold for inclusion -- it is one of *several* criteria for inclusion. Big difference. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Again, truth is one of Wikipedia's core values, yet this revision only reinforces the concept that verifiability is more important than truth, which must be considered when checking for verifiability. This revision is worded very awkwardly and does not take into account the concept of truth with verifiability. It's just like version one, but with more awkwardness. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Per User:OmnipotentArchetype0309 & User:Jrtayloriv. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. I strongly prefer a lede without reference to “not truth” in that it is unnecessary verbiage that creates ambiguity and leads to confusion. Worse, the reference to “threshold for inclusion” is simply not accurate. B is the worst of the lot. Location (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong oppose - obviously stuff on Wikipedia has to be true as well as echoed in some source. Until people actually understand the concept of "reliable sources" better, this wording just leads to misunderstandings. - filelakeshoe  &#xF0F6;    09:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose — In the first sentence, the word "threshold" falsely implies that verifiability is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. The use of "not truth" belittles the value of truth in Wikipedia. If the first sentence was replaced with something that doesn't contain "threshold" and "not truth", I might give this Option B weak support.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong oppose – VNT is too ambiguous to do heavy lifting in the lead sentence. -- J N  466  16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to drafts

Option C — "Verifiability, not truth" with added clarification
[ Click here to edit this section]

Support Option C

 * 1) Support. A well written compromise between the best and the worst.  Retains "Verifiability not truth" but has wording (unfortunately only in the foototes) which clarfies the intended meaning which would reduce the widespread mis-interpretatios and mis-uses. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Revised North8000 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong, enthusiastic support. This option is, by a wide margin, the best of the options presented in this RfC. "Verifiability, not truth" has long served Wikipedia well, by memorably helping to teach new editors (including me when I started) that it's sources, not editors, who determine what is "true" for our purposes. The problem, however, has been that the phrase is often misconstrued or misrepresented to imply that Wikipedia doesn't care about getting the facts right. This version explains the various sources of confusion, sufficiently briefly to be useful, so that the major objections that have been raised in the past are addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: it occurs to me that the footnotes were added during the mediation drafting, mostly to satisfy isolated concerns brought up by individual editors. (You're concerned about that? No problem, we'll stick another footnote in!) As I look back, I personally don't care about any of the footnotes! I'd have no objection to deleting any or all of them, if consensus goes in that direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A late comment: as I've read the discussion here, I see merit in the criticism that this option is too wordy and fussy, and I accept the arguments that this is a reason to be less enthusiastic for this option. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not bad. I guess it will be accused of being a little over-intricate in trying to cover everything, but this might be the smallest weevil. After all, what is a policy page for? Wording tweaks might make it better, but I would be careful about making any simplifications which put snappiness above clarity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support, for the same reasons Tryptofish gives. &mdash; ChalkboardCowboy[T] 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, as per Tryptofish's comments. Based purely on my own experiences, I think it's helpful to specify "nothing, such as your personal experience or what you know to be true, can be a substitute...." -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I believe that Option C provides a good compromise. The current version can be read and understood in a number of ways, notwithstanding: "Verifiability, however no truth." On the opposite end of the spectrum, there exists a real danger of overly complicating what should be a clear mission statement. Some of the proposals supporting Option D are a clear indication of this. — Ltr,ftw (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support None is perfect - but this covers the bases. Oh - and fix the "second person" usage - which is pretty much a minot edit, all things considered. Collect (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Probably the best of the current choices. LK (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Well written. the best of the options in my view. -- Alexf(talk) 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support This is surely the best option. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per User:Tryptofish. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 01:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I also support the phrase alone, but I cannot disagree with adding clarification as long as the simple phrase itself still leads. --Ds13 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support but I would like to see that "if you feel verified information is inaccurate..." note in the paragraph itself. This is the problem. Since people are so deluded about reliable sources, ("X is a reliable source, Y is not"), people are quick to find something a "reliable source" claims outside the scope of its reliability and claim it as verifiable even if it's inaccurate. Rather than giving the inaccurate source "due weight" under pretense of "verifiability", if it's clearly inaccurate it should be given no weight. And Wikipedians should be intelligent enough to know whether a source is reliable for a certain statement. - filelakeshoe <font color="#0B0"> &#xF0F6;    09:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support; this looks workable, although I don't see that this is (enough) better than B. - Peter077 (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 13) Weak support; better than the versions that omit "Verifiability, not truth," but for reasons given in support of Option B (#18), I think that the phrase should be closer to the beginning, where it is more bracing.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Option C with revisions

 * 1) Eh.... It seems mostly OK, but the second person usage really grates on my nerves. If we could put it into third person, it would be MUCH better. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand the concern about second person versus third person, and I'm not getting it. Of course, this would be an easy revision to make. But sometimes second person can help make it clearer to the reader that "this is what you should or should not do". Is the objection that it sounds less formal? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Less formal, and it switches tenses. For clarity, a policy page, essay, or whatever else should use a consistent voice--switching to "you" in the middle is unnecessarily inconsistent, and I don't see how it actually improves anything. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tenses"? (or, indeed, "voice"?) – Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, person is what I meant to say. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree that it would be good to clarify the meaning of "verifiability, not truth". If that is done well, I am not concerned all that much whether the phrase itself is kept in the lede. However, I'm not completely happy with the way Option C explains VnT. Option C speaks of not including material that is "verifiable but inaccurate", but this too needs clarification, to my mind. How do we determine what is or is not "inaccurate"? What about views that are inaccurate but historically significant? I don't say these questions can't be answered, but until we have the answers, I do not think we should include a phrase like "verifiable but inaccurate" in core policy. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this draft it just says that other policies and guidelines handle that. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems better written (at least at the start) than Option A. Hate the footnotes though. This is the introduction to the page - readers should expect that things are going to be clarified later on in the page, so we needn't be in any hurry to clarify every tiny point straight away. Victor Yus (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * About those footnotes, and more broadly, about this option being a bit longer than the others presented in this RfC, I noticed that too, as soon as the RfC page was set up and they were all placed side by side. However, if I think about how a given option would end up looking if it were actually made part of WP:V, the footnotes would be at the bottom, and the lead paragraphs would still not be particularly long for a Wikipedia policy page lead. For me, it's a matter of what the policy would say, as opposed to how it would look. If we retain VnT but leave out the clarifications, that would perpetuate the problems that have led to this RfC. The alternative approach is to get rid of VnT, which of course has significant support as well as opposition, but short of getting rid of it entirely, it seems to me that it needs to be explained well enough so that it will not be gamed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Much better than A or B, but could do with some tweaking about. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Adequate but per Jclemens. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Best of the lot so far. I feel the caveat, verifiability by itself does not guarantee inclusion is paramount here, though I question why the factors or stipulations that may preclude inclusion come before the caveat rather than afterward. The way it reads now kind of infers those 3 or 4 factors listed, and only those listed factors, can determine or dictate non-inclusion of completely verifiable content and nothing else. Put the caveat before listing the the possible primary factors and you can leave it open-ended enough to include yet to be ascertained factors if need be as well. I also echo the concern voiced by Kalidasa 777 in #2 (this section). Along the same variation to that theme -- where inaccurate yet properly sourced content is not always a result of malice, ignorance, deception and the like, but the result of mere circumstance due to the passage of time and the recording of our history -- irrelevant or extraneous material forced into the content to intentionally muddy the overall clarity or to befuddle the reader specifically in my view is just as unhelpful as verifiable-yet-inaccurate info is. I understand the likelihood that these "non-inaccurate" yet just as value-sapping contributions are probably all well addressed in other policies &/or guidelines but it seems we are a bit preoccupied here with mentioning just the verifiable-yet-inaccurate being the thorn in our side while not making it not abundantly clear this policy does not exist in a vacuum by itself and only works well when done in tandem with the rest. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Better, but the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' still is like a Wikipedia kōan because verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. I think that it would be better to use a phrase like "Verifiability, not truth, but rather a proffer of proof, is one of the key requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia ..." Peaceray (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) This would be fine with the style tweaks noted by Jclemens. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) This version is substantially better than versions A and B, but it could use some more editing in that it may be a little too overwhelming to new editors. Options C and D are similar, and in my opinion more favorable than any of the other revisions because they remove the negative emphasis on truth, but option C still places a negative connotation on truth. I don't mind seeing C become the new lede, but we just have to make sure everyone understands it. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support. It's wordier than I'd like, and I don't see the "clarifications" as especially helpful, let alone necessary. Also, the people who'll benefit most from reading the policy are the least likely to bother reading all those footnotes. Still, I don't find anything particularly objectionable except for the awkward second person wording. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Option C

 * 1) Like A, this version has the qualification of "but [...] other policies, guidelines, and considerations also influence content" stuck in the wrong place, interrupting the logical flow. This was evidently stuck in there to counteract the false implications of the earlier "threshold" wording; now that "threshold" is no longer in, the whole qualifying sentence no longer makes sense at that point. Also, the wording about "verifiable but inaccurate material" is extremely confusing – according to the actual, real-world meaning of "verifiable", if it's inaccurate then it's not. This should be taken out of the lead and presented in different terms; the same idea can easily be conveyed without using "verifiable" in the same breath. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is more of a general comment, this was just the first instance where I thought it might be worth noting. I think that the understanding on all of these is that "support/oppose" is based on their treatment of the "verifiability not truth" sentence issue. So presumably wording not directly related to that would be considered changeable, not decided. North8000 (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Still contrasting "verifiability" and "truth", which is an offence against logic and language. The natural meaning of "verifiable" is "checkably true".  And I have no patience with editors who think truth is unimportant.  Encyclopaedia writers are educators and there's something badly wrong with educators who don't try to tell the truth.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Goes through contortions to keep VnT and then explain it with the result of not clearly presenting what we mean by verifiability. Joja  lozzo  17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose. The "verifiable but inaccurate material" is unsalvageable.  Whenever you say you know something is wrong, you're saying you know something else is right.  Even if you believe something "everybody knows", like that the positions of the planets don't affect our moods, you should source your statement if you're challenged about it.  And if there's a verifiable source someone added that says what you're saying "you know" is wrong, you have been challenged.  Otherwise you'll start making an encyclopedia of people's prejudices, and throw aside the published literature to do it. Wnt (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Leaving the slogan in continues to elbow any explanation out of the way. First Light (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. This version is confusing because of too long sentences and paragraphs. Options B and D are much better. D.Lazard (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose ~ When the footnotes are as long as the proposal, there is something wrong with the proposal. People rarely read footnotes - especially novice editors, there is far too much for them to take in - pointy editors will cite footnotes and we will have an argument about the relative importance of the main text versus the footnotes. - Arjayay (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - To wordy and complex. Any proposal that has 'Verifiability, not truth', will fail the Santa Claus test. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - I got lost three times reading the second sentence of the first paragraph. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose: let the other policies and guidelines explain their content themselves. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I agree with editor Adjwilley just above. The 2nd sentence tries to do far too much.  How about shortening it to "verifiability by itself does not guarantee inclusion"?  (Just to be fair I will mention that I also oppose specific wordings I find in the four other options. There is no option I fully support.) Wanderer57 (talk)
 * 11) Oppose The first paragraph is highly convoluted.  It takes several readings to understand what it means. Ashbrook Station (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Ashbrook Station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 12) Oppose.  If people are misunderstanding a policy, you can't "compromise" by halfheartedly changing it.  It has to be utterly clear that the misunderstanding is a misunderstanding, with no hemming and hawing about it.  It is true that the suggested wording accurately describes how we want the policy to be interpreted.  But accurate isn't the same thing as not easily misunderstood.   It also has a lot of notes that dilute the emphasis. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Too wordy. Too many footnotes creating a sort of parallel text. "Some traditions claim that the Moon is made of green cheese" is a highly pernicious example that seems to justify what it doesn't intend to. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. No, just no. "not truth" has to go. period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Satyameva Jayate - Truth Alone Triumphs. Truth should be the focus of wiki. Verifiability is just a means to ensure that the right stuff goes in. While some may think that the 'not truth' clause makes policy implementations easier, wiki is all about knowledge & education. Policies should be based on the need for correct governence & not on if they are easy to implement or not. "not truth" has to be removed from the lede. -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Either keep the "not truth" or throw it out, don't waffle with caveats and clarifications. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull;  talk   04:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose - I too echo what Adjwilley and Fut.Perf. said in this section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose -- Just get rid of the unnecessary aside about truth altogether. Think about it logically: (1) We state clearly that all information added must have a source. (2) An editor comes along and adds information without a source, and then argues when it's removed "But I know that this is true!". (3) We say, "That's too bad. WP:V requires that you add a source, and you cannot add the information to the article without one." (4) End of story. ... The requirement alone IMPLIES that they can't add information without a source because they think it's true. The comments about truth are unnecessary (as well as misguided). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - First paragraph is confusing and overly verbose. Hugetim (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. I strongly prefer a lede without reference to “not truth” in that it is unnecessary verbiage that creates ambiguity and leads to confusion. If it must be kept, I prefer the simplicity of A over C. Location (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Far too verbose and laden with fiddly footnotes. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. Incredibly verbose and confusing. Far too many footnotes. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. Well-intentioned, but too verbose and meandering. -- J N  466  16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to drafts

Option D — New wording about perceived truth, verifiability
[ Click here to edit this section]

Support Option D

 * 1) Strong support. Clearly and forcefully (but still nicely) states the verifiability requirement without any language that can be confused or misused. And also explains the reasoning behind it.  Avoids the confusion / dispersion of older approaches of giving one example (of many) of things that are not a "threshold" for inclusion. (e.g. "not truth").  It's also great that it forcefully creates / defines the verifiability requirement without using the comfortable but problematically ambiguous word "threshold".    North8000 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)  Edited North8000 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I think the phrase "verifiability, not truth" does express an important principle. On the other hand, it does require explanation, and it does unfortunately give ammunition to people with a grudge against WP. In this draft, the principle of VnT -- that WP is about well-sourced information, not about what its editors perceive as true -- is kept. The phrase itself is not kept in the lede, but is acknowledged as the way that principle has been expressed historically. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) By far the best explanation: actually says what is means, clearly, without including passages that can be read and interpreted in multiple ways.  J N  466  09:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think the aim is correct, but in some ways C and E have turned out better so far. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support out of those I've read so far. It avoids "verifiability not truth", which is a rather silly phrase (it mixes a word wihch has a specific Wikipedia meaning with one which presumably doesn't, and thus cannot serve as the philosophically significant slogan that it is apparently intended to be). Victor Yus (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) This version does a good job of explaining the issues without cognitive dissonance. (I would withdraw my support if explicit VnT were reinstated in this version.) Joja  lozzo  17:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support In terms of its structure and wording this version clearly avoids the confusion of the "verifiability, not truth" maxim. What Future mentions below seems to me like the kind of trivial changes that can be made after agreeing to a new approach for this policy's wording.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Enthusiastic support; it's clear. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support It's long past time to grow up and move forward from the blunt and misleading billy club of "verifiability not truth." First Light (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Adequate. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. Clearly states wp:ver. Meclee (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The best wording when compared to others in my view. It has a smooth and courteous tone, without unneccesary harshness. I'm not a fan of bolded "not truth" within, as it may sound confusing and have a repelling effect, particularly to newcomers. Hope we'll progress and finish in that direction. Brand meister talk   11:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I was worried from the section title that the policy was going to include the phrase "perceived truth", but it avoids that - my only concern is people stating something is "indisputably true" and arguing that this isn't covered by the line "you're sure something is true" - Arjayay (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Easy to read and understand for new or experienced editors. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support This version seems to be both clear and concise. If I were a new editor, I would prefer to see this one, as it avoids some of the complexity and jargon that we old-timers get used to. It also seems to be a fairly good compromise between the strictly "V" and the "VnT" crowds, stating VnT in way that doesn't offend the uninitiated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong Support. I like how it is easy to read for new editors and how it places the emphasis on verifiability, not truth. Although Wikipedia aims to become a very accurate encyclopedia with the right information, if the concept of right and wrong information gets carried too far, editors will start publishing more original research and stating facts without citing them. New editors, when reading this, will see that verifiability is mentioned all throughout the passage, but "truth" is mentioned only once. The emphasis on verifiability is much more than truth, but both are in the right proportions to convey the right message to the editor. Full support. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. "Verifiability, not Truth" is right if you know what it means, but it says it very poorly. It can be and has been misrepresented as saying that we don't care about truth. This option cannot be read like that; it says that it's individual perception of the truth, rather than the truth itself, that we must beware of. The footnote is useful to point out to anyone who continues to misrepresent the old formulation. --Stfg (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Not long, yet explains the policy clearer than the rest. It is also the only one mentioning due weight in text body.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  11:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I agree with Stfg's point about the catchphrase. This version eliminates it without changing policy. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Clear and friendly explanation. Another reason I like this version is that it seems less strict, which suites my position on this subject, since I tend to favor "truth". Debresser (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I commend this comment for its honesty, but it draws attention to why I am so uncomfortable with downgrading VnT. On one level, I think all conscientious editors favor "truth", or at least, care about it deeply. But this comment seems to me to acknowledge that downgrading VnT will make it easier for editors who want Wikipedia to report what they consider to be true to dodge WP:V. In my opinion, being strict about requiring verifiability is not a bad thing. And we need to be very careful about lowering the level of that strictness. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support This wording does not make it seem acceptable to add untruthful information to Wikipedia. It seems to me that some confusion could result from the other versions, but this one sounds simple and straightforward. — J clavet  (Talk &bull; Contributions) 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This version is the clearest and least likely to cause confusion. It very clearly instructs against inclusion of material that may be true but is unverifiable (i.e. it does the the thing that supporters of "not truth" claim only that phrase can achieve). Minor point: "information comes from a reliable source" should be "information can be found in a reliable source", so as to avoid the impression of encouraging plagiarism. Formerip (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as the best compromise offered in these proceedings. Simple, reasonably well-articulated, and relegates the odious "not truth" to a less prominent position. (I'd take E as well, but obviously that's not going to fly; this is politics.) Some of the changes offered below are probably slight improvements, but that's all ironing out that can come with time if need be. Chubbles (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support is the best version for new readers and editors. Prefer to ditch the VnT but can live with it as tiny tiny footnote... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I think this communicates the policy in a very succinct way that should minimize confusion. And the statement "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" is a good replacement for VnT. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - i think this flows better and is clearer to all. The emphasis on no original research is important and i feel it communicates the idea better. I remember as a new contributor being quite frankly disgusted when someone commented on my work saying "verifiability not truth". VnT goes against the fundamental idea of an encyclopedia and feels, to be honest, wrong because of course as writers and contributors we don't want to in any way obscure, hide, or misrepresent what is in fact the truth. We do not want to give the impression that the truth is not important, just that it must be verifiable. --Cutiekatie (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Because verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable, the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' reads like a Wikipedia kōan . I it would be better to point out that verifiability is not truth, but rather the ability to prove [a] truth. Peaceray (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support - While all the proposed versions succeed in communicating what we want to communicate here, this option does so concisely and clearly, using language that is readily understandable even to those not familiar with wikiculture, and is in general better written than the other options. -- LWG talk 03:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Conveys the message in a simple and direct way. Taking the "not truth" bit out doesn't magically turn us into a truth-seeking project, so whether we keep it or not really doesn't matter. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull;  talk   04:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Clear and simple. Introduces the key issue of weighting upfront, unlike the other versions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, per my reasoning originally filed in the "with revisions" section below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Once again, I agree completely with Future Perfect at Sunrise.— S Marshall T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Later) My agreement is with Future Perfect's specific wording: i.e. (1) that any reference to VnT in the main body of the policy is within parentheses, and (2) VnT is explicitly described as a "slogan". If the emerging consensus at view 1 below continues on its present course, then I'm very pleased to be able to anticipate that VnT will not appear in the lede at all.— S Marshall  T/C 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as the clearest and more useful of them all. It doesn't confuse any issues and makes clear the verifiability threshold, explaining the issues with perceived truth. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems to me to explain the issues clearly and succinctly. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Removes the easily misinterpreted soundbyte "not truth" while keeping the prohibition against unverified truth just as clear and strong. I also like the other wording changes, which help explain the idea of verifiability succinctly. Hugetim (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I strongly prefer a lede without reference to “not truth” in that it is unnecessary verbiage that creates ambiguity and leads to confusion; however, the placement of it in the footnote is acceptable to me. I slightly prefer E over D in that I think the lede is more succinct and with other important links/information better arranged. Location (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. The reason why I like this one is because it says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" instead of "Verifiability, and not truth".  I can understand why people think there are problems with "Verifiability, and not truth".  We don't literally mean that we don't care if something's true or not, do we?  So I think version D says what "verifiability, and not truth" is supposed to say but without the possible misinterpretations.  I also think version D is perfectly clear and very strongly-worded, so I don't understand why people are calling it wishy-washy.-Beth 84 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per Hugetim above. NtheP (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support. Concise, clear and humane. Beth 84 already made the points I was going to make. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   11:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Easily the best balanced of the five, retaining the mention of truth (which helps to clarify how the policy works) without presenting the two as in direct opposition. The footnote is also a good idea since without it the widespread historical mentions of the phrase would be confusing. Also better written than all but the fifth. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Has the correct and umambiguous interpretation of "Verifiability, not truth". Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Retains the meaning of VnT, without the specific wording that some editors find problematic. I think this is the best option presented. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support As a newer editor that isn't as familiar with all your insider stuff, this makes it clear to me in a way the other versions do not. If you want people to really get what you're saying I think this is the right approach. --Kinkykitteh (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support As I said below, our policies don't deal in absolutes. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, but sharing Tryptofish's reservations about "historical". Would be happy to see the footnote become a sentence in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - There is not much left for me to add here but I will say that this one is pretty elucidative and far less ambiguous than the previous options. And on this issue, I also agree with, and . <font style="color:Green;background:#FFFCD7;"> Brendon is <font style="color:White;background:red;">here  16:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I have argued on the talkpage for a version very close to this before.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Not perfect, but a small step forward from the Orwellian idiocy of VNT. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Best of the versions presented. I never liked the "verifiability, not truth" phrasing; the "perceived truth" approach is much more understandable for the same point. Rd232 talk 14:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) 'Support Definitely the best of the version. Can't think of a new reason, but this seems to explain the essence of our policy the best. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Support An improvement from a horrific policy-statement to a mediocre one. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 22:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Option D with revisions

