Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Closing statements

On format
The format seems okay at first glance, but I'm thinking it would be better if we each included a "discussion" section detailing each of our conclusions rather that just one and a possible dissent? The raw facts are not dependent on our evaluation, though, so joining those is self-evident.

Procedurally, then, we'd do the close with a brief join summary conclusion, and link to the more detailed page. (Which I think you then mean to move to to a subpage of the RFC?) How's that sound? &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that this page should eventually be a RfC subpage linked to from the main RfC page. I'm not certain about whether it's better to write three separate evaluations or a joint discussion. In the event that we find that there is consensus to adopt one particular option but with certain changes, we would need to agree on what these changes are, and so probably write a joint opinion. In the event that we find that there's no consensus, or consensus to adopt one option unchanged, it probably doesn't hurt to have three separate texts explaining the same conclusions.  Sandstein   12:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the participants will want to read our three distinct independently written conclusions anyways, as it provides a stronger foundation for the legitimacy of the result – especially if we end up in pretty much unanimous agreement. The summary obviously needs to be the consensus between us three, and that'd be the part we write together.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can make it so.  Sandstein   13:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me as well. I'll also link to Talk:Taiwan/Archive_20, where we discussed things in a similar way as well. - jc37 14:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The RFC itself
✅

I'm thinking that, unless things explode unexpectedly in the next day, the process has been entirely satisfactory. I've been keeping an eye on it since day one (and I know jc at least also kept an eye on it): &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording and format was the result of a carefully mediated consensus;
 * The RfC was widely advertised, including a watchlist notice and all important noticeboards; and
 * There was little to no disruption in the discussion process (one sock was found and blocked), and participants were well-behaved.
 * Agreed, nothing I've observed suggests otherwise.  Sandstein   14:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. There seems a genuine willingness for discussion, and a want to find a consensus in this. - jc37 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That was easy. I've plopped down the related verbiage on the page itself. Tweak as necessary. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As we're all here
Since we all seem to be online right now, is there anything that you all would like to discuss in "real time"?

I'm still collating info (I did a rather poor mock up in a spreadsheet trying to track what each person supported/opposed liked/didn't.) And the day isn't quite finished. But there are some things I'm curious as to your initial thoughts on. - jc37 15:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Framing the close
For example, the first group of sections involving whole sets of text vs the second section containing building blocks of text. As I don't think we would want to stifle further editing of the policy, I think I'm leaning more towards framing the results/closure towards the second grouping, while taking the comments and concerns of the first grouping in full consideration. (If that didn't make sense, I'll happily clarify : ) - jc37 15:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll withold a substantive analysis until the RfC concludes, but my approach would be to check if any specific options (the first group) and any specific views (the second group) have consensus, and if so, whether these "winners" can be brought into agreement with each other. Stifling further development of the policy isn't a principal concern to me, because any subsequent edit to the policy would require community consensus irrespective of what we determine this RfC's outcome is.  Sandstein   15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree (sorry if the above seemed unclear.)
 * As for stifling editing. One of the concerns throughout all of the discussions so far seems to be whether certain phrases (such as VnT) are "sacrosanct". And I just want to be careful in the close that we not make it seem that we're setting up whole sections of "sacrosanct" text. - jc37 15:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. We can clarify that this closure only determines whether there is currently consensus to make a specific change to the policy, without prejudice to any subsequent similarly thoroughly established change in consensus, if you think that this could be a problem, but to me that's self-evident.  Sandstein   15:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I initially read your above comments as if there was a period after "change in consensus". I've now re-read it several times per the actual commas, and am not understanding. Would you clarify? - jc37 16:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry, lawyer's tendency to write convoluted sentences. If you think that the perceived sacrosanctcy of any text we find to have consensus is a problem, we can do the following. We can clarify: "This closure only determines whether there is currently consensus to make a specific change to the policy, without prejudice to any subsequent similarly thoroughly established change in consensus." However, to me, that is self-evident and does not need to be mentioned.  Sandstein   16:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While normally I would agree that that should be self-evident, from reading through all the discussions, I think a re-affirmation is probably a good idea.
 * And no worries, it's amazing how often something I've written, that seems perfectly clear to me, turns out to need clarification. These days, I just automatically expect requests for clarification : )
 * And thanks for rephrasing, it helped : ) - jc37 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. I see no reason to mandate any sort of time limit, though I'd mention that the quality of the consensus-seeking process was very high, and that further major changes almost certainly would have to be just as well discussed.

