Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Archive 1

Begins March 2012
diff


 * Thanks for pointing out the editors I missed - I've added them now. I don't consider the current user list to be exhaustive, or even particularly logical. I was hoping I could have some help from you and the other users involved on this point. If any of the involved users have a spare moment, could you go through the list, remove any editors that don't belong there, and add any that I forgot? I would really appreciate it. I did think it was important to also include the main editors involved in the large "verifiability, not truth" RfC, as they would probably be interested in participating - it's probably best not to remove editors purely because they have not participated in the latest discussions. They can always remove themselves if they would rather not take part. As to being premature/anachronistic, this mediation is only going to go ahead if all the main editors involved in the discussion are on board. If some editors decide that the best way forward would be something other than mediation, then that would be fine by me. I care more about making the decision that's best for Wikipedia than about this mediation per se. Let me know if you have any other questions or comments. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how these things work. Am I allowed to remove myself? In any case, I am no longer involved. After being insulted by Arbcom, apparently in the interest of idiot retention, I am no longer taking part in community processes. Hans Adler 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can remove themselves. I've done it for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that happened, Hans. I will miss your input, concerning WP:V and elsewhere.— S Marshall  T/C 23:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed my name per my comments here, and here. If anyone's really interested in my view, it's basically nutshelled here.  Good luck!  Dreadstar  ☥   06:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed myself too, now that I see why I was included. NewbyG is clueless; I have not "taken on" or involved myself here, just a few grammar tweaks.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, anyone can make mistakes, for any number of reasons. But it's really not on to say "Editor X is clueless", now, is it?  Pesky  (talk ) 07:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually it's not a good idea, I agree, to point out that an editor is clueless, but NewbyG has been pestering me for weeks, and my impression is that he just makes noise because he's clueless about what's going on. I inititated the contact by filing an AN/I complaint about him, and now he won't leave me alone.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

diff


 * Who gets to be on this page is up to the moderator, ie user:Mr Stradivarius. And see #Mediator notes as at this date --.
 * --It's really quite an honour .. with .. this many experienced users, might actually exceed one million. I'm excited to think of I would like your help with that It's fine to just remove yourself from the list if you don't want to take part. Also, if you know of any editors who I have missed, feel free to just add them yourself. Please also add yourself if you want to join and I haven't included you--.
 * NewbyG ( talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

diff

Move for closure
The page has come on in leaps and bounds over the last couple of weeks and there is now a thread expressing satisfaction with its wording on WT:V. None of the editors who exhibited the behaviours I saw as problematic and obstructive are still participating, either at WT:V or here; they appear to have thrown in the towel (some with more sour grapes than others). In their absence it has finally been possible to make good progress. It's unfortunate and not a little bewildering that the page has been re-protected partway through the resulting period of productive editing, but I think the dispute is basically over, and assuming some reasonable variant of the current version sticks, I believe we should remove the tag and close the mediation.— S Marshall T/C 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit premature, I think... we have thought that the dispute was "basically over" several times before... only to have someone who had been away from the debate for a few days (or even a week or so) suddenly show up again and upset the apple cart. That said, there does seem to be some progress... so I would support a pause in the mediation process. If the dispute is indeed really over, and progress continues to be made, we can close this mediation... but it is a nice backup to have, just in case. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SMarshal.Your comment is unfair and untrue, and it is beyond my comprehension that you would try to pass it off as a reason that the page has settled down. There are multiple editors who have left that discussion who so obviously tried to find ground for agreement. Do not attribute the progress, if there is any, to the fact that some editors choose to move away form what seemed an unending cycle of disagreement. That the field is open for changes, I for example, would not agree with, does not mean editors who have left were the cause the problems , it simply means the field is open. I remind you that you stated explicitly that you would refuse to compromise. And statements like this do not give  hope that anything can be decided which represents a consensus of all editors. Thank you for discrediting an group of editors who honestly did their best to find way forward. I suggest this mediation stay open  so all editors can have input in an environment that fosters fairness.(olive (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I agree with you in only one respect, Littleolive oil. I have very often been willing to compromise: I was among the first to support Blueboar's compromise, and Doc9871's proposed compromise, for example.  I was unwilling to compromise on one specific occasion and on one specific proposal.  Also, I can't agree that the departed editors were doing their best to find a way forward, since what they were trying to do was find a way not to move at all.  The only respect in which I agree with you is that there was never any hope of finding a consensus of all editors.  There never is.  This is Wikipedia, where there's always someone who takes a contrary position and will defend it til the cows come home; virtually any important decision we make has winners and losers.  Still, we can't allow minority groups to stall forever.— S Marshall  T/C 16:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on the over-all size of the minority group ... the objections of one or two nay-sayers can sometimes be ignored... the objections of a hundred nay-sayers can not be, even when they constitute a minority when compared to supporters. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet in this case I don't think it is correct to imply that this was "a" minority. For example, we have the "true believers" in WP:V, those that believe that Wikipedia really doesn't care about truth.  Then we have the "jolt" faction that is concerned about believers in TruthTM.  In theory, these two groups are on opposite sides of the fence of ambiguity.  There is a third faction that sees only the literal meaning in the VNT figure of speech, and doesn't agree that VNT is intended to have a "punch" or "jolt".  Of course, it is unfair to suggest that only those who voted with the minority held these views, the point remains that we need to be getting people on the same page.  We've got the Jimbo viewpoint to integrate that truth should be a policy, then we've got the advanced editors that fight for ambiguity in the policy because they can work both sides of the meaning with newbies.  Can we  you all even agree that policy belongs on policy pages?  Can you all agree that editors writing policy should use good technical writing?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There are layers in creating something. An understanding of what the meaning is -an overarching sense, the more specific terms used to bring meaning to light, and the technical writing which will best convey meaning.. What I would say from that perspective is that we have failed to delineate these levels of understanding. For example, discussion of the overarching might be answered with a point about meaning, or a technical point. The result is a muddle. Delineate the levels, discuss and come to agreement on each, express in good technical writing and the thing is done. Easier said than done of course.(olive (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC))


 * SMarshall. This sadly is the POV that limits progress, that what another editor proposes is intractable and wrong while what "I" propose is the right way and the way forward. (olive (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC))


