Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 52

Misinterpretation of "verifiability, not truth" in progress
Certain editors on this page have repeatedly said that they cannot find examples of "verifiability, not truth" being misused. As myself and others have pointed out, it has been misused on a daily basis for years, so they must not be looking very hard. For a current example of this misuse, I would invite interested parties to review the ongoing discussion over at Talk:Karen_Gillan, where it is being argued that a risque, trivial story about a celebrity found wandering naked and "disoriented" in a hotel must be added to a BLP because 1) it was reported by the Daily Mail , and 2) no RS has denied the story, therefore 3) we must include it. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That example appears to be more of a straight BLP issue, which takes into serious account all three core content policies. It certainly doesn't have to be included simply because it is verifiable. As it says in BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." But I truly don't see how "verifiability, not truth" specifically is being "misused" there: that phrase isn't even mentioned by anyone in that discussion. No one's touting it around incorrectly there. If it is being misused, whomever is misusing it is not taking into account the other policies that affect BLPs. Jus' sayin'. Doc   talk  00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You must not have read the same thread. As I explained above, the argument for inclusion in that thread amounts to 1) we can verify a tabloid claim in a purported RS 2) it doesn't matter if it is true or not, and no RS has disputed or refuted it 3) therefore, we must include it.  If you do not see this as an explicit example of "vefifiability, not truth" being distorted, then we have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I see it as WP:UNDUE and controversial material (that is also not backed by at least three reliable sources - this covers the "tabloid" aspect of this as well) trying to be inserted in an article about a living celebrity. There's three strikes against including that stuff right there. And, again, I don't see that particular phrase appear even once in all those comments. Yet outside analysis shows that it is somehow being misinterpreted and misused with out anyone there pointing to it and incorrectly attributing it to justify anything that could be considered troublesome. Doc   talk  01:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is some kind of institutional policy blindness going here or what, but are you actually saying that you don't see how the argument for inclusion is based on the type of misinterpretation of "verifiability, not truth" that has been discussed here? Because it sounds to me like you recognize it, but are in denial about it.  The proponent of inclusion in the thread in question has cited the verifiability policy as a reason to include the tabloid material, and has argued that it does not matter if it is true or not and that no other source has disputed it, therfore, it should be included.  Do you see how this is an example of how the current wording of the policy is continually misinterpreted on a daily basis, especially in regards to BLP articles, and how the current wording results in many disputes that could otherwise be avoided simply by changing the wording?  I'm having great difficulty understanding how you could not see this. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument does not appear in this discussion: a search shows that the word "true" is not even there at all, and the only mention of the word "truth" by anyone there is, "It is not within your wheelhouse to determine if the reliable source has told the truth or verified its sources." Nobody there says "It doesn't matter if it's true or not" - maybe you interpreted it that way, but no one actually said that. I also see no links from anyone to WP:V, and the two mentions of the word "verifiable" are accompanied by "reliable" (and WP:RS is linked) Now, if he specifically pointed to the "verifiability, not truth" phrase and said, "See? My understanding of this phrase allows me to include this and trumps any other considerations." maybe you'd have one decent example here. Instead, you appear to be lumping multiple arguments coming from a user and interpreting (for him) that his reading of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is the #1 argument for inclusion. Now, one of the many others who is "policy-blind" and "in denial" will have to take over this one; because you are correct that I cannot see this example as an accurate representation of what you are saying. Doc   talk  02:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be in denial. The entire agument for inclusion is based on a misunderstanding or what "verifiability, not truth" means, and is illustrative of dozens, perhaps hundreds of unnecessary disputes that could be avoided by removing this poor wording from the policy. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is related to a 'no Wikipedia policy or guideline is an island' problem I commented on: too many times a Wikipedia policy or guideline is taken on its own rather than how it should be viewed--as part of a whole.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The examples have been provided again and again and again. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc that this "example" doesn't seem to have much to do with WP:V. I also think that shouting that editors "appear to be in denial" because they don't agree that this particular WP:RS and WP:BLP issue demonstrates a crisis with WP:V hurts the case of those demanding a change in the wording of the verifiability policy.  Finally I think that overreaching claims that examples have been provided "again and again and again" demonstrates a disconnect with what has actually happened in the course of this seemingly interminable discussion.  North8000 has been arguing this for a long time—how many examples has he provided?  Quale (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about examples North8000 himself may have presented but I have presented some. I might add that thanks to the way WP:V was worded BLP itself has been used as a magical censorship hammer as demonstrated by the nonsense that started as Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1 became Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79 finally escalated into Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard.  BLP was being used to prevent any meaningful discussion on the talk pages if Stephen Barrett was reliable regarding the information he provided on Weston Price.  It was totally insane how BLP was being used there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quale, you must be reading a different thread. In this thread, the example I provided specifically and explicitly deals with the "verifiability, not truth" problem we have been discussing for several years—a problem you and a number of other editors are in denial about.  This does not require any interpretation.  When a single editor argues that a risque, trivial story about a celebrity found wandering naked and "disoriented" in a hotel must be added to a BLP because it can be verified in the Daily Mail , we are dealing with verifiability.  And, when that same editor claims that no RS has denied the story and it is not up to editors to decide if it is factual or not, we are dealing with not truth.  Finally, when the same editor says that because of verifiability, not truth, we must include this content regardless of its accuracy or appropriateness, we are dealing directly with a misinterpretation of "verifiability, not truth".  You can continue to claim that we aren't, but it is clear, beyond question, that we are.  The wording doesn't work and needs to be changed. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that I have provided several just in the last few months, and I'm just one of several people who have. North8000 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here. We're talking about examples where the phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" is causing a problem, but changing the phrase to "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability", would make the problem disappear. And you say you have provided several examples "just in the last few months", and several others have as well. In that case, it should be easy to list well over 10 cases where it's clear that removing the words "not truth", would have stopped an edit war, ended disagreements on a talk page, or caused a troll to give up and leave, etc. As a favour, could you point us to some talk page discussions where removing the words "not truth" would have caused this happy outcome? LK (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not necessary to show real cases where a change of wording has had an identifiable effect like this. If the current wording is wrong (and we have seen through countless arguments, including real-world cases, that it is) then we just change it, we don't require evidence that its wrongness has had a harmful effect. Just as when we find demonstrably wrong information in a WP article we change it forthwith; we don't require real-world instances of someone having used this information and suffered as a result. The extreme extent to which it's being attempted to ring-fence this sentence just confirms how much it's become an article of faith for some people, rather than a topic for rational discussion and seeking of a best solution.--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to Lawrencekhoo the examples were where the situation was made significantly worse by "not truth" and thus would be improved by removal or mitigation of that phrase.  If you ever see any example of anything that meets the utopia slam-dunk perfection, including proof of what the outcome would-have-been-if-it-were-changed new standard that you just wrote, you have seen a simpler world than I ever have in Wikipedia. :-)   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that because "not truth" is misunderstood my some editors means we should get rid of it. What it does mean is that we should explain it better.  I think that goes for this whole policy.  I do not think "verifiability" simply means that one can find a source.  NPOV is our core policy and V and NOR derive from it, which is why I always start with NPOV.  NPOV demands that we include all significant views.  The "not truth" means that we WP editors are not assumed to be able to distinguish between what is true or false, and thus it is not our responsibility (you may think this is absurd when it comes to a question like, when is the earliest recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" - but most scientists would say that even this simple empirical claim is not "true" because five or fifty years from now someone may discover an even earlier recorded instance.  When it comes to "the meaining of the Heisenberg uncertainty Principle," what I just said should be evident to everyone).  However, we can verify whether something is a significant view or not.  The meaning of "verifiability" derives from what we call neutral editing.  We do not claim that such and such is true, we claim that some people hold the view that it is true.  But NPOV does not insist we include all views, only the significant ones.  Also, the very idea of a reliable source cannot be giving a particular source (say, a tabloid) a blank check for information.  The reliable source is the right source for verifying that this is the actual view we wish to include in the encyclopedia, and that it is significant.  So "verifiability" must mean verifying all these things: verifying that this is a view actually held by some people; verifying that this is a significant view, and verifying that the source we are using provides us with a reliable account of what this view is.  For excample, the New York Times is (I think) a pretty reliable source for the views of politicians and celebrities in the news.  It may be highly reliable.  But I would not assume that it is the most reliable source on what a particular philosophical school, say, the Epicurians, believed.  But Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is (I think) a reliable source for that view.


