Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls

Poll V_FC_P_00, change not truth to not "truth"
Can I make it clear that my objection to "not truth" is nothing to do with the intention of this policy merely the particular choice of wording. The actual meaning can remain but "not truth" sends to wrong message. Perhaps it would be better to simply have it as verifiability, not "truth". violet/riga [talk] 15:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sounds like we're saying, "wink, wink, we don't really mean it." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (but not my preferred resolution) Quote marks indicate that we're dissing subjective truth and not dissing the quest for objective accuracy where such exists/is relevant. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This slight improvement, together with recent clear statements by Jimbo, would solve this problem IMO. Therefore: Works for me. Hans Adler 11:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Scare quotes are poor style and their meaning is too subtle and ambiguous. Warden (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Using a scare-quotes form would indicate a false meaning of 'truth' and could be seen as any similar or invented word of dubious meaning (such as "truthish" or "truthicality" or "truthability"), while still ignoring the elephant in the room is that verification requires a test for truth: it is not logically possible to have verifiability and not have truth at the same time. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The phrase "not truth" has both a literal and a figurative meaning, this change clarifies that we are not opposed to the literal understanding of "truth" at Wikipedia.  However, more words are probably a better way to express this.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Scare quotes are not always poor form.  They can be used when they are needed and applied in an effective manner, and this is one of those times. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * weak, weak, diluted support If we must spoon-feed, we must. --Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same problem with quotes, with the puzzle of what the quotes mean. Readers have to analyze the sentence, instead of just reading it, and still may not be confident about what "truth" means.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, does not fix anything worth fixing. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_01 "not truth" means...
This proposal achieved near-consensus at WT:V with 6 in favor, 0 in opposition on August 6please link to archive. The final !vote was 6 in favor, 1 in opposition. Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A lot of ways of adding a sentence clarifying the meaning have been proposed recently. Many of the others were better than this one. This one is merely circular: verifiability not truth means we want verifiability not truth. Duh. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (but not my preferred resolution) A baby step in the right direction.  North8000 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I am concerned that this clarification might turn out to be unstable when "not truth" extremists and others with stylistic concerns start attacking it. Otherwise it's OK. Hans Adler 11:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The extra sentence seems redundant. Warden (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd say the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources does sometimes mean that truth can trump verifiability on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still uses the term "truth" which is unclear here. Is it absolute truth, truth advocated by a particular point of view, etc. ? This tries to patch up a problem which can simply be eliminated by removing the uneccessay and unclear part "not truth". --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Arguably a slight improvement, but it seems a very very slight improvement, plus adding words which might become a confusion in themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Remains an improvement that helps with the "elephant in the room".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_02 combine WP:V and WP:OR using WP:Attribution
See WP:Attribution.
 * Support. But do not be so fast to deprecate, tag historical, tag superceded, etc.  If WP:V and WP:OR mean the same thing as WP:Attribution, let them co-exist for a decent length of time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:V and WP:OR already work. A solution in search of a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, now that I've read and considered this several times. As I explained at length to Kotniski a while back, I still think that NOR is quite separable from V, but I'm willing to be persuaded that there's an advantage to taking them together.— S Marshall  T/C 22:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose But this issue should be addressed. They 80% overlap, and the end result of wp:or IS wp:ver.   But what a huge change that would be!!!  Better to strip wp:or down to the 20% where it does not overlap.  North8000 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. There is extreme overlap between V and OR, and I keep getting confused about what is where. After so many years it's time to clean up the structure of our most important policies, and this is an important step. However, I don't see it as a solution to the problem at hand. It is extremely unlikely that we get consensus for a version of ATTRIBUTION that adds content changes, even relatively minor ones, to the restructuring. Hans Adler 11:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elevating WP:A reduces the "truth" problem, as it doesn't use the word, and WP:A uses the word "threshold" properly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:A should never be elevated to policy without deprecating (or redirecting) WP:V and WP:NOR at the same time. Otherwise we will end up with 3 overlapping policies instead of 2. While there is probably a majority for removing or tweaking "verifiability, not truth", and while there may be a majority for merging V and NOR, I doubt very strongly that there will be a majority for replacing V and NOR by WP:A which does not have "verifiability, not truth" in its present form. Hans Adler 12:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support provided WP:V and WP:OR are marked as historical. We need to reduce policy overlap and inconsistency, not add to it.  Warden (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Not sure it is practical, but the aim of simplification is a good one, so if it is possible it would almost certainly lead to many improvements in Wikilife.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Much of the overlap is due to inappropriate editing of WP:NOR, e.g. the oversized "Using sources" section and its oversized "Notes" section at the bottom of the page. NOR should be about what OR is and isn't. Verifiability should be about using sources and sourceability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support The point by Bob is well taken, but this combo might help with those issues, rather than making them worse.--Cerejota (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I see these as two distinct issues, and cleaning up the redundancy would be a better approach. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_03 combine WP:V and WP:OR in new WP:Sourceability
No text is currently available for WP:Sourceability, but the idea is the same as at WP:Attribution.