 * WP:V is currently protected, so technically there are "no" editors currently contributing. I did not mean to be, and was not, dismissive about this mediation in my initial comment above. It is simply a matter of timing, since we are volunteers and wikipedia is not compulsory, things change in wikipediaspace with the speed of electrons. I have been unable to withdraw completely from WP:V, you can see why, and I may if possible at some time before it goes live revisit my option to contribute here. Unfortunately, WT:V continues to shed more heat than light. Withdrawal from the page is an honourable option at this time, speaking for myself, in compliance with a wiki's true values, (Leave it to others now). NewbyG  ( talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Newbyguesses, I had understood from this edit that you have withdrawn from the process. If you wish to re-engage, then I will be delighted to answer the very numerous accusations you have made against me, here and elsewhere, on the understanding that the mediation process will involve discussing your conduct as well as mine.  On the other hand, if you would prefer to disengage, then you should cease to participate.  What's not okay is for you to remove yourself from the mediation process and then begin your scattershot accusations in yet another venue.— S Marshall  T/C 22:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:S Marshall. You fail to understand. What is not right is that you see this venue as an opportunity to continue your program of disruption at WP:V, and an arena to continue to make aspersions about many many other users, not just myself, while exempting *yourself* from fair criticism. I welcome any scrutiny of my actions, but would genuinely wish to withdraw from the unpleasantness and foolishness at WT:V, for my sake, and in compliance with the proper wiki-course. NewbyG  ( talk) 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. You can stop accusing me and withdraw from the page, or you can continue, in which case I will post diffs showing your bizarre, incoherent and highly disruptive behaviour on WT:V.  I will go on to post diffs of you making many personal attacks against me in many different venues.  Or you can genuinely withdraw.  What's not going to happen is you withdrawing from the process and then firing accusations at me on the talk page without repercussions.  Capisce?— S Marshall  T/C 23:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It remains unclear to me what the key content issues are here, because of all the noise in the last month. The lame tag dispute is too prominent, relative to actual issues. If someone wants to have a focused discussion or an RFC, I might have an opinion, but right now I can't even tell who is arguing for what, or where the disagreements are. As for the current version being an OK compromise, I'd agree it's not awful, but I'm not really happy with verifiability being a reader ability; it should be defined more as a content attribute, but I can understand the intent at least. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion
IMHO, while few have noticed, we might have already settled the hot issue, if (just) the items relevant to it in the current version are considered acceptable / stable. Then we move on to the chaos of the zillion other good (but often imperfect) ideas, unrelated to the "dispute", under discussion, that have been discussed, with some drafted into the current version. Either way, I support and will participate in this effort. An organized effort such as this will do good things even if my prior "settled" statement were correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about VNT... I am not so sure that the "hot issue" has been settled. I did not see much in the way of stability on that prior to the page being locked... and people are still posting competing proposals on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you may be right. My thought was that there was no specific objection to the specific changes that may have resolved that particular issue.  I am not pushing this particular "take" on the situation, I just want people to notice that that possibility exists.  In either case, for many reasons, this mediation or "mediation" process is an excellent idea which should be carried through to its conclusion.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for behavioural contract here
It's become brutally evident that virtually any comment here containing a username or personal pronoun has the potential to divert discussion of substance into discussion of editors. Can we agree to avoid using these entirely, on pain of summary redaction?
 * agree as proposer LeadSongDog come howl!  14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How pleasant that would be, here or on most any talk page, yes, agree for this page and the other(s). NewbyG  ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I like it in principle but I think it's unworkable in practice. We need names to discuss viewpoints etc.    How bout making the rule applicable to only negative or unfriendly talk? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is fine to neutrally use someone's name to identify what you are talking about(as in: "NewbyG's proposal", or "LeadSongDog's suggestion")... It is also fine to direct a question to a particular person (as in: "@North: Could you clarify why you prefer the word X over the word Y." What isn't fine is to talk about an editor or their behavior (as in: "Blueboar is being disruptive and is stonewalling"). Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really unworkable, as we can still refer to specific edits (that's what difflinks and/or timestamps are for). Admittedly it takes a little extra thought on how to phrase things. However, the "negative or unfriendly" bit could easily be covered by the understanding that "summary" powers include the authority to ignore relatively innocuous usage such as "I like it in principle" and "I think". Anyone (whether taking offense or not) would still be free to redact such usage without prejudice to the discussion. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think those of us who are disputants should redact each other's comments (that will just lead to more dispute and accusations)... however, if Strad (ie the agreed upon Mediator) wishes to redact something, that is fine. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is reasonable --if Strad (ie the agreed upon Mediator) wishes to redact something, that is fine.
 * I will go along with anything that is reasonable, on any page, so no problemo then if I use "Proposal 8" for instance in preference to NewbyG's proposal" What's the diff? Not much, if civility can be stablized, the POLpage too. I kinda think of it like a  blind taste test  NewbyG  ( talk) 16:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sound good. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree to this, not least because this proposal would mean I'm not allowed to say "I don't agree to this"! I also do not agree to avoid personal pronouns or usernames because the purpose of a talk page is to talk to people in an effort to seek resolution, and that means discussing and discriminating between my view, your view, his view, and her view.  I also think that on a mediation page, when editors have agreed to participate in mediation, it's legitimate to discuss the behaviours that brought us to mediation in the first place.  In fact, it's not just legitimate.  If mediation is to meaningfully bring closure, then it's going to be necessary to bottom out conduct issues.  And, I've been accused of a whole lot of things over the last few months, and I would very much appreciate the opportunity to clear my name of the various conduct accusations that (certain editors) have made against me.  Finally, I very strongly believe that editors who are either not participating in the mediation or have not agreed to the guidelines Mr Stradivarius posted, should cease to participate here unless and until they are willing to name themselves as a party.— S Marshall  T/C 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Motion to close - um, not yet. Gone quiet, aint it?
 * This seems reasonable --it's <(not)> legitimate to discuss the behavio(u)rs that brought us to mediation in the first place. It's legitimate to discuss the editing. It is proper to discuss the diffs. Whatever  NewbyG  ( talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are not limited to those taking part in the dispute. While I don't expect to continue to discuss here, others may wish to, and as long as they are civil and dealing with the topic at hand there are no "laws" which can exclude them. In fact, they should be welcomed. Who knows. Perhaps some uninvolved editor will come up with a novel way of dealing with the issues.(olive (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC))
 * No, look, this is really completely unfair on me. What's happened here is that a user has visited this talk page to declare their intention not to participate while simultaneously linking a set of accusations of bad faith against me (diff).  Other users have withdrawn from the process (diff) and then under the pretext of claiming to withdraw, proceeded to spatter this talk page with personal attacks on me (diff).  I object to this in the strongest possible terms.  Participants should name themselves and sign up.  Non-participants should please go away.— S Marshall  T/C 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire to defend oneself when one feel's wrongly "accused" ... it is a natural reaction... but this isn't the place for it. There have been enough "accusations" and "counter-accusations" tossed about - by multiple people.  It's time for everyone to stop.  If you can not... take it to WP:AN. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Attacks and blame do not belong here, I'd agree, and yes it is hard to not defend oneself when one has been accused wrongly,  when blame is laid at one's  door. The best way forward is to let it all go and deal with the issues at hand. (olive (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC))


 * Linking to insults made elsewhere is the same as making the insults here. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment to everyone: Someone else may have started it... but you can end it. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @user:Blueboar-- would not take it to alert be the first, baby step here.  NewbyG  ( talk) 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On closer review of wp:TPO we find "Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." This is such a good idea, it deserves to get its own shortcut. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Conduct has been, and is continuing to be, an issue. My position is that mediation should address it.— S Marshall  T/C 20:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mediation_Committee/Policy pertains. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. You certainly all like to talk! I was surprised to find that this talk page had doubled in length while I was asleep. About the behavioural contract, there is already something like this contained in the ground rules: namely, "Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature." Hopefully this will be enough as far as agreements are concerned. I am only one editor, of course, and sometimes it might take a while before I see things that I think may need refactoring. However, I think that it will probably be easier on everyone involved if you leave archiving and redacting to me.

Also, I want to echo Blueboar's sentiment here - I can see that there have been some conduct issues and acrimony in the past, but now is the time to forget about differences with other editors and work together for the good of the 'pedia. According to the plan, editors' personal opinions won't even change the outcome too much - the idea is to make the drafts primarily based on feedback from the RfC, rather than any single person's ideal version. As I see it, this will be a lot like editing an article to be from a neutral point of view. Though the drafts will have distinct differences, no-one reading them should be able to tell where the loyalties of any individual drafters lie. The time to reveal our loyalties will be in the RfC, not in the drafting process. Hope this clarifies things, but as usual feel free to ask more questions. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to the question of this section, I think that there is one word "you", especially, to routinely edit out of posts. The US Congress direct their comments to the speaker or president as a matter of routine. Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like it's getting too detailed. The general theme is talk about the mission/content, not editors. No ad hominem tactics, and no nastiness towards editors. Let's make this enjoyable. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * owwwwww! [Pesky whines]. I don't think I can be capable of not using names, or words like "you" and "me".  I would just forget, and get it all wrong, and then get upset and feeling guilty, and I have enough on my plate already ... What I can do, though, is promise not to be nasty about anyone.  Is that good enough?  Pesky  (talk ) 14:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, I would have the same difficulty, so your promise is good enough for me. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So if anyone gets miffed with us, we can hide in a mutually-supportive corner together, yes? Pesky  (talk ) 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From recent /Archive 57

 * Here is where the "conduct in question" began, back discussing an "edit conflict" at WT:V 13 Feb 2012.

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 57


 * Stop removing the tag. The stable position at the moment is that VNT remains in the policy provided the tag remains, so that editors are not fooled into mistakenly believing that VNT enjoys consensus support.  If editors insist on repeatedly and disruptively removing the tag because they don't like it, or because they wish to pretend that VNT is a mainstream view, then my response will be to repeatedly remove VNT from the policy and encourage others to do so as well.— S Marshall  T/C 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now we get a *cute* tag on this page, and another statement of battle-field intentions. Either surreal or poisonous, shall it take till next Saturday to decide? NewbyG  ( talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to the editing policy and talk page guidelines
 * 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) We are reminded, belatedly, of the editing policy,  editing talk pages and  being civil. As  we were in the beginning wiki. --


 * This would be the beginning of poor conduct from (at least, read on) two users : understand it's stale; from the/this forward-looking perspective. Users have made up their differences before. Peace! NewbyG  ( talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not going to ignore this. It's natural justice that I have a right to reply to Newbyguesses.  I have tried hard to disengage with this user and he's making it absolutely impossible, constantly reposting this one single remark out of context and making accusations against me in many venues.  Newbyguesses' slide into complete, incoherent insanity began on 20th February, a day when he made upwards of sixty edits to WT:V, starting with the relatively mild ("bulloney" and "clue needed"), then scaling up ("a joke" and "chronically incompetent"), outraged ("How Dare you" and "Weaselly"), back to the insults ("sly, clever and egg-sucking" and "a fool"--amazing how I can be so sly and clever and yet totally devoid of all rational thought at the same time, isn't it?), "sly" and "toxic", and, well, I could go on and on. In fact, I think I will.  "fanaticicists, fascists and factionists".  "Pathetic posturing" and "Sly cowardly behaviour.  Weak behaviour", "bullies", "skin thinner than a plastic wrap and an intellectual level which does not register on the meter" and "a pattern of cowardly and underhanded actions, undertaken by user:S Marshall, pathetic, and foolish" (Newbyguesses certainly can pack a whole lot of insults into one diff, can't he?)  Having produced this enormous list of insults, Newbyguesses then goes on to admonish me because I have failed to show respect and, in a masterpiece of unintentional irony, he tells me that "It's deeply unfair to good-faith, constructive editors to have to jump through an exhausting series of hoops to deal with obvious disruption". Note carefully that all these diffs are from the same day, 20th February.  It was Newbyguesses' worst day, although certainly not the only time he's completely lost contact with rational editing practices.  I have absolutely no idea where all this would have ended if Leadsongdog hadn't come to the rescue here and remonstrated with Newbyguesses to stop disrupting WT:V.  Hilariously, Newbyguesses' resposse is to complain about the insults flying about on that page, as if he wasn't responsible for 99% of them. In the end Newbyguesses was temporarily blocked and SarekOfVulcan spent an hour of his life removing disruption from the page. I've swallowed all this, and the unpleasantness Newbyguesses later went on to level at me on AN/I, and to be quite frank, I'm sick and tired of it and I want it to stop.— S Marshall  T/C 00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