 * In short, we are verifying that the requirements of NPOV are met. We may not be able to agree on what "the truth" is, but we should be able to agree on what kind of documentation is appropriate and adequate to document that (1) someone or group of people hold the view that x is true and (2) this view is significant and not fringe.


 * My aim is not to comment on the particular case because the purpose of this page is to improve the policy page. I completely believe that every day many people misunderstand this policy.  But the policy makes sense, and what we should be doing is using this talk page to find clearer ways to express it.  This is what I am trying to do.  We have to accept the fact that some people will always misinterpret our policies - this is the nature of any writing, it is vulnerable to misinterpretation.  But we can always try to make our writing clearer.  it is worth trying. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think most of us agree that the wording of this policy needs to be made much clearer, that's what we're trying to do (except for a few serial reverters who seem determined not to allow it). But about your analysis: what do you mean by "we are verifying that this is a significant view" and that "[this is a reliable source]"? Surely we can no more "verify" these things than we can verify the "truth" of the statement itself?--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Slrubenstein. I think that the main proposal makes "not truth" clearer as you advocate. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Kotniski and others: "most of us agree" – I think this is true, if "most of us" means most of the people still interested in discussing this complaint after nearly a year of scant progress. (I think I saw some dissent about "not truth" on this page in November 2010.)  I think most editors who don't see this as The Single Most Critical Issue Facing Wikipedia Today have become burned out by the monomania and (quite sensibly in my opinion) dropped out weeks ago.  If you drag this out a few more months you will probably be able to truthfully claim "all of us agree" as everyone else will be gone.  Eventually you will come up with a concrete proposal that will be voted on.  You will either get what you want or you won't.  Either way, I hope that that puts at least a temporary end to the siege of this talk page, but I'm concerned that some people here have come to enjoy trench warfare too much.  Quale (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Quale, didn't occur to you that the so called monomania is because there is a problem? The fact I have just experienced something akin to this in 2011 shows to me at least there is a problem that same editors are in denial regarding.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@LK, Re "it should be easy to list well over 10 cases where it's clear that removing the words 'not truth'..." - Could you list well over 10 cases where the words "not truth" specifically were essential. Please note that just doing a search for "verifiability, not truth" only shows that "V not T" has been used, not that the words "not truth" were essential or even relevant to a particular discussion. Furthermore, doing the wiki-search, noting the number of hits, and doing a simple arithmetic calculation, would show that "verifiability, not truth" is used less than 3 times a day on Wikipedia on the average. Note that there are more than 30,000 active editors. Also note that there are around 4,000 views of WP:V a day, so it's more important to have a clear policy page than to have a questionable slogan like "verifiability,not truth" that is used less than 3 times a day on the average. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found rather quickly in that list an example of an editor using the phrase the way it's been understood for many years. "Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if what you're saying is correct. You can't verify it with, "someone told me so." It really should be no more complicated than that. Doc   talk  13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's stating the part that everyone agrees on, and was the intended meaning of "verifiability, not truth". The problem is the other unintended meanings that have been invented based on that term.    The new proposal keeps the term (moved down and explained) and reinforces the intended meaning, while reducing the issue of unintended meaning.  14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An old idea revisited
A long time ago I suggest the use of this chart which tried to address varies issues then present in RS:

It was a rough stab a very complex issue but it tried to address the issue that not all Verifiability sources are created equal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the idea of a table is a very good idea, and I appreciate the effort Bruce put into setting up this table. We need a good starting point, like this!  But I see a couple of problems that can be improved. First, I do not agree with a ranking of "reliability."  Different sources are reliable in different ways.  A newspaper is more reliable than an academic journal for reporting the news.  Mein Kampf is a very reliable source for Hitler's views; it is a very unreliable source for, say, information about Jews.  Sources are the concrete means for verifying that a certain view exists, and is significant.  What is the most reliable source depends on which/what kind of view we are trying to verify.


 * I think that the category of problematic issues is a good idea. But the way it is expressed here would confuse many readers, because it doesn't really match our policy.  For example, using an anthropology journal as a source for a view about medicine is not a violation of NOR; the major NOR problem when using sources is not using the wrong source, but misusing the right source - most NOR violations are the result of violating SYNTH and using two reliable sources to make a claim niether source makes.  Second, anthropology journals can be very highly reliable sources for some topics concerning medicine.  Medical journals like JAMA and the NEJM are probablyu the most reliable sources for the "Western" or alleopathic medical view of disease and treatment.  Mut the fields of medical anthropology and the sociology of medicine provide veryu important scholarly analyses of medical beliefs in practice in modern (industrialized, bourgeois) culture and of course in other cultures.  the journals Medical Anthropology Quarterly and Social Science and Medicine might well be highly reliable sources for what MD's believe about illness and healing, if that is the aim of a particular article.  Otherwise, it is the most reliable source for how social scientists interpret and analyze medical doctor's claims about illness and healing.  The key point is, JAMA is a reliable source for the views of MDs, and NAQ is a reliable source for anthropologists' views of illness and healing.


 * I would also go further and say that any educated reader of a journal article has to be able to distinguish between the authors central argument based on her own research, her accounts of the research of others, and tangential comments. All three kinds of content are found in most academic journal articles.  The article is a highly reliable source for verifying the view of a (discipline x) on the topic that is the main object of the author's research and argument.  The article is a highly reliable source on the view of a researcher (from discipline x) of the research of others (this may sound obscure.  I will give an example.  I rfecently read an article by an anthropologistg in immigrants.  In the couirse of the analysis, the author reviewed certain theoretical literature, including concepts of Sartre.  In my view, the author's views on Sartre are plain wrong.  I would not consider an anthropologist to be the best source for Sartre's views - I would turn to work by other philosophers or intellectual historians as reliable sources on Sartre.  But I do think that this article is a reliable source on how many anthropologists interpret Sartre).  Finally, I do not think that there is any grounds for conmsidering the article a reliable source on tangential statements in the article.


 * In short, the degree of reliability of the source depends on whose view it is being used to verify. It is not simnply a matter of more versus less reliable (I agree with Grubb in general that when it comes to any topic that is an object of academic research, established peer-reviewed jouirnals and books published by acadsemic presses are the most reliable source).  It is also a case of what is the most appropriate source to verify a particular view.


 * In short, OR occurs when an editor presents his or her own view. Even if the editor cites several highly reliable sources, if she is deriving a view from combining or synthesizing information from the sources, but this view is not expressed clearly in any one of the sources, it is OR.  OR usually occurs not because one uses the wrong source, but because one uses sources wrongly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2 was where I first produced this chart and it was also an attempt to separate relevant from reliable. However regarding the ranking I would argue that an academic journal analyzing Mein Kampf would be more reliable then the book itself especially if you try to relate the work to what happened later.


 * One of the problems I have over at the Weston Price biography is that nearly all of the material regarding root canals is based on how people currently use Price's self published 1923 work Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic rather then what Price himself wrote but getting Price's own words (using exact quotes--see [] for what I want to put in the article) into that article even when they come from a 1925 JAMA article and 1939 book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers is impossible as we have one editor going "it's primary and therefore cannot be used" and nearly every other editor seems to have left the article in disgust.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we should recognize the three main metrics of reliability, plus the one "metric of the metrics"
 * Expertise with respect to the item which cited it
 * Objectivity with respect to the item which cited it
 * Raw (easily mis-used) data vs. digested coverage (primary vs. secondary)

And the metric of the above metrics which is:
 * Source credentials/attributes (e.g. newspaper vs. blog)

Of these four, wp:ver really only acknowledges two. It skips the first two.