On the grouping, I think it's clear that the second section gives us what the concerns are, and what seems important to the participants; but unless that deviates significantly from one of the proposed wordings in the first part, we should stick to them as closely as possible while still taking the proposed changes into account. I know my reasoning will be structured along these lines.

Perhaps the best we can do is write up our own bits, then sit down and see where we meet and how that translates to a common result? I mean, as opposed to trying to guess at what will be needed to conciliate them. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Allright, after making sure that no late contribution changed the tenor of the discussion (even though that was not very likely), I think that my comments on the flipside are pretty much finished. Once we've all figured out where we are on analysis, we can sit down for a joint closing statement.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sand, It's interesting how you went about your analysis exactly the opposite way I did: start from the points, work forward to see how well they had support in the comments. I went from the comments in isolation, saw what position they generated, and looked if the points were supported the same way.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's funny how we each can look over a discussion to determine consensus, do it in 3 different ways, and yet roughly come up with similar results. (But then, I rarely use only a single method to determine : ) - jc37 19:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistics
So the easiest part is probably the numbers, any objections to this approach? (Or feel free to edit, of course.) I'll supplement a bar chart for the views.  Sandstein  15:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a caveat. I'm finding as I go through that regardless of what section someone commented in, they often added "clarifications", or "extra" suggestions/preferences for the editing of the text. So I'd rather we didn't hold ourselves to the sections overly much, and relied more on what people said, than overmuch where they said it. - jc37 16:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the numbers are as always an initial approximation, and we can take into account the comments in our individual analysis, insofar as this is necessary.  Sandstein   16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A note on negative consensus
It makes no operative difference given that it causes no conflict with option D, but personally I am wary of the thought that a consensus against "X" implies a consensus for "not X". A case in point: I wouldn't have said that the rather visible consensus against mandating that "threshold" be in the lede translates to a prohibition against it being there (although, right now, it isn't). I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to include that bit in the summary, though, as it's more likely to muddle the issue than enlighten. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I follow the distinction you make. Consensus against using a particular wording is not a prohibition, as such, but it does mean that the wording should not be used unless consensus changes as concerns that question, which in practice may amount to the same thing.  Sandstein   21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If this were a typical content discussion, we could make such presumptions. But I don't think we can in this case. BOLD editing and editorial discretion seem to be part of what this RfC is attempting to resolve. Our phrasing can have the unintended effect of creating unintended mandates - jc37 21:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this covered by WP:PGCHANGE? That page, itself a policy, describes how to change policies, and it would also apply to any changes proposed or made to any wording we may find to have consensus as a result of this RfC. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. In the instant case, as explained in my closing comments, I think we have a rather clear and well-established consensus for the wording of option D, so it shouldn't be changed except based on a similarly well established consensus.  Sandstein   21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, PGCHANGE indeed would apply. And I suppose we can easily state it does here too. But my impression after reading the process that has led up to this point, is that PGCHANGE (at least the typical editorial discretion part) failed. Part of why mediated discussion was needed. Regardless, if we can in any way re-affirm what we presume in making this close, in order to clear any cobwebs of uncertainty, I don't see that as a bad thing. - jc37 22:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The bars
Thanks for the graphs, they illustrate nicely. Would you mind if I reduced the saturation on the colors, though? On my screen, at least, they are rather... violent. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. They're images and not wikimarkup.  :-(  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but feel free to desaturate them in Photoshop if you desire.  Sandstein   21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing statements
So here I am. With a closing draft written. I intentionally didn't read either of yours before writing it. But as I went, I couldn't help myself, and read through them.

And now, I think I may have a slightly different read on option D than you do, probably due to how I assessed the comments.

I'd like to discuss it with you both to see if perhaps we are generally on the same page.