S Marshal, I would like to compliment you on, despite being tough and blunt when needed, for dealing on a very high plane at wp:ver. The fact that if someone searched everything that you said for the last year to try to find the the statement that sounds the most borderline when taken out of context, the most that they could come up with is I believe the the above quoted one (and the context of that moment was certainly important) is further testament to the exemplary manner that you have conducted yourself here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, everybody, lets be nice. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @S Marshall - I see that you are tired of all the disruption that has surrounded these issues, and I totally understand. There has been a lot of discussion about editors' motives and behaviour, and I agree that all of that has to stop. However, I think this mediation should be primarily about content, about creating the actual drafts themselves. If we have a few conduct issues between editors in the course of making the drafts, then of course we will deal with them, but otherwise I don't think conduct issues belong in this mediation. My worry is that dealing with conduct issues extensively would distract everyone from the real goal of drafting policy text. I recommend that you think seriously about taking this to an RfC/U - it would be an excellent place to air conduct issues, and could go on at the same time as this mediation. Would this be an acceptable solution for you? Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And the tag dispute is not a conduct issue? Mediator has stipulated that the topic was being discussed while he slept, so I'd suggest that the mediator take his own advice that conduct issues don't belong in this mediation, and strike either Ground Rules point 4 or the last sentence of Ground rules point 4.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that it would be particularly controversial to remove the tag for a limited amount of time in exchange for a mediation process working towards a lasting resolution. Obviously I was wrong, and if it helps matters I can rethink my approach. Unscintillating, would you be willing to participate in this mediation if I struck the last sentence of ground rule number four? And would anyone else have any objections to this sentence being removed? Also, I note that as WP:V is protected at the moment, I wouldn't be able to remove the tag anyway. I don't think the tagging issue is important enough to make an edit request over; I'd prefer to just get on with the mediation and find a lasting resolution. Let me know your thoughts. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unscintillating (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The tag is a necessity to maintain the overall balance needed to resolve the issue. Efforts to remove it without resolving the underlying issue would be incendiary rather than steps towards resolution.   I'm here (only) because that rule made it clear that we're here to resolve the underlying issue, not debate the tag.  I made this very clear from the beginning.   Changing the rule would change everything regarding this. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take careful note of the mediator's assurance here that any conduct issues that arise during this mediation will be addressed. I am proceeding on the very clear and specific understanding that this is so. I would like to continue with this mediation and achieve a stable policy.  I see that there is a rough consensus forming around pronouns, but I see it as a little impractical.   I wish to continue to use first and third person personal pronouns.  I agree to avoid names and second person personal pronouns on this page, except that I reserve the right to use them in questions (so I could ask "What do you mean by that, North8000?" rather than having to say "I am uncertain what my esteemed colleague means by that and would be grateful if he could clarify".) Let's get past this and start the drafting process.— S Marshall  T/C 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @North8000 - I'm not talking about removing the entire rule, but just the last sentence of that rule that says "I [Mr. Stradivarius] intend to remove the tag until the RfC is live, keep it in for the duration of the RfC, and remove it again when the RfC is closed." Removing this sentence would mean that the tag remains in the policy for the entire progress of the mediation. The provision about editors not adding, removing, editing, or discussing the tag would remain. (You're all allowed to discuss the tag in this particular thread, though.) As I have said before, I don't consider the tag that big a deal, but if it will affect the participation of the editors involved then I think it bears careful consideration. North, would this be acceptable to you? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not review it precisely enough and misunderstood. That is fine with me.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have struck the sentence in question. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Organizational note: I think that there are 5 areas:


 * 1) Solve the underlying hot issue.  Possibly already solved enough; if so that fact has been lost in the chaos.
 * 2) The tag. Awaiting #1
 * 3) A few cases of editor nastiness
 * 4) Lots of new ideas for the first paragraph, many in areas unrelated to #1
 * 5) Concern that there has recently been too much editing of the first paragraph while working on #1 and #4.

I guess we're working on #1 and #4 here, which will also help on #5 and eventually solve #2. Unclear whether this process addresses #3, the prevailing thought seems to be to exclude nastiness from this process but not address it here. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Step 2 Drafts, 'bout 7 - 10 days from now
Here's a few to kick things off or what, + a workshop page editors can and have used w/r/t drafts from WT:V --> the workshop. NewbyG ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strad proposed something similar in opening this mediation. His suggestion was that we break into small workgroups, and come up with several proposals for the broader community to consider in another community wide RfC.  That said, let's let him decide when and how to set it up (he is the moderator here, after all). Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, much thanks go to and are due to User:Mr. Stradivarius already! And see the Mediation agenda : Step eight: We put the RfC up live, and advertise it widely, including a watchlist notice. Scheduled length: 31 days. |  Step ten: : | Finished! (Total scheduled length: 61 days)
 * Phew! NewbyG  ( talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

re the image... not a very hopeful analogy to make... considering what happened to the Long Parliament?


 * Ah but they gave it ~ their best : hopefully won't be as bad this time around. --

prematurely step seven
diff NewbyG  ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Step two
Just clarifying, you mean what the individual would consider to be most ideal rather than (at this early point) trying to craft a compromise version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 March 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Yes, that is exactly what I mean. :) — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know why I wasn't named in this mediation, but I could present a draft if that's allowed. I don't have much time just now. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Becritical! You were listed before, but I removed you yesterday because I hadn't heard that you wanted to participate. I'll re-list you - could you agree to the ground rules and provide a statement as well as presenting your draft? Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 21:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have dropped out, I'll get to it if I can. Thanks (:  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Step three
Suggestion (not sure if I'm right about this?): How about combining three of the points into one, as follows: "The "verifiability, not truth" text needs clarification, because the term "not truth" harms the public perception of Wikipedia as not caring about accuracy, and inside of Wikipedia "not truth" denigrates or works against efforts to provide accuracy." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO with that degree of consolidation we'd end up with just two big items. For example, combining one that involves outside world perception with on about affects on editor behavior.     I haven't read / figured how this will be used; whether combining multiple reasons is good or bad.  Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the intent is to have a straight up or down vote the question should be simpler, such as: "Does the verifiability, not truth text need clarification?" If on the other hand it is to enumerate and assess each rationale for change we should be avoiding !votes entirely, to focus on the arguments rather than their popularity.LeadSongDog come howl!  05:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks like I've been a bit vague in outlining my intentions here. The ultimate goal of step three is to determine how many drafts of the policy intro we should include in the RfC, and very roughly what they should contain. If the question was just whether VNT needs clarification or not, then we could just send that straight to an RfC without going through all this mediation malarkey. ;) I was thinking that knowing the level of acceptance of each argument made at the last RfC would be a useful indicator of whether it would be important enough to split it into its own draft. Or, more realistically, some arguments will be universal and all the drafts will need to address them; some arguments will work against other arguments, and necessitate different drafts to give the community a decent amount of choice in the RfC; and some arguments will be minor enough that we can incorporate them into existing drafts or ignore them. I realise this raises the question of how we are going to structure the RfC, so it might be a good time to discuss this here on the talk page to make a very rough plan. I have been drifting towards the idea of presenting a number of different drafts, and then having the discussion structured like an RfC/U - anyone presenting an opinion would need to do it in a new subsection, and voting would take place on each opinion, rather than each draft. This would have the advantage that we could have drafts that were very similar without a risk of splitting the vote. However, if we end up having a small number of highly distinctive drafts, then it may be better to stick to a first-past-the-post vote on drafts, to keep things simple. (Of course, the RfC won't actually be a vote, but the structure will definitely influence the sort of data we get and the ease with which it can be closed.) Does this sound like a good way to do things? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About my opening question, it's no big deal to me either way.


 * About the way forward, I have a couple of points to make. One potential problem that I've seen in past discussions has been that only the most "diehard" editors stick with these discussions to the end (and note the drop-off in participation here). As a result, those who end up drafting the proposal tend to be those who are most eager to change the policy. Then, when the views of the broader community are sought, the proposal gets sort of blindsided by editors who are less receptive to change. I've been worried that starting out by asking everyone to lay out their personal "dream" version could lead to that happening again, by focusing only on what we want. I was hopeful that, then, looking at the results of the last RfC, we would solve that problem. But I see now that we are going to have to be careful not to use the process of framing the RfC views to skew the interpretation of the RfC to yield the results that individual editors may prefer. So, everyone, please make a good-faith effort to just summarize the results of that RfC factually, without trying to find what you want to find.


 * As for structuring the RfC that we will prepare, I pretty much agree with Mr. Strad's approach of presenting the community with a couple of drafts, and, I guess, asking the closing administrator(s) to determine which draft has consensus. In my opinion, we ought to try here to pare the drafts down to as few as possible, to avoid presenting every one that we wrote in the previous step! But we might want to steer clear of specifying an exact number now, lest we lock in something that we might later decide to revise. Who knows: we might end up agreeing on a single version that we all want to propose! Or we might not.