 * [Moved this to the section above to make clear it's more of a full support than a conditional support] Best version by far compared with A-C. Simple wording, clear, avoids jargon as far as possible; clear logical structuring. If "not truth" fans hate it because it has "not truth" relegated into a footnote, I wouldn't object to moving it out of there into a sentence in the main text again, as in: "it must be verifiable before you can add it. (This idea has also been expressed with the slogan 'verifiability, not truth')." I don't like the wording of "historically and notably" in the footnote, but that's a minor detail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have any objection to these tweaks. -- J N  466  09:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to the tweaks either. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object either if put in as you wrote it. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections form me either on this. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * [Ditto Future Perfect]


 * Yes, the clearest of them, with the modifications suggested above--"historically" was an unfortunate choice of words because we have used "historical" to been policy that is no longer in force. The statement "verifiability not truth" is very much still in force--we are merely clarifying to avoid confusion. (personally, I rather liked it: an apparent paradox attracts attention. But the fact of the matter is that it has confused people and provided a point of attack against Wikipedia.) DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm OK with this version except the "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1]" If we want to say "verifiability not truth" (and I do) it shouldn't be in a footnote, and no matter what I don't want a core policy tied to some essay that could wiggle around unnoticed.  And the "must" conflicts directly with the later point that material unlikely to be challenged doesn't have to be sourced.  (This kind of thing can be significant when the Wikilawyers and Wikiprosecutors get on someone's case - there's a process that's been going on against User:Fae for two and a half years, now at ArbCom, that in part alleges he committed some grave offense by mentioning how many floors a building had without a source!)  And while I'm at it, the "add" bothers me, because 90% of the time, our problem isn't that people add unverifiable material based on unsourced personal beliefs, but rather that they take it out for such reasons.  People just assume that something is quackery or a hoax without checking, and often they're wrong.  I would suggest something for that spot more like "Article content must be based on the reliable sources editors provide, not the personal qualifications they may claim or the certainty of their opinions." Wnt (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It must be verifiable. That doesn't mean it must have a citation.  Many people fall into this trap; it doesn't actually conflict at all.  Adding: what we have is three basic levels:
 * Material which is so obviously easily verifiable, and therefore is not challenged nor ever likely to be challenged, doesn't need a citation.
 * Material which is challenged or likely to be needs a citation.
 * Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Therefore, if the statement is very likely to be challenged, it needs the highest-quality citation(s). <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Support : clear, simple and not paradox-like, which is good. Except 1- the fact that to mention the policy or slogan « verifiability not truth » is both confusing and useless. Newcomers will not understand it and it will undermine the clarity of the explanation. I see no reason to mention it at all. 2-More generally, footnotes should be avoided so as not to distract from the main idea which is supposedly one of the key principles to the project.--<font style="red-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#9ACD32 0em 0em 0.8em,#BC8F8F -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#FF0000 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color;color:#00080">CALEB CRABB 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support but move the note into the text. Rationale for moving the note: firstly, notes should be avoided in a lead. Secondly "verifiability, not truth" is a sufficiently longstanding and notable slogan for deserving to be clearly apparent in the lead. Otherwise this version is clear, simple and is the one which best resolves the following ambiguity. In a scientific context, especially in mathematics, "verifiability" and "truth" have not the same meaning as in Wikipedia: A theorem is true if and only if it has been proved, and a proof is correct if and only if it is verifiable by anybody. This ambiguity makes, sometimes, content discussions very difficult with unexperienced editors and also with some experienced editors with insufficient mathematical knowledge. A policy is aimed to make discussions easier, not harder. This version is the one that best resolves this ambiguity. D.Lazard (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: How about we just say that if you can refute a challenged statement with a source that is recognized, or that has veracity (again), it just is not to be published? PROVISO, we need to identify those articles that lack references and start looking at them. Some are good, but the newer editor has not done a reference sectionCoal town guy (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a good attempt, and it is better than VNT-based formulations, but unfortunately it is open to the same set of misinterpretations. In the Sam Blacketer AFD, one could now have made the argument that since Wikipedia content should be determined by previously published information, we should go with The Register, rather than our personal experiences with Wikipedia logs. This may or may not be a correct reading of this proposal, but it shows that the same range of interpretations and misinterpretations are available as before. I do think this is the best proposal, but it requires some revisions to make clear what it means that content is "determined" by previously published information. Does it mean Wikipedians are transcription monkeys? Vesal (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) The wording wants cleaning. it must be verifiable before you can add it this give a false impression and Any material that requires a source, what material would that be then? An area of ambiguity and potential conflict. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've asked what material would be Any material that requires a source. Have you read the sentence just before: All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Doesn't this make clear what requires a source? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The intro should say what it needs to as concisely as possible and then get off the stage. It should not incorporate extraneous wording as a consolation prize. Formerip (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Less forceful but still conveys the need for verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 15:04, July 5, 2012‎
 * 3) Support. By far the most succinctly and clearly expressed. I'm inclined toward Future Perfect's tweaks too. But … following When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight, I'd like to see a stronger assertion along the lines of Wikipedia strives for factual accuracy, but does not decide on interpretations of truth. Or something like that. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) This is better than the rest by far; the next step is to have an RfC on which variation of this is preferred (which might address at least some of the concern expressed in the oppose section). Ideally, that could have been accomplished in this very RfC, but I see that the main page is protected from editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Conditional Support -- I support this version only if the footnote mentioning "Verifiability, not truth" is removed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I like this one best, but would prefer if it also contained the sentence "If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, it may be best not to remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely." per my comments on C. <font face="trebuchet MS">- filelake<font color="#0B0">shoe  <font color="#0B0"> &#xF0F6;    09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support we don't have any absolutes in our policies. We shouldn't word them in a way that implies absolutism. Gigs (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC) also support #44, above, by same user
 * 8) Moved from Oppose. As I've read the comments by other participants in this RfC, I've somewhat changed my mind. "Support with revisions" means that one opposes the option in its present form, but would support it if specific revisions were made to it. That's where I am now. For me, there need to be two (2) specific changes:
 * About VnT: Currently, there is a footnote after the sentence "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Delete the first sentence of the footnote. In its place, put this sentence, in parentheses, directly after that other sentence in the main text: "(This principle is sometimes expressed as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".[1])" VnT is not bolded. The footnote following that sentence would be what is now the second sentence of the existing footnote (about the VnT essay).
 * About verifiability not automatically guaranteeing inclusion of material: There are split opinions in View 8, but I think that no one has really made the case that it would be harmful to briefly point this out in the lead, nor refuted the case that it has been a source of misunderstanding. Add a phrase at the end of the second sentence of the last paragraph: "They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three, because sometimes verifiable material should not be included." I've shown the addition in italics.
 * With those two changes, I could fully support this version. It seems to me that Views 1, 3, and 4 show no consensus about VnT, but there is some consensus against Option E, so I don't think it would be right to remove VnT from the lead, or to leave it in a footnote, or to word it condescendingly, as the proposed footnote currently does. Given that the response to Option C indicates disapproval of a lengthy explanation, and given the no-consensus of the previous RfC, I think it best not to create a new section below the lead. Instead, this would be a very simple sentence, in the present tense, but not bolded and in parentheses, that would still be there, but that wouldn't be misunderstood. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Option D

 * Oppose. "Verifiability, not truth" is buried in a footnote in this version, and I believe that this is the wrong way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Changing to "Support, with revisions." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although moving it out of the footnote, into the main text, would be a step in the right direction, I would still object to framing it as only something of historic interest. That's equivalent to saying that it is no longer how we determine verifiability, that we don't do it that way any more. I really am convinced that, in the present, we accept material as verifiable on the basis of what the sources say, not what the proverbial "Randy from Boise" thinks is "true". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another thought: part of the problem with leaving it in a footnote is that it becomes more difficult to point an inexperienced editor to it. I realize of course that there is sentiment against pointing anyone to it, but I believe that it has proven itself to be a valuable teaching tool. It was, for me, in fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about a lede which combined aspects of Option C and Option D -- I mean, one which (like Option C) kept the phrase VnT in the lede, and which used wording from Option D (which people seem to find clear) to explain how verifiability differs from perceived truth? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether the wording about "historical" is retained in what you describe as what is found to be clear. If that stays, it would be a deal-breaker for me, for the reasons that I already said just above. It's like saying: here it is, in the lead, but we don't really mean it, ha, ha. On the other hand, if the overall organization is like Option D, and thus more succinct than Option C, that strikes me as very workable (depending of course on the details – never underestimate the propensity of the community to object to some little detail that hasn't been covered to their satisfaction!). I think there's a very high likelihood that I would support that, and I also think there's a very high likelihood that this is going to be where we end up. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've thought about this some more, and read more comments from other editors as the comments have come in, another problem with this option has occurred to me. It doesn't really make clear that, just because something is verifiable, it doesn't automatically get included. (It alludes to it, but doesn't spell it out.) That's a recipe for big problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's easy enough to tweak in. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it is. And I hope that we will end up with consensus to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Agreed, "Verifiability, not truth" should be preserved. There are several acceptable options here, so one which does away with the classic wording has no justification, other than to appease those who have an intense dislike of the phrase. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the concept and meaning of VnT is retained ("even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it") then the only reason for retaining the phrase itself is to appease people who have an intense like of the phrase itself, as opposed to what it's supposed to mean. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Tryptofish and Jclemens. Kaldari (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose keeping VnT in a footnote, per Tryptofish and Jclemens. If it were moved into the text and not labeled "historical", this would probably be the best wording. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should this comment really be in the "Support with revisions" section? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose per Tryptofish and Jclemens. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  IMO this version is better than the other four.  Unlike the other versions, I did not run into a problem with the wording until the 2nd paragraph. "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors."  The content is not "determined by previously published information". It is supposed to be drawn from published information.  Also in the 2nd paragraph: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." This suggests: if it is verifiable, add it.  This gives carte blanche to editors who want to use Wikipedia as a vast repository of trivia.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly oppose This proposal contains weak, wish-washy language that doesn't emphasize that verifiability trumps someone's idea of "truth". Ashbrook Station (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Ashbrook Station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 4) Oppose burying "Verifiability, not truth" in a footnote, and making it seem like it's been deprecated. LK (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Tryptofish. Also weak, wish-washy language as Ashbrook Station says. -- Alexf(talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Moving VnT to a footnote and weakening the language destroys the (needed) utility of the V lede. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Per above opposes (particularly Ashbrook Station, Tryptofish & —chaos5023), the language needs to be strong and clear. Truth needs to be there in the body of the text not buried in a footnote (which could be spun as if we are lessening the importance of verifiability over truth. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "True" appears in the body of the text. This is how it addresses the (variable) concepts of "truth".  It the "th" actually necessary?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - The word "perceived" adds nothing. "Truth" of any flavour is insufficient for inclusion, be it "perceived truth" or "truth by consensus" or "almost certainly truth" or "objective truth" (whatever that might mean).  "Truth" alone suffices.  Keep it simple. --Ds13 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm, does the word "perceived" actually appear in Option D? If not, would you reconsider this !vote? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. "Historically and notably"? Give me a break. The distinction is a critical one, and and it's one I intend to keep making as long as I'm an editor here. Burying it in a footnote where almost no one will see it, then adding insult to invisibility by implying it's obsolete, seems like a very bad idea. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that this particular formulation of words comes across as condescending towards the concept of VnT. The community should be able to find a way of addressing the concerns about VnT without falling into the trap of actively being insulting towards it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "This aspect of the policy has often been summarised by the slogan "Verifiability, not truth"." ? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the right way to think about it. I'd actually consider a big improvement to be: "has been expressed", simply deleting the words "historically and notably". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the footnote should be removed altogether, but if it is kept, then your version -- i.e. "has been expressed" -- is much better. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That being the case, how would you feel about moving it out of the footnote and into the text? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed, and if not removed kept in a footnote (and I prefer option E). I do not think "Verifiability, not truth" should be in the body of the text at all. It doesn't clarify anything, because the idea ("Even if you 'know' that it's true, you still have to provide a reference.") is already implied by the fact that we require references in all cases (which includes the case where the user didn't add a source because they "know" it to be true). Furthermore, the way this idea is presented -- i.e. as "Verifiability, not truth" -- is a very inaccurate portrayal of what we do here. What we actually practice here is trying to achieve verifiability and factual accuracy. I don't think we should be claiming that we are more concerned with references than we are with accuracy. We should be concerned equally about both. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in probing this point further, because so far this RfC hasn't made much progress in bridging the gap in opinions between those who lean towards Option E, as you do, and those who continue to support VnT. It's sort of like we have two opposed camps, each trying to win its case, but neither finding common ground with the other. Option D now says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it", followed by the footnote in question. I think there is a growing consensus that this sentence is clear and simple, and a better approach than that of Option C. I'm wondering whether the footnote can be improved by simplifying it to "has been expressed", and we seem to have some early-stage agreement that this might indeed be a step in the right direction. I think it is unlikely that there will be consensus to remove VnT entirely from WP:V. Do we keep the revised footnote in Option D, or is there a way to move it into the text that would work? How about putting the revised footnote wording in parentheses, in the text just after that sentence, in the place where the footnote would have been? If (if!) it is an acceptable compromise as a footnote, does it become unacceptable in the text (same words!) in parentheses? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I too feel that this is the central issue -- i.e. that the main disagreement is over whether VnT is worth keeping at all. I feel like the issues I brought up there have not been addressed, and that they do need to be discussed more, but I understand that it is hard to discuss when we're talking about so many things here in this section. So I have created a section below ("View 13") to specifically focus on the above concerns with VnT. Also, regarding consensus, it is important to remember that it is not a WP:VOTE, so even if many people are insistent that VnT remain, their !votes don't count towards anything if they don't make an effort to refute the points that people are making about why it shouldn't be there. A few people, refusing to consider/discuss the possibility that VnT can be removed or improved, cannot prevent change if they don't give good reasons for not changing it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take it personally, but the mediation decided to use the transclusion/subpage format in order to prevent changing the RfC mid-process, so that's why I reverted your addition of a 13th view. I agree with you that this must not be a vote, and that respondents ought to try to respond to what those who disagree with them say. But that goes both ways. I think you are incorrect to characterize it as though the pro-VnT people are the only ones digging in to a position without responding to the other side. It's happening on both sides. (You didn't really answer the question I asked just above.) I really encourage everyone who comments to try to find consensus, instead of taking a position and digging in. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Please don't take it personally, but the mediation decided to use the transclusion/subpage format in order to prevent changing the RfC mid-process, so that's why I reverted your addition of a 13th view." -- Not taken personally at all. Sorry I added the section -- I didn't realize we weren't supposed to create new ones. "I think you are incorrect to characterize it as though the pro-VnT people are the only ones digging in to a position without responding to the other side." -- You are correct. Both "sides" have done this. What I should have said is that I feel like there are several issues that the proponents of VnT have not adequately addressed, and that I wanted to create a separate thread somehow to discuss these specifically, instead of trying to do it in parallel with discussions about other issues. I was also trying to point out that even though we will probably never reach consensus here in the normal use of the term (a solution acceptable to everyone), we very well could reach a WP:CONSENSUS to change it, even if some people object (and you are correct that this goes both ways -- but the reason I brought it up though is that you said: "I think it is unlikely that there will be consensus to remove VnT entirely from WP:V"). I apologize for it coming out in a way that seemed to be suggesting that only people who support VnT are not addressing people's concerns. "You didn't really answer the question I asked just above." -- I wasn't intending to. I was trying to say that I'd rather continue the discussion in a new section below, but I see that is not an option now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think everything you said is very reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about ""This aspect of the policy is often summarised by the slogan "Verifiability, not truth"? This puts it in the present tense, reflecting actual usage instead of pretending no one uses it anymore, while neither endorsing nor deprecating its usage. Rivertorch (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The present tense appeals to me; the use of the word "slogan" does not, because it is a little deprecating, or at least superfluous. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I was riffing on Pesky's suggestion, which you liked, but just changed the tense. I agree that "slogan" is a poor choice. So: This aspect of the policy is often summarised by the phrase "Verifiability, not truth". Rivertorch (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The emerging consensus in Option 1 appears to be that the slogan should not appear in the lede. Personally I suggest that it's given a separate section immediately below the lede.  I have produced a draft along these lines at User:S Marshall/V.— S Marshall  T/C 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why you shouldn't be attempting to determine consensus. :-) One has to consider the results so far for Option E along with those of View 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not pretending to close the RfC, Tryptofish, just trying to share a way to implement the community's instructions as I understand them at this stage. I do think the opinions expressed under View 1 preclude a mention of VnT in the lede, so I think any attempt to pursue this is misconceived.— S Marshall  T/C 22:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's never misconceived to try to bridge disagreements. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so. In this case I think you need to find a way to bridge this disagreement that respects what the community's telling you in view 1.— S Marshall  T/C 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And in Option E. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think S.Marshall's idea of having the words "verifiability, not truth" immediately beneath an Option D-style lede is worth considering. It is a compromise which keeps VnT on the page, gives it more prominence than a footnote, but also takes account of the views of all the people who have indicated they don't want it in the lede. It is a long way from Option E, because Option E doesn't mention "truth" in the lede at all, which Option D does, and still would. And because Option E doesn't give a way of acknowledging the phrase "verifiability, not truth". I'm not sure whether at this stage there is likely to be consensus for an additional section as substantial as the one at User:S Marshall/V -- that is another question. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, this is weak, and opens the door even wider who want to express their truth, their beliefs, disregarding reality. What is also really bad is the "personal beliefs", as the 'truths' that cause the really horrific problems are usually group beliefs (there is nothing like a group of like-minded to quickly hammer in that a really crazy notion is a self-evident truth). - Peter077 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 2) Oppose (See previous comment for longer explanation.)  In short, it's not broken, don't fix it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The current version addresses truth both as an objective and subjective matter, this one does not and is defective for that reason. The current version (or Version B or C) works fine. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. In gutting the phrase, "verifiability, not truth," this option attempts to solve problems that rarely if ever arise and in the process removes a statement that shocks the reader into seeing that there is something counterintuitive about Wikipedia's policies.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to drafts

Option E — About verifiability, no mention of "truth"
[ Click here to edit this section]