 * Oppose in favour of V_FC_P_02. Sourceability is a weird word.  The use of weird words adds to the barrier for new editors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same as the previous question, but with even less to go on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose But this issue should be addressed. They 80% overlap, and the end result of wp:or IS wp:ver.   But what a huge change that would be!!!  Better to strip wp:or down to the 20% where it does not overlap.  Plus "sourcability" is a logically good but awkward-sounding word. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Attribution" is perhaps not an ideal name for the merged policy, but it has been around for a while "Sourceability" is worse as a name. Hans Adler 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the English language version of Wikipedia and so we should use plain English not neologisms. Warden (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a better title. Personally I think this and the last section handle are about a question not being named: ie if we merge WP:V and WP:NOR, can we use of one of those names or do we need a new one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_04 insert lead from essay WP:Verifiability, not truth as new section

 * No objection. There would, of course, have to be some revising. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting the concerns about wordiness, my understanding of this proposal is that it would be a new section on the policy page, rather than a replacement for the wording at the beginning. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Much too wordy.— S Marshall T/C 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Has potential - but too wordy, I think. I like the idea of a link to the essay a bit better - but I'd also be happy with some kind of 'tweak' to this one.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Only if it gets one needed fix....one sentence seems to require "sourced" rather than "sourcability" North8000 (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Too wordy, doesn't really help to solve the problem, and the language about courts can even cement the "not truth" misunderstanding in some minds. Only makes sense in connection with another solution. Hans Adler 11:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too long. Warden (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is wrong. "Absolute" is always a dangerous word. We do not need to source everything we put in WP. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this objection. The essay does not say that everything must be supplied with a source.  It says that the absolute minimum standard for inclusion is that it would be possible to supply a source.  If it is not possible, then you must not, under any circumstances whatsoever (="absolute") include the material.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be no big deal, I think, to delete the word "absolute". The word "minimum" covers it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "absolute" should be removed as redundant and potentially problematic. "Absolute" will be interpreted as saying there can be no exceptions ever. This not only makes application of WP:IAR even harder in the extremely rare cases when it would make sense -- especially in connection with WP:SYN it could also be abused by editors who attack basically every sentence of an article that isn't a copyright violation. Hans Adler 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_05 Take WP:Verifiability out of the truth business
Remove references to "truth" (and accuracy), preferably adding links to other policies and essays. To whatever extent truth and accuracy have a place in Wikipedia, it is not at WP:V.