 * But we should figure out one thing: what is the "none of the above" option in the RfC that we will present? In other words, what would be the status quo draft, for those users who choose to oppose the proposed changes? The lead now, full protected, is The Wrong VersionTM, so we shouldn't propose that. I think the first paragraph should, instead, be the one that existed just after the last RfC was closed. That's essentially the status quo. Since then, I think the later paragraphs of the lead have had some non-controversial changes that are generally agreed to, so the later paragraphs can be what the page has now. Therefore, in our RfC, the community would have a choice of the status quo and some number of proposed improvements, and would be asked to come to consensus for one amongst those. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead MIGHT be in the following state: "Many glitches, but maybe has reached a workable compromise on the hot issues" North8000 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's important that we offer a status quo option to support or oppose, and that we get it right. People can certainly get "stuck" over glitches, as we have seen numerous times. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. Should I participate?
I was originally named as an involved participant. However, when the mediation started, I was boycotting Wikipedia over a matter unrelated to WP:V (We don't have a boycott tag, so I put a 'Retired' tag on my user page). My name was then removed from the participant list. I said I would come back if the unrelated matter was resolved. The matter has since been resolved and I am now back. My question is: Should I participate? This would obviously set back the mediation by a few days. But since the mediation is only to create a new RfC, my involvement might not be necessary. What do you guys think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO yes, the more involved persons involved the better. But I'd leave that to Mr. Stradivarius, including any details. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are very welcome to participate! There's no need to slow the mediation down for you, as a) we have only just started, and b) as we're making an RfC, there's no need for all the participants to agree to all the steps anyway. I'll create the relevant sections - could you sign the ground rules, leave your statement, and create your draft of the policy intro? You can find the detailed instructions in the archives. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 03:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Step three views
IMHO it is sky-is-blue obvious that a significant number of people held/hold the first 6 views. The 7th is procedural mess. It is not an opinion about wp:v, it is a procedural statement. It was not a question in the RFC. And it is ambiguous in a very important way that tends to claim views from both sides of a dispute are on one side of it. The dispute/core question is: what degree and scope of acceptance is required to make a change? I added #8 and #9 to clarify. Perhaps we should drop #7, #8 and #9. Feel free to move or delete this post, but it seemed like an answer regarding support of all of the above items. d  North8000 (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit view number 7 if you can make it more accurate. If you think it doesn't belong at all, then feel free to remove it. This is exactly why we are doing this with no sigs, and having the commentary on this page. Just treat it like you would treat an article - that way we can make the summary as accurate as we can, as quick as we can. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that #7 should go for being too vague in a loaded way. But before I try that, I have to ask you something to see if all three (#7, #8, #9) are off-topic.  Should these only be about wp:ver itself, or about the process for (potentially) changing it? North8000 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're right - we should keep this about wp:ver itself. I agree that rules 7, 8 & 9 don't add much to the discussion, so I'm removing them. We have pretty much decided what the process for changing the policy will be in this mediation anyway. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lost track of the numbering, since I was last logged in. But I think it's fine to focus on V rather than process, and deleting the one I suggested yesterday is fine in that regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For that confusion, at least, there's a simple answer. Please do not delete numbers or insert them inline. Strikethrough or append instead.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that my adding "significant number had this view" after the points is vague, but nobody was doing anything because going beyond that is an immense job. I DID read all of the RFC comments multiple times to come up with those, vague as mine are. Of course, I welcome others replacing mine with something more specific. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is/was debate only about the VnT wording
Looking at drafting work I think there may be some distinctions needing to be made. Any such summary is going to end up being, in effect, a listing of arguments for and against "VnT". But actually VnT was in the compromise offered during the RFC, so these were only partly relevant to the RFC, in the sense that people were expressing an opinion (if we assume they were carefully reading the proposal) about it being not only important, but also needing to be in the first sentence. (I think at least some of us suspect that not all people voting actuall realized this.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the topic of this mediation is the lead of wp:ver. And that the RFC feedback is being looked at as just a big source of expressions of opinions.  I think that most of the pre-November 10th RFC responses viewed it as "compromise that keeps VNT but makes it less prominent."  For the huge burst that showed up after November 10th who knows what they were responding to; many might have been going by the false summaries/characterizations of the proposed change that were put out all over to solicit "oppose" opinions. As I recall, I think that somebody even modified the RFC question itself around November 10 but got reverted, so some may have responded to the temporarily-corrupted RFC question.  North8000 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there was a sea change after Sarek's "premature closure" was overruled and the RFC was more widely advertized... Prior to that date, most of the replies (both supporting and opposing) recognized that what was being proposed was an attempt at compromise... and understood that VNT was included (just not in the lede). Both supporters and opposers seemed to understand that VNT was not being "killed" (just moved).
 * This is worth repeating... If we look at the support votes prior to Nov. 10, about half supported because they saw that VNT was still included. They would not have supported removing it completely.  (In fact... I would place myself in that category, and I was the principle author of the proposal.)
 * If we look at the opposed votes prior to Nov. 10, most of them understood that the proposal kept VNT in the policy... what they objected to was the idea of moving it out of the lede.
 * When Sarek's "premature closure" was overruled, and the RFC was sent to a wider audience, the tone of the replies changed... after that date a lot of the support comments were of the "yes, kill VNT" type... and a lot of the opposed comments were of the "No, don't kill VNT" type. This indicates to me that few of those expressing an opinion after Nov. 10 actually read the proposal or understood what was being proposed.  People thought the proposal was an attempt to "Kill" VNT, when it was not.
 * In our current drafting, I think we need to come up at least one version that prominently retains the VNT language somewhere in the lede (if not in the first sentence)... at least one version that retains it in the policy, but "depreciated" out of the lede... and at least one version that omits it entirely. That would help us better clarify what the community wants. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sea-change in what people believed the RfC was about was very obvious to me, too. The other thing which struck me as immense was the fact that a heap of people seemed to believe we were trying to change the policy, and not just re-word it for clarification.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you are being quite the gracious diplomat referring to two particular happenings as "overruled" and "sent to a wider audience"  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the hallmark of an open mind is that it frequently changes. We should celebrate these events rather than take them as signs of problems. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Blueboar's suggestion about at least three versions to propose in the RfC is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewording VNT
Should we be examining candidate rewordings for VnT? Presumably the divide between "keep it" and "trash it" will have to be bridged somehow if we are to see broad consensus. The characteristics of a good bridging version should probably be enumerated before seeking wording to demonstrate those characteristics.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WHAT are we doing again?
I have been following this for a while an quite frankly I have no idea just WHAT is being argued anymore. Going back to the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1, Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence, and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_55 threads I started the problem was always with regards to clarity and misuse of Verifiability not truth.

It got to the point that I asked Has Verifiability become the new Truth? and to some degree that seems to be where most of the problem resides.

This 'accuracy be damned; it is verifiable' mentality is IMHO demonstrated in the following insanity:


 * "User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)" — (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/RfC)

Maunus is saying despite the fact that an editor can demonstrate (ie produce VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE) that a source is factually incorrect we should use it anyhow because the first source is verifiable and we don't give a fig for truth (ie factually accuracy even if those facts are themselves verifiable). Again if "Verifiability not truth" is producing THIS kind of insanity it either needs to be explained so such insane interpretations such as the above don't occur or removed entirely.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Mr. Stradivarius has us on a methodical approach to deal with just what you are talking about and all cores issues regarding the lead. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But is this methodical approach being reflected in the lead or main text body?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it concerns the lead, although there is no definition or limitation on where the results might be implemented. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The "verifiable evidence that the source is factually incorrect" simply goes to show one of the conflicted sources to be not reliable. I agree the case of a usually reliable publication uttering verifiable falsehoods is one that should be clearly discussed in policy. I'm not sure whether the right place for that is RS or V, but I suspect it is RS. We'll get to that in time, I'm sure. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [insert begins here] There is a difference between material that is not reliable in the context, and material that is potentially inaccurate, the first fails WP:V, and the later satisfies WP:V, see WP:Inaccuracy. Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC) [insert ends here]

I think you just missed the point I was making ie verifiable in of itself being seen as "truth".

The argument Maunus presents above is that since "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." is by Knight who is a senior lecturer in American Studies from the University of Manchester being quoted in the well-respected paper BBC2 it is the truth and anything that shows it to be inaccurate is "original research" even if the material facts provided are verifiable. For editors like Maunus verifiable IS truth and the whole process of accuracy gets a swift kick in the head followed by one between the legs.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is the problem. Verifiability demonstrates that a statement in Wikipedia is accurate and factual, ie. the statement is true. The confusion is that people think that it may applies to the facts being described by the statement. It is true that some people think that the Moon is made of green cheese, even though it is not true. So while we have this ambiguity and subtly of meaning, we'll be discussing WP:V until it is rewritten and unambiguous. To do so is trivial. --Iantresman (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow that, the WP:V verifiability of material is having an audit trail to where a reliable source says the same thing. The fallacy of causation allows that a positive correlation between truth and verifiability can be "due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor".  When I first read WP:V, I thought that verifiable material should be true material, but the logic doesn't hold, please see WP:Inaccuracy.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The number of drafts for step four
Well, we have finished our summary of the views expressed in the RfC. I want to express my thanks to all who helped put it together. In particular, I would like to thank North8000, who single-handedly wrote a good 80% of it. I have ordered it, as you can see on the mediation page, and I think we should discuss our findings before we move on to step four. I was a little surprised by distinct divide between views that are "pro-VNT" and "anti-VNT" that we have documented. I did think there would be a divide, but not that it would be quite this clear. So, I think this definitely points towards having a version that contains "verifiability, not truth", and a draft that doesn't.

Although it is completely possible and logical to conclude from these results that we could only have two drafts presented in the RfC, I think we should also include a third draft, that includes "verifiability, not truth", and also clarifies its meaning. My reasons for this include the fact that VNT was present in the draft wording in the RfC (as pointed out by Andrew Lancaster), and the significant view that we found in this step that VNT needs clarification. I'm sure that someone else suggested including a compromise version during the discussion, but I can't seem to find that comment now. Also, having three drafts is not something set in stone, and I would be open to splitting things into four drafts if there seems a clear need to do so. For the moment, though, three seems like a good number.