Support Option E
Consider whether the other versions have anything of comparable clarity to quote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support but not as good as "D". On what I think is the core point that we're evaluating on these (how to deal with VNT) this one is good. But the other wording is not as good and would need substantial work. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Contrasting "verifiability" and "truth" is an offence against logic and language.  The natural meaning of "verifiable" is "checkably true".  And I have no patience with editors who think truth is unimportant.  Encyclopaedia writers are educators and there's something badly wrong with educators who don't try to tell the truth.  Much better to remove all mention of truth than to pretend it doesn't matter.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I like the simplicity and clarity, which is not being achieved by unclear slogans.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, seems just as good as Option D, though I would avoid footnotes in the introduction (see my comment above). Victor Yus (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, on first read this option seems well thought out. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. My problem with "verifiability, not truth" has always been that it is worded too damn vague to actually mean anything other than "cite your source", and just introduced a new level of complicated nonsense to deter new users. This is the best option I can see, though I agree that the footnotes can be cut. Evanh2008 (talk 05:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I have never understood why 'truth' has been used to provide contrast to 'verifiability'. Philosophers would have a field day with this strange juxtaposition. To quote Pontius Pilate (with apologies to Tim Rice): What is 'truth'? Is 'truth' unchanging law? We all have 'truths', are mine the same as yours? If WP has been unable to explain 'truth' properly since the creation of this policy, then perhaps it is time for WP to move on, and stop trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support although not as good as D. Formerip (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support This version is the best, firstly because it drops the confusion around truth - philosophers have failed to define it comprehensibly (for thousands of years), so it's unlikely we'll succeed; and secondly because it is short, clear, and direct (as a result). Telling people that something is verifiable (its truth can be checked) but not true just feels confusing: I know what is intended but the old wordings do not say it. Version E just goes clearly for an operational definition of verifiability, says it's important and avoids muddying the waters with abstract concepts. It's clear, practical, and (to all outside the Wiki village) simple and non-contentious. Easily the best thing to do, and an excellent wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. more succinct than D (good), but not so clear on sourcing, but instead focusses on inline cites (bit self-referential for the average reader and person unfamiliar with WP). But it'll do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Verifiable content should be included in wiki. Truth is a perception and may be different for different persons. There is no need to talk about truth in this policy lede. Emphasis on verifiability is required, with examples. -Ambar wiki (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support - This is the cleanest option, and avoids any confusion arising from the fact that verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. Peaceray (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support -- Per SMarshall, Chiswick Chap, and Andrew Lancaster. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I strongly prefer a lede without reference to “not truth” in that it is unnecessary verbiage that creates ambiguity and leads to confusion. E is the only option without this reference and the wording after the opening sentence is the most succinct. (I would prefer if the opening sentence first stated exactly what the requirement is, like D.) Location (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. per 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 14. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I agree with S Marshall. The verifiability policy is our means to achieve truth. The concepts should not be made into looking like opposite things. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Support — This version states the verifiability policy in a way that doesn't require a special Wikipedia definition of the word "verifiable". The second sentence can be quoted when enforcing the Verifiability policy with newbies and experienced users alike:       "Information added to articles must be verifiable using only  reliable sources that have been  published."
 * 1) Tepid support —— albeit not as good as option "D" like many others before me have already stated. <font style="color:Green;background:#FFFCD7;"> Brendon is <font style="color:White;background:red;">here 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support. Prefer D. -- J N  466  16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support. "Verifiability, not truth" always seemed to me a nonsense slogan, suggesting that a statement is verifiable, it doesn't matter if it is true. Actually we want a statement to be verifiable as evidence that it is true. So let's just say encyclopedic content must be verifiable (to quote the line below the edit box) and leave it at that.01:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Dirac66 (talk)
 * 4) Strong support. This looks to be the most clear and simple version. However, rather than just stating that Wikipedia requires verifiability, it would be better to explain WHY (the objective of this) at the top:  For example: "Wikipedia is widely respected as a trustworthy and neutral resource. For Wikipedia to remain this way, material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable"... LittleBen (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Option E with revisions

 * Not a support or oppose, but a suggested revision. Given how brief this version is, it might be more useful to mention the other policies earlier on in the lede rather than as the last sentence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)



Oppose Option E

 * 1) Oppose. No mention of "truth" is exactly the problem with this option. "Verifiability, not truth" has long served Wikipedia well. It just needs to be explained properly, as in Option C, but not abandoned. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment But the existing "Verifiability, not truth", excludes truth. So this is only a refinement of wording intended to reduce confusion. As I read your comments they conflict with your !votes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I didn't make myself clear enough. My reference to "no mention of 'truth'" referred to the summary heading of this section. What I mean, of course, is that this option completely omits VnT. Maybe I should have said, instead, no mention of "not truth", which is what I was really trying to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the RfC has gone on, and I've read the comments of other editors, nothing has made me change my opposition to this option. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Tryptofish. No justification for removing the classic wording when we have multiple alternatives that explain it well enough, including the original. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Does not address perennial confusion about editor belief. Joja  lozzo  18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  The apparent paradox in the term draws attention, as long as it is explained—as is done by either C or D.  DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Too watered down. Some mention should be made of the fact that verifiability trumps an editor's belief in what is correct. Kaldari (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose; we do need to retain something which shows that "reliable checkability trumps belief" <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought thats what verifiability means? Why oppose verifiability? "reliable checkability trumps belief" can be included without a mention about truth. -Ambar wiki (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This draft avoids some problems through brevity, but in order to make an effective policy it's better to contrast it against an opposing point of view.  "Verifiability, not truth" is simply more informative than "verifiability". Wnt (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Inadequate, particularly the language which seems lifeless. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Not mentioning "verifiability, not truth" is the main weakness of this version. Although it is a slogan, and even an ambiguous slogan (see my other posts), getting rid of it, despite its long history, may make discussions with other editors more complicated, which is not the aim of a policy. D.Lazard (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Highly problematic, since it does not address the issue of the truth. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - As ststed above, this ducks the issue of truth and could potentially re-open old arguments. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - The other options seem more polished, and clear to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Truth is one of Wikipedia's core values and should strive to provide correct and valid information, while at the same time ensuring that verifiability backs this truth up. Not stating anything about truth might delude the editor into thinking any information can be placed on Wikipedia as long as it has a source to back it up. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. The crux of the verifiability policy is that it is explicitly and purposefully contrasted with truth. Without that contrast, verifiability becomes a nebulous concept. I think that any move towards removing contrasting and explanatory material from the verifiability policy is only going to weaken the already tenuous hold that this policy has on actual content. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-3.0ex">contribs 23:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose: the vary fact that this discussion lasts so long reveals that the question of verifiability and truth relationship in Wikipedia editing must be discussed. We can't just drop the whole argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose My problem with this wording starts at its first sentence. "Verifiability is one of the most essential requirements in Wikipedia." If something is a "requirement" it IS "essential".  Rating requirements as to whether they are "essential", "more essential", or "most essential" is just weasel words.  So I oppose this option. (Just to be fair I will mention that I also oppose specific wordings I find in the four other options. There is no option I fully support.) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongly oppose The version is awful. It eliminates a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia that verifiability trumps a person's idea of what the truth is.  Ashbrook Station (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Ashbrook Station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 12) Strong oppose This version changes the meaning of the lead, and not in a good way. LK (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Feels a bit thin and weaselly: "most essential" (as if there are degrees of being essential), and that puzzling "appropriate" (does an inappropriate inline citation use the wrong salad fork?). Lacks the crucial if reliable sources disagree sentence that makes Proposal D stand out as a practical guide to what "verifiability, not truth" actually means. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose: I'm not really sure about any of the other versions. But I'm absolutely sure that we need to mention truth, and distinguish it from verifiability. Too many arguments start and persist because someone insists they're an agent of truth, Wikipedia policies be damned. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. V needs a strong introduction to the fact that Wikipedia is not about what you personally believe to be true. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it need such an introduction? Doesn't the statement "You must always provide a source for information added." imply "You must provide a source for information you add, even if you know it to be true."? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, there have been a number of times new users have said "but it's true" to one of my reverts. It needs to be there so that we can point to the black and white statement. Implications are open to interpretations, black and white statements are not. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does imply it. If sources are required in all cases, that implies that they are required in the case that the user "knows" it to be true. Think about it: (1) We state clearly that all information added must have a source. (2) An editor comes along and adds information without a source, and then argues when it's removed "But I know that this is true!". (3) We say, "That's too bad. WP:V requires that you add a source, and you cannot add the information to the article without one." (4) End of story. ... The requirement alone IMPLIES that they can't add information without a source because they think it's true. The comments about truth are unnecessary (as well as misguided). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose. This needs to be a stong policy statement, if there is no mention of truth then users will say "but it's the truth" and it'll be left to more experienced users to give the "verifiability, and not what you think is the truth" statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. Merely implying that truth (and personal knowledge) is not enough will make discussions of this policy unnecessarily painful. Hugetim (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly Oppose - The "not truth" component is essential to the policy. It underscores the difference between what we assert on Wikipedia versus how we may assert things in everyday life. Wikipedia's thresholds of inclusion are sometimes unintuitive and this emphasizes that fact. --Ds13 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose — The verifiability system, though conceptually brilliant, is not particularly intuitive and the first-blush objection "but it's the truth" is natural and powerful, but inappropriate. It needs to be directly countered. I'm not sure which of the other four choices I like best, but this one doesn't serve our needs. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - the page does need an explanation that "personal experience" isn't enough for inclusion, it just needs to be explained better than "verifiability, not truth". <font face="trebuchet MS">- filelake<font color="#0B0">shoe <font color="#0B0"> &#xF0F6;    09:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose. The distinction between what Wikipedians call "verifiability" and what random visitors to the site call "truth" is a critical one. Understanding it forms a significant part of the basis for contributing constructively to the encyclopedia. That one of the core policies makes the distinction and states it explicitly is something I've found invaluable often enough. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. "Truth" should not be taken out altogether. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose; this would encourage those who regard Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicize their beliefs, their truth, even stronger. It is the way to Wikipedia as a complete work of fiction. - Peter077 (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 9) Oppose (See previous comment for longer explanation.)  In short, it's not broken, don't fix it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong oppose: Callanecc sums up my feeling precisely, you need something to point the "but it's true" folks to. Discovering this priciple was a big 'light bulb' moment for me early on in my time here and helped me to become a productive editor. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of using the unclear phrase "verifiability, not truth", which needs explanation, you might consider the benefit of pointing them to something that is clear on its own, like the following from Option E, "Information added to articles must be verifiable using only  reliable sources that have been  published." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose, for the reasons given many times above. The major utility of WP:V is to correct the "but it's true!" crowd. Omitting this is to make WP:V a policy to which we would almost never have to direct someone's attention.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to drafts

General views about WP:V and its lede
Please indicate whether you endorse, oppose, or are neutral about each of the following views. Please provide informative comments. You may also discuss comments, using the "#:" notation.

View 1
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 1

 * 1) Strong endorse. It's a useful and memorable phrase, no need to abandon it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, it needs to stay there. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparent contradictions in terms have their place in literature. Consider:
 * If I speak, I am condemned.
 * If I stay silent, I am damned!
 * In pure language terms, Valjean's two terms are identical, even though he is clearly contrasting two things--being condemned by the law, and damned to hell. The sense is obvious to those who understand the context, and even to most of those who understand the nuanced usages of the two seemingly identical words. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse. The phrase is straight to the point and memorable. It addresses the problem of editors who believe that their point of view is not in fact a point of view, which seems to be rather common. Kaldari (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support: this is a fine-tuned phrase that highlights the issue and helps to comprehend the underlying idea. It served well in past and no better way to express the idea that succinctly and exactly was ever introduced. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - per Tryptofish and Kaldari. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - A mission statement, of sorts, needs to be clearly visible and easily accessed. Therefore, I am endorsing View 1. — Ltr,ftw (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly support It's important that policies are easy to understand and remember. I prefer the succinct phrase "verifiabilty, not truth" over paragraphs of bureaucratic language. Ashbrook Station (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Ashbrook Station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 6) Strong Support - per Tryptofish. LK (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support - per Tryptofish. -- Alexf(talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse. Its function is crucial. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support - An absolute cornerstone of the project. Thom2002 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - in a collaborative project, where third party sources are the mediators of conflict, it's not the truth that matters, it's the evidence for the truth. The evidence -- the verifiability -- is what convinces. To paraphrase a quote, 'It doesn't matter to the rest of the world that I know it is true, it matters that I can prove it.' The phrase does not and never will stand alone in the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support It's an important phrase. The fact that it is slightly jarring is one of its positive features, as it pulls people up short and makes them question their assumptions about what Wikipedia is supposed to be.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Strongly support - I think the and not truth component is essential to the policy lead. It underscores the difference between what we assert on Wikipedia versus how we may assert things in everyday life. Wikipedia's thresholds of inclusion are sometimes unintuitive and this emphasizes that fact. --Ds13 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support: didn't see this in the RFC the first time. Yes, this is absolutely necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support. The phrase summarizes beautifully one of the key points about the policy, so of course it should be in the lede. If the phrase is subject to frequent, serious misunderstanding (and I haven't seen any evidence that it is), it can be explained thoroughly further down the page. If it makes the reader pause and go, "Huh. Wow. What does that mean?" and think for a moment, then it has functioned correctly. That's what it did for me, and that's why I've referred various newbies not only to the policy but to those very words. I really can't imagine anyone but many other than the terminally clueless not realizing what the words mean, unless they're unwilling to pause and think. (And if they're unwilling to do that, they're probably not the best candidates for content contributors.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not "terminally clueless" to see ambiguity in that bloody awful phrase and to prefer alternative wording. The fact that most of us here get what it means (or what it's intended to mean) doesn't mean we aren't allowed to improve it!— S Marshall  T/C 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you presumably believe you are not one of "the terminally clueless not realizing what the words mean", does the phrase "verifiability, not truth" mean that truth should not be a consideration when deciding whether or not to use a specific reliable source that editors know isn't true? At the risk of being perceived as one of "the terminally clueless not realizing what the words mean", that's what it seems to imply to me, and is something I wouldn't follow when editing. So I ignore that phrase when editing Wikipedia, and instead use the idea expressed in Option E, "Information added to articles must be verifiable using only  reliable sources that have been  published."   --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My statement was a bit sweeping, and I've modified it to allow for the existence of thoughtful editors like you two. I could write a whole essay in response, but for now I'll just say that I assume that most editors who stick around for any length of time find a way to follow the spirit of WP:V and the other core policies even when they conflict with their own experience in the world. Does "verifiability not truth" actually lead editors to add content they believe to be untrue? I'm unaware of this happening (although I'm sure someone could come up with an anecdote or two). Might it sometimes lead editors to let stand content they believe to be untrue, because it's verifiable? Sure. I avoid entire topic areas encompassing thousands of articles because I understand that what I believe to be true is something that isn't easily verifiable and for which I don't have reliable sources close at hand. Accepting that what's verifiable (i.e., objectively so, according to sources we accept as reliable) trumps what's true (i.e., subjectively so, according to what we know) is one of the awkward things about Wikipedia. I don't always like it, but I accept it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "I'll just say that I assume that most editors who stick around for any length of time find a way to follow the spirit of WP:V..." — That's the point. It's not the unclear phrase "verifiability, not truth" that editors use to learn about WP:V, it's what they find from their experiences in editing Wikipedia and possibly discussions on policy pages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Nobody's contesting that what's verifiable trumps what editors believe to be true.  The whole argument on this page is about whether "verifiability, not truth" is the best way to say it (and I'd like to draw your attention to the emerging consensus at Option D and View 1 in this regard).— S Marshall  T/C 22:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, it's not "terminally clueless" to interpret an ambiguity in its literal sense.  It's just one of those things which can happen, which is why we should avoid ambiguous phrases.  I'm a HFA editor.  Autism spectrum people frequently expect what is said to mean precisely what it said, and nothing else.  That doesn't make us terminally clueless, or "probably not the best candidates for content contributors".  In fact, it's exactly those people who can (and often instinctively do) express ourselves with absolute literal precision who can make the best content contributors; we write stuff that pretty much anyone can understand. Without wishing to "out" anyone, I can think of at least one editor with a string of FA's to their name who is also a HFA.  And probably not the one you may immediately think of.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at cross purposes. I didn't mean to imply that it was "terminally clueless" to interpret an ambiguity in its literal sense. I am dismayed at myself for writing something (in an RfC dealing partly with clarity of wording, no less) that even one person might mistake as some kind of indirect swipe at any category of editors. Rest assured that I'm aware of the existence of numerous highly clueful Wikipedians within the autism spectrum. I wonder if you missed the clause that followed, where I explicitly qualified what came before with "unless they're unwilling to pause and think"? That was a critical bit. I certainly recall doing a fair amount of pausing and thinking when I was new here, and I don't think I fully grasped the essence of the core policies and how they relate to each other until I'd been here quite a while. I do remember "verifiability, not truth" being valuable shorthand that helped me "get" WP:V, but obviously different editors have different experiences; an aid to one may be an obstacle to another. Clarify, if you would: are you saying that, for some newbies who have the potential to be fully competent contributors, pausing and thinking (and reading the rest of the policy, of course) are insufficient measures to glean the gist of what "verifiability, not truth" means? If so, then it should be possible to elucidate, in either a length footnote or a subsequent paragraph, without relegating the phrase to the (proverbial) dustbin. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, I'm not personally mortally offended (because I'm me! I don't work like that, on the whole...) but I could easily have been, if, for example, I'd been somebody else. The thing is, with a mind which can work lightning-fast and accurately, which many HFA's have, and the kind of processing which looks at and processes what is actually written, many people don't get the trigger to "pause and think".  They respond to what is actually written, in the same way that a computer responds to its programming. A computer doesn't skip out of its program and start pondering on whether the user actually meant something completely different (unless it falls into a closed loop, or something).  GIGO.  If the program has bugs, you're going to get the wrong results from the computer!  VnT is fine if and only if the ambiguity is removed from the concept before the phrase itself appears.  With the absolute precise meaning explained and internally-processed, then the Savant / Autie etc., coming across the phrase, will get the "pause and think" trigger in order to parse the phrase in the context of the rule which has already been clearly stated.  (A computer cannot act on A + 15=?, without it having first been stated "Let A=10". As soon as there's an equivalent of "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" = "VnT", then we're home and dry.)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rivertorch: that's the message I'm getting from this RfC. While I acknowledge the community isn't of one mind in this, I'm not seeing a consensus to remove VnT from the policy.  Subject to the RfC closers' views I am seeing a community mandate to remove VnT from the lede, and accordingly, I suggest we consider putting it into a separate paragraph immediately below the lede.— S Marshall  T/C 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that exact mandate at this time. We know that a lot of users oppose View 1, some because they want VnT removed entirely, and some because they support moving it somewhere else. We also know that a lot of users oppose Option E, that removes VnT from the lead. We know that, in the RfC before this one, a version similar to the one in your user space, with a separate section about VnT, got no consensus. As I look at the comments from users who dislike VnT, I'm not really seeing a lot of support for a lengthy explanation of it; after all, there seems to be low enthusiasm for the approach of Option C, on the grounds that it uses too much verbiage. I wonder, then, whether a brief, parenthetical statement about VnT, similar to a revision of the Option D footnote, might be a path to consensus, even if it is in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the community is telling us pretty clearly that it doesn't want VnT in the lede, but I do acknowledge that a parenthetical statement may be acceptable. When you mention the last RfC, I think that in many ways the last RfC resembled this one: ~60% in favour of some change that both clarifies, and reduces the prominence of, VnT; ~30% in favour of VnT, but that 30% including some editors who are very vocal and strident about their opposition to change; and 10% other. Please could you mock up a rough draft of the shape of the policy that you suggest?  I think the exact wording is important here, because it should not imply that VnT is the One True Way of Stating the Policy—it needs to be clear that VnT is what we used to say but the community now prefers less ambiguous wording.— S Marshall  T/C 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's very helpful that you regard a parenthetical statement as something that might be considered – thank you. You are of course right that the exact wording matters, but I feel no hurry to write anything right now. I want to see how this RfC progresses. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A parenthetical statement immediately after the accurate explanation, such as (This rule is often represented by the use of the short phrase "Verifiability, not truth") would work just fine. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Rivertorch (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. VnT has served us well over the years. It should stay. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support See previous statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. This is one of the phrases that has shaped Wikipedia and has tried to make Wikipedia into an encyclopedia. That it has not been universally succesful is a pity; there remain hordes of users who are on a "mission from God" and who feel that since they are propagating 'The Truth' they can blissfully ignore reality and the literature and can sweep facts aside as unimportant. The Truth and the Verifiability policy are opposites and they are incompatible, and this point cannot be made strongly and explicitly enough. The more Truth there is in Wikipedia the less it is an encyclopedia. - Peter077 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 4) Support. Absolutely crucial and makes the point strongly enough. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong endorse. The point must be put strongly, and as we are likely to have to say something to this effect to the "but it's true!" crowd, it would be better to be able to quote the policy.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 1