I've been (long term) trying to work on something regarding this at: Strategic issues with core policies North8000 (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is so much wp:ver skips things but that it fails to explain things well. Cleaning up the table above into something more usable produces this:

Again this is a rough stab so feel free to suggest modifications to clean it up a bit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I have problems with North8000's criteria. What makes a source reliable is that we have confidence that it provides an accurate account of a significant view.  But according to our NPOV policy, we include all views that are significant. Unfortunately, many views are not objective and not based on expertise, but are significant - and we need to include them.  If your criteria for identifying a reliable source is focussing solely on those criteria that allow us to have confidence in the accuracy of the account of the view presented, well, then, I agree completely.  but we need to be clear to distinguish between the accuracy of the source and the significance of the view the source represents.  For example, with regards to Jews, hitler was no expert and certainly not objective, but his view is significant.  And Mein Kampf is a reliable source for his views.  Certainly, Hitler was an expert in what Hitler thought.  But did Hitler really have an "objective" understanding of his own views?  Maybe.  But I do not believe that most historians and biographers of Hitler are convinced that even Hitler understood the real sources of his anti-Semitism.  Perhaps you would then argue that we should not use mein kampf as a source for Hitler's views.  you might say that we really should favor historians and biographers, who have not only studied mein Kampf carefully but have analyzed it in the context of his life and times.  (This is the value of your distinction between primary and secondary sources).  I am not sure what the answer is.  I do hope you see how, when talking about certain significant views, and certain sources, objectivity may not be useful and in fact may not even be a desirable criteria. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, my idea/framework fully incorporates what you are saying. (and I agree with what you are saying). Actually, I think that my idea incorporates what you are saying even more than the current policy. Since your comment covers a lot of ground, I'll just reinforce this on a couple of points:

Mein Kampf is certainly an excellent source on what Hitlers views are. Under my idea, (rating 0-10) on that topic "expertise" would be a "10", objectivity (since he's the type to say what he really thinks) a "9", on raw data vs, digested by others  (primary/secondary) a "0", and on credentials for what it is, a "10". Under my idea you combine all of those and say that it's a pretty good source for that. Under current wp:ver, it flunks primary/secondary, which is a categorical/stand alone criteria, and so it's use would be very limited. Now, if there was an article on the intelligence level of Jews, (not Hitler's opinion of such) Mein Kampf would rate much lower under my idea. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad we agree. I understand that the table is meant to be concise and schematic and I really do see the value of that. I do not want to quibble over words - your point is that however differently I might understand these words from you, we agree on how they should be used.  So I think that it is critical that if we add anything like this to the policy, these terms be operationalized, and perhaps a few very different kinds of examples b provided.  An example of a highly contentious article where multiple views must be provided given due weight: "race" (as applied to human beings).  Some academics (including some biologists) believe that race is a social construction and can be analyzed only sociologically (by which I do not mean "by sociologists" but rather "by social scientists").  Some academics believe that races are biologically real and can be studied biologically, but their definition of race and how they designate different races is quite different from the popular understanding.  Then, many non-academics (i.e. ordinary people) in the US and UK believe races are biologically real, but they do not use the word or think of different races the way actual biologists do.  And in many parts of Latin America, races are very important but popularly understood to be cultural, thus, a person's race can change based on wht language they speak, how they dress, how well-educated they are etc.  I bet that you could use your three criteria to identify what you and I would agree are the most reliable sources.  But, in fact over the years there has often ben a good deal of contention over what are the reliable sources and how much weight to give them (I assume your ranking sytem is meant to help determine due weight) - I can easily imagine diferent editors using your criteria and yet assigning each variable very different scores.  This is why I think that whatever words are used, people will need guidance for you to use them or how to settle arguments over its use.


 * Another good example is the Jesus article. It is no surprise that many of the people who, in college and later graduate school, are drawn to studying the Gospels and Jesus are Christians.  Some of these scholars are religious Catholics, yet write books that non-Christians assign in university courses on the history of religion.  Some of these people remains Christian, but reject the Bible as a reliable historical source and reject the divinity of Jesus (thus placing them in a minority group among Christians) and some abandon Christianity altogether.  For reasons that I think are obvious, very few universities have several professors who are fluent in Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew - languages which one must know if one wishes to study 1st century Judea and Galilee as a professional historian.  If one wishes to get a PhD. on Jewish-Christian history in the first centuries CE, one would want professors who are fluent in these languages and the primary sources.  You can find such departments at top universities like Oxford and Duke, but some of the best departments are at Seminaries. Some Seminaries only train priests, ministers, or rabbis, but some have secular graduate schools (i.e. students need not be religious, professors may not be religious, the methods used are the same as those used by any other historian studying any other time and place.  Sorry to go into so much detail, but my point is this: the point of view of graduates of these programs, or professors at these programs, is not necessarily "Christian."  And the problem is, this would be obvious to anyone who has studied history at a graduate level and who actually reads the books, or someone who took courses in the history of religion or history or Near Eastern Studies or (as it is sometimes called) Biblical Studies, at a university like Oxford, Duke, or Harvard, and was assigned some of these books.  But: many editors do not have advanced training in history and of these, many do not actually read the books.  But by looking at a web-page, they learn that professor X got a debree in Biblical Studies, or got a degree at X Seminary, and on this basis they insist that any book or article these historians have written express a Christian point of view.