I think we can include the issues about the "threshold" wording in these three drafts, probably by including it in the VNT version, and excluding it from the non-VNT version, or by another compromise that we can work out later. We could also avoid this issue affecting the data we get about the VNT issue if we structure the RfC so that people vote on opinions, not on drafts, like in an RfC/U. (I outlined this RfC style in a post above as well.) I don't think it would be worth creating any extra drafts to deal with this issue, and I think creating a good RfC structure would be a much better way of dealing with this.

So, to summarize, I am thinking of drafting three versions of the lede: I would also be open to having a fourth draft if a need becomes apparent during the drafting process. Finally, these drafts would be presented in an RfC where people !vote on opinions, not on each individual draft.
 * 1) The status quo version, including VNT and "threshold".
 * 2) A compromise version, including VNT and clarifying its meaning.
 * 3) A non-VNT version, probably also not including "threshold".

Please let me know what you think, and if you would like to make any changes to this structure. I'll leave this discussion open for a day or two, and then proceed to step four when we have a rough agreement on what we should do. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current version has "fundamental requirement" rather than "threshold", which has stuck. (I like that better :D) <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It did go in without objections.  I just listed it here because it was one of the main areas for discussion.

Mr. Mr. Stradivarius, I believe that this current phase (deciding number of proposals, structure of what happens in the following ones) is the most complex of them all with the largest impacts and chance to derail the effort. IMHO this should be more thoroughly explained/ discussed and not squeezed into 1-2 days. Also I don't think that we should call any version the "status quo". One you could call the "status quo circa 3/18/12" another is the "status quo circa 10/15/11". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm likely to give much more input to this phase than I have to the others (Real Life Issues permitting!) I'm due for some fairly major / complex surgery on 27 March, though, so I may be offline for a few hours ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If we want people to vote on opinions and not drafts, then what's the purpose of preparing drafts? I do think you're quite correct to see this as a binary issue—it's a simple yes/no, VNT/not VNT matter that should be decided by a simple majority vote.— S Marshall T/C 12:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see that this is going to be a lively discussion. :) Let me go through some of the points raised so far: As always, I'll be glad to hear your input on all of these points. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @North8000 - You might well be right that we will need more than a couple of days to work out this part. Let's see how the discussion goes, and if it is clear we need more time, then we can take more time. I don't think we need to decide everything about the RfC and the drafts just yet, though. We can leave the matter of exactly what type of RfC we will have until step seven, when we know exactly what drafts we are going to present, for example.
 * Also @North8000 - I was planning to leave the details of the "status quo version" up to the team that chooses to draft it. I was going to treat it like the other drafts, and let people debate which version(s) we should use before we finalise things. Maybe it would be better to call it the "VNT version" rather than the "status quo version", although it is inevitably going to use much text that has been the status quo at some point. I hope this sounds like a reasonable way of doing things.
 * @ S Marshall - my idea to get people to vote on opinions, rather than drafts, was aimed at stopping side issues from obscuring consensus on the VNT issue. We saw that happening with the questions over "initial threshold" in the October-December 2011 RfC, and I wanted to try and avoid that kind of thing again. I think that your suggestion of having a simple majority vote over VNT/not VNT is interesting, and something we should discuss. (Perhaps a three-way vote - VNT, no VNT, and clarified VNT?) I am worried that people would conflate a vote for "no VNT in the lede" with a policy change of "invoking truth is allowed", though. I was thinking that presenting specific drafts could reduce this kind of confusion, but let's talk about it and see what people think. Perhaps a way forward here could be to use a hybrid RfC, where we vote on drafts and have a separate space for voting on opinions. What do people think? Bear in mind that we don't have to decide everything now, though - we can leave a lot of this stuff until step seven, when we actually construct the RfC. Right now, what we really need to decide is a) whether we want to proceed with making drafts, b) if so, how many, and c) what they should contain.
 * I think voting on opinions is the right answer. If users desperately want to prepare drafts then I don't object—the drafts could be used as examples of how different opinions might play out in practice—but after thinking about this some more, I'm persuaded that you're right, in that it's not wise to have another RFC where we vote on specific drafts.  We need to stop asking the community to choose prepackaged options, because that leads to people going for the least worst specific option, when what we really need is a steer about the principles. I also think that all the drafts would be very similar in meaning.  We all largely agree on the broad thrust of what WP:V should say.  We only disagree about specific phrasing and emphasis.— S Marshall  T/C 16:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should present more than just three drafts... While the community can be divided into three broad groups ("Keep VNT"... "Kill VNT"... and "Tweak VNT, to explain it better"), the "Tweak" camp is quite divided as to how to tweak it. Some want language that is closer to the "traditional" VNT... others want language that is further away from it. I suggest we present the community with a broad range of choices, reflecting several ways of tweaking.
 * That said... I have a further suggestion... instead of asking editors to choose one draft over the others (with "Support" vs. "Oppose"), we should ask them to rank the choices in order of preference. I think (or at least hope) that doing this would more clearly demonstrate where we agree (as opposed to highlighting disagreement).  It could be that none of the drafts will gain a clear consensus as a first choice... but a consensus could form as to everyone's second choice.  That consensus second choice could be seen as being the best shot at compromise. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very intelligent idea :D <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did I misunderstand- we would be voting on opinions rather than drafts? I agree drafts might be useful as examples of how an idea might play out, and think four major examples would be fine. Perhaps we could start with drafts that illustrate the general principles. In the past, I think the large number of drafts probably created confusion so might be very good to have a limit on the number used.
 * As an aside with apologies to Pesky and and North; "fundamental requirement" had objections, but I believe the article was protected with those words in place. Threshold and fundamental requirement also have quite different meanings in my mind. I hope we can keep these points this in mind as we proceed.(olive (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC))


 * There are mathematical problems with having several choices, particularly "splitting the vote" of folks with a particular inclination. Also such inevitably will combine multiple questions into a single "choice". We need to structure this carefully.  One idea: get feedback on the contentious and semi-contentious issues separately.   (VNT and "threshold).  And under each,. let each person support as many of the choices as they wish. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to offer people in the RfC a choice of rejecting all of the drafts, in favor of the status quo. I commented on this in detail, above.
 * North is right about those mathematical problems. We should, instead, consider offering each draft in the RfC with "support" and "oppose" sections for responses, and of course ask the closing admin(s) to really look at consensus (not votes).
 * Blueboar is right about the issues of tweaking VnT. In fact, discussion since the last RfC has largely been going in the direction of how to keep VnT, but to explain it better.
 * I might even go so far as to say that the only community opinions that go the way of keeping VnT but not tweaking/improving it are identical to what we would call the status quo. And there was consensus in the last RfC against an outright "killing" of VnT, whereas almost all of what a productive workshop here could accomplish is to present the community with one or more choices that would significantly improve upon the VnT concept without entirely killing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus against killing VNT at the RFC, and indeed I see significant support for the idea. Support votes such as Short Brigade Harvester Boris', Carrite's, Bejinhan's, ToccataQuarter's and violet/riga's are explicitly in favour of killing it, and so are oppose votes such as Bagumba's.  I see others such as RuslikZero's, GenQuest's, Rumping's or Fourisplenty's as implicitly in favour of killing it.  I also feel that many of the opposers in that RFC did so only because it made the policy longer (Ningauble, GeorgeLouis, A Quest for Knowledge, Hawkeye7, Tom harrison, Everton Dasent, Shooterwalker and many others) or else they just didn't understand the question (Geo Swan, SmittysmithIII, SandyGeorgia, Birdman1011395 whose editing history is most curious, Wnt, etc.)  I think Blueboar's compromise came within an ace of success.— S Marshall  T/C 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Add Warden to the list opposed because of length, a notable vote as the only editor opposed to both the [Poll] and the RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are probably others like myself who would prefer to kill it but are open to a compromise that doesn't. And who saw the RFC question was NOT "what do you think of VNT?", but "shall we implement this compromise version?".  So I never discussed my opinion on completely removing "VNT", and I believe that there were others who saw the situation similarly.       North8000 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is not VNT that needs to be "killed" per se, it is (1) ambiguity, and (2) holy writ. Do we have a guideline to writing policies?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to move beyond a "keep vs kill", "support vs oppose" mentality... that simply leads to continued divisiveness and continued stalemate. If we are going to find common ground and consensus we need to determine where we do agree (we already know where we disagree).  This is why I suggested implementing a preference ranking system instead of a "voting for or against" system... Whether we discuss opinions or drafts, we should avoid "support/oppose" voting. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While we don't exactly have a guideline, Unscintillating, we do have both a procedural policy entitled Policies and guidelines, and an essay entitled How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of VNT
I've collapsed this, as it's getting a little off topic. Not that I have anything against you talking about more general aspects of VNT, but let's keep this discussion focused on what to do with the drafts. Maybe continue it on user talk? Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to differentiate between "killing", "deprecating", and "retaining". An opposition to killing is seen in this 13-3 poll. Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Oxford online dictionary defines "truth" as "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality" which is why I think so many people just want to nuke VnT from orbit because they have seen too many editors like Maunus above who unless a source directly states something they pull the OR card and turn wikipedia in a joke.  Wikipedia_talk:Inaccuracy shows just what kine of Twilight Zone off the wall insanity the current VnT produces.


 * 1. "This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate." (which basically reads it doesn't matter that it can be verified in any source that the phase was used before 1909 because the earlier sources are textbook examples of "verifiability, not truth" and we don't care these earlier sources PROVE later source is demonstrably inaccurate.)