 * 1) Oppose. Unnecessary example of what verifiability is not, ambiguous in it's meaning of "not truth", has done a lot of damage. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Can be mentioned in brackets, after it has been explained what is meant, but should not do the work of actually conveying the meaning. It can't do that, because it is too ambiguous. Editors can intepret it either as "something being true is not enough, it has to be published first", or as "it doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as it has been published". A phrase that is so ambiguous is completely ill suited to doing such heavy lifting in the most fundamental site policy.  J N  466  09:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. contrasting "verifiability" and "truth" is an offence against logic and language.  The natural meaning of "verifiable" is "checkably true".  And I have no patience with editors who think truth is unimportant.  Encyclopaedia writers are educators and there's something badly wrong with educators who don't try to tell the truth.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, I doubt it's actually ever done any damage, but it's not a good way of expressing in English what this policy is about. Victor Yus (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) The thing we need to do is explain verifiability. I see no imperative for any specific approach. Joja  lozzo  17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) "Not Truth" is at the center of the problem, and we would be best rid of it and use other wording. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - the phrase is too ambiguous, too open to misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise), and provides to much of a disruption of thinking processes to some sets of people (particularly autism-spectrum and ESL editors). It can be distorted (and has been) to suggest that WIkipedia doesn't care about truth; it's been misused in the past by people who want to put their Favourite Factlet in even though it was discredited years ago ... "It's been published, so it goes in; I don't care if it's demonstrably not true, it's verifiable, so there ...." kind of approach.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Reducing a nuanced policy to a slogan is so unhelpful, for all the reasons mentioned above. First Light (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Yes, why not mislead the reader! You never know he might even believe it's accurate and start supporting proposals that include this wording and oppose those that don't include it therefore locking up any real change of this policy for years. Opps, seems I was to late :( It's already happened. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Not by necessity. There are other ways of wording it, and I see no need to have that slogan. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. "not truth" is very poor wording that can be and has been misunderstood and/or misrepresetned. We want truth; but not any individual's firmly but perversely held view of it. --Stfg (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Truth is one of Wikipedia's core values, yet it just so happens that verifiability takes precedence in this statement. Both values, truth and verifiability, should be equal in value yet verfiability must be established in order to pave the way for truth. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Truth is not one of Wikipedia's core values, just the opposite: Wikipedia is supposed to present correct information (and correct information and truth are antithetical). The more Truth there is in Wikipedia the more it turns into Conservapedia, which does have Truth as a core value. - Peter077 (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? "Correct information and truth are antithetical?"— S Marshall  T/C 19:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. For all the usual reasons.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This phrase is just begging to be attacked. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. An alarming number of seasoned editors have contended, in discussion leading to this RfC, that "not truth" should be interpreted as meaning that we should include information we know to be false in Wikipedia. That alone ought to make it obvious that the phrase should be jettisoned. That it's a false opposition makes WP look silly to outsiders. When it's not being abused and misrepresented (which it often is) it is instead used to brickwall and sidetrack legitimate discussion. It contributes negatively to the editing environment. Formerip (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - the wording is the cause of endless argument. It just makes things worse; it's something to be explained away, so we're far better off without it. Once you have to start explaining what the clear, simple principles are... you're lost. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - the "not truth" bit is antithetical to what we are trying to achieve as an encyclopedia. Sloganistic and facile are two other adjectives that come to mind. FormerIP sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Its better not to have "not truth" in the lede. In fact, we should mention that verifiability is a means to establish truth. -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. It's a slogan that's meaningful only if you already know what it means, like semper fi. It doesn't make clear that while Wikipedia strives to provide accurate, reliable information, we don't decide truth claims in matters that are open to interpretation. I agree completely with what Formerip says above. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' is self-conflicted, & only makes sense if one likes Wikipedia kōans. Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. Peaceray (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. The phrase is too ambiguous to be such a prominent part of Wikipedia policy. The confusion and misunderstanding it causes outweighs its usefulness as an easily remembered slogan. Location (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - 'Verifiable, not truth' is an important concept, but it doesn't belong in the lede. A verifiable statement is nearly always inherently true. Using 'Verifiable, not truth' in the lede is practically an invitation to stuff beans up your nose, it's like asking editors to add any and all lies that have ever been published about a topic. --Joshuaism (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - While this is a useful mantra for experienced editors, those editors can read the relevant essay. This page is frequently used to educate new users, and should take an approach that is more understandable to those who don't live and breathe wikipedia. -- LWG talk 03:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- The phrase is completely unnecessary. The goal of WP:V is to ensure that people add sources for any information they include in the article. So all we need to do is tell them that if they include information, it must include a source, end of story. There is no reason to add that we don't care whether it's true (which I believe is very misguided). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Causes a whole lot of confusion, such as the interpretation that truth doesn't matter. The purpose of the verifiability policy is to assist us in getting to the truth, and the very idea that we should knowingly include inaccurate information just because it is "verifiable" is utterly against the spirit of the policy. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, per 15 and others. It is not a sacred cow. (or is it?) Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. "Verification not truth" implies that Wikipedia is nothing more than an index of things published elsewhere. Thankfully, it is more. Consider the delicacy necessary to give due weight to different viewpoints on a single issue. Furthermore it seems obvious that Wikipedia should not contain false statements (regardless of how you define truth and falsehood), even if these statements appear in certain published texts. Consider outdated ideas, which can be found in many reliable published sources, but which pursuit of truth would cause us to present differently. The phrase is not simply unclear; it is normatively and descriptively wrong. Groupuscule (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose The important thing is the intended meaning, not any specific wording of that meaning. cmadler (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. This is a terrible and confusing way to say 'reality as reputable sources present it, not as you think it is'. We want 'truth' in the sense of accurate reporting, don't we? This is a great example of insider jargon that is confusing, and even misleading, to newer editors like me. --Curiouskitten (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose - The risk of misunderstanding is too great. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Frederico1234 and others. Pitting verifiability and truth against each other is not a good example of encapsulating WP:V. Brandmeistertalk  15:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose per, and . <font style="color:Green;background:#FFFCD7;"> Brendon is <font style="color:White;background:red;">here  16:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose -- it doesn't need to be part of the lede, but it could be there if necessary. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose - VNT is Orwellian Newspeak idiocy. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose Fatuity belongs at ANI, not on any policy of an encyclopedia worthy of the name. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose Content should be both verifiable and true. --catslash (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 1

 * 1) This is a very useful phrase, but it can be said in other ways.  I proposed one such way offhand in my comment about Option D.  My feeling is that we could be more elaborate in what we say - "verifiability... not the personal qualifications you claim, not how strongly you feel about the subject, not how sure you are that most people agree with you" and actually make a better policy. Wnt (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Indifferent at this stage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Middle ground: keep the phrase in the lede (I'm presuming that "lede" is synonymous with "lead section" here) but move it farther down. I think the philosophical complexity of the phrase makes it less appropriate for inclusion in the first parts of the lead, where we're trying to get across the basic meaning of verifiability. It may trip up and/or confuse some readers. But I don't see why it shouldn't be explained clearly in the later parts of the section, once the basic groundwork has been established.--Batard0 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top

View 2
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 2

 * 1) Preferably in a sentence about carrying Jimbo over the threshold. I like the threshold wording originally used in the policy. Yes, it requires some caveats and explanation, but it gets the gist across and I haven't yet seen anything that works better. Kaldari (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  I disagree with S Marshall - we should (and probably do) include baraminology in that article; we just don't do so explicitly; we use WP:Summary style.  It's very different to say that "we shouldn't mention verifiable stuff if an editor decides that talking about it just won't do", than to say "when we get a lot of content about a topic we can start breaking it down in sub-articles with a fractal pattern of organization".  I support the latter but absolutely oppose the former.  I see the former argued a lot in any context with political relevance, and believe me, it's not out of concern for the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Threshold or requirement or criterion - as long as we're clear it's mandatory.  And I prefer saying verifiability is "a" threshold for inclusion.  Not "one of the", because that sounds wishy-washy, and not "the", because there are other considerations. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 2

 * 1) Sounds nice, and feels like the most familiar and comfortable term, but it is ambiguous, and is logically wrong by most definitions of "threshold". North8000 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) What I'm really opposed to is the phrase "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability", because it implies that anything sourced can be added to an article, and I don't think that's true. For example, although there are superficially reliable sources for baraminology, it's right that our article on species contains no mention of the subject.  So "the threshold" is wrong.  "A threshold" would be acceptable, although I prefer "requirement".— S Marshall  T/C 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you, S Marshall. The claims of baraminology are not verifiable, despite the existence of "superficially reliable sources."  One must consider the preponderance of the sources, as well as the quality of individual sources.  Your example actually disproves your point, as the baraminology article properly judges its sources, while the species article properly ignores the subject per WP:UNDUE.  All of this is consistent with current policy, demonstrating that no change is needed.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and I, with equal respect, strongly disagree with you. This is the basic problem with the whole line ("the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth").  What it says is: "Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth".  It says: "No matter how weird or outré your point of view might be, you can add it to Wikipedia so long as some fringe publisher has, at some point, put it in print."  These are extremely problematic and damaging things to say, which is why I'm personally convinced that it's both urgent and long overdue that we remove "threshold" and "VnT" from this policy.  I'm delighted about the consensus that I think is emerging here.— S Marshall  T/C 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but "Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth" strikes me as a bizarre misreading of the text. VnT says that truth is insufficient; verifiability is the standard.  Your "some fringe publisher" line is thoroughly refuted by WP:FRINGE.  The policy is clear and it works.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it said that then there would be no problem with it and the whole RfC would be unnecessary. But "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" doesn't say truth is insufficient.  What it says is that truth is irrelevant.  It makes no reference to WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE or any of the other stuff that it ought to say.  It's a simple, emphatic and unequivocal statement that any idiocy that's ever appeared in non-self-published print belongs in an article.  Of course, if you say to me, "but WP:FRINGE contradicts that", then I will agree with you and I will point out that we need to rephrase VnT such that it doesn't contradict WP:FRINGE.  Do you see?— S Marshall  T/C 07:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The threshold for inclusion is... not truth" does indeed say nothing more or less than that truth is insufficient. I think your problem is focusing narrowly on the phrase VnT, apart from its context.  Your further interpretation is unsupported by the policy's actual wording, and anyone who thinks as you do will quickly be corrected by experienced editors if they try to apply such an inane policy.
 * Details of the policy, including rebuttals to various possible misunderstandings, can and should be in the article body text, but not the lede (unless they are very prominent or common). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not communicating here. This VnT issue is why I wrote the alternative phrase, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (which now appears in Option D).  Am I right in thinking that you believe that means exactly the same thing as VnT?— S Marshall  T/C 11:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they mean the same thing. Yours is not as punchy, and I would oppose using it instead of VnT, but it might be fine to have it in addition to.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you see why so many participants in this RfC find option D clearer and more specific?— S Marshall T/C 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with both the above. "Criterion" or "requirement" would work fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, weird choice of word, don't see any need for it, and potentially misleading as noted by others above. Victor Yus (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with S Marshall: "threshold" implies sufficiency when we want to insist on necessity. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose; "threshold" has too much of a nuance of "Cross this one and you're in". "A requirement", "a fundamental requirement", etc. ... all those are just fine and carry the idea of "not the only thing" with them.  The threshold of a house is the front door.  Cross the threshold, you're in the house.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreement with #5 et al. - "threshold" implies sufficiency when we want to insist on necessity. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: indeed the word "threshold" implies the sufficiency, while we have other policies (and guidelines for that purpose) imposing further limitations on material inclusion. The word "requirement" proposed by S Marshall is the exact expression of verifiability's role in Wikipedia editing practices. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. This word implies not only sufficiency but also the priority of one core content policy over the others - either in a ranking sense whereby WP:V trumps the others, or else in some strange chronological sense whereby an editor of WP works through several strict steps: first WP:V and then others. So it is misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. A metaphor may not be the best way to give an instruction. Future Perfect's suggestion of "criterion" would be better if this sentence structure were to be preserved. "Criterion" indicates that there's a discerning process in line with other guidelines pertaining to RS, weight, POV, and so on. Option D, however, seems more effective in part because it relies less on abstract nouns and more on what an editor should do. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Not all verifiable information is worthy of inclusion, therefore, verifiability is a requirement for inclusion but not the threshold for inclusion. Location (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Oppose. The threshold needs to be higher than verifiability alone, we have other policies and guidelines that must be considered. Stating that verifiability is 'A requirement' sounds nice, but it rankles my anti-authoritarian tendencies and I'd be tempted to break it in accords with the 5th pillar in the fundamental policy of Wikipedia. 'Necessary' or 'necessity' strike the right balance of being a very strongly worded guidance without being authoritarian. --Joshuaism (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, per S Marshall -- We shouldn't say this because it's not true. The threshold for inclusion is NOT verifiability. It is verifiability AND many other things. Instead of "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability.", it should say something along the lines of "One of the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, Per S Marshall. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) This could be rephrased without harm; it is not a key word. - Peter077 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 14) Oppose. Per S Marshall. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Again, just saying it's not a requirement, not that it shouldn't be there. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 2
Return to top
 * 1) Neutral. Honestly, it's hard for me to care, one way or the other. A small number of editors who spend a lot of time thinking about WP:V have formed strong opinions, but I see it as a colossal non-issue. It's OK to say "threshold", OK to say "requirement", whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Tryptofish. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Specific wording isn't critical for me. We need to explain policy clearly without drama.  Joja  lozzo  17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a bit none clarifying and doesn't really help or hinder. But if it don't help then why have it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I can't see myself taking a strong stance on this one. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) The word "threshold" does not matter. Jojalozzo has a point in that we need to focus on the content. No matter how we word it, it has to state Wikipedia policy clearly. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) It's not critical, one way or the other. There are numerous effective ways to describe the verifiability requirement; "threshold" is just one of them.--Batard0 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Tryptofish. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Tryptofish. I don't see the issue here: we should use whatever vocabulary flows best with the rest of the lede. The English language has many ways to say the same thing, no sense limiting ourselves with arbitrary rules. -- LWG talk 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral Complete non-issue. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral. The sentence, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", works well. The word on its own does not have any particular merit. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Neutral - per . The word "threshold" won't make any difference once the VnT maxim gets removed. <font style="color:Green;background:#FFFCD7;"> Brendon is <font style="color:White;background:red;">here 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

View 3
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 3

 * 1) Support, with the caveat that the mention be only for historical info and context, not as a part of the operative wordign of the policy. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I think the phrase "verifiability, not truth" does express an important principle. The only problem is trying to reach consensus about what that principle is... If we can do so (and we've been working on it!) then the phrase itself becomes less important... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Basically per North8000 above. It's useful in the context of explaining how in wiki jargon the word "verifiable" has been redefined to its special jargon meaning that is so radically different from what the word actually means in the real world. Beyond that, it's of little help. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, but just to say that the phrase has been used in the past, so that people who are looking for it can still find it. Victor Yus (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Move it to an essay and link to it. Joja  lozzo  17:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Link to the essay is fine; the phrase is still findable so no need to grieve over its loss. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. The footnote solution in the Lead works for me, and it should be mentioned in the article, possibly linked in the See Also section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support basically as a grandfathered-in term once used in a somewhat similar context -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support, only because the phrase has been used and misinterpreted, so we need the correct interpretation stated. Undesirable as a slogan, though. --Stfg (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak support per Stfg.  J N  466  19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. 'Verifiable, not truth' is an important concept, but it doesn't belong in the lede. A verifiable statement is nearly always inherently true. Using 'Verifiable, not truth' in the lede is practically an invitation to stuff beans up your nose, it's like asking editors to add any and all lies that have ever been published about a topic. But as I said 'Verifiable, not truth' is an important concept. Historical consensus, fringe theories, and popular untruths often need to be addressed in the proper context. WP:VNT addresses many of the issues that deal with 'The Truth', but as an essay it does not hold the sway that a policy or guideline does. The key points made in that essay need to become part of the verifiability policy under a subheading of its own, with an included link to the essay for further guidance. --Joshuaism (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I don't think it needs to be in the lede (though I'm not opposed to that), but VnT is an useful short-hand way to express a part of the meaning of WP:V, just as WP:CRYSTALBALL expresses a part of the meaning of WP:NOT. cmadler (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Tepid Support - per <font style="color:Green;background:#FFFCD7;"> Brendon is <font style="color:White;background:red;">here  17:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, but it's possible it could be used as a bad example. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, Given how useful the phrase is in clarifying the goals of Wikipedia, the phrase should be somewhere on the policy page. LK (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 3

 * 1) Oppose. It serves well in the lead. It's not an historical anachronism. It shouldn't be hidden in fine print. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Tryptofish. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for exactly the opposite reasons as Tryptofish and Jclemens. It is a historical anachronism and it should be cut out completely.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose based not on a historical basis, but rather on a meaningful one. I oppose the phrase "verifiability, not truth" in its entirety. Editors should understand the concept that both verifiability and truth are equally important. It's just that truth happens to take precedence in new editors who don't know any better to cite sources to back up the truth. Not to break any historical phrasing or anything, but I just feel that this phrase is misleading. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose: the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is considered either the effective policy or misconception. Thus it either should be in the lede or omitted entirely (in the latter case an explanatory essay is needed). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I see no reason to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Tryptofish and Jclemens. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - since it's no good in the lead, it'll certainly be no good out of place anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - just bury it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - 'not truth' needs to be removed from anywhere in the article. Absolutely not necessary. The primary purpose of all knowledge is to establish the truth -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose its inclusion as part of the policy even in a footnote, though not strenuously. (In general, policies and guidelines shouldn't have these informational footnotes, because most people only go to footnotes for verification; thus policy footnotes should only direct editors via links to archived discussions that provide background or to essays.) But I strongly endorse directing editors via a "See also" to the essay Verifiability, not truth, where the koan can be explored and explained. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' is self-conflicted, & only makes sense if one likes Wikipedia kōans. Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. Peaceray (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. It should not be part of the policy, however, I have no strong objections to referencing its historical usage as per Proposal D. Location (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. For it to actually fulfill its function it needs to be in the lede.  Burying it is just a lead-in to deleting it. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose -- It doesn't need to be in the policy at all. We should be seeking verifiability AND truth, not verifiability without truth. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose It needs to be in the lede. It's an important phrase and should be kept prominent.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose - The lede benefits from emphasis on the sometimes unintuitive threshold for inclusion of statements in Wikipedia. The "verifiability, not truth" description of policy is bold, instructive, and memorable. --Ds13 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Per Tryptofish and others. It should be in the policy and it should be in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. It should be in the lead. That's what most editors read, especially the inexperienced ones. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. See my previous statement.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Per Tryptofish. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. We don't include things in policies just because they were once there but should not be followed too closely. In this case, the should be included for the reasons given in support of its inclusion given above.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. For the same reasons as not wanting it in the lede. --catslash (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 3

 * 1) I'm not adamantly opposed to referring to it in a historical sense, but I would prefer to keep it away from the primary explanation in the lede. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Policies aren't like Wikipedia articles - you can't tell AN/I you just read the lede and skimmed over the rest, so don't bother me about it.  So it doesn't matter much. Wnt (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per User:Mangoe Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) It might be best to keep it out of the first or second sentence of the lead section, given the inherent complexity of the concepts involved. Nonetheless, I think it's an important thing to get across and should probably be included somewhere in the lead section.--Batard0 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) It is probably best in the lede, but the most important point is to get across that The Truth is likely the worst danger threatening Wikipedia. - Peter077 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Return to top

View 4
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 4

 * 1) Endorse. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Totally.— S Marshall T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) "Verifiability not truth" will make a great essay. Policy needs to be explained without histrionics or hyperbole. Joja  lozzo  17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The motivation for this RfC is the perception by many of us that there are less misleading ways to say we don't want people sticking stuff in just because they think it's true. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't see a need for it to be there in policy terms; the only need seems to be an emotional need to keep people happy. The phrase is not necessary to explain or clarify the policy.  There's an essay already which can be linked to ...  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) The slogan only confuses an issue that needs clarity and nuance. First Light (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse, not really required except as a historic hand holding exercise to some existing editors. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse. While it is possible to imagine ways to include it which are relatively harmless, any added complexity or historical discussion should be avoided in a lede?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse. Agreeing with all the comments above. I’d like to add this : the ones aimed by the policy « message » and who are likely to read it, will read it rapidly if at all and will presumably not care much about the history of Wikipedia even less about its historiography.--<font style="red-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#9ACD32 0em 0em 0.8em,#BC8F8F -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#FF0000 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color;color:#00080">CALEB CRABB 10:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse. It's an awful, glib phrase that is now a cliche, and trivialises the issue. I can't understand what the community sees in it, nor why it is so deeply ingrained. I take "verifiability" in this context to mean "the quality of being demonstrably supported in secondary sources", and I think that is sufficient for the policy. If truth is not an inclusion criterion, then simply don't mention it: better, mention it as a positive aspect, something like, "Wikipedia strives to be accurate: since truth is often subjective, Wikipedia policies concentrate on verifiability." Better that than a formal policy that specifies "not truth" as a tenet. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse - exactly. It's a rich source of confusion, perfect for an Oxford philosophy tutorial but useless for any practical purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Endorse - as mentioned above. An unhelpful proto-meme that is counterintuitive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - The 'not truth' phase adds no value and is counterproductive to the whole purpose of wiki. Should be swiftly removed from any policy related article anywhere on wiki. Wiki is a knowledgebank, & the primary purpose of all knowledge is to come closer to the truth. -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support.Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable, thus The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' will always easily confuse some editors. Peaceray (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Endorse. It should not be part of the policy, however, I have no strong objections to referencing its historical usage as per Proposal D. Location (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Endorse -- per PeskyCommoner: It's an unnecessary (and misguided IMO) phrase that does nothing to clarify the policy. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Endorse per 4 and 10. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Endorse - The risk of misunderstanding is too great. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Endorse The wording of the phrase is prone to misunderstanding and may imply that untrue, yet verifiable information is acceptable. Brandmeistertalk  12:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Endorse It could be left off without damaging the policy page. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Endorse - Ditch that inanity for good. We seek VERIFIABILITY + VERACITY. Carrite (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Endorse per e.g. Carrite. --catslash (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Endorse. There is a big difference between "perceived truth" and "verifiable truth", and this glib slogan does not make the distinction clear. It also doesn't explain how to handle topics like religions, that arguably may be neither "verifiable" (except for the fact of their existence, and their recorded beliefs) nor "true". As suggested above, I think that—rather than merely stating that Wikipedia requires verifiability (like a command dropping from heaven)—it would be more effective and understandable to first explain WHY (the objective of this) at the top:  For example: "Wikipedia is widely respected as a trustworthy and neutral resource. For Wikipedia to remain this way, material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable"... LittleBen (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 4