Rationale: Verifiable material may or may not be accurate, so whether or not editors think the material is true or accurate or think the material is not true or not accurate, is not an issue for WP:Verifiability. What Wikipedia is not is a matter for WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing from the whole policy. Truth and accuracy are reasonably close to the purpose of WP:V.  However, truth and accuracy may not belong in the first sentence, the first paragraph, or even the lede.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The wrong solution. Citizendium is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removing all language that implies the truth is irrelevant to an encyclopaedia. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.  I can NOT emphasize this enough."  (quoting Jimbo.)— S Marshall  T/C 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wp:ver sets a condition for inclusion of material.  It has no business discussing "truth". North8000 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not sure if this would be an improvement or not. In any case, "not truth" currently plays a role in countering fringe POV pushers. Some form of the "not truth" part would therefore have to be moved elsewhere. Also, this is a huge change that would require a long battle to be implemented. Much better to concentrate this energy on streamlining our policies by merging V and NOR. Hans Adler 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The policy should link to WP:RS which will explain the concept of reliability which seems a better word than truth for what we are expecting here. Warden (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The exact specifics in considerations of truth and accuracy are beyond the scope of WP:V. Removing "not truth" would be like having an electrical-hazards policy which stated the danger is "electrocution not electricity" and removed "not electricity" because there is no need to explain the physics of electricity to avoid electrocution, nor to confuse matters by implying electrocution is not electricity, when it is, in some form. Also, verification requires various tests for truth, and that should be explained in a how-to guide, not in the policy page. Avoid mixing a policy with the how-to steps to meet that policy; have a separate page about accuracy. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not Citizendium. THose who want to change it are invited to join that project, I hear their model is wildly successful... NOT!--Cerejota (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hans Adler that this is a much more radical proposal than was being discussed. It may or may not be good but by mixing it into discussion of a far less radical proposal I think we potentially create problems to get any marginal progress in this difficult discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:V isn't in the truth business now.  It's in the business of telling people that truth (or accuracy) is not a substitute for verifiability, and that we must, with zero exceptions, have verifiability (but not necessarily verified-ness).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I have yet to see any arguments that convince me this approach would not create more problems in contentious spaces outside of the sciences and related fields. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Simplification has the benefit of generality.  What the change camp wants has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability.  As Wikipedia matures, there is a chance that good technical writing will become the norm for policies, and with this view in mind, WP:V has no requirement to mention "truth".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_06 On Wikipedia, we use verifiability, not truth
(a) We don't want to spend time considering unverifiable things that may be true. (b) Likewise, we don't want to spend time considering verifiable things that may be not true. This consideration from WP:V applies across Wikipedia.
 * Oppose. The action in this proposal is unclear.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unclear. What's being proposed?? I suppose it could be useful to add the first two sentences somewhere in the text, by way of explanation, maybe. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree We should be able to agree on part (a).  Part (b) is a loophole applied by the expedient who don't care, or think they should not care, about quality on Wikipedia; and applied by veteran editors who use it as a tactical weapon when convenient.  It is a policy that places quantity over quality.  Half-truths repeated by a few pundits become Wikipedia's truth.  There are forms of evidence (such as the dictionary, and the rule that recent information is more accurate than older information), that are evidence that should be admissible without the current restriction placed by WP:V.  I think this is the big debate, where opposition to part (b) is misrepresented by opponents as opposition to part (a).  Yes, I think the change camp wants to change policy, but we only want to change part (b), not part (a).  I think a gap in the debate has occurred because the change camp has not been clear that relaxing the part (b) restriction requires that editors use evidence, not just editorial opinions. Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both it's statement and confusing wording. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's eccentric to talk about time in this way in a policy. (a) at least makes some sense. (b) can be misunderstood as saying that we don't want to spend time discussing the problem even when we all agree that a "verifiable" claim is clearly not true. So it doesn't even solve the problem. Hans Adler 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unclear. Warden (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Confusing. Does not help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As per discussion on the talk page, this opinion poll was confounded by ambiguous language.  The good news is that Blueboar has coined the phrase "the elephant in the room".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_07 If it isn't broken, don't fix it, and WP:V is not broken