 * 2. "Looking for sources using the phrase "conspiracy theory" is indisputably original research," (How do you find sources meeting Verifiability if simply looking for them is OR?)


 * 3. "Literally speaking, citing early uses of the phrase is OR." (Citing a source is OR.... Huh?)


 * When VnT produces this kind of off the wall insanity it is way past time to put the thing out of its and our misery.


 * While were are on it may I remind that per WP:DEM and WP:PNSD these polls are useless so don't waste our time bringing them up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure which part you disagreed with. That we need to consider "deprecating" as well as "kill" and "keep"?  Or that the poll result was 13-3 against "kill"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bruce, I agree with your priority regarding the need to re-orient the "true believers" in "not truth", and yet we seem to be a world apart in the benefit of continuity. The polls I've mentioned are evidence, I looked at WP:DEM and WP:PNSD and there is nothing that says that they are not useful as points of discussion.  If you look at the introduction to that poll, you will see the rationale that reads, "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.  No original research, for example, is a policy that quotes the phrase.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick quibble on that last sentence... the phrase was actually part of WP:No original research before WP:V was ever written, so technically WP:V is quoting WP:NOR. This origin is actually important to remember.  The VNT phrase was originally written to explain an aspect of our No original research policy ... and in that context it makes sense.  The problem is that over the years it has been taken out of its original context, and has grown to mean things that it was never intended to mean. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again as demonstrated by the two year headache I had with the Christ myth theory (which is FINALLY shaping up), the insanity at Conspiracy theory (which is still broken), and other articles for a good many editors Verifiability is Truth so not only does VnT has no meaning but it it has created this accuracy be damned as long as an editor can find something reliable that says point x and any attempt to point out the flaws in that logic get the OR label slapped on them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll - how many drafts?
The result was 4 drafts, with some caveats which I have outlined below. This has been a very interesting discussion, and if it were about the content of an article, I think it would be very difficult to close. Luckily, as this is about drafting an RfC, there is a lot more leeway to accommodate people with differing views. First, let me address the question of whether to include drafts or not.

There were good arguments made for both including drafts and not including them. One of the main arguments for not including drafts was that editors may oppose a particular draft because of minor perceived flaws, and that this would make it harder to judge the level of consensus each draft has. Conversely, one of the main arguments for including drafts was that any debate about abstract principles would inevitably lead to debate of the actual wording used in the policy document. If we look at these arguments alone, then it is obviously using circular logic. If we go from a simple head count, then the editors in favour of including drafts have the edge. However, considering the quality of the arguments on both sides of the debate, I do not think we can easily ignore either of these positions.

Various suggestions were made that would allow for a compromise between a debate on RfC drafts and a debate on general principles. One was of having two discussions - a first on general principles and a second on the details of individual drafts. Another was of having a discussion on general principles, and illustrating each of these principles with drafts. There were also other RfC structures proposed that would avoid the vote-splitting problems that may occur with a simple vote on drafts, such as getting editors to rank the drafts in order or preference. It doesn't look like we have a consensus on exactly how to structure the RfC yet, but given the strength of the arguments for both voting on drafts and for voting on opinions, and given the promise shown in the various ideas for the RfC structure, the best route seems to be somehow incorporating both drafts and a debate on the underlying principles in the RfC. I have a few ideas myself on how we could do this as well, but we can save that for when we get to step seven of the mediation.

If this step of the mediation was about deciding the final RfC structure, then I would require more discussion about how exactly we should go about this. However, bearing the above points in mind, we seem to have a clear answer to the question of whether we should include drafts or not. That is, we should work on the drafts now, and then figure out how exactly to include them into the RfC when we get to step seven.

As to the number of drafts to include, we had a wide variety of suggestions, from one new draft to including all the drafts that we produced in step two. There were editors arguing against both including too many drafts, and too few drafts; it was argued that with too many drafts it would be harder to find if an individual draft has consensus, and that with too few drafts we may run the risk of not representing the views of core sections of the community. In the middle ground, the number that seemed to come up most is four drafts, which participants seemed to think was a reasonable balance between including all the major views and avoiding any vote-splitting problems. There was also a convincing argument made that we should include as many drafts as becomes necessary to satisfy the participants in this mediation that their view has been sufficiently aired. For this reason, the number four is not set in stone; we may increase (or possibly decrease) the number if the need becomes apparent during the course of drafting.

Of course, it is inevitable that some people will be disappointed with this decision. Hopefully, however, this decision has the best chance of pleasing most people, most of the time. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In light of no clear consensus on how many drafts we should prepare, I propose having a quick straw poll just to check where we all stand on this issue. I'm afraid that it is inevitable that we will disappoint some people with the number we choose in the end, so please be prepared to give some ground to people with different views. We also don't want to spend forever deciding this, as we can always modify our approach later if the situation demands it. As I have said before, for now, all that matters is that we come to a rough agreement about how many drafts we should make, and what should be in them.

So below, I would like you to include the following:
 * 1) The number of drafts you would like to see included in the RfC. This could be zero, or could be twenty - it's up to you.
 * 2) The reasoning behind the number you chose.

Example: Let's leave a little while for people to reply and see if we can work out a rough consensus. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * x drafts, because Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Example (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: I'm thinking of leaving this open until at least 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 4 drafts: One with V not T and threshold intact/ One without V not T and threshold/ One for compromise version of both/ One for surprises. As with Pesky below I would be fine with going as high as 6. In truth we'd need many permutations/combinations to cover all of the possibilities/ variations, but per suggestions above to keep the number of drafts down I'm looking for the smallest number with the highest ability to cover a range of possibilities. (olive (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC))
 * 6 drafts; I think this gives us enough to cover the inclusion / exclusion of VnT, with / without further explanation; and with / without "the threshold" swapped for "a fundamental requirement", without going into all the possible combinations. But I could be wrong ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 drafts at a minimum, could be as many as 4–6. At a minimum: (1) a status quo version, and (2) an improved version that we in this mediation agree would be better. That is possible. If more: we should focus on options about VnT (in the first paragraph of the lead, but better explained; in a later paragraph of the lead, but better explained; out of the lead but elsewhere on the policy page, but better explained; removed entirely in favor of something better). All the other stuff about threshold and the rest is a sideshow, of great interest to a few editors here, but not a big deal to the rest of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No drafts, ideally, because what we really need is a steer on the underlying principles. What we've learned from the last RFC is that if we show editors drafts, some will vote based on one or two details of the wording, so you'll get people who both oppose but for diametrically opposite reasons (and people who support but for diametrically opposite reasons). On re-reading the RFC again, I wonder if we shouldn't start by asking what editors think VNT actually means.  Does it mean that Wikipedians don't get to add information that's true unless it's also verifiable, or does it mean that Wikipedians can't be trusted/aren't permitted to decide what's true and what's false?  Or does it mean both of the above?  Once we know what editors think VNT means in the first place, we'll have some basis for discussing whether it's better to rephrase it, explain it, or leave it as it is.— S Marshall  T/C 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 rounds of RfCs I think we have a compound problem in which opposing groups of thought are unknowingly(?) working together.  Perhaps we should consider a preliminary round RfC to decide if false information can only be identified if a reliable source tells us it is false.  See WP:EP, "a lack of information is better than misleading or false information".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 draft. More importantly is deciding what goes into the draft, the actual wording is a detail. For example, does "Verifiabiliy, not truth" go in? If it does, then does it go in as it currently appears, if not, what sort of information needs to go with it... context? an example? --Iantresman (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * um, number? First, I'm puzzled since we already have a large number of drafts; I'm not sure what the point of writing was if they aren't going to be starting points for this exercise. Second, it's pretty clear that the central issue here is going to be what's going to happen with "not truth". I may well be the most extreme person who dislikes it and doesn't want it to appear in anything like the current form; conversely, based upon the fate of Blueboar's previous attempt, there is a party which won't accept anything that doesn't include it in more or less the current form. In between there seems to be conflict over what it means. I would generally agree with Unscintillating that agreement over principles has to be resolved along with the matter of wording. The upshot is that I don't know how to determine a number of drafts to start with, but if I were forced to choose, I would say "the number of drafts we have now." Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At least 4 drafts, because if we present just one or two drafts, then the RfC is likely to became polarized between those who want the old version, and those who want the new one... Regarding S Marshall's "zero drafts" idea.. if we ask editors to explain what they think VNT means, aren't we essentially asking for the sort of explanation that might go into a draft? And don't we already have quite a number of those? I agree with Blueboar's suggestion that people be invited to rank drafts in order of preference. The 4 drafts could be: (1) Old wording with the words "verifiability, not truth", without recent additions. (2) At least 1 version where  "verifiability, not truth" is kept and its meaning explained. (3) At least 1 version which does not include the words "verifiability, not truth"; but does explain the difference between perceived truth and verifiability. (4) A version that says nothing about "truth" at all. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At least 3. I am looking mainly at what people can accept. 1. It seems one option has to be some type of status quo, but I do not see the distinction between this option and any option which involves not removing [added:or moving] the threshold and VnT components, because in effect these are the bits which it is so difficult to change, and all other parts of the status quo are reasonably regularly tweaked and therefore not really needing mediation? 2. It seems clear that one option has to be an attempt to keep those key words as if they were holy but re-arrange them in order to make the best compromise possible. Blueboar's RFC draft is a good starting point. 3. Obviously there should be at least one more option wherein the holy words are not considered holy, and a clean re-write is attempted, something like North's drafts. I am not sure if this third version needs to be split into multiple variants with/without threshold and with/without VnT, because it seems likely to me that any such back to basics draft will have neither. But if there are significant groups of editors in every possible combination of for/against then maybe we would need to. Another possible extra version would be a version which attempts to improve the policy itself, rather than trying to re-write it better. I say this because it is clear that most people who do not like threshold and VnT think that they are actually defending the old community consensus about what the policy is actually trying to say. But this group of positions is being confused constantly with that of people who want to actually change policy. Or am I seeing this wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll discussion
Here are really the underlying questions:


 * 1) Use / not use the word "threshold" ?
 * 2) IF "threshold" were kept, should we clarify that it means a requirement for inclusion, not a magic bullet for inclusion?
 * 3) Regarding VNT: A.  Have it in high prominence  B. Deprecate but keep it    C.  Totally eliminate it
 * 4) IF VNT is kept ANYWHERE, should we clarify that VNT (only) reinforces the verifiability requirement, it does not create other concepts beyond that? (e.g as is sort of done in the circa March 2012 version)?