 * 1) Oppose. I see a need, or at least a significant benefit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The removal would do more damage than any amount of real (vs. theoretical) misunderstanding has ever caused. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per Jclemens; I think that its presence in policy is a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Of course it should be mentioned. It's an important part of the policy (whether it is phrased as such or not). I don't see any compelling reason to exclude it, so long as there is some explanation as to what it means. Kaldari (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Even if we can find a better way to express the point (which I hope we can), the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is the way the point has been expressed in the past, and for this reason it's an integral part of WP history. So I think it does need to be acknowledged somewhere on the policy page.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose VnT functions as a diagnostic to explain clearly that we do not deal in determining what truth is, but rather rely upon the reliable and weighty determinations of others as to what truth is. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Echo the concerns voiced in #1 thru #3. More damage could be done if it no longer appeared where many who are not aware of this process expect it to. Net benefit outweighs pitfall. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose per my comment to the View 1. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Kaldari and Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Kaldari.--Batard0 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongly Oppose The phrase is a succinct and accurate way of expressing a basic principle about how Wikipedia works. LK (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Strongly Oppose per Kaldari. -- Alexf(talk) 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Strongly Oppose per Jclemens. It ain't demonstrably broke. Don't fix it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose banishing the phrase from the page. Seems a little extreme. Let's distinguish between the text of the policy, and the policy page: I don't think it needs to be part of the policy itself, but a "See also" link to the essay Verifiability, not truth is necessary for understanding the background to existing policy. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose as otherwise argued. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong oppose As argued elsewhere, this phrase is very important. Opponents of VnT should understand that "verifiability" and "truth" are not being offered as two things that are mutually exclusive.  Rather, they are two different wrinkles on the same principle.  But what the policy says is that truth by itself is insufficient; it is verifiability that is required.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Strongly Oppose - The "verifiability, not truth" description of policy is bold, instructive, and memorable. Leaving this phrase out fails to emphasize the sometimes unintuitive threshold for inclusion of statements in Wikipedia. --Ds13 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Oppose again, I only saw the first half of the RFC, and put in my opinion against option 5. But the essence of it is that "not truth" needs to be in there. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Kalidasa 777 and Cynwolfe. cmadler (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Oppose per Jclemens and Fifelfoo. Removal of the phrase almost certainly would make the policy harder for new users to understand. Rivertorch (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose succinctly captures what we need of each other and what our readers need of us, the sources to verify and discuss, because truth can't do it for us to come together in a meeting of minds, nor does editors' truth inform the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. The phrase is valuable and effective. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. See my previous statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. There has always been a need, and there continues to be a need. The point has not gotten across with all too many users. The Truth shines forth out of many Wikipedia pages, which thus are demonstrable not in accord with the sources they claim to be based upon. - Peter077 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 25) Oppose. View 1 is the one. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 26)  Oppose. For reasons given throughout this discussion.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 4
Return to top
 * 1) Per my answer to view 1. Wnt (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Don't really care. In the body is fine by me, but not a must. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

View 5
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 5

 * 1) Endorse. Both the clarification would be good, and also reinforcing what wp:ver is actually about. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong endorse. This gets right to the heart of why VnT has caused controversy, and it's exactly the right way to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse. Agree with North and Tryptofish.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a frequent point of confusion that needs to be addressed early on. I would add "belief" to that discussion. Joja  lozzo  17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong endorse; if it's there, it has to be really thoroughly clarified to avoid misunderstanding or misuse. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per my answer on view 1. Wnt (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Seems a good possibility that clarification in this area would work out. I think Tryptofish maybe on the right lines although I sense a divide in understanding which may required further RFC or workshops to establish. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse, with emphasis on "perceived". We obviously want truth -- the real issue is knowability, and our means to achieve knowability is RS. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse. Concur with Stfg about "knowability." I do think we need a slightly expanded statement even with Option D on Wikipedia striving for accuracy, but not deciding on "the truth" in dealing with questions of truths for which there can never be a single right answer. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak endorse. Some additions to help people who legitimately understand it and remove excuses for people who pretend to misunderstand it would probably be good, as long as they stay brief and concise. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse - While I believe "verifiability, not truth" alone is sufficient because it is bold and forces reflection on policy, I would also support additional clarification of why Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion sometimes rejects assertions we might accept in everyday life as simply "true" with no deeper support. --Ds13 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 5

 * 1) I think the current weight is fine as is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose: the lede should give a succinct summary of the document. Any detailed explanation of the issue should be given in the corresponding section of the policy, but the lede should be kept no longer then required for summary purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The lede is probably not the place to wax philosophical, at least not more than is necessary to convey the central principles. The difference could probably be more clearly explained, but conciseness is a virtue.--Batard0 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. If it is required that information is properly attributed and conforms to WP:WEIGHT, then I'm not sure I care if "truth" is even mentioned. Location (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose -- Toss it altogether. There should be NO discussion of truth anywhere in the policy, which should focus entirely on the fact that we require ALL information in the article to be veriable in a reliable source. That's the point of the policy anyway -- to ensure that people include sources. There is no need for a claim that truth is irrelevant. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose No, such additional discussion should go in the body of the article, not the lede. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Currently, it says way too much! Previously, it might have been worth expanding, but not much. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - See my previous statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Truth cannot be perceived; it is not a table, an animal or whatever that can be observed. Truth is a belief, sometimes personal, but often shared. There is no such thing as "perceived truth". - Peter077 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Neutral on view 5

 * 1) Sure, as long as the page doesn't get too cluttered with that detail. There's a perfectly good essay, and probably more than one, that does a lovely job of explaining the distinction.  Wikilinking to it and promoting it to a guideline might be better in the long run than getting to verbose on the page itself. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Not sure if addressing it outright further complicates the matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Worried that this stand point could lead to clutter. Clutter is not good in a policy lede.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) really depends on wording. this is not a criterion that needs to be reified. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Jclemens. cmadler (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top

View 6
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 6

 * 1) An immensely important clarification. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) If we absolutely must have VnT in the policy (and I definitely want it gone), then we do need to include this. The fact that something is verifiable doesn't automatically mean it's suitable for a Wikipedia article.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) If it has to stay, then it should be made abundantly clear that it doesn't mean "anything which has ever been published is OK" <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) If we must - then yes; but only if it goes on to say that the policy only works as intended when applied/considered in tandem with the other WP policies and guidelines. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes if it is included, it needs proper explanation. I am however not meaning to say that this is necessarily the only thing that would need to be explained.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. Verifiability is a minimum requirement.  J N  466  19:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support. Clarification that verifiability is necessary but not always sufficient seems useful. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) While I'd like to see "not truth" gone altogether, if it ends up staying, it should be made very clear that content does not automatically warrant inclusion just because they found a source for it, and that verifiability is only ONE of several criteria that the content must satisfy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) It already does, and should keep doing so "Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion..."  More need not be added, at least not to the lede.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) This is important. The verifiability policy is there to help us be a more accurate encyclopedia, it should not be used to excuse the deliberate inclusion of information which one knows is untrue, even if an otherwise reliable source contains a mistake. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, per 2, 3, 8 and 10. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Absolutely. The idea that "this is verifiable so it must go in" needs to be knocked on the head. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. First choice over 8, slightly. This idea is a useful point, whether in this version or 8. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. per 2 and 8. --catslash (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 6

 * 1) Oppose. I think we all agree that we can't put in unverifiable material just because we consider it to be true. But does VnT mean "only" this? Can we take out verifiable material just because we consider it to be untrue? Does it matter why we consider it untrue? Does it matter whether or not we have checkable sources that refute it? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO the answer to your last three questions is that once the verifiability requirement is met, it does not go further to try to answer questions about leaving out or removing verifiable material. The answer to those would be determined by other Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. North8000 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It's hypocritical ("VnT - not"). If we keep VnT then stand up for it, don't knock it back down. Joja  lozzo  17:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Kalidasa. Wnt (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) only that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it's just not correct. Confusing! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. This phrasing in my view makes things complex where they might otherwise be direct. And per Kalidasa.--Batard0 (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - this makes no sense. If we agree that VnT means just V, then we should simply say V and forget about T. Adding T just muddies the waters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - just gets clumsier. nT not helpful period Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. If "verifiability, not truth" means only that "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion", then just strike "verifiability, not truth" and put "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion". Location (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Unnecessarily complex. --Ds13 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - It already does so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: it does not mean that and is not intended to mean that. - Peter077 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Neutral on view 6
Return to top
 * 1) Neutral. I get it that the intention of this view is to indicate that VnT does not mean that we don't care about truth, and that being verifiable, by itself, is not sufficient reason to include something (cf: WP:UNDUE, for one example). And I agree with that. But taking the view as written, verifiability is more than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not entirely sure I understand what this is getting at. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I wrote it. It's a statement of what wp:ver is and isn't operatively. I think that the most common point contained within that is wp:ver creates a requirement for inclusion, not a force or mandate for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Not quite sure what the distinction is here. I guess people have opinions about it, but it doesn't matter much to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Though some explanation is required, this policy should only address the questions regarding verifiability. Dealing with untrue statements is out of the scope of this document. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The survey seems to take a wrong turn from this point on. Not sure we should spend time on hashing out how to explain "verifiability, not truth" if the phrase ends up being tossed out. But yes, if retained, we have to do something to affirm that "verifiability" means that Wikipedia strives for accuracy, but does not pronounce on "the truth" among possible answers to questions that are unlikely ever to be resolved universally. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

View 7
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 7

 * 1) Endorse. Per what North says in the first oppose below, this isn't the only thing that needs to be explained, but as part of a fuller explanation, this is definitely a good thing to spell out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse. As a general principle, all content decisions (whether it is a matter of adding something in, or taking something out) should be made on the basis of verifiable sources, not editors' perceptions of what is true. I've seen it argued that the principles which apply when adding stuff in, do not apply when deleting stuff -- I think that argument is a recipe for needless conflict. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure, inasmuch as we're talking about appropriately published information (which is broader than WP:RS, since it includes WP:SPS, but is still not as broad as how this is worded). Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Even if the lede doesn't include VnT, I still want it to explain this.— S Marshall T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with S Marshall. This principle should be explained, whether the phrase VnT is kept in the lede or not.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support; this is the main principle underlying the policy. If there has been controversy about interpretation of policy, this reinforces the need to make the underlying principle clear. bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, this needs to be made decently clear for everyone. (And I'm in agreement that it's not the only thing which does!)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) That sounds very reasonable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) That should be explained in some fashion regardless of the VnT term specifically appearing in the lede, the body or not at all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. If we have to keep the phrase, better to change it to something like verifiability, and not truth, but rather proffering proof of [a] truth and adding something like One of Wikipedia's most important principle is that each assertion in an article must be verified by a citation to a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. That sounds useful. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Sure, per Jclemens. No more than a single sentence after the VnT sentence.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Correct, this is the purpose of the phrase. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, per 4 and 6. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support right. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: Proper clarification of VnT. Rgdboer (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) OK with that, as it makes it clear that truth is a belief. - Peter077 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 13) Support -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 7

 * 1) While I endorse the platitude that it appears to say, this is dangerously vague and wide ranging, and thus can be interpreted in ways which either create a radical new policy or which void or conflict with other policies. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This would make sense if we had "verifiability not belief". As proposed, it reinforces confusion about truth and belief. Joja  lozzo  17:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose, simply not correct. Whoever proposed this really does NOT have it straight. Because information only needs to be verified if challenged or likely to be challenged(including contentious), which itself is based on the beliefs of the editors! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The lede should communicate the idea that the material should be based on the information previously published in the reliable sources, the relation of verifiability to other concepts should be explained in the relevant section, not in the lede. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. If "verifiability, not truth" means "WP's content is determined by previously published information, rather than by the beliefs of its editors", then just strike "verifiability, not truth" and put "WP's content is determined by previously published information, rather than by the beliefs of its editors". Location (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 7

 * 1) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) If it is included, it needs proper explanation. As we've seen over and over it is hard to agree on how to do that in any useful way though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) If we offer clear, positive guidelines on how to add effective content to Wikipedia, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the defensive-sounding "we don't use Wikipedia as a platform for our personal beliefs! Really, we swear!" I support Option D, however, which uses similar language. I guess I would prefer that to be rewritten as "Its content is determined by previously published information, and you should not add content unless you can provide a verifiable source that meets standards of reliability", or some such, without worrying about editors' hearts and minds or beliefs and experiences. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I think any of the proposed versions make that sufficiently clear, including the current one and the old one.  Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) This might be a bit too specific, 6 or 8 is better. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top

View 8
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 8

 * 1) Endorse, with "IF" being big. An important clarification.   Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not necessarily a force or mandate for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse (without the concern over the "if"). There are lots of cases where verifiable material is undue, or fringe, or unencyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that a number of respondents oppose this view, on the grounds that it's so self-evident that we don't need to say it. Actually, it seems to me that it's self-evident to those who understand it that way, but there has been a long history of editors, particularly inexperienced ones, who argue that "my information is verifiable, so therefore we have to include it", even when it is WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE, etc. etc. Empirically, this concept is not self-evident to everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I am sure that has happened, I doubt that it rises to the level of needing to be in the lede. I don't see a problem with mentioning this in the article body text (which this RfC doesn't ask about).  And you also have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to cite to such people.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there has to be a lengthy discussion of it in the lead, but a mention strikes me as an all-positive/no-negative proposition. In a sense, we write policies for those users who are the least clueful and the most willful about wikilawyering to get their way, and especially so for the lead, since many choose not to read further. A succinct statement per this view eliminates much wasted time arguing over whether or not UNDUE (for example) does or does not trump an interpretation of WP:V that claims V to mean that if it's verifiable, it's fair game to include it, arguing over where the "burden" lies. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A person who can't be bothered to read the whole article is going to make a pretty poor wikilawyer. As long as it is in the article body (and, sure, put it in WP:V so that there is no question of one policy trumping another), that should be sufficient to deal with the difficult cases.  Only the more common issues need to be covered in the lede.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that they won't be a successful wikilawyer in the long run, but, in the mean time, they can create a lot of wasted time and energy for the rest of us. My view (and, obviously, you disagree with me, which is OK) is that it costs us much more dealing with that wikilawyering than it does simply to add a few more words to the lead, if those few words will shut the wikilawyering down at the start. A few more words here = little cost, really. Multiple waste-of-time arguments = not worth whatever benefit comes from leaving this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse I agree there are circumstances where it's inappropriate to include a particular piece of verifiable info in a particular article -- for instance, where including it would give undue weight to the view of a tiny minority. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Important. Per Jclemens, this is already covered in other content policies; we could resolve this concern by linking to those content policies prominently rather than by adding verbiage.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a reasonable compromise. It diminishes the shock value which is good here. Joja  lozzo  17:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The center of the issue. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has to be made clear; linking is the best option here, I think. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse if and only if we explain this by pointing to WP:Summary style and emphasizing that not every fact has to go directly into an article; it can go into a different article which is only summarized in the article. But verifiability should be the threshold for inclusion - if you have a good source in your hot little hands that says something interesting about the topic of the article, you should be able to put it somewhere in Wikipedia, and a reader interested enough should be able to navigate to it by clicking enough Template:Main links. Wnt (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes but not so wordy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes... and use as many words as needed to reach those with thick skulls. Best view ever! -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Endorse as per North and others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Not sure how this differs from (6) but I'll repeat what I said there: Absolutely. The idea that "this is verifiable so it must go in" needs to be knocked on the head. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Second choice over 6, slightly. This idea is a useful point, whether in this version or 6. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support It has to be explained on a regular basis that just because it's cited doesn't mean it belongs in an article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 8

 * 1) Unnecessary instruction creep. We already have other content policies that address balance, etc. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) It shouldn't need to "explain" that it doesn't mean that; rather, it should simply avoid creating the misunderstanding that it does (through the mistaken use of "threshold"). This is an unnecessary remedy against a self-created problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but your point is actually included in the view: it comes within the "IF" part of the view. So your point is more of an agreement than an oppose. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Exactly per Jclemens's rationale. Still, if any explanation of relations of verifibility with other content policies and guidelines is required, it may be given in the relevant sections of the document, not in the lede. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - this is pointless. If its verifiable, who decides if its true or not. Lets not open more gates to ambiguity. Our focus should be simply to get truth into wiki. Verifiability is only one method to reduce or eliminate disagreements between users. -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your comment here is precisely addressing the contents of the view, as written. The view isn;t about the "truth" aspect at all.  It's about not including material just because it's verifiable.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This seems nonsensical.  The case that it's denying (that Wikipedia must include all material that's ever been published) is something anyone can instantly recognize as untenable, so why are we bothering to argue against it? —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I have no strong objections to placing "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" in the body, however, I see this as unnecessary instruction creep that is covered in other policies. Location (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- per Fut. Perf. Instead of trying to clear up the confusion, just don't create it in the first place by saying something you don't mean (i.e. that verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, when it isn't). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Jclemens and Fut. Perf. This is obvious and need not be stated.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose (but not disastrous if kept in nonetheless). This is really the realm of other policies and guidelines, such as NPOV and notability, much of it only tangentially related to the verifiability policy. Although the content of the proposed text is accurate, it takes spoonfeeding one step too far. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Unnecessarily complex. "Verifiability, not truth" is sufficient as a statement of inclusion threshold.  Our standards of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE sources still stand to ward off "verifiable" but undesirable content.  --Ds13 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose; this is not what it means. Also, as per the above: it should be clear that not everything ever published is to be included in Wikipedia. Putting an encyclopedia together is mostly the art of deciding what to leave out. - Peter077 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Neutral on view 8

 * 1) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This statement is unclear to me. If the policy retains the phrase "verifiability, not truth," then it should explain that in order to be included, information that is verifiable must also meet other criteria pertaining to neutrality, reliable sourcing, due weight, readability, and relevance to the topic. (Incidentally, we need to emphasize readability more.) Cynwolfe (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) North8000 put it well above, writing that "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not necessarily a force or mandate for inclusion." This should be made clear in the policy, possibly with this specific wording. However, this needn't and shouldn't be in the lead. cmadler (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top

View 9
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 9

 * 1) Endorse. Acknowledging and dealing with that reality in a Wikipedian way is important. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse. Yes indeed. That needs to be addressed, lest people conclude that we don't care about getting the facts right. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes; a brief mention in the lede is a good idea. Many of the editors who are most in need of the information may be unlikely to read below the lede, and "burying" the info further down the page may reinforce the impression that we're "not that fussed" on the issue.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Great if this can be done in a non-controversial and clear way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 9