Copying my draft below (thus not "official" - whatever that means) - jc37 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-read both of your statements now several times. I have to commend you both for being clearer than I was below. Coren's 1-2-3 explanation in particular was much clearer, I thought, than how I tried to express it. In most of this, I do think we agree. I'm just wanting to make certain we're all on the same page, before presenting a final "close". - jc37 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft
Due to the size of the discussion, including the many possible outcomes, and the number of commenters, I went through the discussions, making notes and collating the comments. As I noted here, I intentionally tried to consider what each individual expressed as their thoughts, with the "where" of that of a lesser consideration. (Similar to how "weak" and "strong", while kept in mind, tend to get less of a consideration overall, as they are mostly just indicators of strength of preference.)

So anyway, while the "raw data" results I collated differ somewhat individually than the percents noted above, when taken as a whole, the results are rather similar.

So from reading the discussion(s), it's fairly clear that "Verifiability not truth" (VnT) has entered the mindset and vernacular (the lexicon?) of the average Wikipedian. This shouldn't be surprising, as the many discussions that have been had since nearly the start of the wiki, suggest that NPOV, NOR, and V could be considered a core to Wikipedia. (And in the past, as noted in the discussions, an attempt was made to somewhat combine them into ATT.)

And my assessment of the several discussions in this RfC is that VnT should be kept in some way.

But it also appears that there is an openness to discuss the "how" of how VnT should be presented on the policy page. However, I don't believe there is a consensus on the how of how this should be done. On the surface, option "D" had the most support, but the consensus there was that VnT should be more clearly explained, but no real overall consensus for that particular specific "layout" over any of the others.

So to recap: There is consensus to retain "verifiability not truth". There is consensus that it should be more clearly explained. There is no consensus for the precise format of how VnT should be presented. There is consenssus that that should be something open to discussion.