 * In other words, to use your system appropriately, in many cases one must start out being generally well-informed about academic conventions, and one must thus do considerably more research than looking at the author's homepage. This is not a criticism of your table or terminology.  I guess my point is, the simpler the scheme or table, the more important it is to give people clear guidelines about how to use it.  Sometims, the simplest guideline may demand that the editor do a great deal of research.  You know how uneven are the research skills and the efforts editors put into research.  I am sure we agree, we would want people to use your table as a tool, but not as a crutch.  I do not think they should be incorporated into the policy until we have worked out clear guidelines for their use, what kind of data one would need in order to measure any of the criteria, etc. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've always been of the opinion that it is much better to provide a sound, effective framework, and let folks struggle with filling in the blanks than expecting folks to try to make a system work that does not have as sound of a framework and does a ham-handed job of trying to dictate the details. I consider that wp:ver, having only two separate metrics,  (RS criteria and primary/secondary) with the former often unrealistic as written, and no assessment of knowledgeably and objectivity with respect to the item that cited it, and no scaling in accordance with how controversial the cited state to be the latter case to a certain extent.  North8000 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing
From the lead of WP:Canvassing
 * "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.


 * However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour."

With the upcoming consensus poll re the first sentence of WP:V, editors should particularly be careful not to participate in the unethical activity described in the section on stealth canvassing.
 * "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A caution against stealth canvassing. This RfC is in serious trouble already, I'd wager. Doc   talk  12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, please WP:Assume good faith... there is no indication that anyone has engaged in stealth canvasing or that anyone intends to do so. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For those of us not in the loop, could Bob and Doc please clarify this? Is there any evidence behind this allegation? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty doubtful, but you'd have to ask Bob. I've never seen someone issue a warning on stealth canvassing before a RfC. Doc   talk  00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Bob is just telling people to be on their best behavior (rather than alleging anything). It would be a shame to lose a lot of people's hard work because of anyone being a bad actor in this. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. How about another form of "inappropriate canvassing": almost the definition of votestacking. Only the most influential editor on the project is notified when it is already known that he wants "not truth" removed from the lead. Bravo. Doc   talk  05:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a valid objection. It is never inappropriate to notify me of anything.  Never.  I really don't like it when people try to make out like talking to me is some kind of policy violation.  It never is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out that you're the only one that was notified. I don't truly think any policy was violated, but perhaps more people could have been notified from both sides of the issue if anyone was going to be notified. Sorry if my comment irritated you, Jimbo. I'd still like to know what this "stealth canvassing" is about: was something seen on an outside website? Doc   talk  06:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a notice at the Village Pump, and at both WT:NPOV and WT:NOR. So, hopefully, word should spread that this RFC is going on. The key is to cast our net widely.  Remember that an RFC is not just a head count (although a simple vote tally can be useful information)... The actual comments are important (one insightful comment can, and should, carry more weight than several pile-on "me too" votes).  I also think we should pay attention to who is commenting (I am not talking about individuals here, I mean "who" in a broad sense ... we should pay close attention to the comments that come from editors who have not been part of our previous debates.) Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Example of Primary/Secondary source conflict
I will try to neutrally present the Phil Knight example for editors that haven't followed the discussions. A reliable secondary source, Phil Knight, wrote that the term conspiracy theory dates back to an article published in 1909. An editor, User:BruceGrubb, showed that a number or earlier works contained this term. The simple truth here is that the earliest usage noted by the Oxford English Dictionary is an article published in 1909, and the OED does not claim to be noting first usages, only important early usages, but this is not what our source said. Current consensus seems to be: If this is an unfair summary, feel free to correct me. Vesal (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is okay in a case like this, when everyone agrees that the secondary source is wrong, to simply remove it.
 * It is not okay to go for an NPOV-based solution in the article: Peter Knight states the first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909" (ref); however, the phrase "conspiracy theory" also appears in Garrison, George Pierce (1906), ..." This is a synthesis implying that Knight is wrong.