 * Agree, but am prepared to be convinced of rough edges causing problems. The onus is on those arguing for a fix to explain the problem succintly and directly.  I  recommend the use of an essay page to do this, as it has failed to be done successfully at WT:V for the past months.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not broken, but I'm open to the possibility of improving it, and I'm certainly open to the possibility of clearing up the misinterpretation that "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, it's broken. Hans Adler has been providing examples of how it's broken since January.— S Marshall  T/C 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some links, for example? After half an hour, I can find nothing I would call an "example".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my fault, SmokeyJoe, I misremembered. It was actually late December 2010, not January 2011, in this diff.  Hans was talking about the Sam Blacketer controversy (an article which was deleted in 2009) but you can get a flavour of the problems editors encountered in this article from reading Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy.  Is that sufficient or do you want other examples Hans has cited?— S Marshall  T/C 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree (shifting position slightly - see comment below) The Sam Blacketer controversy as it relates here is an example of The Register being used as an RS when it shouldn't have been. The page was actually deleted on notability grounds. The other example provided by Hans is of someone trying to get our article on Santa Claus to be agnostic on his existence because newspapers wrote articles at Christmas time implying he existed. I don't think that's grounds for changing the policy, more like a good case of WP:IAR. I haven't seen any other real world examples of problems supposedly caused by the wording of WP:V. We should also be aware not only of problems that would be solved by changing the wording, but of problems that might increase). Our accuracy/truth work effectively goes on in WP:RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me a diff illustrating how those words have helped.— S Marshall T/C 07:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted elsewhere in this mess of sections that proponents of deleting "not truth" keep creating, but here is a search of article talk pages for "verifiability, not truth". These are people by and large defending the encyclopedia against unsourced fandom, fringe views and various other POV warring. Sample the first page and say what examples you find disturbing for the encyclopedia. I don't see any. I see quite a few issues with WP:RS, which is where any problems over citing "verifiability" actually arise. You don't need to go through the thousands of examples, but exactly what level of evidence that "V, not T" is helping would you need to change your mind on this? Your standards of evidence that it is causing problems seem very low indeed.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to It can be improved. I don't think there is much (if any) substantial evidence that the first sentence is causing poor content inclusion. However, I do think that the most important thing about "Verifiability, not truth" is that it is at least a subsection of policy (not an essay), to which certain editors can be directed via a blue link; there is a case for emphasising instead in the first sentence that verifiability means using reliable sources, and using them appropriately.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree - the "not truth" thing, right up there in the first sentence is "broken". I can't give you diffs, as they're most likely to be on user talk pages, and dotted about all over the place.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree on the implied premise AND the statement.  First, the problems are pervasive enough to call it "broken".   But second, even if it wasn't broken,  it falsely implies that the only time you should improve something is if it is "broken" North8000 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree... the folks who want to remove "not truth" keep saying there are pervasive problems... but I can find no evidence of this. If we look through the actual talk page discussions where this phrase has been pointed to (see the discussions listed here)... the evidence is overwhelming that there isn't a problem.  The discussions show that people do understand what we mean by "Verifiability, not truth"... and are using it appropriately.  It really isn't broken. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The Sam Blacketer controversy problem, the Santa Claus problem and the danger of a public perception that "not truth" means that Wikipedia doesn't even try to be accurate (and is fine with "truthiness") don't go away just because some editor keep repeating that there are no concrete examples of problems. That's just a reckless application of the WP:IDHT technique. The more fundamental problem is that too many editors stretch the application of policies far beyond what they were originally written for, with no regard for whether the outcome makes sense or not. This is not OK, because the policies and guidelines of a wiki will never be idiot-proofed to the extent that this practice would be harmless. In fact, we don't even manage to make related policies consistent with each other. Even laws in the real world must be interpreted reasonably and in context. (Unfortunately the American legal system sets a bad precedent in that some parts of it do not follow this rule, e.g. with the excessive abuse of a "wire fraud" law as a substitute for necessary federal laws that were not passed for strange political reasons. But there is no reason to follow the bad example here.) Hans Adler 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something seems to be very broken. We need clearer language and processes for this fundamental matter. Warden (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:V is broken when stating "not truth". We can no longer ignore the elephant in the room, which is that verification requires a test for truth: it is not logically possible to have verifiability and not have some level of truth at the same time. That is a major reason why so many people have complained about WP:V and why people chime "not truth" when inserting known false text (from published sources); a policy should not even hint that known untrue text is allowed. Sources can get misused because reliability is relative. The Bible is a reliable source about biblical quotes, but not a reliable source about Napoleon at Waterloo. That relative-reliability is why "not truth" opens the door to Bible passages, used as verifiable text, to support untrue ideas outside of biblical topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. A threshold doesn't mean truth doesn't matter to the ultimate product, quite to the contrary.  