And on that last point, I would suggest a further RfC on that, with similar diligence (and collegiate cooperation) as was used for this RfC. - jc37 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from with this; and it's not an unreasonable position to hold. You've used a reading similar to mine, and reached a conclusion that is similar, though you seem to have placed less emphasis on the compromise aspects of D than I have.  (Or you've estimated the desire to keep VnT much higher than I have).  Personally, I have no objection to this closure not being unanimous – I don't think it's necessary to retain the legitimacy of the process.  We could either proceed with a closure that includes a dissent on the strength of support for option D (given that we intent to let all three comments be available to the participants and not just the summary), or we can discuss further to see if there is a meeting ground between our readings of the discussion. I'm not attached to either option, and can live with both.  At worse, it makes writing a summary a little more complicated.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (As a note on legitimacy, this presumes that you would be willing to undersign a 2-1 decision as proper; if you think that a close that was would be inapropriate, then we need to hash it out further – there is no question here of forcing you to back down or endorse something you don't believe). &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS: Sorry for being verbose. Train-of-thought writing.  :-)  It occurs to me that, fundamentally, the difference between your opinion and mine (Sandstein took a different tack and may opine differently) lies on "what to do with VnT" after the edit; whereas I see it as a matter that can be solved within normal editorial process, you feel it needs a RfC to clarify.  Am I getting you right?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries (edit conflicts are fun : )
 * So anyway, I'm seeing certain commenters who supported anything which kept VnT, for example. Or those who supported D merely because they felt it better explained. I'm trying to take the comments into consideration, rather than just the fact that they sat in a certain column. I think that this is particularly relevant, since many supported (or opposed) simultaneously various proposals. I don't think we should look at any individual proposal's numbers as if it was the sole proposal. There were many simultaneous proposals being "voted"/commented on. And that should be part of the consideration, since it would seem to me that that was part of the consideration made by the commenters themselves. Both when constructing this RfC, and commenting in it. - jc37 20:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's what I did. I just noted different things from the same data; for instance I took the need for clarity expressed in the comments against keeping VnT as indicative of relative priorities (which, to me, seems obvious: people don't dislike VnT, they think it confusing unless explained, and that the lede is a poor place to do that). It occurs to me that there is a way to have the cake and eat it too.  Even if you don't agree that option D has as strong consensus as we do, it clearly represents a workable compromise open to further adjustment, right?  In which case, there is no reason that recommending an RfC about what to do with VnT after it has been de-emphasised from the lead would be incompatible with all three of our positions; note how Sandstein refers to the need for further consultation about moving it around).  I think that option D settles the matter sufficiently that an RfC is overkill, but I can certainly endorse a recommendation that the matter be studied further.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "...it clearly represents a workable compromise open to further adjustment, right?" I would use the word "example" rather than "compromise". And then, yes, of course. I'm just wary that by saying there is consensus for D, we would be thought to be mandating everything about D. and I don't see consensus for that. I see LOTS of ways that contributors suggest they would modify it (and not just under the support section of D, of course). And considering the long road to get to this point, I don't think it is appropriate for us to say, "there you go, now have fun edit warring over the exact wording and format, since there clearly isn't yet consensus for it". (I'm not saying we are, but that that's how it could appear.) An RfC to at least get a consensus on the general outline/framework would seem to be less reckless. But regardless of whether they use an RfC or boldness, I don't see a consensus for the specific format/wording. So we should not close suggesting that there is, and by extension should not suggest that such consensus mandates that specific formatting/wording. - jc37 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To try to answer your latter question, I think that one thing that the contributors to making this RfC wanted to deal with was the perceived "ossification" of VnT. Not just that phrase, but where that phrase was in the policy, and how it was explained. I think we all agree (from my read of both of your statements) is that one result of this RfC was that while VnT should be kept, the rest is not "set in stone", and is open for discussion. Where I'm not sure if I differ, is that both of you, by seeming to say D has consensus, imply that option D's format and layout and precise wording - not just that it more clearly explains VnT - should now be considered to have such "ossification" implied to it. And I just don't see a consensus for that. (I'm trying to be clearer : ) - jc37 20:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I read; I do see an affection for VnT, and a desire to keep it around, but very much not as the foundation of the policy. I think any result that would end with VnT in the lede as anything more than a parenthetical would go against a pretty strong consensus.  Given the options, D is the one that fits that bill (note the rather resounding rejection of view 1).  I think view 7 isn't so much indicative of a desire to keep VnT around if it is explained, so much as "If we have to keep VnT around, then it must at a minimum be explained better".  I.e.: many of the people supporting that position would much rather not have VnT around at all (which is evident in how they opined on the other points).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the issue is that I'm not being clear in what I'm trying to convey, because I don't greatly disagree (and thought I was saying similar).
 * I agree that while there is a rough consensus that VnT should be kept. There is no consensus that it should be affixed in the lede. I really don't see a consensus for where it should be placed. There's support and opposition for several various formats.
 * This was what I was trying to convey when using the word "ossification". That some had the impression that VnT was something "set in stone" and a fundamental (sole) foundation for policy. And that view simply does not have consensus here. Rather, the consensus would seem to be that VnT is simply not clear when rotely recited, and could be considered misleading depending on the context of how it was presented.
 * But on the other hand, I don't see consensus that D (or any of the text sections) particularly had an overall consensus. Just that it had more support than the others presented. And I don't think that we should call as consensus the "least worst". - jc37 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that the RfC has achieved consensus about "VnT" as such, because the very problem the RfC reveals (particularly as regards view 1) is that there are widely differing opinions about whether that phrase expresses what we want the policy to mean. I do read the RfC as affirming a very broad consensus in favor of the principle the "verifiability, not truth" prase attempts to express, that is, that readers' ability to verify content in reliable sources is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the inclusion of that content, regardless of any opinion editors may have about the truth of that content. The significant remaining disagreement seems to be mainly about whether the phrase is an apt shorthand summary of that principle or not. And frankly I am not sure whether that disagreement is of any practical importance.
 * Insofar as you are of the opinion, Jc37, that the wording of option D does not have consensus, I disagree: For the reasons provided in my comments, I think that it has a strong enough support (80% of participants) to meet the requirements for "rough consensus" in Wikipedia practice, especially because I am of the view that nothing else in the RfC (such as the disagreement about the "VnT" wording) calls this consensus into question. Rather, option D can be read as a compromise to work around that disagreement.
 * Personally I wouldn't have a problem with a 2:1 opinion either (at least as concerns option D), but like Coren I'd like to hear your opinion about how we should proceed.
 * As to "what to do with VnT now": We may express our opinion(s) about this, such as recommending a second RfC or other process, but our opinions about this would not (I think) have any particular authority. Our job here is exclusively to determine consensus in this RfC, and because this RfC did not discuss any future process, we cannot authoritatively find a consensus about that. As such, I think that any joint closing statement may address this matter, but does not necessarily need to.  Sandstein   21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)
 * I'll try to respond to the 4 sections of your comments one by one.
 * 1.) I agree. (Though noting in the last two sentences, I'm reading "disagreement" to refer to the commenters and not us.) (Correct.  Sandstein   22:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
 * 2.) I think part of where you and I disagree is when I look at the substance of the comments, I don't see an 80% for the precise wording. I'll come back to this in a minute.
 * 3.) I'd rather we didn't, especially since (now that we've all three started talking this out), I think we may be near the same page on this, it's really just clarifying a few details - which, again, I'll get to in a minute.
 * 4.) I agree to a point. We can suggest, but shouldn't mandate. One of my concerns is that we'll be (perhaps unintendedly) suggesting such a mandate.