IMHO the RFC should ask about these questions, not present drafts. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And IF we did drafts of wording for the RFC, I would suggest 8 versions representing the various combinations of answers to the above three questions. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see a slightly different set of questions...
 * Should we keep the phrase "the threshold for inclusion" or not?
 * If not, what should we replace it with?
 * Should we keep the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" or not?
 * If not, what should we replace it with?
 * Where should we state whatever we finally agree to?
 * Each of us have different answers to these five questions. Questions 1 and 3 could be presented as simple "yes/no" votes... but not questions 2, 4 and 5.  Indeed, each of us has come up with our own preferred way to answer these questions.  And that's where presenting multiple drafts and asking people to rank them will help.  How many?  As many as it takes... the key is for everyone contributing to the discussion to feel that "their" view has been presented (wI would agree that one of the drafts to be presented should be the "old" language that was in the policy a year ago... to represent the views of those who don't want any change).  My guess is that the community will be quite split as to first choice... but they might agree on second or third choice as a workable compromise. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO #4 in mine could be the Rosetta stone to a compromise and might have already settled it, so we should not leave that out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto what North just said, perhaps in terms of revising how VnT is presented, as has recently been discussed at WT:V. We really might be able, here, to come up with a single proposal for change! Keep in mind that the more options we offer, the harder it will be for any single proposal for change to achieve consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I think this is an insightful post, but you have left me guessing a little bit as to how your view will impact the next mediation step. It should be possible to work out the number you are indicating by looking at the RfC and at the policy drafts that everyone made in step two, but I don't really want to second-guess you by attempting to do this myself. Could you give a specific number? Of course, if you would rather not, I won't press the point. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment : I'm happy to go with what the mediator suggests but I tend to think in broad strokes first then specifics second so if there 's a move to clarify the underlying meaning a and impact of some words I would support that.(olive (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

Well, there is ONE (only one ) underlying philosophical difference. It is between saying that VNT does and should only reinforce the verifiability requirement vs. saying that it does and should create other concepts. The distinction is so hard to understand (and a bit structurally/logically abstract) that, without exploration, the way that the question is worded will dictate the result. For example, me and S. Marchall bot said it, but most would never know it. Possibly we should explore that quesiton first. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to disagree. There are multiple concepts at play, that is, the underlying structure is layered. Creating drafts is one way of identifying those concepts/philosophies. A draft creates the specific and points to the overarching underlying structure/ meaning. We could also begin by exploring  the underlying, first identifying the layers then draw drafts from that exploration. Either way I don't see that we can reduce how this policy is understood in an either or situation.(olive (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC))


 * I have agree with North8000. Previous drafts have been snarled up in arguments about what at the end of the day was minutia.  Why should this time be any different?.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you agreeing with? Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Littlolive oil, I was referring to fundamental disagreements about what the effect of the wording should be rather than on what the wording should be. By that standard, I've only seen the one fundamental disagreement that I noted. North8000 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So does anyone actually think that VNT is intended to create policy that would not be there without it, or does everyone agree that is intended only as clarification? LeadSongDog come howl!  14:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there are about 5% of the people who interpret it as creating policy beyond the verifiability requirement and like it that way. Basically saying that accuracy in not only not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement, but that wp:ver forbids accuracy from ever being a consideration elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * North. I don't agree with you. I think the issue is more complex than you are making it to be, and I think what has to be decided on is a way to deal with complexity. I'm in no way convinced  having  worked on the WP:Verifiabilty article off and on for a while, that the concerns of hundreds of editors can be  reduced  to "one philosophical difference." However, if you're right then it should be easy to create two drafts which lay out these two fundamental differences. I 'm happy to be wrong.(olive (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I think that I have done a poor job of explaining. I agree that there are MANY strongly-felt differences of opinion regarding the wording. I meant that there is only one difference of opinion regarding the GOAL of the wording. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see what you're saying. I 'd have to think about it further but I see your point.(olive (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC))


 * I have a question for Unscintillating: if we have two RfCs, would the preliminary one deciding whether "false information can only be identified if a reliable source tells us it is false" be advertised widely? (Listed at centralised discussion, a watchlist notice, the whole shebang?) Would you see this as affecting the quality of replies in the second RfC at all? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're jumping ahead with a draft, and more importantly is a discussion/summary of what should go into a draft (and what should be omitted), ie. the use of (i) "threshold", (ii) "Verifiability, not truth", (iii) etc. I think most of us here are in the envious position of having considered theses word and phrases more than most people, and sometime confuse the phrases with what is actually meant. I'd like to see a draft paragraph initially described by a set of bullet points, each of which describes a concept we are trying to explain. Then we see if we can write a sentence of two for each concept that (a) adequately and unambiguously meets that requirement (b) is equally understood by others. --Iantresman (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stradivarius let me present here why ""false information can only be identified if a reliable source tells us it is false" be advertised widely? (Listed at centralised discussion, a watchlist notice, the whole shebang?)" is a majorly BAD idea:


 * "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." (Knight, "Peter. Plots, paranoia and blame." BBC News, 7 December 2006). Knight is a senior lecturer in American Studies from the University of Manchester being quoted in a well-respected paper--RS through and through.
 * "The fact, however, which makes the "conspiracy" theory completely illogical is that the political leaders in the slave ..." (Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University, p. 31)
 * "Conspiracy theory (page title) they asked instructions whether they and the representatives should remain in Congress until the 4th of March, for the purpose of defeating hostile legislation threatened against the seceding States" (Rhodes, James Ford, (1895) History of the United States from the compromise of 1850 New York, Harper,)
 * "Such a view of the case, if it were generally entertained, would have an important bearing on the conspiracy theory." (Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67)
 * "There is more and more doubt of the conspiracy theory. None of the Cabinet officers approve it, and the President himself does not believe in it." (McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield pg 556)
 * "It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Eeade, and the precautionary measure suggested by Dr. Sankey of using a padded waistcoat in recent cases of mania with general paralysis..." The Journal of mental science: Volume 16 Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-psychological Association (1871)


 * Remember WP:OR states "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Since reliable sources show the fact that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was used before 1909 it can be PROVEN PER Verifiability Knight is wrong even though none of the above sources expressly states this.


 * While such smoking gun examples are rare they do exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bruce... you have gone on and on (in multiple venues) about the "first use of the term 'conspiracy theory'", and why your view in that content dispute should have prevailed. Please stop, it is getting annoying... or at least come up with a different example of what you are concerned about.  We will be far more willing to take your concerns seriously if you can demonstrate that this is a broader problem... and not just a case of one editor not getting his way in a specific WP:V/WP:NOR dispute.  Thanks Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take Bruce's concerns seriously and I'm not annoyed by them.— S Marshall T/C 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, too. There we have a "verifiable" fact which is clearly wrong.  The best way that I could see around it would be to say something along the lines of: "Knight stated that the first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dated from  [blah blah];undefined however it was used prior to that by [x, y and z] etc.undefined".  All statements are then both true and verifiable.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take Bruce's thoughts seriously, and to be a good point, and germane to a policy discussion. But this isn't a policy discussion, it's a discussion on how to structure this process.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually this IS a policy discussion because it shows flaws in the current structure that we seek to fix. You can't realistic decouple one from the other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This highlights the importance of attribution. We can't possible know "The first recorded use of the phrase 'conspiracy theory' ". If multiple independent reliable sources suggest 1909, then there is an argument for saying so. What we should say, is that Peter Knight, Senior lecturer in American Studies at the University of Manchester, says that "The first recorded use of the phrase 'conspiracy theory' dates back to a history article from 1909."ref This makes the statement verifiable and true, though the fact may not be. As it happens, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) also traces the phrase back to 1909 (Amer. Hist. Rev. 14 836), though we're not sure whether Peter Knight is using the same source. So we could attribute the date of the phrase to the OED. But the dictionary is not in fallible. For example, an 1870 edition of The Journal of mental science (vol.16, page 141), also uses the phrase. To conclude, I would have said that the OED gives the earliest usage as 1909, but there are sources going back to 1870. This makes all our statements verifiable and true, even though there may be even earlier sources. --Iantresman (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Another example is from the Focal infection theory article: The 2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition stated "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection". while 2006 Carranza's clinical periodontology stated "(t)he focal infection theory fell into disrepute in the 1940s and 1950s", and the 2009 Textbook of Endodontology stated that while it had lost its influence "dental focal infection theory never died" Clearly they can't all be right (ie one or more has to be inaccurate).