 * Proving Chris Knight wrong in that way is Original Research, yes. In this case it is also difficult to know whether the data actually contradicts him. Two words occurring together is not a term, it is only a term when it takes on a fixed meaning. We don't know whether Knight was saying that the first time "conspiracy theory" was used in its modern meaning was 1909, or whether he meant it as an absolute statement of the first time the words occurred together as a phrase. In any case the right thing to do would be to write a professional article about the term "conspiracy theory" using the editor's knowledge of earlier ysages to suggest that there are earlier significant usages than the ones in the OED. Wikipedia does not publish original research. It is of course always OK to make an editorial decision that a claim in a certain source should not be included. It is also fully acceptable to include a statement "Peter Knight states the first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909" because he did state that, and the claim coincides with the earliest usage given in the OED. Nothing untrue about that statement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with your analysis, but I would rather not discuss so much what is the right thing to do in this example. Rather, please think more in terms of whether you think current policy gives adequate guidance on cases like this, and whether you think the proposal would improve the situation, as Blueboar says above, and if not, what could be said to provide some guidance about these kind of cases. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy needs to make it clear that wikipedia editors are not supposed to judge what is true and what isn't - we only judge which views about the true are significant and which aren't. That is why I think it is important to have a policy that does not suggest that we can remove sourced statements if an editor finds them to be "untrue" or nt in line with their view of reality. I think that it can be made clear that in cases where there is any reasonable doubt about the truth value of an otherwise significant statement we need to attribute the view to its specific source and never state it as fact in wikipedias own voice. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is an acceptable way to write an accurate encyclopedia. The contrary argument, the one that also helps keep reliability going as a hot topic, is that this theory substitutes form for accuracy, and that real editing requires evaluating sources against each other as to their real accuracy as well as their conformity to are preferred forms for sources. Here's an example: an interviewer incorrectly stated that Erin Burnett attended St. Andrew's Episcopal School (Maryland), presumably because her hometown is Maryland. However, it is simply physically impossible for her to have attended that school, as her hometown and the school are on opposite sides of the Chesapeake Bay, and the school does not board students. She actually attended St. Andrew's School (Delaware), which is a boarding school much closer to her hometown, and I was eventually able to prove this inarguably by finding a copy of her high school yearbook. In the meantime, however, I was met with a great deal of resistance in removing the incorrect statement. Since it could be cited to a news outlet, people insisted that need to remain in the article even though nearly everyone in the discussion agreed that it was extremely unlikely to be true.