 * Getting back to the crux of things. I think all three of us agree for the most part in our assessment of what has consensus here. The sticking point for me is that, when I look at the comments of those contributing to the discussions, I don't see a "clear cut" consensus for this precise presentation of D. But then, both of you seem to be suggesting that D should not be mandated or "set in stone", and of course may be changed (through editorial process/RfC/BOLD/etc.) So it "sounds" like you (like me) agree that certain overall principles (that VnT should be better explained, etc) which are also represented in D, have consensus, but not necessarily that specific wording or layout should be mandated due to this close. (The latter phrase may or may not be true for each of you, obviously. I'm merely presuming.) - jc37 22:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sandstein here; while I arrived at the same conclusion through a different analysis, I see something that can't be qualified as anything else than a solid consensus for option D specifically (wording and all). I don't think it's our place to attempt to guess at why that option has consensus – or whether some other option might have even stronger consensus.  It may well be that the participants settled in on the "less worse" wording that was nevertheless acceptable to the vast majority; and I don't see anything wrong with that.  In essence, that is the very essence of what consensus on Wikipedia is about: the version people can live with, even if it's not the one they'd have wished for.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, that's not what I was referring to when I said "least worst", though I understand how it came across that way. My apologies. Consensus indeed can be a case of compromise.
 * Anyway, I'll go get some water and let you read what I wrote above. (I've responded in the threading above too, in case you missed it. Perhaps it will help if you try to summarise where you think you and I are disagreeing? - jc37 22:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to your comment of 22:04 above, I can't agree with your view that "certain overall principles (that VnT should be better explained, etc) which are also represented in D, have consensus, but not necessarily that specific wording or layout should be mandated due to this close". I am not sure what the principles you mean are, but I am of the opinion that we do have a consensus to write the specific wording and layout suggested in option D into the lead of WP:V. In my opinion, this means that this wording can subsequently be changed (like the wording of any other policy) through the process described in WP:PGCHANGE, but given the substantial consensus represented in this RfC such changes should not be made lightly.  Sandstein   22:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've re-examined the discussion with this new perspective; but my conclusion remains the same. For what it's worth, you might very well be right that the wording proposed by D is one that isn't entirely satisfactory to many of the people who have spoken in support – indeed some have been explicit about what they feel should be changed. Yet, support it they did. We can make hypotheses why they did, but while they are interesting they are also not relevant to the closing IMO. There is broad consensus for editing the article in accordance to the wording of option D. It's clear that the vast majority of participants see it as the best compromise from which to start further adjustments, which I feel are outside the scope of the RFC. (Personally, I think the differences left are now well within the reach of simple agreement through normal editorial processes). &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you were suggesting I was, but I'm not making a "hypothesis".
 * Setting aside everything else (which I'd rather not do, but for the sake of whatever), if we merely count numbers (without looking at the substance of their comments), there were 31 commenters who disagreed with the wording (oppose, and support with revisions). and 51 who said support (though I'll note that several of those also suggested revisions, or weren't happy with the wording...)
 * And when we start to look at the substance of their comments, that 51 drops further.
 * And that without also applying people's comments in other sections. I find even this hard to call a consensus on the wording.
 * (It occurred to me while I was getting my water that none of us were actually citing examples from the commenters in our discussion here.)
 * Anyway all of this aside, let's pretend for a moment that we were ready to close. What's the way you want to do it? three separate statements? a joint statement? A group summary? something else? - jc37 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally... From Coren's closing statement:
 * " The current wording of option D provides an entirely workable compromise that could be further tweaked through the normal editorial process. Some of those points that may need further discussion include whether VnT should be called "historical" or a "slogan", used as a parenthetical in the lede itself, discussed an explained later in the text, or placed in a footnote."