Do tons of journalistic sources, especially the crap produced in England, suck?  Yes, indeed.  The first sentence of WP:V is not the saviour of the problems of inaccurate reporting and inaccuracies on wikipedia.  Horrified to see so much time wasted on this.  The use of common sense and time actually spent on articles is what improves wikipedia, not 1000 "bosses" running around kvetching.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This policy is broken for all of the reasons above, and has led to hundreds of unnecessary conflicts for many years now, all of which could be prevented by rewriting the policy to focus on the process of evaluating sources for reliability, the essence of verifiability.  This process is used to insure accuracy (yes ) in the editorial presentation of historical facts, evidence, testimony, quotes, POV, and other types of content that we use to write articles.  This means that anyone can check our work and verify that the sources were evaluated correctly and used accurately.  When we instruct editors how to evaluate sources for reliability, this will eliminate most of the problems. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - There is this little known policy, called WP:IAR, which exists precisely so that rules don't encumber improvement. People will fight no matter what the rules say - but for every example of fighting, I give you thousands of excellent articles that follow this rules with no problems. Blaming this rule for problems is like blaming the laws of gravity for suicides from tall buildings: it makes no sense.--Cerejota (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree. Not only with the panglossian statement itself, but also with the whole attitude which (the way it pans out) effectively tries to forbid improvement. If we can write something more clearly, why not do it? I just noticed North8000 said the same. There are in effect two things to agree with or disagree with here. This is a classic case of begging the question. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree - "Not broken, don't fix" applies to situations where something is clearly not broken. That isn't the case here. Some editors may silently leave Wikipedia if they don't understand the rules. Wikipedia is losing contributors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree This is an editorial issue, not a semantic one.  According to the MoS Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence.   The lead is the place to explain as clearly as possible, what the policy is all about.  Either not truth or not whether editors think it is true needs to go.  I believe that the latter provides far more clarity and should therefore be the one to stay.Crazynast 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, more or less, but I think it is possible to explain the concept better in subsequent sentences. In fact, I believe that previous versions of the policy have done a better job on that point.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the basic premise that V is not broken. That said, I acknowledge that we could make improvements to wording to address some of the concerns about the policy. There is a lot of territory between broken and perfect. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But given the wording of this poll, does that mean you oppose the position? I understand the implication of this poll question was that no improvement should be attempted. Maybe it should have been worded differently. I think a lot of people including myself agree the policy is ok and does not need to be changed. We just think the explanation wording needs to be improved. Does that come under "fixing"? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_08 Jrincayc New2 proposal

 * Oppose "complete". "Complete" is a worthy goal, but it is not the business of the WP:V to define goals.  In practice, the goal of a "complete" encyclopedia is in competition with the goal of an "accurate" encyclopedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Better to keep the existing first sentence, and then provide clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "complete". I could see this, as a new sentence, creating all sorts of problems with people using it as an excuse to include all sorts of non-encyclopaedic stuff. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support But not my preferred resolution.  One good thing is that it states the intent / purpose  of wp:ver.  But the wording sounds conversational.   North8000 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Poor attempt, and in particular completeness has no business in WP:V. It's bad enough that "not truth" has acquired an anti-fringe meaning. (Anti-fringe tools are fine, but this one doesn't belong in WP:V.) I strongly oppose generalising it in this way while making it much less useful when dealing with fringers. Hans Adler 12:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not possible for Wikipedia to be complete as new topics continually arise. Warden (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because it would be an improvement. It might need tweaking though, in order to have any chance of wide acceptance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose partly, Support partly - Verifiability is the topic of the policy and its meaning should be given as soon as possible. I think this is what editors are advised to do when writing articles in general. However the last part beginning with threshold would be an improvement because it removes the unclear "not truth" while retaining the present meaning of policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A gift to minority POV pushers, who could then delete any verifiable material they dislike as being "inaccurate" and therefore not permitted by WP:V.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, does not fix anything worth fixing. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've heard that there is someplace that defines the goals of Wikipedia, it would be nice to know where that is and what it says.  Or maybe "The goal of Wikipedia..." belongs on a "Rationale page". Meanwhile, I disagree with this proposal as to why we have verifiability, I think that verifiability is a blame game...and this is ok, because things that are verifiably inaccurate are legitimate material for an encyclopedia.  I wonder if there is an essay on inaccurate material and Wikipedia...Sometimes we need to alert readers so that they won't be surprised, sometimes well-known errors have a story around them, sometimes opinionated authors say dubious things that draw followers and it is appropriate to quote such authors.  The point is that inaccurate things often do not have zero weight...  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_09 Pesky's proposal