 * 1) Not in the lead. It's a perfectly good topic to discuss in the policy body, but despite the brouhaha about such things, the amount of times it actually matters that something is verifiable but wrong doesn't merit such a placement. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Not now. Just as the phrase "verifiability, not truth" needs clarification, likewise the phrase "verifiable but inaccurate" needs clarification, if it is to be used. How do we determine what is or is not "inaccurate"? How do we distinguish when to simply remove inaccurate material, and when to mention it as well as mentioning that it has been disproved? I don't say these questions can't be answered... But until we have the answers in policy, I do not think it would be wise include a phrase like "verifiable but inaccurate" in the lede. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Not necessarily in the lead, and not in these terms. Yes, we should talk about the problem of erroneous statements in otherwise good sources somewhere, but we should avoid to use the term "verifiable" in that situation, because that goes too far in the direction of the wikispeak redefinition of "verifiable" that is contradictory to its normal meaning. Why not simply say "errors in sources that are otherwise presumed to be reliable"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Not necessarily in the lede, but it would be helpful to mention this somewhere further down in the article; possibly with pointers to RSN, FRINGE, and so on. Overall the number of cases where somebody insists on adding Wrong Stuff because it's sourced is very very small; but these cases are distributed unevenly and there may be a lot more on specific topics. In those cases, experienced editors are quite capable of reaching into the toolbox and pulling out IAR but there's no way I'd want to enshrine IAR on WP:V (and it would tend to have the opposite effect to "verifiability, not truth".) bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Not in the lead, but perhaps in the body. Kaldari (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) As I commented above, there's practically no such thing for Wikipedia.  Either there's a verifiable source to show (or argue) that the other verifiable source is wrong, or how do you know it's inaccurate?  Yeah, maybe now and then a source contains an obvious math error or typo, but even then, as like as not it's not the source that made the error!  What few instances actually occur should be passed off to WP:IAR, a policy which does find legitimate use now and then.  We don't need a special case for it - you know, "this is not a bureaucracy".  Really... Wnt (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes, but not in the lede. Yes in the body. (This is a weak point on Wikipedia, and we've been criticized many times for publishing false, but verifiable material.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Mirror #2. What about all the other verifiable but _______ possibly out there? Verifiable but outdated. Verifiable but superseded. Verifiable but rescinded. Verifiable but amended and so on. An inaccuracy can still be constructive, even illustrative, If the accompanying correction or progression is also provided. Generalities work better than specifics in this regard. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely "inaccurate" covers all those possibilities? The reason for its inaccuracy may be that it's outdated, been superseded, been amended, been rescinded, been whatevered.  Any of those things makes it inaccurate, but inaccurate seems to be the only word which covers all of them.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Jclemens's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this would just replace one muddle with another. And "inaccurate" covers many possible reasons. Trying to clarify a principle by diving into a mess of meanings is a disaster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see a specific benefit in this, so making it another thing ballooning the lede seems bad. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not in the lede, but possibly in the body as per various statements above. Better yet, let's take another look at Attribution and get rid of WP:V entirely. Location (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose per Wnt and others. I think the basic problem here is a misunderstanding of what "verifiable" means.  It does not mean simply that you can cite a source to support it.  Rather, it is needful to consider the preponderance of the sources and also to judge the reliability of individual sources.  When this is properly understood, the fact that something is demonstrably inaccurate ipso facto means that it is not verifiable. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly Oppose - "Inaccurate" according to whom? This question immediately circles back to the fundamental "verifiability" threshold for inclusion.  I do think "and not truth" should remain as a bold and reflective tool when stating the policy. --Ds13 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) In the body, but not the lead. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose "errors in sources that are otherwise presumed to be reliable" as Fut.Perf. suggested is soo much easier to understand. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. This is covered by (6) and (8). If "verifiable" doesn't mean it must go in, then innaccurate content is obviously one thing that should not go in.  Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Can something be verifiable but inaccurate? I would say not. It can be verified that a source says something, and if it does so it is accurate. The source may widely be viewed as being in error, but surely that mostly means it should not be cited? - Peter077 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 9) Oppose. "Truth" does the trick. Unnecessary, confusing, and can-of-worms'ish. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Needs to be discussed, but not in the lede. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 9

 * 1) Other: it's necessary to discuss verifiable but false material, if and only if the lede contains VnT. If it doesn't then we don't need to go into detail about truth and falsehood into the lede.  If the lede does address truth, then it must also address falsehood.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Accuracy needs to be addressed in the lead but I have no preference for specific wording. Joja  lozzo  17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Not too keen on this specific phrasing, but the idea needs to be addressed. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'd like the policy to say something like "Wikipedia strives for accuracy, but offers multiple interpretations in the absence of universal truths." Cynwolfe (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top

View 10
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 10

 * 1) Strongly endorse. The current mention is in an ambiguous way, and it is not the job of wp:verifiability to discuss truth, especially to denigrate the concept of seeking accuracy. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly endorse. Per Tryptofish, this view is a call to delete the phrase "verifiability, not truth".  Which is what should be done.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly endorse. Clear and non-obfuscating.  A fact may be both verifiable and true, or simply verifiable.  This makes it clear that the criterion is verifiability. Meclee (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Though I hope this is eventually where we arrive at the end of the day when all has been said and done, I cannot ignore the fact this might too traumatic a change for those who've been participating on WP long before taking the plunge myself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is my preference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support  Ebe  123  → report 15:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Weakly endorse, but see my comment about view 4. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly endorse. This is the right thing to do; "truth" is both emotive and impossible to define, if it means anything other than Verifiability. Keep it simple, avoid the rat's nest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly endorse. it's about verifiability. per Chiswick Chap. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Verifiability is what we are discussing. Truth is all about perception. The world around us is all Maya & truth is what a person accepts as his perception (the half empty, half full glass). As long as the glass being half empty (or half full) is verifiable, it should be included in wiki. The perception of truth could hold for both point of views. Even though they are different but both correct. Truth is a perception while verifiability is a fact. We need to focus on facts without challenging perceptions. -Ambar wiki (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I think that this is best. Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable, thus The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' will always easily confuse some editors. Peaceray (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse. If it is required that information is properly attributed and conforms to WP:WEIGHT, then I'm not sure I care if "truth" is even mentioned. Location (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per 3. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak endorse. Seems like "truth" crept in from elsewhere very early, but it doesn't really belong here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 10

 * 1) Strong oppose. Put it another way, this view is a call to delete the phrase "verifiability, not truth". WP:V needs to address content that is verifiable but inaccurate. To do that, to discuss accuracy, we need to discuss truth. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) No way. This is the reason any change has been resisted for so long: a vocal minority of editors who have waged a campaign for just this result, ignoring the majority who believe it fine as is, or fine with appropriate clarifications, as I expect this RfC to demonstrate. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think it may be possible that you have some kind of misperception leading you to view the two camps as "a vocal minority" and "the majority"? The option with by far the greatest support is Option D.  I think you may possibly be miscategorising / mislabeling some people as "a vocal minority", when what seems to be appearing here suggests otherwise.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The distinction between verifiability and perceived truth is very important. How to establish that distinction without mentioning truth? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Truth is mentioned in the lead to resolve confusion and conflict. Objection to reliably sourced but incorrect content is perennial and WP's handling of false information needs to be explained early in this article. Joja  lozzo  17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) We still need to make it clear that people aren't supposed to put in stuff just because they think it's true. Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) We need to get away from the emotional-need aspect of the issue here; this isn't about The Phrase and people's attachment to it, it's about ensuring that we have something which addresses the issue of people "knowing" that something is "true", and telling them that "just knowing" isn't good enough. Let's not turn this into a flame-war between people over each other's motivations here!  That's not the idea!  (And it begins to wander into the realms of discussing the editors rather than the content, too ...)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) The "verifiability, not truth" is one of the most significant aspects of the whole policy. It definitely must be included in the summary (which is the purpose of the lede). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per comments elsewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak oppose. The policy needs to distinguish between our ability to provide accurate, reliable information, and our neutrality on the unresolvable matters of interpretation that may attend on a quest for "truth" in some philosophical sense. There may be a way to make this distinction without using the word "truth"; the plural "truths" might be useful. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose as argued elsewhere repeatedly. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose The VnT formula is important and needs to be retained. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Strongly Oppose - I think the "and not truth" component is essential to the policy statement. It underscores the difference between what we assert on Wikipedia versus how we may assert things in everyday life. Wikipedia's thresholds of inclusion are sometimes unintuitive and this emphasizes that fact. --Ds13 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose this RFC is getting really cluttered. I thought I already made a comment against this view. I guess I didn't, because here it is again. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. "Truth" should not be taken out altogether. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. There are too many users as is who think that verifiability and truth are the same thing rather than opposites. It should stay in. - Peter077 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 14) Oppose. Truth is our goal, verifiability is our means of achieving that goal, and the goal of the policy is important enough to warrant mentioning. Having the policy mention "truth" is good, but "not truth" is bad. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Truth is our goal" — Isn't that obvious? The only reason the subject of truth needs to be discussed is to clarify the phrase "verifiability, not truth". Without that phrase, there is no need to discuss the obvious. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — To the contrary, per View 1. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, for the reasons given in support of "verifiability, not truth" throughout.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 10

 * 1) The lede needs to be a lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I kinda liked the footnote idea. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top

View 11
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 11

 * 1) Sort of a vague statement, but a good impetus. By "wp:att" I assume this means merging wp:nor and wp:ver, which is a good idea since there is about a 90% overlap between these two polices. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely (though I don't know about the bit about WP:ATT). Policies and guidelines are awful at the moment, they must surely deter many new editors by their complexity and general unreadability, and are so ambiguous and contradictory that they can surely be of little help in deciding anything. Victor Yus (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes; there's an awful lot in our policies which could do with a good clean-up. I'd like our policies to be as well-written and clear as an FA.  They don't need to be verbose (we could cut a lot of words out),  but they do need to be unambiguously clear.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Verifiability is a concept that has evolved over 11 years to be a broad brush of incomprehension. Who cares whether the word "truth" is used in the lead, or indeed anywhere in the policy, the mass of argument over it - and the bazillions of slightly reworded alternatives - overlook the fact that the concept is a mess and we need to rethink ways to express community norms in a clear, understandable and renewed fashion. Kill the old hydra. --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) The policies are getting rather bloated, and new users especially are having a hard time seeing the forest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I support. I think Wikipedia should just report, have links to sources, possibly mark the text in some way to indicate the reliability of the sources supporting the text, preferably in a way that it would be easy for the reader to just know which text is reliably sourced, and leave the determination of truth to the reader. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. The exclusion rules sometimes serve interested parties as an iron wall for hiding the truth. I think that it is better to present many different views, where one of which is true, rather than present only a mainstream view, that is false. One way to indicate reliability of a source is to include a number from 0 to 10 in the ref, e.g. [10,13] mean source number 13 credibility 10; e.g. [1,14] mean source number 14 credibility 1. If there isn't any reference for a source it would mean [0,-], which mean the lowest credibility, and no supporting source. The reader would be able in this way to figure for every sentence how well it is sourced, and consider its weight accordingly. --Nenpog (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) This seems a bit of a side-issue but yes, Wikipedia's policies are extremely difficult to follow, are often contradictory and I believe they significantly hold the project back. The difficulty that has been faced by editors trying to revise just two words is shocking. Formerip (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) As per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/2012_RfC.  EngineerFromVega <sup style="color:#AF7817;">★  07:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse. Simplification to get rid of the overlap would help novice editors grasp things much more quickly, and something like WP:ATTRIBUTION would be the best place for them to start. If an editor attributes his or her contributions to a reliable source, then the reader is able to verify those contributions. In other words, WP:ATTRIBUTION is primary and WP:VERIFIABILITY is secondary. (And while I'm thinking about it, we should also define our task in terms of What Wikipedia is instead of What Wikipedia is not.) Location (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse. I don't think that the problem is WP:ATT. I think that the problem is WP:MoS and WP:Article titles, and their enforcers who go around whacking or reverting newbies rather than helping them or gently pointing them in the right direction. The present system is so big and badly organized that most people cannot find the "rules", much less remember them. Rules need to be as brief, simple and understandable as possible, and all in one place so easy to find. There needs to be a clear focus on what is really important on Wikipedia — (1) it remaining a widely trusted resource, with lots of volunteers with specialist knowledge to keep it up to date, and (2) it remaining (or becoming) a friendly, welcoming community, rather than a place where there is endless unproductive discussion over stuff like when to use an en dash rather than a hyphen. There can be links to tutorials and regional MoS that clarify essential points. The overly-detailed and overly-prescriptive parts of MoS, that really don't make any significant difference to Wikipedia in a way that the majority of users would notice, need to be spun out into subservient articles. People who want to argue for weeks or months about minor stylistic stuff (like hyphens vs. en-dashes) that virtually nobody notices should not get in the way of productive specialist contributors. LittleBen (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 11

 * 1) Wikipedia right now is being severely harried by political forces.  Admins are being purged, they can't get RfA'd, the national Wikimedia chapters are in a dogfight with the central headquarters, declining editor participation, we have people trying to impose censorship and shut down Commons ... what it all comes down to is that Wikipedia has amassed a huge trove of content and now there are a lot of people who want to own that power.  It doesn't help that our little exercise with SOPA put us on the map as a force that can up and kill legislation at the drop of a hat.  We need to find a way to reduce the amount of centralized authority this one site has over the free-licensed data we've all put together.  But a massive restructuring of policy would very likely have exactly the opposite effect, making it easier for radical elements of one stripe or another to effectively "overthrow the constitution" and have things more their way. Wnt (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading what you wrote, I think that you support view 11, don't like the current state, but worried/expect that the restructuring would go wrong. --Nenpog (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. Not needed, and likely a time and energy sink. --Stfg (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose. Again, I agree with Stfg. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose - it would be a nightmare. Not broken, don't fix. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. It's easy to come in and look at a complex, grown-organically-over-time system and say "oh, look at all this stupid stuff, we can't possibly need that, let's burn it down and start over!"  It's really, really hard to replace that system with something that actually fills all the needs that the people who were doing the work on it over years developed it to satisfy.  Most change that creates more benefit than harm is incremental. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose per all of the above. The current policy has organically grown to be what it is because it works.  Starting from whole cloth would be a nightmare.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. No way. The basic content policies complement one another and together form a cohesive bulwark against the major forms of damaging content that otherwise would undermine Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. While it's conceivable that a consolidated policy would also be effective, it's less likely because it would necessarily require condensing the components of each separate policy to an unacceptable degree. If it ain't broke . . . Rivertorch (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Current policies are working well, despite the ongoing controversy over this one. Change is not needed at this time. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose — Per Chaos5023. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose -- probably a good idea, but should be organic, not imposed from above as a "let's do this now" thing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Not worth the effort, the process will be mired down with disputes. LK (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose The benefit of diverse policies is that we can point editors to the part of the core policies and guidelines that we think are applicable in their case. The effort toward consolidation does not seem to be a matter of consolidation so much as to be able to restructure all policies de novo. Time sinks are controlled by the most involved participants, and there is no reason to think that those who feel the most strongly about the need to rewrite Wikipedia policies and guidelines represent the consensus of the community of editors who are here to write an encyclopedia, not write about how other people ought to write an encyclopedia.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 11

 * 1) Neutral. I think that WP:ATT is actually pretty good, but I think that any effort to carry out such a restructuring would be a solution in search of a problem. It would end up being an immense time sink for the community. I'd rather go fix up an article instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't see it as a realistic option. The community has too much inertia, and we've all but lost focus on the pillars in our efforts to focus on minutiae like this, such that I can't see any consensus arising from such an undertaking. Absent a legal lever like copyright or BLP (which is at its core an extension of defamation laws), I just don't see the community getting on board. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I have no strong opinion one way or the other, but would need to evaluate specific policy proposal on their own merit as texts. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Have not formed an opinion one way or the other as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I would support the effort if it didn't come with a bunch of side effects (accidental omissions, flame wars over the issues like this one, etc.). Every restructuring gets stuck in details, which not only turns the (theoretically) semi-automatic task into a lengthy struggle, but also draws editors' time and effort from other areas, resulting in the net loss. If something isn't broken, don't fix it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) It seems a reasonable aim, but not sure if it will be possible to do it well. Anyway, I think we should not get too distracted with this here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree with Andrew Lancaster and others that this is a distraction here, or at least too big to tackle at present, though I like a lot of what I see at WP:ATT. I do support rewriting policies when they can be made clearer and simpler, and I support making positive statements about how to contribute and what Wikipedia aims for, rather than prohibitions. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm all for merging policies and guidelines down to fewer pages. But I think we'd be better off starting with something else, not any of our three key policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) If someone can build a better mousetrap go for it, just remember that we generally work out consensus over time and incrementally by trial and experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral. I have no problem with WP:ATT, but it looks scary to start a major restructuring of policy. Existing content already suffers from the technical restructuring that is continually going on. If anyone wants to simplify Wikipedia the place to start is with the templates. - Peter077 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Return to top

View 12
[ Click here to edit this section]

Endorse view 12

 * 1) Although I understand what the opposers below are saying, I think to the maximum extent possible, our policies should be phrased in plain English. There's very little point having a policy written in gobbledegook.  Simplicity, brevity and clarity are vital.  Ambiguity and circumlocution are flaws to be eradicated.— S Marshall  T/C 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse. At least, moral support. I'm a big believer that Wikipedia should always be inclusive and welcoming to everyone who wants to contribute constructively. But I have to admit that I don't really know how to go from this view to any particular choice of words for WP:V or any other policy or guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Smack me with the seafood of your choice, but my discussion with Jclemens, below, is prompting me to reconsider what I said above. I still like the principle of of being inclusive and welcoming, so I'm not changing that. But Jclemens' response to my question, framing the issue in terms of understanding or not understanding VnT, makes me wonder whether this view can be construed as a roundabout way of saying "get rid of VnT". After all, part of the purpose of VnT is to elicit a sort of jolt. If that's the case, then count my endorsement as only going to the point of being friendly to autism-spectrum members of the editing community, but I would oppose applying it to WP:V in this way. If my initial endorsement overdosed on WP:AGF, well then, so be it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking about the issue further, I just don't see this as an issue specifically about WP:V, or at least it shouldn't be, so it may have been a bad idea to include this view in this particular RfC. But as for ASD editors, it seems to me that they fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act for legal purposes, and the English Wikipedia largely adheres to US law. That law requires what is called "reasonable accommodation". I don't, personally, think that means that we have to write everything specifically with ASD folks in mind, but I do think it behooves all us "neurotypicals" to make good-faith efforts to explain ourselves clearly to them, and to take the initiative in trying to clear up misunderstandings. And I continue to feel strongly that we need to be welcoming to all good-faith members of the editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse. Whatever theoretical merits a policy may have, it won't be any actual help to us editors if we cannot understand it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This goes a bit far perhaps, but we certainly need to get back to basics and remember that these pages are here in order for things to be explained effectively to people who don't yet know those things. Victor Yus (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, even though if taken literally it is a bit wide ranging and confusing and thus dangerous.    Right now we're at the other extreme.  There are people claiming that unwritten policies exist, somehow created and living in the aether of the interaction between policies.   Just getting to the point of saying that if it exists it is stated somewhere would be step 1; clearly stated would be step 2. Saying "English as a second language" and "plain english" might be taking it a few unnecessary steps beyond that; I'd rather see "clearly stated".    North8000 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: if we have policies, then they should be easy for everyone to understand! Simple and clear are keynotes. I can understand what the opposers are saying, but I think some of them may have somewhat misinterpreted the view ... and, speaking as an HFA editor myself, I find the some of the oppose comments (those along the lines of "if you're too stupid to understand then you shouldn't be editing") a little disturbing. Just adding: competence is required in writing policies clearly as well.  Wrong to blame the student if the teacher is not competent in explaining something clearly. I mean, heck, we're here to educate people, yes?  The onus is on us to be good teachers. Adding (more!): on the lines of "if you're too stupid to understand ... then you shouldn't be here", one can turn that one right around with just as much relevance.  If someone cannot see the importance of clear and unambiguous explanation (i.e. good teaching / writing standards)  of a (relatively) simple set of rules, how could we trust them to be competent in understanding the importance of clear and unambiguous content in something on the scale of an an encyclopedia?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I don't much like "jolts" myself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong endorse. I think that in fact most people's concerns about this are not practically important. The aim should be simple English. If it becomes impossible in some cases, then so be it, but the aim is important in itself. I think too many people do not even aim at simple English and when you fail at something you did even try to do then you should not be finding complicated excuses about how ambiguous language can be, and so on. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse This view is close to what I was thinking of adding as my view. We should explain WHY verifiability rather than truth is the key. "Verifiability not truth" is going to be understood by many people to mean that "truth is not important".  This is a "jolt to the thinking processes" as was expressed so vividly by whoever wrote view 12.................. And why is verifiability rather than truth the key?  IMO, because in many subject areas people spent countless hours, sometimes entire careers, arguing about what is truth.  We are mere mortals and making truth the essential test would postpone the development of Wikipedia beyond our lifetimes.      .. The second reason is legal. For example, a statement that: "Captain XXX was the worst captain in the history of the YYY Navy" is an opinion.  Wikipedia could be sued by Captain XXX for publishing this opinion.  Even supposing it is true, proving it to be true may be very difficult.  However, a statement that: "Historian HHH in her book BBB wrote that Captain XXX was the worst captain in the history of the YYY Navy" is NOT Wikipedia giving an opinion, it is straightforward reporting of a fact.  A totally different matter.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse: Setting aside the competence of readers for the moment, can there possibly be an argument against explaining policies in clear and concise language? If there is a choice between accessibile and complex language, I see no reason not to choose the former. So long as efforts to make the language clearer do not thereby misconstrue the policy, simpler is better.--Batard0 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The phrase 'verifiability, not truth' is self-conflicted, and only makes sense if one likes and understands Wikipedia kōans. Verifiability and truth are etymologically inextricable. Peaceray (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse - Um, okay. How could one oppose making our policies "immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors"?? I support continuing to lead our inclusion threshold policy with simply "verifiability, not truth" and then clarify for those who may need it. --Ds13 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that people can, though! I don't personally understand how anyone could oppose the goal of making policies immediately and unambiguously clear in order to avoid wasting the time of editors in having to give decent explanations for something which should have been adequately clear in the first place! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Pesky. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - The policies should be written in such a way that anyone who is able to read english (and thus is capable of participating in english Wikipedia) is able to understand the policies. This includes the less competent editors. We should not rely on false assumptions of editor competence. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse - per . The less confusing it is, the better. <font style="color:Green;background:#FFFCD7;"> Brendon is <font style="color:White;background:red;">here 17:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose view 12