This sounds awfully like you and I agree. That the priniciples of D had consensus, but that the particular wording/formatting did not, and will likely need further discussion (RFC/PGCHANGE/etc.)

Is it possible we're merely talking past each other? - jc37 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are; I think we're interpreting the same facts through different filters. For one, I don't agree with your interpretation of the "support with revisions" as opposing the wording – especially if you take the substance of those comments into account.  And if you examine how those voted in the other alternatives, it is clear that this is the option they prefer – even if they still see improvements to be made.  It's clear to me that the participants want to start further discussion from option D, not start over with a new palette of alternatives.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's clear to me that the participants want to start further discussion from option D, not start over with a new palette of alternatives." - I do not disagree with this statement. But that you think I do is why I think we may be talking past each other. - jc37 23:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then we are working with perspective so disjoint that there's little left to do but agree to disagree; we reach different conclusions from the same facts. That's okay – it happens and it's not a failure on anyone's part.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence. (perspectives so disjoint?)
 * But anyway, nod. while I think we could discuss this and find specifically what we actually are meaning in what we are saying, I appreciate that it's easier to just say we "agree to disagree", and move on. - jc37 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

On closing
It seems clear now that we'll not be unanimous. I propose that we retain each our closing rationales so that the participants can see our detailed reasoning, and make a brief joint statement for the RfC proper linking to the final page. Here's a proposal that I think we can all agree on. Edit mercilessly! :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless you both oppose, I think a statement which combines all three statements (treats each as a draft) would be best. As I said above, much of what you both said was clear. If we remove the reasonings (how we assessed), I think all three could be combined into something fairly concise. Give me a few and I'll paste a draft. - jc37 23:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the how is at least as important as the what, actually. I'd rather post just a summary with each of our reasonings intact, though if Sandstein also prefers a join statement I can live with it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll post a draft in a sec (was trying to respond to your other comments above. I think I may have missed one or more of sandstein's as well.  but I'll check after posting the draft. - jc37 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I played with the text and such, but in the end, it pretty much looked like Coren's statement with sections of sandstein's inserted.
 * If I had my drothers, I'd ask if you (coren) would remove the sentence "Thus, option D has clear consensus for implementation." from where it is in your statement. Then I could say: I agree entirely with Coren's statement except the last sentence, and instead, I believe the consensus is xyz.
 * But you obviously don't have to. it's your statement after all, so no worries - it just would make my comments easier to convey : )
 * (I say this without any sleight intended towards sandstein whatsoever. His statement conveys well what he sees as consensus, and we've already discussed above in what way I disagree with it, it's just that I didn't find it as easy to be clear editing his statement where we agree and disagree : ) - jc37 00:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still say that the simplest solution is to have all three of our statements set out in full, with the brief summary remaining as a pointer to them. There are subtleties in your reasoning that should not be left unsaid anymore than mine or Sandsteins' should be.  Do you think we could agree on a brief summary like the one below and call it a day?  (And, of course, you're welcome to tweak said proposal as needed; I tried to make sure to remain brief and factual, but if you think this doesn't do justice to your opposition, the last thing I'd want is put words in your mouth.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, but I'd really prefer to say what we all agree on, with the "subtleties" left to the statements then. Saying that I have a dissenting opinion, prejudices the close in a way that doesn't seem accurate - to my reading anyway.
 * I tried to edit it to something I could agree that there is consensus for. Mostly just copy/pasted some things from both of your closing statements which I thought gave a decent overview. (1-2-3 may need some pruning/editing, I just copied them extant.)- jc37 01:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's going to confuse the hell of many editors – including me. Are you saying that you agree that the lede should be changed to the text of option D but that there isn't consensus to do so?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying to convey what we all agree upon. I'm saying I agree that there is consensus that D is a "workable compromise".
 * What I don't believe there is consensus on is the exact wording/format (such as you note concerning VnT, and I copied to the parenthetical).
 * As I read sandstein's comments on this page, he is saying there is consensus on implementing the wording of option D now, but that specifics can and should be further discussed. In other words, this isn't the "final solution".
 * You appear to say the same thing.
 * What I've been saying all along is that there is consensus for the principles behind D, but that there is no consensus on the wording/formatting.
 * So sure, implement D "for now", to use "least worst" in the context you were using it (rather than how I was using it) above, D is the "least worst", which had the most support, with the principles behind it having consensus.