 * While I have shown that there were post 1930s scholarly papers supporting theory of focal infection (proving the 2002 Ingle's Endodontics statement was inaccurate) the community didn't buy it so I contrasted the three sources to show there isn't any real agreement on the fate of Focal infection theory. But clearly we have inaccurate information in that article.


 * The Christ myth theory was full of this type of nonsense where one source meeting Verifiability was used to argue that another source didn't meet Verifiability simply because it didn't agree with the source the editor supported. In fact part of that nonsense is still containing on the talk page where we are told that Schweitzer's own words in his own autobiography regarding the 1912 version of his The Quest of the Historical Jesus "is immaterial".  Welcome to the insanity that is VnT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bruce, I think your example re the term "conspiracy theory" has less to do with VNT than with the issue of primary versus secondary sources. A published text where the term "conspiracy theory" appears is a verifiable primary source for its usage, whereas Knight and the OED are secondary sources... Well, I'd agree with you that where primary material is as clear-cut and verifiable as this, then it ought to go into WP... But  where I would see VNT as more relevant is this… What if (for instance) someone located an unpublished manuscript apparently from 1850 containing the phrase "conspiracy theory"? While such a manuscript might indeed be a very valuable piece of historical truth, there would be a real issue of verifiability, e.g. how to be sure that particular piece of paper really is an authentic 1850 document? It would probably require a person with specialized research skills to verify it. Conclusions drawn from such a manuscript would be "original research" in a positive sense, but also in the sense that it would not be appropriate to include in a WP article, until and unless first published in an RS. Understood in this way, is VNT insanity, or is it common sense? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

break 1
Although I find a lot of the repetitive discussion tl;dr, I think North made a key point: that we should focus on how to structure the process. And I think that Iantresman made an excellent point farther above, and I don't want it to get overlooked. We should decide what needs to go into the draft(s) that we will propose. If we agree upon that, we may be able to present a single alternative to the status quo, and it will have a good chance of being accepted by the community. If not, we can present as many drafts as will satisfy the participants here. In that spirit, I boldly offer my personal take of what has to be in a good draft:
 * 1) It should, in general, be well-written: clear, lucid, stuff like that.
 * 2) Based on a lot of discussions at WT:V, it has to make clear that being verifiable is not, by itself, sufficient reason to include information in an article, because other policies and guidelines also determine that.
 * 3) It has to include VnT in the first paragraph. That's my opinion, and others here will, I know, disagree (and they should be able to present drafts that reflect their positions). But I'm convinced that if we can successfully combine this point with the next one, we will have the solution to getting community consensus.
 * 4) It should explain VnT better that the status quo does, particularly by making clear that we aren't transcription monkeys, and all that. Getting both 3 and 4 is the key to consensus.

For me, any draft that really does all 4 of those is one I will be happy to support. That's one draft. Some of you will disagree. The number of those disagreements may well determine the number of drafts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that the draft should include:
 * That we are verifying the statements in Wikipedia, not the facts on which they are based, and whether they are true! (eg. In Neverland, Peter Pan never grows old)
 * How verifiability relates to NPOV (in particular, how we can verify and describe opposing and contradictory points of view)
 * How WP:V relates to Reliable Sources
 * How attributing a statement can change its verifiability (eg. "The Moon is made of green cheese" is not verified. but "some traditions claim that The Moon is made of green cheese", is verifiable.) --Iantresman (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The draft should include all the points Iantresman gives above and
 * Spell out that verifiability in of itself is not factual truth and that we should strive for accuracy as well as verifiability
 * Spell out that weasel words in one source meeting verifiability in of themselves are not grounds to rule other sources that contradict the first are not reliable or are somehow in the minority.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ian and Bruce, just to be clear, are your points in addition to mine, or instead of mine? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition. --Iantresman (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought. (I'm not sure, though, whether that's also true for Bruce.) It's my impression that adding some of these requirements will, however, prove objectionable to some of the other editors. (For example, I'm guessing that North, directly below, would see some of the points as creating other concepts.) That's all OK, but I'm trying to point out that these should be the kinds of considerations that determine how many drafts we offer in the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with me. When I say "not create other concepts", there's really only one concept that I want to avoid creating.  And it's not in there. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That being the case, I wouldn't necessarily object to adding all of the points that Ian and Bruce have listed, just so long as it all complies with my point #1. So, we could potentially get that far in just one draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My criteria for a compromise is simple, little and absolute. If VNT is kept, clarify that it meaning is to bolster the verifiability requirement, not to create other concepts. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, I suspect that what I've been calling the "true believers" and what you call the "5%" are the same group. But I think the "true believers" are completely satisfied that "not truth" adds nothing to verifiability, how could verifiability be anything else but not truth, since that is what it means?  I wonder if you can propose a poll question that would test your duality, because right now I'm not sure just what you mean.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Stradivarious, I don't see the problem with re-creating a version of the WP:V/First sentence/Polls page here, preparing another set of polls like we did last September, and posting a notice at centralized discussion when we have a set of poll questions ready. For example, "Truth matters someway somehow at Wikipedia, whether or not it is mentioned in WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unscintillating, here is that question: IF "Verifiability not truth" were kept, what would be your opinion of adding wording to the effect of "Verifiabiity not truth"   ONLY reinforces the verifiability requirement for inclusion, it does not create additional concepts.


 * Which of these most closely matches your opinion.
 * Support or OK with that.
 * Object to that
 * North8000 (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page at "Response to your possible poll wording". Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

break 2
A question... is there a difference between "Verifiability" and "Veracity"? (I think there is, but I would like to see how others feel). Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reckon that: Verifiability is the ability to verify the authenticity. Veracity is the degree of truth. --Iantresman (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In wikipedia, verifiability is an attribute of material, simply that it complies with wp:ver. In the real world, it means that information sources are available to see if the material is accurate/correct.  Since there is no wikipedia-alternate-universe definition of veracity, it retains its real world definition here. Which is that it is accurate/true/correct, in the context of it being a case where objective accuracy exists. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm HFA, so my take may be different! I think all we mean in WP when we say "verifiable" is that we can verify that what's in the 'pedia has previously been published (and hopefully by a reliable source!)  There's no guarantee of veracity (truthfulness) in all cases, though that's obviously what we'd ideally  be aiming for.  Science progresses, as does everything else, and today's fringe theory can be tomorrow's mainstream view, and vice versa.  We just don't treat it as mainstream until it actually is.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian, North, and Pesky. Or, put another way, VnT = verifiability, not veracity. But veracity is important to other policies and guidelines, so Wikipedia tries not to get it wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Juan Valdez would like a cup of tea" could be true or false or somewhere in between. There is however no way that a reader can be sure it is true. In comparison, reading "In March 2012 Juan Valdez told The New York Times that he'd like a cup of tea" there is a way. But as "In March 2012 Juan Valdez asked for a cup of tea" -- The New York Times, (March 22, 2012) p.1 we have a statement which the reader can test (verify) independent of its veracity or truth. In short "Verifiability is not truth", it's something else.LeadSongDog come howl!  04:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the question of how many drafts we should have? Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an awful lot, it seems! I've collapsed it. Another subject for user talk, or maybe WT:V? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 03:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Collapsing is fine. I asked because I was wondering if changing VNT to "Verifiability, not Veracity" would clarify things. Given the replies, I am not sure it would.... so never mind. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

break 3
North8000 wrote (right under the heading "Straw poll discussion"),
 * > 4. IF VNT is kept ANYWHERE, should we clarify that VNT (only) reinforces the verifiability requirement, it does not create other concepts beyond that? (e.g as is sort of done in the circa March 2012 version)?
 * > IMHO the RFC should ask about these questions, not present drafts.

I can see the point of an RfC asking questions rather than presenting drafts -- focus the discussion on principles rather than get lost in details of wording. But even while proposing this, North has referred to a particular draft "the circa March 2012 version" in order to give us more of an idea what his question 4. actually means.

What this tells me, is that questions about principles probably do need accompanying drafts, at least as examples... Perhaps the RfC could have a list of questions about principles, presented in bold text, accompanied by illustrative drafts in plain text. Plus an intro asking participants to concentrate as much as possible on the principles rather than the detail? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that we're dealing with two reasons which show that questions would be better than overall drafts, (but I do agree that drafts that clarify the questions are good)


 * 1) Probe underlying differences about what the intent of the wording should be. I think that a structural analysis/dissection show that there is only one difference, but I could be wrong.
 * 2) Any draft contains particular proposals on about 10 different wording topics. Having people weigh in on bundled answers is not a way to resolve the individual wording decisions.  But, to simpify matters, I believe that only 2 of those 10 topics are "hot topics" (VNT itself and "threshold"). North8000 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I recognize that there have been heated discussions about "threshold", I also think that, in the mean time, there have been other word choices found that might very well be entirely non-controversial, so I'm quite hopeful that VnT is really the only hot button to be figured out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Pause
We have all made some good suggestions on the best way to set up an RFC. We don't necessarily agree with each other, but that is to be expected. I suggest we now pause and get Strad's thoughts on what we have said so far. He is the mediator, after all. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, time to let Mr Strad. poke his whiskers cautiously out from the hole in the wainscoting to see if it's safe to come out! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have come to what I think is a fair conclusion but it's far too late here in Japan for me to write my thoughts up tonight. Bear with me and I shall make everything clear tomorrow. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And here you thought it was going to be something simpler like a battle!    :-)   North8000 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we start with the drafts we wrote in step one?
Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)