 * 1) This view is impossible to support given the current understanding of text interpretation and hermeneutics present in scholarly communities that interpret texts ("the humanities"). Language is fundamentally ambiguous, moreover, attempting to produce language with minimal ambiguity across the varieties of English, for ESL users, and for users from both groups with Autism isn't possible because of the multiple ways in which these users interact with language.  The concept of trying to identify potentially confusing elements in the flow of language, and clarifying to expanding on ese points is a good idea, but it means that we verge on essays and bureaucracy, instead of imparting a "vibe" and a "culture" of editing.  While I respect the idea behind this, it is impossible given current understandings of the way the world works.  And not just "engineering the last 10 units of compliance" impossible, but outright impossible.  We can write better, but we can never write "good."  (This answer would differ if that positivism you like is coming back in style) Fifelfoo (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not actually quite right. Something which is written with absolute literal precision can be understood by everyone.  Example: leaflets in medication packets.  They have to be able to be understood by everyone, so that people don't end up killing themselves by misinterpreting the leaflet.  That is why such care is taken to make them precise and clear.  The drug companies don't want to be sued for millions just because they weren't scrupulously careful with their writing. Adding: most of the instructions are based on IF ...THEN structure, as well.  Examples: IF [any of the following statements is true] THEN [go immediately to hospital and take the packet with you]. IF [any of these next statements is true] THEN [consult your doctor].  See what I mean?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is important and is the thrust of the argument, policy needs to be universal. Penyulap  ☏  08:46, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's impossible. This is a good starting point. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Ambiguity being subjective to each based on their particular ability to understand, cannot form the basis for general instruction. Such a principal can only lead to more confusion: writing one thing in multiple ways, to seek to cater to layers of understanding, never reaching the goal and adding greater ambiguity along the way.  The best that can be hoped for is the objectively reasonable person of intelligence understands the common meaning of words in the context in which they are used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Completely wrongheaded, and flies in the face of WP:COMPETENCE. If an editor can't read a good essay on how verifiability and truth are different and appropriately apply the concept, then he or she really doesn't have any business working on contested content. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I kind of agree with you about WP:COMPETENCE, and I generally tend to feel that we should, indeed, have such expectations of our editors. On the other hand, I see this view as being about inclusivity, about not excluding various members of the editing community. A case can be made that people with autism-spectrum disabilities often are competent editors, just as, for example, the visually-impaired are. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If they can't understand the nuances of "truth = what an editor believes to be true" vs "verifiable = what a reliable source says is true", then they are not competent to edit Wikipedia in any manner where this comes into question. Not "understand the first time they read it", or "understand without benefit of an essay explaining things", but "understand".  Sound bites and bumper-sticker aphorisms are often true on one level, but deficient on many, many others.  There's nothing particularly different about "verifiability, not truth": it's a sound bite that expresses one primary bit of info, and I think it's both disingenuous and disability-baiting to pretend that ASD editors can't understand it.  There are many ASD editors who may not like it out of a desire for more precise language, but it's not there to be liked: it's there to clearly communicate a complex interaction, which it does quite well. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "disingenuous and disability-baiting"??? Well, thanks for the nice !NPA labelling.  What a splendid example to be setting.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC) I'm  not happy about "Completely wrongheaded", either. :o(  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the subject of competence, you said "If an editor can't read a good essay on how verifiability and truth are different and appropriately apply the concept, then he or she really doesn't have any business working on contested content." I'm going to paraphrase this one, to show the other side of the coin.  If an editor is incapable of writing exactly what they mean without ambiguity, then he or she really doesn't have any business writing policies. (Or articles, come to that.)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with this; effectively this is why I insist on Option B: it suffers less from this problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder. What is perfectly clear to one reader will be incomprehensibly vague to another reader. Unless an editor realizes that no matter what he writes there will be readers who misunderstand him, then he really doesn't have any business writing policies. - Peter077 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)  — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1) Oppose. We should always try to make policies clear and readable, but this specific wording sets an impossibly high bar. How can we make rules "immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors" when we have many editors seemingly unable to write a coherent sentence? How would we even go about fixing the text of our rules, when various mutually-incompatible fixes are needed to satisfy the needs of different users? (Some may have difficulty with complex vocabulary whilst others would have difficulty with the ambiguity of simplified wording; some may need the rules laid out at length whilst others may have trouble concentrating on a long repetitive text; and so on). bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) "Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." (Friedrich Schiller, The Maid of Orleans) The best we can do is try to dodge obvious misinterpretations, but we will have to accept that there are people whom we cannot instruct. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I oppose this statement since it appears to support the use of shock-and-confuse approaches to explaining policy as long as they are properly explained. I enjoy experiencing such jolts and think they are a useful pedagogical tool. I also understand that with a general, anonymous audience, a shock approach is less effective since guidance cannot be provided for constructively resolving cognitive dissonance. In written opinion pieces, shock certainly can be effective but mainly because we're willing to lose some of our audience to outrage or confusion. Wikipedia policy should be explained without, even temporarily, knowingly misleading or confusing the reader. I would support it if it said "Any statement that may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be replaced with a straight forward explanation." Joja  lozzo  16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Formerip's analysis (Neutral on view 12, #3, below) but not with xer's neutral stance. Joja  lozzo  19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see the evidence that the VnT format is less comprehensible to such people. I'd think that looking up "verifiability" and "truth" would help a non-English speaking editor figure out what we're talking about; I know of no reason why the phrase should trouble someone on the autistic spectrum. Wnt (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And if they do look it up, what will they find? wikt:verify: (1) to substantiate or prove the truth of something; or (2) to confirm or test the truth or accuracy of something.  So "Provable truth, not truth."  I think it's understandable that people get confused, don't you?— S Marshall  T/C 18:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we can't tell people the real meaning: "Just because you're so sure you have the TRUTH doesn't mean it's going in the article, because that source over there says something different, which means you're wrong". So we have to obfuscate the message a little to avoid offending those who hold - and wish to spread - beliefs incompatible with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I utterly reject the contention that we "can't tell people the real meaning" of a policy.— S Marshall T/C 19:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; the problem is that, in WikiLand, "verifiability" doesn't actually mean the same as it does in Real Life. It just means that a reliable source has published it. The reliable source isn't necessarily up-to-date ...  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Adding: the thing which got it through to me (and I found it difficult) was just someone explaining that it doesn't matter if you actually know more than the most recent reliable source does.  You still have to wait for it to be published before it can go in here. (And the person who had the clear explanation which made it instantly easy for me to understand was a highly-experienced editor  and another autie.) You may very well have insider knowledge of what teams of researchers have just uncovered or proved; but until they publish that material, it stays out. An example of this is in a recently-promoted FA.  The actual identity of the founder of a genetic mutation is known to insiders.  But it hasn't yet been made public, so it can't be included.  This is what makes it hard for well-informed newbies; they may very well actually have far more up-to-date and accurate knowledge, and it can be hard to grasp why that knowledge shouldn't be included.  Not everyone trying to include "unverifiable" material is fringey, or wrong, or a vandal. And we shouldn't assume that they are, either.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that "Not everyone trying to include "unverifiable" material is fringey, or wrong, or a vandal". For instance, the subset who have insider knowledge are likely to be adding something which is right, and few could honestly say that is damaging the encyclopædia. However, without a source, the rest of the community cannot reliably distinguish between the ones who are right and the ones who are wrong (though we muddle through in practice; if an unsourced addition looks reasonable to another SME editor it's much less likely to be reverted) ; and it is better for an encyclopædia to err on the safe side. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, except --- I think what we need to do is to make it clearer how the insider experts to "game the system". If you're a noted authority in the field and you have cutting edge data, all you need to do is put up a presentation on your personal Web site or YouTube and we can link to it, at least under the usual conditions for self-published sources.  I also think we should find a way to partner with Wikinews and OTRS to set up verified interviews with biographic subjects that we can cite.  I don't think, however, that the right way to get this information in is for someone to set up an anonymous account and claim to be somebody famous, a professor at MIT, etc.  We should leave the verification part more off-wiki, so that if (when) we fall victim to a hoax, it's not a Wikipedia hoax, but a web hoax. Wnt (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as a direct result of this conversation, I've added a small bit to WP:RS (tweaked into much better wording by Fifelfoo) which, hopefully, may help with understanding by newbies. It reads as follows: "An editor may have certain knowledge that their "source" is entirely correct. The challenge Wikipedia faces is that a source must be demonstrably reliable to the satisfaction of other editors and readers."   <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've chopped down that change considerably - I don't think we need to emphasize something that wasn't even in the policy yesterday. I doubt we need it at all really. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should clarify my comment above - I don't think that insider experts "gaming the system" is actually a bad thing, much of the time. Sure, sometimes it is - and sometimes it's being done - but the point is, whatever we allow, we should explain to insiders interested in editing articles so that they can do it that way instead of saying "well I'm the expert and I'm putting this in now!" and getting into big arguments. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion here in the appropriate place; but did I really totally misunderstand the reason for RS? <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Accessibility of policies is a good thing, we should expect that the editors are able to read and interpret the plain English language, as it is also a requirement for the ability to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. In the end, we have a "Simplified English" version of Wikipedia for those, whose language and intellectual skills don't allow to involve with English Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC) (Removed the generalization, as the way I put it makes it seem that I consider A-spectrum editors stupid or otherwise generally sub par. That was not the intended meaning, and I am sorry for offending everyone concerned. — 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC))
 * It's not a question of language and intellectual skills.  Are you questioning mine, for instance? It's a question of making sure that we don't thoughtlessly word things in a way which obscures clarity.  Our policies are supposed to be policies, and understandable.  They're not supposed to be some kind of entrance exam to make sure people are neurotypical.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said I want WP:V to become an entrance test. Actually I also insist on preferring clarity; the problem is that the same content is both clear for some and unclear for others, so the emphasis on clarity is a mere vehicle for whatever changes one is advocating. In this case it is used to argue against the most succinct version of the lede, which isn't even known for causing practical problems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why you think it's an argument against the most succinct version of the lede. It's not saying we should never have a phrase that's a "jolt".  It says "Any statement that may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified with a full explanation".  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I was confident that making this view a guideline will result in actual explanations to potentially confusing statements, I would be on support side. Still my experience shows that people tend to simplify their tasks, so I'm pretty sure that this principle will end up as a reason to dumb out the text instead of explaining it. Choosing between (1) verbose policies that I'll have to spend considerable time reading in order to quickly look up something and (2) succinct policies that would cut off some portion of potential editors who are unable to comprehend the text I choose the second. Both per Jclemens's rationale and my egoism. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm ... but it doesn't say anywhere that any of these views is supposed to be a guideline, or that any of them is ever intended to be a guideline. It's important to look at the view for what is is (i.e. exactly "result in actual explanations to potentially confusing statements"), and not to consider them for something else which one thinks they might metamorphose into.  You also refer to it as a "principle"; it's not, it's just a view, and not one intended to "dumb down" the policies  just to make them totally (that means all the policy, not just bits of it) clear.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking of WP:GUIDELINE; still, the consensus is supposed to be determine based on the voting, so in case of endorsement of this "view" the proponents of verbosity may later claim any opposition to their effort goes against consensus. That's how (if endorsed) it will become a de facto guideline, intended or not. Given that the policies already are at least clear enough and no outstanding issues need to be addressed, endorsement of this "view" may only damage Wikipedia. If any problem with clarity is spotted in any policy, guideline or essay, it should be addressed independently with no biases and a priori decisions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Fifelfoo explains quite well the problem with this proposal. Also, it's clearly an attempt to remove VnT through the back door. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that if you look closely, you might see that view #1 and view #3 are the attempts to remove VnT. They don't use any back doors.  :-)  View #12 is exactly what it says on the tin: a plea to write policies in such a way that autistic people can process them.— S Marshall  T/C 22:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know about #s 1 and 3, I commented on them; my point is that #12 is an attempt to remove VnT through the back door, not that there aren't other proposals to use the front. If this proposal isn't about VnT, I'll eat my hat. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's totally wrong. #12 is in there because of Pesky who contributed to the mediation.  She is a high-functioning autistic and asked for a view representing the autistic community to be inserted into the RFC.  And we agreed.  Now, it's true that Pesky doesn't favour VnT, but the reason why she doesn't favour VnT is because there are particular reasons why she has struggled to come to terms with it.  There is absolutely no "back door" element to this, and no hidden agenda at all. Which is not to say that there's no agenda.  There is.  Like many editors participating here, I believe VnT is actively harmful, as well as being obfuscatory.  It's the most puketastic, atrociously awful phrasing in any of our policies and I want it killed stone dead.  My personal agenda is to rid this policy of VnT as completely as possible, and I'm doing it very openly, by the front door.  View #12 has nothing to do with this at all.— S Marshall  T/C 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy, I think you've misread it. Or missed out a bit when you read it.  It says IF something's there which is "jolty" (such as, but not limited to, VnT) THEN it should be clarified.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 21:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for two reasons. First, it's meaningless, as both ASD and ESL encompass such a wide range of language competence. Second, "immediately and unambiguously clear" is an unrealistic standard, because many of the things we're talking about here, like estimating the reliability of sources and the likelihood/reasonability of challenges, are matters of judgement. --Stfg (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's possible, so you don't think we should try? What if it were possible? How would we find out, if we haven't tried?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we should be as clear and unambiguous as we can, but that's kinda stating the obvious, isn't it? I don't think we need bust a gut to avoid having to make case by case judgements sometimes, is all. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair answer :o) "As clear and unambiguous as we can" is the best we can do; oddly, it seems that sometimes some people don't realise the importance of being as clear an unambiguous as we can, or don't realise that we can do better than we're doing (on many policy pages).  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a nice idea and it sounds at first as if it'll be fair and good and so on. But it's fundamentally misguided; the best we can do is make things verifiable, and to write them as well as we can. We can have a Simple English version, of course; or Any Other Natural Language wikis; and we do. But bastardizing the English Wiki will not help anyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did it suggest bastardising? Making our policies clear doesn't equal bastardising the English Wikipedia. You know those instructions that sometimes come packed in with something, which have clearly been machine-translated from Japanese, or whatever? Sure, if you work at understanding them, you can get the idea, but is there a single one of us that hasn't wished they'd been written in plain (not simple) English in the first place?  Compare and contrast with the information leaflets included in medication packets.  Plain English.  Totally clear. Always. General comment to many commenters (not just you): it seems that some people are reading things into that view which just aren't there.  What's there is there.  Nothing is left unsaid.  Reading between the lines and looking for hidden agendas or extra meanings is not only not required, but also misunderstanding what's there.  As S Marshall says, it's what's written on the tin; nothing else. It's kinda fascinating to see that people are objecting to things which aren't even there.  Spooking at ghosts, if you like. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."  This stinks of achieving simplicity at the cost of destroying the actual meaning. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? It says we should be aiming to get our policies clear. Nothing about destroying their meaning, at all.  Just making that meaning clear from the get-go.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything like that. But it's trivial to anticipate how a mandate to that effect would be used in practice. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But to distort it in that way would be to go directly against what the view supports. Writing for Aspergers and autism spectrum people is much like programming a computer.  It needs to be absolutely precise, but that doesn't automatically mean verbose, and it definitely doesn't mean "destroying the meaning".  In a computer program, every line, every instruction, every command has to be spot-on right to avoid bugs.  Unclosed commands, missing commands, and closed loops all cause problems.  Every important part of the program has to be there, but it doesn't need to be complex.  IF ...THEN ... ELSE is simple and impossible to misunderstand.  With a computer, we get GIGO problems if we're not careful. Autism-spectrum processing is very, very similar. Auties can follow incredibly complex programs so long as the program is written absolutely accurately and bug-free. And, with ESL editors, our idioms may very well not translate in the same way that we've grown up with.  (Favourite example: the phrase "Out of sight, out of mind" was translated through three languages and came back as "invisible idiot".) We don't need (and sure as heck don't want!) to "dumb down" policy pages.  But we do need to make sure that they describe precisely what our intentions are.  We don't expect our computers to infer things, grapple with understanding problems, or read between the programming lines.  They don't do that; they process data and follow instructions. So do high-functioning auties, etc. Does this make it any more clear? Here's an example: * IF  statement is a quote  THEN citation and inline attribution needed * ELSE IF  statement is an exceptional claim and highly likely to be challenged,THEN exceptional source(s) needed * ELSE IF statement is challenged or likely to be challenged, THEN citation needed * ELSE IF  statement is easily verifiable by anyone, unchallenged nor ever likely to be challenged THEN no citation needed That covers an awful lot of the verifiability policy. Adding: in fact, I think it's reduced about 75% of the verifiability policy to four impossible-to-misunderstand lines.  Everything  everything  in an article will fall into one of those four categories.  Most of the rest of the policy page is actually covered by WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV.  Oh, and WP:BLP.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Adding: this approach makes the whole verifiability thing as simple as it really is.  Three steps: which category is this statement in? What is the rule for that category?  Apply rule to statement.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good for essay, but not for policy. Given your insight, you may effectively write a special essay covering core policies and link/hatnote it to the policies you covered. That is a right way to cope with deviations from what we expect of typical contributor. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The example there was literally how one would write for a computer, etc. My view is that policies should be written in the most precise way possible without too much circumlocutory waffle.  The current policy page, to my view, reads more like an essay. I think we could make the policy page much, much more precise, with links to "read more" pages subsections, written more like essays.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you make the "read more" pages essays, that will lead to huge increase of wikilawyering and subsequent huge net damage to Wikipedia; if "read more" pages are made proper guidelines, it will take infinite time and effort to build consensus on the whole set of them, resulting in considerable net damage to Wikipedia. In both cases the possible benefit is severely outweighted with the losses. That is: your goals are not worth this method's costs. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so the "read more" links go to a "application of the rule, in depth" section on the policy page. But the rule itself should be stated first, and clearly, and with absolute precision.  That way, people get to the more verbose (and possibly more ambiguous) stuff once they have already taken the basic rule on board.  Challenge met.  Focus on the solution, not on the problem. (Tweaked, above.)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a mere word play. In fact you have three possibilities:
 * if you want a succinct, clear, easily understandable policy, all you can do is to vote "Endorse View 1" and "Support Option B";
 * if you want a simple algorithm and separate explanation pages, you're out of luck (see my previous response for the reasons);
 * otherwise you end up with unholy mess that causes equal problems to both "neurotypical" and A-spectrum editors.
 * The difference in apprehension mechanisms of A-spectrum editors and the rest of us dictates the difference in text that would best suit the need of getting to know the policy. That effectively means that we have to choose between these two target groups in order to optimize the policy for one of them and find an acceptable way to present the alternative text to another one. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work like that. Anything that is readily understood by A-spectrum people is also readily understood by everyone else.  It just means avoiding ambiguities and idioms, and being as precise as possible.  That's universally understandable. Doesn't mater whether the reader is neurotypical or A-spectrum (and means ESL people don't have to struggle with idiomatic language but can easily translate to something which means exactly the same thing in their native tongue). What we're talking about is the equivalent of one set of people running an internal Mac OS, and one set of people running Windoze. They're both doing it through an Intel chip. The processing is superficially different, without saying that either is superior or inferior. Now, the thing is that the "computers", regardless of what's on the surface, are actually both running machine code. We need to write our policies in machine code.  Aaahhh, and, by the way, there are a lot of A-spectrum editors in here.  A much higher proportion than you'd come across in Real Life.  (I found about a dozen before they actually started to seek me out, and before I'd publicised that I was HFA myself.)  I used the example of the leaflets one finds in medication packets earlier.  They're written well.  Anyone can process the language.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Just picking up on something you said above:  You said "If you make the "read more" pages essays" [then bad things will happen] ... but I didn't say "make them essays".  What I said was they could be written more like essays; you (I expect inadvertently) changed the meaning of what I wrote.  Adding: that's another IF-THEN situation.  IF [pages/subsections are essays] THEN [bad things happen].  But we fell out at the "IF" stage.  They're not essays. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 04:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's break it apart:
 * I explained both the problems if the explanatory texts are essays and if they are guidelines/policies. The whole idea is impractical to implement.
 * You are said to be an A-spectrum editor, and you demonstrated that you comprehend the verifiability not truth jolt. Now we have a proof of the fact that being A-spectrum editor does not magically pose an accessibility problem with this particular jolt.
 * The broadness of the view makes its implementation absolutely impossible (no criteria, no case studies).
 * Editors are expected to be competent enough to participate in consensus building and dispute resolution, which requires more advanced processing skills then comprehending the policies. It is impractical to fix anything in the policies from the accessibility point of view, as the real barrier lies elsewhere.
 * I suggested you an easy way to introduce the A-spectrum editors to the policies they have problems with: an essay, that is specially crafted for A-spectrum editors. You reject this solution with no explanation. Do you want to solve any problem at all?
 * All in all, this view both don't belong to this RfC and shouldn't be discussed without the particular problem and particular case studies. The bare claim that this policy is inaccessible to any editors isn't a valid reason to make any changes. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're possibly talking at cross-purposes. I'll take your points in order.
 * The "see also" subsections on the policy page (not separate pages or essays) can have either the same, or very similar, wording to what is already there. Dead easy (and not impractical) to implement.
 * I comprehend the jolt because it was explained to me in clear and unambiguous terms by a very experienced (and also autie) editor. Without that explanation, it would have been much harder.  I certainly didn't see the sense of apparently not caring about truth, but being prepared to rely on anything which was ever published, with little regard for the truth of it.
 * I disagree with you on this. Absolute precision without idiom or ambiguity is not impossible.  cf information in medications boxes, where clear communication is vital. (Literally "vital", as in "someone's  life may depend on it".)
 * Newbie editors, who haven't even come across the verifiability policy before, aren't, as a rule, expected to be participating in dispute resolution and consensus-building;  but that's kind of a strawman anyway, isn't it?  The view is about writing policies clearly.  So your point 4 doesn;t seem to have much relevance here.  Though I will say that you said, up above, "the consensus is supposed to be determine based on the voting".  But it's not that simple.  If all it was was a matter of counting votes, then any numerate five-year-old could do it.  It also says, on the RfC page: "This RfC is a discussion, not a vote".
 * Yes, you made a suggestion. I didn't reject it, either with or without an explanation.  I just pointed out that it wasn't necessary, as anything written with absolute clarity (which is not equal to verbosity or bloat or unreadability) can be understood by both A-spectrum and neurotypicals alike. I'm working on some dead-clear stuff at the moment. I clearly (I would have thought) do want to solve problems; I find your implication (that I don't) somewhat derogatory.
 * "The bare claim that this policy is inaccessible to any editors." Who made that claim? And the view is (again, I would have hoped, clearly) applicable to discussion about the wording of any and all policies.  Like it says.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The hard part is taking the texts to the appropriate status. You might have noticed that the single phrase caused a several year long epic lame war; do you really expect these explanatory text to pass easily?
 * Sorry, but the problem you state is not that of comprehension mechanisms; it is the general problem of not paying attention. I doubt that this problem has anything to do with A-spectrum.
 * Sure, absolute precision is completely possible. "The requirement for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" — what can be more precise? But this view is not about precision, it is about "full explanation" which is something that can't be logically proved to exist in any particular case. Endorsing this view means imposing a rule on policy writing without a way to determine compliance.
 * That was my point: the consensus building is procedure that is ways harder to participate (and to determine results) then comprehension of VnT. Thus we just shouldn't care for people who fail to comprehend VnT as they are useless for the project otherwise.
 * The original version of WP:V (option B) is just clear enough, and yet it is the best formulated and easier to read and use. What is so wrong with keeping it for the majority of editors (those compliant with WP:COMPETENCE and having a long, precise essay, containing algorithms, "full explanations" and whatever stuff any editor could need to find his way around unless he learns to read documents carefully?
 * This is the worst thing with this view: not only vague, but also supposed to be universally applied. Any particular problem should be discussed separately and addressed specifically.
 * Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you appear to be equating autism-spectrum editors with incompetence. You said: The requirement for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" — what can be more precise?. Well, option D's version of Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it is actually more precise.  You've also commented on "not paying attention".  This view has nothing to do with paying attention.  You've also said that this view is about "full explanation".  It's not about that, it's about precise, unambiguous clarity. I'm concerned, also, about your statement "we just shouldn't care for people who fail to comprehend VnT as they are useless for the project otherwise."  Useless???  When we can so easily say "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" ? Paying attention is, of course, of great importance.  We should pay attention when we write.  It is the duty of the writer to be clear. Poor and arrogant teachers blame their students for poor results. The world can do without the kind of teachers who label autism-spectrum people "stupid", "incompetent", "not paying attention", or "useless". As an autism-spectrum editor myself, I find that particularly offensive.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't equate incompetence and A-spectrum; in fact I wouldn't be surprised if A-spectrum editors tend to be more competent. What I equate is competence and ability to make logical conclusions.
 * These two sentences are absolutely logically equal and thus have the same degree of precision. The difference here is that the latter statement not only is more grammatically complex, but also slightly misleading: it moves emphasis from demonstrating verifiability to inner obligation to check it.
 * I cite the "full explanation" from the text of the view. If you mean something different then what is stated there, you should probably formulate it. Until then we have no specific view to discuss apart from the text of view 12.
 * For some reason you try your best to avoid an aspect of my position: the policy wordings are not the showstoppers, because other barriers (notably the interaction with other editors in consensus building and dispute resolution) are ways higher, so just replacing these texts with some other editions you like more won't help at all.
 * Nice you've mentioned teachers who blame students for performance: no poor performance in comprehending this wording was ever demonstrated. I seriously doubt this performance was ever poor. In fact we discuss the hypothetical difficulties of hypothetical editors. No case studies, no facts, no stats. I don't buy it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Czarkoff, there are two sentences to consider: "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" -vs- "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Your position is that, and I quote, "These two statements are absolutely logically equal", and you're suggesting that disagreeing with you is a competence issue.  I submit that it's exactly the other way around: agreeing with you is a competence issue.— S Marshall  T/C 10:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope that this comes from your passionate will to get rid of the former wording, because the logical equivalence of these statements is something a person with fairly moderate IQ can notice with no difficulties. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A person with a low or moderate IQ might, indeed, fail to notice the differences. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" → "Anything that's appeared in print can automatically be included in Wikipedia."  And indeed, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" → "I can add lies to an article, as long as the lies have appeared in print".  But, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" means neither of these things.  It is less ambiguous because it carries fewer unintended meanings—meanings that ESL or spectrum editors might struggle with, and that disruptive and tendentious editors can use to twist articles towards their POV.— S Marshall  T/C 12:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that something false but reported in sources can be reported doesn't come from any of these phrases, because,, '[t]he natural meaning of "verifiable" is "checkably true. The "unintended meanings" thing goes against the word of policy and thus is made up; this fraud is easy to spot, so it doesn't pose any real problem; specifically given the amount of occasions (which is dangerously close to "never"). A big non-issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm, Dmitrij ..... the view didn't say that the entire darned thing should be a "full explanation". What is said was Any statement that may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified with a full explanation. Perhaps you weren't paying attention when you read the view?  ;P Adding: if you apply the logic and intelligence which you refer to above, then you will see that that's another IF statement.  In other words, logically, any statement which doesn't (nor is likely to) cause confusion or a jolt to the thinking processes has already fallen out of the conditional command there.  It doesn't require any further explanation, because it's already totally clear. Aaaand .... I'm getting concerned with the attacks you appear to be making on other editors and groups of editors, too.  this fraud is easy to spot.  Fraud?  You're accusing other editors of fraud, now?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Aaaand, again ... yes, I brought up teaching.  Because I've been a teacher for decades.  I've taught all sorts, including barely-verbal auties.  And I've helped them to progress from almost non-verbal to being able to communicate, verbally.  I know this subject, and the applications of it.  I've seen it from both sides. This is why I have the ability to understand the importance of absolute precision. I have to say that it appears to me that either what you're doing here is protracted filibustering, or WikiLawyering, or else you genuinely lack the ability to comprehend what this is about.  If it's either of the first two, then my reaction would be of extreme anger at what you;re doing here.  If it's the last, then I can only feel sorry for you.  If you're filibustering, then I shall not assist you.  If you're actually incapable of understanding, then no amount of patient explanation will enable you to understand, therefore continued patient explanation is a waste of anyone else's time and effort.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You tried to enlighten me, but it appears that I'm either dishonest or idiot, so you give up Pesky? And that is you who is offended? Nice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as written I agree that our policies should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. But if accommodating editors with various disabilities becomes the standard by which we operate, then you can always cite someone who needs a little more hand-holding than we currently offer, and eventually we'll not be allowed to say anything remotely challenging.  To that suggestion, Jclemens has the right answer.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about hand-holding for those who really don't have the ability / competence to be editors. It's about making sure that we haven't, ourselves, dug bear-pits and placed trip-wires which can actually hinder someone's understanding.  If you're writing to FA level, we always accept that the quality of prose is one of the really important things, so that the reader isn't accidentally misled, etc.  What I'm saying is that the quality of the prose in our policies should aim to be as high as FA standard for articles.  When we write an article, we (should!) try to write it in a way that makes it understandable to as many people as possible.  We should do that with our policies, too. Suggestion: How would you view the idea of getting our policies reviewed by a team of regular FA writers / reviewers for clarity? Nobody (in their right minds) could suggest that our FA-standard editors are lacking in competence or understanding, or likely to "dumb down" the the policies etc.  They'd make a good quality-control team for the wording of our policies.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I am returning to this discussion in response to further discussion on my talk page.
 * If something is unclear, then it should be fixed because it is unclear, not particularly because A-spectrum people might misunderstand it. Conversely, if certain A-spectrum people are misunderstanding something even though it is clearly written, then (though they may have all kinds of competences in other areas) that person probably should not be doing the kind of Wikipedia work that requires them to understand such things (which is not to say that they cannot contribute to Wikipedia at all).
 * This RfC is primarily about the clarity of WP:V and whether it could be improved (at some places on this page, my additional concern is that people might be suggesting that the policy itself should be changed or watered down). The clarity issue stands on its own two feet, and as I see it, disability simply is not really relevant.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The view isn't about writing specifically for one subset of editors. It's for all our editors, including subsets. And, it's not about "disability" (or stupidity, or whatever along those lines). Being a non-native English speaker, for example, is not a disability. Our words and phrases should translate with the same meaning in another language which we intended them to have in English.  Auties aren't disabled, either. Or more stupid than neurotypicals.  You said if certain A-spectrum people are misunderstanding something even though it is clearly written... That is the point.  If it really is clearly written, they will not misunderstand it. Example on clarity: "Please take a seat" is not clear.  (Compare with "Please take a leaflet".)  "Please sit down" is clear. It's also fewer words.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per BlueMoonlet. cmadler (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose. The WP:AUTIE essay is illuminating and much appreciated. I support clear guidelines that whenever possible are stated in the positive (what to do) rather than as prohibitions, but confusing or "jolting" statements don't belong in guidelines in the first place. Our policies and guidelines have become bloated and unreadable for the very reason that we try to anticipate every possible interpretation. We think this heads off "pointless" debate, but in fact it encourages wikilawyering. When I was teaching, I found that the more detailed my instructions for an assignment, the less likely students were to understand the primary objectives: they couldn't see the forest for the trees. "Full explanations", however, should be provided in the form of supporting essays, which can explore examples and test cases. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gaaahhck! [Pesky tears hair out in frustration, lol!]  So many of these "oppose" views, when read through, are actually supporting the statement as written!  They're just opposing "things which might happen" which actually go directly against the statement!  We need to be concise and clear and accurate.  Not verbose.  Not bloated.  Not unreadable.  Just ... clear and unambiguous.  That's it.  That's all. If someone absolutely insists on something ambiguous being in the policy, then it should be clarified.  What's wrong with that?  How can anyone genuinely object to the aim of making our policies as clear and unambiguous as possible in order to avoid misunderstandings and time wasted on explanations which would never have been necessary if the policy had been clear in the  first place?  Please, guys  think like a computer!  Just read what is there.  No extrapolations, no going off at tangents, no reinterpretations, no misinterpretations.  Just what's there. Let me reduce it to its bare bones. "I think that it is important that our policies should be immediately and unambiguously clear to all our editors. Any statement that may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified." (Yes, and ideally  if we didn't use ambiguities in the first place (see part one)  those statements wouldn't be there anyway.)  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. To be exhaustive and at the same time clear, it would require a professional writer or a firm of consultants, costing huge sums. If dedicated Wikipedians tried to do it on an ad-hoc basis, it would be unreadable by either the average reader or the special-needs reader. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would. We have Featured Articles written by our volunteers to exceptionally high standards.  Clarity doesn't have to be exhaustive; just precise.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as written (although appreciating the intention) The use of language appropriate to the reader is always to be recommended. However, the use of lowest common denominator language - recommended where some or most readers are likely to be at or below the average reading comprehension level (in the UK so I'm told, this is a reading age of 15 and capable of reading The Sun (newspaper)) - does require specialist knowledge, it's not as obvious as you might think. Having worked with a number of editors on the autism spectrum, their problem wasn't their reading comprehension level. With these editors it has been the need for a disambiguation level far higher than the average reader. The only other people I have encountered with a similar disambiguation requirement are conditional mathematicians commenting on the Monty Hall problem and similar - to use an example from one of them, most people assume that if they play snap with their granny, granny hasn't stacked the deck. A conditional mathematician would want it stated before the game commences that the deck contains all 52 cards, that the shuffle is truly random, and that the possibility of drawing any given card is not greater or less than the probability of drawing any other card. The editors with ASD I've worked with all required this level of disambiguation - there must be no assumptions of the "common sense" or "everybody knows" type.  This wouldn't give you a policy in plain English, and it would give you one that was probably incomprehensible to those with English as a second language (which incidentally will include many deaf editors even in English speaking countries for whom sign is a first language), and also dyslexics - and we do have dyslexic editors.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This is a wild phantasy: it can only be achieved by a very proficient projective telepath. Policies should be as clear as possible, but any strategy chosen will have its disadvantages. - Peter077 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Peter077 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 3) Oppose. Simply impractical. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose Not merely impractical, but impossible. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "It'll never fly ..." but what if it could? If we decide not to try, we have guaranteed failure.  Personally, I don't think that any variation on "It'll never fly" is ever a good argument for stopping other people from trying.  Nobody is trying to force anyone else to get involved in trying to make it fly.  Just (virtually) requesting permission to carry on working on it until it does fly.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 05:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I support the spirit of the proposal but find the wording deeply problematic. Everything in any policy that proves to be unclear should be clarified, but this view's wording ignores the fact that a "jolt" actually can serve to clarify a point that's otherwise obscured in acres of endless, drab "yada yada blah blah" prose. Rivertorch (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, read carefully. It seems that you may have had an unresolved "jolt" by not processing the IF statement.  The view doesn't say that jolts are useless, or should never be there (though it does say that's a good aim).  What it does say is that any statement (jolt) which could cause confusion should be clarified. (It also doesn't say that any clarification has to be exhaustive, or bloating, or verbose, or unreadable ...  or acres of endless, drab "yada yada blah blah" prose) In other words, what you appear to be opposing is not stated in the view.   ;P Of course, it is always perfectly possible to bloat and be overly (and unnecessarily) verbose. Using an example from above:  One could say "Please take a seat" means "Please decide on the chair you would most like to occupy, approach the chair, turn your back to the chair, carefully lower yourself onto the chair by bending your knees, taking care to aim correctly, until your bottom is planted securely on the chair, leaving at least one of your feet on the floor ...".  But all that is actually required for clarity is "Please take a seat" means "Please sit down."  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, both phrases are theoretically ambiguous. "Please sit down" could be taken to mean "please sit anywhere you like" (on the floor? on someone's lap?), while "please take a seat" could be taken to mean "please steal a chair". If the goal is maximum clarity and reasonable brevity, you'd be better off saying something like, "Please select an empty chair and sit in it now". "Please sit down" is hardly less ambiguous; it too requires the audience to intuitively fill in some gaps. Regarding the first paragraph of your reply, I didn't say that the view says what you say it doesn't say (!) — in other words, we seem to be talking past each other. What it says (and I did read it carefully) is that "[a]ny statement that may cause confusion, or a "jolt" to the thinking processes, should be clarified . . ." (my emphasis). I don't think that all jolts necessarily require clarification, but the wording appears to imply otherwise. Rivertorch (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see that that point is kinda applicable. However, in Real Life™, the majority of people, given a "Please sit down" instruction in combination with availability of empty chairs in the immediate vicinity would choose to use a chair ...and maybe sit on the floor if there were no chair available.  We're not talking about the level of hand-holding required by, for example, someone who would be unable to function in a hospital waiting room with this view without an "appropriate adult" or carer to assist them.  It's just seeking the level of clarity given in (again, lol!) those information leaflets in medications packets.  The kind of "jolt" it's trying to address is the sort which, if included in a computer program, would constitute a bug which might cause the program to crash.  A failure in the stated logic.. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief (idiomatic phrase—grief, while sometimes necessary, is never good) . The majority of people would respond in precisely the same way whether asked to "take a seat" or "sit down". On the other hand, I'm sure there are people who misinterpret the fine print on their medication, no matter how carefully written it may be. The difference between medication and Wikipedia is that the former might just kill you if you misinterpret the instructions. The latter can give you a headache or a queasy feeling at times, but by and large it's packaged with helpful folks who'll go out of their way to help you understand its policies and guidelines. I do take your point about the computer program, but Wikipedians are human beings, not software; if they encounter something that they can't make head or tail of, no rebooting is required—just a trip to the Help Desk or the Village Pump. I believe that the majority of people (you said it first), upon encountering the phrase "verifiability, not truth" in context will have very little difficulty figuring out what it means. It may require a few seconds of thought, but so would trying to parse the bland, unimaginative sentences that some would replace it with. A small minority may not perceive its exact meaning, but I don't suppose more than a handful will interpret it to mean something completely different from its intended meaning, and most of those will be educable. Rivertorch (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as useless twaddle.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see that that point is kinda applicable. However, in Real Life™, the majority of people, given a "Please sit down" instruction in combination with availability of empty chairs in the immediate vicinity would choose to use a chair ...and maybe sit on the floor if there were no chair available.  We're not talking about the level of hand-holding required by, for example, someone who would be unable to function in a hospital waiting room with this view without an "appropriate adult" or carer to assist them.  It's just seeking the level of clarity given in (again, lol!) those information leaflets in medications packets.  The kind of "jolt" it's trying to address is the sort which, if included in a computer program, would constitute a bug which might cause the program to crash.  A failure in the stated logic.. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief (idiomatic phrase—grief, while sometimes necessary, is never good) . The majority of people would respond in precisely the same way whether asked to "take a seat" or "sit down". On the other hand, I'm sure there are people who misinterpret the fine print on their medication, no matter how carefully written it may be. The difference between medication and Wikipedia is that the former might just kill you if you misinterpret the instructions. The latter can give you a headache or a queasy feeling at times, but by and large it's packaged with helpful folks who'll go out of their way to help you understand its policies and guidelines. I do take your point about the computer program, but Wikipedians are human beings, not software; if they encounter something that they can't make head or tail of, no rebooting is required—just a trip to the Help Desk or the Village Pump. I believe that the majority of people (you said it first), upon encountering the phrase "verifiability, not truth" in context will have very little difficulty figuring out what it means. It may require a few seconds of thought, but so would trying to parse the bland, unimaginative sentences that some would replace it with. A small minority may not perceive its exact meaning, but I don't suppose more than a handful will interpret it to mean something completely different from its intended meaning, and most of those will be educable. Rivertorch (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as useless twaddle.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on view 12