 * So implementing it has consensus, but only with the caveat that consensus was that it needs further work (or more accurately, that there was no consensus to suggest that it doesn't need further work).
 * Clearer? - jc37 01:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try to word this into the statement I mention below. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the statement itself, there are bits in this I don't agree with at all; in particular, I see no split around whether VnT should be in the lede; there is clear consensus that it should not, except perhaps as an edit to option D to move it from a footnote to a parenthetical (only one support a straight VnT mention as desirable, whereas I count three that would rather get rid of the footnote entirely). This makes view 7 moot, and its mention in the closing comment confusing at best since it's predicated on a condition that the discussion has clearly rejected. I'll have a stab at a different tack in a sec.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I copied those sentences directly from sandstein's statement.
 * But nod, fair point about possible confusion. (I was trying to add them with as little editing as possible at least at first : ) - jc37 02:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How's this? &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few things I'd tweak in the text, but to address the specific addition: phrasing it that way, suggests that you two do not. You do not? - jc37 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not; I believe that discussion is desirable, hence my recommendation, but that the consensus for option D is solid enough that if people just lost interest and went away (which is entirely plausible given RfC fatigue), the result would remain true to the general consensus and generally agreeable. I don't want to speak for Sandstein, but it seems clear from his previous discussion and his statement that he feels about the same.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting "mandating" further discussion either. If everyone actually walked away, that itself becomes a sort of reverse BOLD edit : )
 * But we should be clear that there was no consensus about VnT, except that wherever it is noted/placed, that it should be explained. And so that D is a "workable compromise" for now. But obviously not precluding further work, and indeed, recommending it.
 * (I'm tempted to go off on a tangent on how policy pages are to represent consensus and common practice and generally not be proscriptive of themselves, but I know I would be preaching to the choir : )
 * Anyway, I think we finally understand where we disagree in the determining of this consensus.
 * I'll give you some time, then I'll see about tweaking the text somewhat and see if it's to your liking. - jc37 02:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I understood you up to this point, but now I lost you again. As far as I can tell, there are three possible stances towards the lede: there isn't consensus to change it, there is consensus to change it conditional to further tweaks, or there is consensus to change it unconditionally.  I tought I had finally understood you to be at the second option, but now I don't know.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was clear consensus that it should be changed, but there was (in my assessment at least) no consensus as to what specifically it should be changed to. Many supported but only with caveats (and the caveats were many and varied). Future perfect is a fair example of supporting with caveats. They even moved their comments to a different section to attempt to show more support, even though they wanted specific changes to D's text. And that is only one example. - jc37 03:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (And no, I don't agree that there is no consensus in re VnT. There is clear consensus that it should not be in the lede.  There are open questions about what to do with it now that it has been removed from there, but those will not change the meaning and can be handled by the normal editing process).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "There is clear consensus that it should not be in the lede." - I disagree with this assessment. I think there is clear consensus it should not stay as it is, but there was no consensus that it couldn't be in the lede somehow. Indeed I see several people who stated clearly that it should be on the page "in some way" (without specifying the lede). And when looking over their comments in A-B-C, "no consensus" as to whether VnT should be in the lede would seem to be re-affirmed.
 * I'm not a vote counter (and I'm not saying that you are), but to me, arbitrarily counting the "votes" from a single section does a disservice to the process and the work that went into this multi-faceted RfC. (Which is part of why I am somewhat uncomfortable with the percentages as listed on the page above our statements.) This discussion had many nuances, and I think we should take it all into account.
 * Anyway, as far as VnT, I think that that is something we each are covering in each of our statements. If we are agreeing to disagree on that point, I can live with that. - jc37 03:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So can I, which is why I favour a terse joint statement that concerns itself only with the primary matter of the lede rewrite. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, with that in mind, I added "of each closer" to it, and "implement" should make it clear enough what to do. If this works for you, I'm fine with it as the closing statement. - jc37 03:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. I've copied it over to the main page, and signed. Once you've copied your statement there and signed, all we're missing the Sandstein's John Hancock and we're all done! &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I'll need to re-write my closing statement some for (hopefully) better clarity. We've spent quite awhile discussing this today, I need to go afk for a bit and deal with RL, before it gets away : ) - jc37 04:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for hammering this out while I've been asleep. I agree with the briefer alternative draft closing statement that is now on the closing page, and have signed it.  Sandstein   06:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