 * That is why "truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion" is, on its own, a problematic statement. The confidence is that verified statements can be assumed to be true, and for the most part we are willing to let the possibility of verification stand as a proxy for actual checking. That's why we talk about "reliable sources": reliability ultimately means being trusted to convey accurate information. The implication through all of this is at truth is a necessary criterion for inclusion, but that one of our assurances of truth is that statements can be verified (and in a thorough world, would be verified). But the possibility of verification does not always come through on its promise to deliver accuracy, and when it fails, then verifiability is not of itself a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view you are undermining the foundations of wikipedia by suggesting that using primary sources to trump secondary ones should ever be allowed. The case about the schooling of Erin Burnett in my view should have been settled by including the sourced information and then upon evidence to the contrary simply remove the statement - without including the statement from the primary source. In this case it matters little since it is a trivial issue - but it in other more controversial cases it is of the top most importance not to encourage any kind of original research, but to rely solely on published interpretations of primary sources. Verifiability in tandem with notability/significance and weight will always be sufficient for inclusion regardless of what any wikipedian thinks is the truth-value of a claim.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We disagree about the reference to the yearbook; it is a secondary source. That is not, however, germane to the point: that people insisted on including the erroneous information simply because it could be cited to a source which fit the formal standard for reliability. That is what you advocate in your final sentence, so your defense of what I wished to do before I found some other source, primary or not, is in contradiction to your own principles. Your principle says that the article was obligated to continue repeating the mistake potentially indefinitely, as there was never a guarantee that someone would find a formally acceptable source. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No my principle doesn't contain any such obligation - it is an editorial decision whether to include or not. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what you said. You said it was a "sufficient" condition, meaning that no other argument is needed to justify inclusion of the material. But it's actually a necessary condition; other considerations may result in the discarding of the material. This is really the crux of the matter: in the Real World, accuracy is what is necessary, and verification is one of the means to that. But saying that a source is all that is sufficient keeps leading people to the conclusion that, since a source is sufficient, the accuracy of the source cannot be taken into account. That's how we get the insistence that patently erroneous sources must nonetheless be reflected in the article.
 * Having a source is usually sufficient as well as necessary, first because as a practical matter we are deficient in fact-checking, but second, because most formally reliable sources turn out to be actually reliable, and thus there's no real reason to approach them too skeptically. But this sufficiency must give way in the fact of actual verification; having a source is NOT always sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are taking the word "sufficient" out of context I said verifiability in tandem with notability/significance and weight (= editorial decision). Please don't twist my worth to something that suits your argument better.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Editorial decision renders all that goes before it as necessary rather than sufficient.Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Here is analysis using WP:Inaccuracy for Erin Burnett. By inductive reasoning that can be done by a high school student, I induce that the interview had potentially inaccurate material.  This means that I reduce to some degree the due weight.  For a complex of reasons, I conclude that there is no reason to think that readers want to know about this material with inline attribution, or in a footnote, so I conclude that the material is insignificant.  The high school classbook is reliable to say that Erin Burnett attended that school.  So we now have a secondary source that is insignificant, and a reliable primary source.  Without the classbook, the article says nothing about the high school, consistent with WP:Editing policy, "an absence of information is preferred to false information".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Phil Knight's exact Verifiability statement was "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909". The statement "the phrase "conspiracy theory" also appears in Garrison, George Pierce (1906)" is also Verifiability.
 * WP:NOTOR (which many editors like to ignore as it shoots their argument to blazes) expressly states "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." The "characterization" of the conflict in this case is that the phrase "conspiracy theory" does indeed appear before 1909 and per WP:NOTOR showing this is NOT OR--QED.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong in that interpretation - the characterization of the conflict would be if there was a published source noting that Chris Knight was wrong when he said that. Since there isn't saying so is 100% classical OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way it is clear from the edit history that you like that essay a lot. It seems you have in fact inserted the example about the occurence of a word yourself and editwarred to keep it there. In any case the paragraph you quote says "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, I am 100% with you on the WP:OR / WP:SYN point. However, I don't see Blueboar's wording as encouraging synthesis. Synthesis is a perennial problem—that is why we have WP:SYN, and I don't see the proposal as weakening it. When it's a question of whether Oslo's entire transportation system came to a halt or not (both reported in reliable sources), or whether the Italian Wikipedia was locked down for two days or three (both reported in reliable sources), then as editors we are sometimes in a position to be able to decide which of the sources was better researched and has it right. That is something for discussion and agreement on the talk page, and that is all the new wording is saying. To insist on giving the factually wrong version as well as the right version in such a case does not serve the reader. -- J N  466  11:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see another example of this: Talk:Henriette Mertz. In general, my opinion is that if a secondary source obviously is not citing correctly a primary source, it should not be considered reliable for discussing that particular point. Another example is Talk:Roger Bacon. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, I'm having this exact problem and was told to go to Dispute resolution noticeboardunder August 2010 West Bank shooting attack. Could you guys weigh in if I was right or not, thanks. Public awareness (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong queue; that is not a Primary/Secondary source conflict because you have not provided any primary record of what that "random person" actually said. It appears to be a WP:SYNT dispute, which is not for this page to discuss, nor is it a good example in this section. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As for "In my view you are undermining the foundations of wikipedia by suggesting that using primary sources to trump secondary ones should ever be allowed", someone should read WP:PRIMARY: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. [...] A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Both examples I gave above fall in this category. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, more succinctly, WP:Secondary is not another way to spell good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This policy and the core policies
If, as certain editors are clearly arguing, this proposed change means that wikipedia editors can now challenge claims in secondary based on editor's own interpretation of primary sources, or perhaps even on unpublished "evidence", then this will have profound effects on our other policies e.g. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (because doing so clearly falls under the definition of original research by synthesising two sources into a new conclusion not contained in either of them) and WP:NOT (because it will turn wikipedia into a publisher of original thought, in effect competing with venues for the publication of research). In my view therefore this forum is too small to make this decision and a broader community consensus should be sought. We are playing with the very foundations of wikipedia here, and doing it on a single policy talkpage. Doesn't seem right.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's imagine that Michael Green makes a breakthrough at the bleeding edge of string theory. His paper is published in Physics Letters B (primary source).  It is reported by the BBC (secondary source) as front page news.  But there's a trivial difference between the equation as published in Physics Letters B and the equation as published by the BBC.  Which do we trust? In my opinion we would be right to prefer what's said in Physics Letters B.  I think the view that we should never challenge secondary sources based on primary sources is very extreme indeed, and it would not be accepted by the majority of reasonable editors.  I agree that we should not normally do so lightly. I object to moving the discussion to a wider venue. I understand why someone whose view is not in accordance with an emerging consensus would want a fresh start in a different venue, but I want to draw your attention to WP:FORUMSHOP.— S Marshall  T/C 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, the BBC article is most likely to be a primary source as well. It's not merely a matter of counting up links in the chain.  If the BBC is merely (mis)re-printing the equation, then that's not actually a secondary source.  It's an independent primary source.  