 * 1) Strive to do this. WP:V fails, but as it fails it's not like we have some instant solution to this problem. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Right up there with unicorns, vampires and Atlantis. This has little if anything to do with the matter a hand but I'll respond to it here just for completeness. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I support the first 19 words, but we should not seek to clarify statements that may cause confusion. We should seek to avoid them. Formerip (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) We just try to write it as succinctly and clearly as we can, which we do for all readers. I like the first 19 words, the rest muddy the message. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Of course it would be beneficial to make the policies as readable as possible to all editors, but we should only consider this when writing policies. If we strain too much to make the text simplified for others who have a hard time reading it, it may just serve to awkwardly word our policies even further. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) This viewpoint is as incoherent as the problem it seeks to avoid. I don't think there's anyone who wants our policies to be unclear. This viewpoint turns it into a much more convoluted standard, opening it to Wikilawyering that "no, now the explanation HAS to include this". Wrong. It just has to be clear, which sometimes means saying less rather than more. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point. The view doesn't say that we need to say more  just "more clearly".  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I sympathize with this view, but I think as written it somewhat violates its own intentions; it certainly includes complexities that led to a side discussion about whether it was "really" about VnT. As someone quoted above: "Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." That's all that needs to be said. Rd232 talk 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Always remember that "simple" and "clear" are not equal terms. "Simple" implies "dumbing down".  "Clear" does not carry the same nuances.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Return to top