 * I like the effort, but try again. This is not a good use of the word threshold.  Threshold is a singlular thing without degrees or steps.  Unless you want to define steps to inclusion, it doesn't really work.  WP:V is not the threshold.  Perhaps it is the first hurdle.  Even the main, or most important hurdle.  WP:NOR and WP:N present other hurdles.  It would be easier to adopt the language of WP:Attribution.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "the first checkbox" - provided that we explain somewhere that there are several boxes to be ticked before material can be included? I thing "hurdle" sounds as though getting anything included is like an obstacle course (even though, on some pages, that may be true!) The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having to (mentally) tick several boxes on material before it can be included. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 09:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written here, but I'm receptive to the concept. Take a look at the archives. I proposed something similar, but editors complained that things don't actually happen in this chronological order. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest primary threshold or initial threshold... which implies that there are other thresholds. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh, yes, I like that one :o) Changing to initial. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Has potential.— S Marshall T/C 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with either of Blueboar's suggestions incorporated as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support  Gets rid of "not truth", but "initial threshold" is logically problematic.  North8000 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. My only problem with this is that I doubt it would be stable as it sounds like a rough first draft. But as such it's fine, Hans Adler 12:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tautology - thresholds are initial by definition. Warden (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so how about if the word "threshold" was replaced by "requirement"? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 01:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - You have the basic improvement of first defining verifiability, before going into other aspects of inclusion. "The initial requirement", "The first requirement" and "The primary requirement", are all improvements. I lean towards the last one.  Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose cause it eliminates all meaning from the line and turns it into a Simple Wikipedia-level thing.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you define in precisely which way it eliminates all meaning, so that I can consider some rewording to overcome your objection? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Odd wording, but just marginally an improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose overall, but the addition of the word "initial" might be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned above that similar ideas were discussed earlier, and might offer some possibly better options for the wording. The earlier discussion is archived at: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence/V FS Archive 49. With new editors looking at this page, it may be worth looking back there again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I'm more than happy to work with you on some kind of combination of these ideas. I'm sure that, amongst all of us, we can come up with something genuinely good, rather than just a no-win compromise.  My ideas above aren't set in stone, by any means; consider it a jumping-off point which is eminently tweakable :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm game, but only if other editors are. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, at the moment, with various tweaks and suggtestions for improvement, we have something like the following:
 * I don't particularly think that "primary" fixes things that much. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I switched to "primary requirement", rather than using the word threshold, to get over the (perfectly valid) comments about the word threshold. I'm getting so bogged down in this that the words are oozing around the page here - I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's affecting us all the same way! :D  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 04:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiability is the only requirement for inclusion.  Other considerations may lead to verifiable material being excluded.  See: Wikipedia:Policy sculpting: inclusion versus exclusion  Unscintillating (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you can only call it the "only" requirement if you are using some special definition of a requirement. What about notability? What about there being a consensus, simply that it is written English which is good enough to stay in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The question of whether verifiability is the "primary" requirement is a new one, which needs a new consensus. Do we need to have a definition of which requirement is primary? Why do we need to do that? Seems against the spirit of WP:IAR to developing rules no one is asking for. Anyway, I believe our aim in these particular discussions it to get a new wording which conveys the existing policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More than happy to keep tweaking; I put in "primary" to get over the thing where it seemed as though, once you've passed the "threshold" of verifiability, everything should be included. Regardless of notability, NPOV, or anything else....  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_10 First sentence jolt
The phrase "not truth" is important because it's counter-intuitive; it gives new editors a jolt, and they suddenly "get it".