draft closing statement
After examination of the discussion and close consideration of the arguments put forward, closing administrators Coren, jc37 and Sandstein all agree that:


 * 1) The phrase "verifiability, not truth" holds considerable mind share. It is viewed as a succinct, pithy summary of an ultimately complex concept upon which our encyclopedia its based.  Not unlike a kōan, its apparent contradiction hides a profound insight on the nature of Wikipedia that is sometimes clumsy to make explicit. This can be seen as much in the comments of those who favour retaining the current general form of the lede as it is in many the the comments of those who support a change.
 * 2) It is viewed as critical that such a fundamental policy as WP:V be clear and readily understandable by every editor, and that it cannot be misinterpreted to mean something it does not (whether by genuine confusion or by wilfully twisting it). The lede of the policy is where that critical "first impression" of the policy is formed, and should be exemplary in its clarity.
 * 3) There is currently a clear consensus that "verifiability, not truth" fails at that second point. Even many of those who feel the greatest attachment to the phrase acknowledge that understanding it demands elaboration or explanation to make its point and that – also not unlike a kōan – clear understanding requires insight.

Specifically, that view 7 has consensus: "If the lede includes the phrase 'verifiability, not truth', then I would like it to explain that this means WP's content is determined by previously published information, rather than by the beliefs of its editors." We do not have consensus with respect to the remaining views. Notably, the opinions expressed with respect to the wording regarding VnT indicate that the editorship is split about whether this wording should be part of the lead, either as an expression of the policy's meaning or as a historical reference.

The current wording of 'option D' provides an entirely workable compromise, and therefore the result of this requests for comment is: "To implement 'option D' as the lede to Verifiability, while noting that there remain open questions about the exact status and place of the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" (such as whether VnT should be called "historical" or a "slogan" or something else, and whether it should be used as a parenthetical in the lede itself, discussed and explained later in the text, or placed in a footnote, etc.), and recommend that the community continue discussion on this." We thank each and every participant and organisers of this RfC and the mediation that led to it for their invaluable contributions in this difficult consensus-making exercise. Each closer's detailed closing arguments and rationales can be read here.

tilde tilde tilde tilde.

Alternative draft
After examination of the discussion and close consideration of the arguments put forward, closing administrators Coren, jc37 and Sandstein agree that this request for comments concludes with a result of "There is consensus to implement the proposed wording of option D as the lede to Verifiability". The detailed closing arguments and rationales of each closer can be read here.

We note that there remains open questions about the exact status and place of the phrase "Verifiability, not truth", and recommend that the community continue discussion on these points. In particular, jc37 considers that there is consensus for option D only insofar as it forms a basis for such continued community discussion.

We thank each and every participant and organisers of this RfC and the mediation that led to it for their invaluable contributions in this difficult consensus-making exercise.

tilde tilde tilde tilde.

Kudos to the closers
This closing statement epitomizes what an RfC closing statement should be. All three closers made a serious effort to explain their approach and how they arrived at their conclusions, and it paid off. Nice job. Rivertorch (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Highest kudos to all three! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)