 * I see its usefulness in breaking a mistaken assumption. Maybe it need not be in the first sentence.  Maybe a link to the essay Verifiability, not truth would be sufficient for the few who need this specific education.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a good point. It really does work that way. And that has helped make Wikipedia the success that it is. I like the idea of preserving the jolt, but explaining it a little better. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tryptofish. We don't need to get rid of it... we need to do a better job of explaining it. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I agree that it gives new editors a jolt.  That's because of cognitive dissonance.  I don't agree that this is a good thing and I seriously doubt that any new editors have experienced a glorious epiphany of comprehension because someone's told them the truth isn't relevant to writing an encyclopaedia.— S Marshall  T/C 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree As of now this is an example of an editor's opinion that is not verifiable with diffs.  Once we have some evidence, if it exists, we have a basis to analyze alternatives to the current wording.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree As a new editor it gave me a jolt, and I experienced a glorious epiphany, but not the one described above. This was because the phrase absolutely does not imply the encyclopedia does not care about truth, it implies that, being an open wiki, to protect its accuracy the encyclopedia has rules to stop people putting in any old fringe idea they thought up, or indeed doing original research, no matter how good the editor thinks it is. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the only reason that retaining it is important is that it's quoted so much - if it hadn't been, I'd want to remove it altogether. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree You don't need a "jolt" to write an effective policy, and this "jolt" has spawned widespread mis-interpretations of the policy. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have examples of widespread misinterpretations? No one has provided any evidence at all that there is a widespread problem relating to the first sentence. It's been a handful (ie less than five) of debatable examples so far.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I provided them many many times and everybody keeps "forgetting" and saying it hasn't been done yet. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then provide a few diffs. Honestly, all I've seen is you make this claim repeatedly and then repeatedly "forget" to back it up.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * [Request that as per Polling page instuctions, this off-topic and editor-to-editor commentary be refactored to the talk page]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the second half of the statement, but disagree with the first ("is important"). That the counter-intuitive nature of the statement makes it the stuff that people struggle with for a while, then accept and defend vigorously against change. The fighting that we are seeing here is reminiscent of the fighting about counter-intuitive religious dogmas, or odd orthographical or typographical rules (such as double spacing in manuscripts, or putting trailing commas inside quotations even if they logically belong outsided -- a rule that was created to prevent physical typefaces from breaking but is still defended by some as if changing it would threaten the Western world). This is an explanation why it is so hard to get rid of this sentence, and a reason not to elevate such paradoxical slogans in this way in the first place. But it's definitely not a reason to keep it. Hans Adler 12:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so the language of its policies should be plain and straightforward. Rhetorical flourishes and subtleties such as irony should be avoided as they may be misunderstood or taken literally. Warden (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree It is a quick and dirty IQ test. If you don't get it, you shouldn't edit wikipedia because you are lacking them noogin capacities to do boffin things. Supporters want any good old dumb 'Merican to be able to follow these here rules. Lets not spoon-feed - if you want to write an encyclopedia, show some brain juice...--Cerejota (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree - It simply doesn't make sense and special wikipedia definitions of "verifiability" and "truth" are needed later to make any sense of it and isn't a clear style of writing. I don't agree with the idea that having a deliberately unclear phrase is a good way of communicating.   Bob K31416 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Everyone gets something different, especially the first time. The phrase might work still with tweaking, re-positioning, or some better explanation attached. Currently it is in a vacuum which allows for multiple logical interpretations. It requires a senior high priest in order to have its true meaning explained. Only after various levels of such initiation do Wikipedians start to "get the [correct] jolt" - not the first time they read it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. That shouldn't stop us from explaining it better, though.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree Per Andrew and Bob, also see my more detailed analysis of this issue on the talk page.Crazynast 09:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree in general. The jolt described doesn't alway occur, but does often create a pause within which an acolyte familiar with the rites of truth and beauty can illuminate the uninitiated (with due respect for Andrew Lancaster). What we need senior high priests for is explaining how noticeboards interact, how ani works, and mediation and arbcom procedures. We do need to improve the explanation, though. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll V_FC_P_12 Do not remove the "not truth" phrase from the policy page, even if deprecated
The phrase "verifiability, not truth" should not be entirely removed from the policy page, at least not in the near future. If the phrase is deprecated, the phrase should remain, probably as a footnote.

Rationale: See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44 where, IMO, a consensus quickly developed to deprecate and not remove "verifiability, not truth". Besides other reasons, a technical reason for this is that the Google search on ["verifiability not truth" site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 564 pages that quote the phrase. Wikipedia:No original research, for example, is a policy that quotes the phrase. Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deprecate but leave in elsewhere. Having the "not truth" thing farther down the page, as opposed to in that first sentence, wouldn't be a bad way to go. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Removing entirely the long-standing wording is too big a change.  The meaning of "not truth" is unchanged lower down.  The alleged problems would be less severe.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't remove, and don't deprecate either. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. I do think there is some merit to the idea that we should focus exclusively on defining Verifiability in the opening paragraph... and I agree that the issues involved with assertions of "truth" (and assertions of "untruth") need to be explained better than they are.  which brings me to thinking that perhaps we should create a new section (working title: "Verifiability vs. the assertion of truth"?) in which to do so... the phrase "verifiability, not truth" might work better if it were made in a clearer context like that. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire. "We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what sources say. We want to only write true things in Wikipedia, and we want to verify them." (quoting Jimbo).— S Marshall  T/C 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree I think this is important to building consensus and moving forward that we get everyone to agree that it would be irresponsible to remove this phrase without an explanation right on the policy page of why, and at this point I think a footnote to quote the previous version of the policy is sufficient to that end.  I think the last thing we need is new proposals that try to dismiss 500 existing references, as this will only lead to polarization and wasting time, not consensus.  We need to at least keep a footnote, if not more.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree Completely get rid of "not truth".  But what an unclear /confusing question! Literally it just says "don't totally remove it" but  most will read it as "deprecate".   So who knows what the results will mean. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. If the sentence is removed entirely or tweaked a lot (e.g. removing "truth" altogether), then over the next few years the original sentence should still appear somewhere outside the official policy text to prevent confusion. This could be in a footnote, or in a sidebar that links to the essay that explains the sentence. Hans Adler 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * weak agree because well, it shouldn't be changed at all --Cerejota (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * disagree - "Verifiability" alone is clearer and better in discussions. It would be better not to encourage the use  of the phrase "verifiability not truth"  which even proponents believe is unclear by itself.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * agree. This is acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I wouldn't deprecate it or bury it in a footnote, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - This is absurd. And we all know what "appealing to Jimbo" leads to. Subverting consensus (in many cases). Doc   talk  05:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree It's used a lot by editors trying to explain to POVs and new editors (Almost 1400 hits on article talkpages). It needs to be somewhere in policy. Essays are just essays, at least to someone trying to wikilawyer.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Agree this concept needs to stay (probably in the lead, just not the first sentence.)Crazynast 09:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, I don't think we should remove "not truth" from the lede, but if we do, it should be in the body of the policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)