It's worth noting that the long footnote at NOR that gives examples of primary sources names many types of newspaper articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quibbling that point, WhatamIdoing. What I was trying to explain to Maunus is that there are times when the original source is more trustworthy than the independent commentators, and that it may be a touch overdramatic to describe this as "playing with the very foundations of wikipedia".— S Marshall  T/C 23:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wished people would make more use of common sense, we wouldn't have so much wikilawyering. First, the interpretation that the BBC news report would be a primary source leaves me just wondering. Guess, if multiple news sites are reporting the story they are all primary sources? Second, there are many occasions where a primary source is more reliable than a secondary source. For one, it is the question of which source is more reliable in that particular field. A news site is hardly more reliable than the research paper of an academic institution, be it BBC or the New York Times. And then there are primary sources, which are definite references, such as when they describe a technical specification or a standard of some sort (de-jure or de-facto, defined by standards organizations such as the ISO, the IEEE, etc.). I could easily find countless further examples, but I'm going to bed. Nageh (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Primary source" does not mean "original source". A cheap re-printing of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, or an appendix in a school textbook that re-prints the text of the law, is still a primary source for the text of that law even though it's not the original document and was printed many, many years later.  The concept of a primary source is far more complicated and far more fuzzy than that.  (Remember, this whole classification system was dreamed up by the historians, not the hard sciences.)  Whether something is a primary source depends on the nature of the source, its relationship to what its contents discuss, and how you are using it.
 * I fully agree with you that "secondary" is not another way to spell "reliable". Some secondary sources are completely unreliable.  Others are maybe good enough for most purposes, but just not nearly as reliable as the primary sources or (especially) the original sources (if what you need is an accurate direct quotation).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not what I am arguing. Some editors here are arguing that we could challenge Michael Green's letter B article by making our own calculations. In the case you give Letter B is a more reliable source than BBC news and any editorial group would automatically reject BBC's claims as unreliable compared with his own statement. It feels like you are twisting my words, you are certainly not reading them in a very collaborative way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also cut it out with the accusations of Forumshop - forumshop would be if I took it to a different forum. Which I probably should since you are making a decision here in a small closed forum that will have a much wider impact. It is completely customarily to take such decisions to a venue where the entire community who will be impacted can be involved. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, most of what you say makes sense to me, but you are seriously confusing what some of us might have said in these discussions with what the proposal is actually saying. The proposal does not say that assertions of untruth, even if they be based on primary source evidence, would suffice for removal. It really does not say that. Sarek asked how this proposal would deal with such situations. Why ask this if the proposal actually said something one way or another about such cases? All the proposal is saying is that such cases are complicated, and it actually defers judgment to WP:DUE. Do you really find that problematic? Vesal (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that the proposal is not saying this directly - it is however already being interpreted as if it is saying those things by several editors. The rationale for the proposal is that some editors misuse "not truth" - now we have some editors misusing this proposal before it is even instated. The very least we can do then is modify the proposal to specifically not support any instances of original research.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how the concerns that Maunus states lead to the conclusions. If "wikipedia editors can now challenge claims in secondary based on editor's own interpretation of primary sources, or perhaps even on unpublished 'evidence' ", this does not mean that any such discussion leads to inclusion.  Or, as Maunus states it, "turn wikipedia into a publisher of original thought".  I'm only aware of three end results for such a discussion: the questionable material is stated with inline attribution, the questionable material is noted in a footnote, or editors agree that the material is sufficiently insignificant that readers don't want to know about it.  In none of these cases does there exist publication of original thought.  Since the word "initial" in the proposal confounds the idea of inclusion, maybe I'm missing something, but if so, I think that Maunus needs to better explain the problem, preferably with an example or examples.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed in the examples we hear of, all or most people on different sides of the argument were still following the principle of trying to avoid OR. There just was not agreement that there was OR?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK example: If we accept that BruceGrubb's philological research discovering that Chris Knight mistakenly referred to the OED as providing a reference to the first usage of the word "conspiracy theory" when in fact there are earlier usages is not to be considered Original Research, then we have to ask what happens when we apply the same criteria in another, less trivial venue.? Let us say that the established consensus in the field of history is that Bartolome de Las Casas was born in 1474 and many biographies and documents repeat this date. Now BruceGrubb or another very thorough and dedicated wikipedian decides that this is weird since we know that Las Casas died in 1566 and that that would mean that he would have lived the surprisingly long life of 94 years. He travels to Seville gets a research permit and conducts an investigation in the Archive of the Indies fiunding out that there are records showing that his actual birth year was 1484 and not 1474. He now comes to wikipedia and produces a scan of the original document suggesting that we remove the claim that Las Casas was born in 1474 although all available published sources say so. What do we do? Do we assume that BruceGrubb or whoever did the research is competent enough in that field of research to correctly interpret the document? Do we remove the claim supported by multiple sources, because they are now possibly incorrect? If we follow the way that BruceGrubb interprets the proposed policy we should. This would make wikipedia the first media to publish the change of Las Casas birthdate with ten years, a considerable change to the written history of history Spain and colonial Latin America. Wikipedia would also be in direct contradiction to all professionally published research in the area. Does this not look like a problem to you all? It does to me, since it basically means that we have to rewrite WP:NOT, crossing out "not a publisher of original thought" or at least adding "not a publisher of original thought, unless it is true". That's one example of a possible consequence of this interpretation. I can make up more. The examples are fully parallel except that BruceGrubb only conducted a google search to find an earlier instance and not actual archival search, but I see no good reason why these should be considered different circumstances policywise. (BTW: Helen Rand Parish found the document that changed Las Casas birthdate and published an article about it in the The Hispanic American Historical Review in 1976 - that is what I would encourage the wouldbe BruceGrubb to do instead of publishing it here first. It would also enhance his own prestige as a scholar more.). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In that situation, what we do is tell the truth. The truth being: "Almost all sources state that Las Casas was born in 1474."— S Marshall  T/C 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why shouldn't we handle the other situation by stating the "truth" that "the earliest use of conspiracy theory recorded in the OED is 1909"? (supposing that Chris Knight is simply relying on the OED when he said 1909, and accepting that an interview with a scholar who is not a philologist is not a more reliable source than the OED)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why that sentence shouldn't form part of what we say.— S Marshall T/C 18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean exactly? That you agree with me that BruceGrubb's argument for removing the claim because he found an older source is OR? If that is the case then why do you not think that the proposed version should make it clear that policy does not support that kind of approach?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is getting seriously hung up on this one particular case, and I want to point out that hard cases make bad law. My opinion is that it would be reasonable, in that particular case, to say: Peter Knight states the first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909,(ref) but the phrase "conspiracy theory" also appears in Garrison, George Pierce (1906).  I feel that it can't possibly be original research to identify what's said in a published work with citations.— S Marshall  T/C 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You They asked me to provide an example, then you say that hard cases make bad laws. ... Bad laws are laws that don't consider the implication they may have before hand. Here we have a case where several editors are expressing that they are already interpreting the proposed "law" to mean that they can now freely do types of edits that would previously be rejected as synthesis. One would have to be very optimistic to pass the law without making sure that doesn't happen first.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall asking you for an example. Have you confused me with someone else?  I also think you're confusing my opinion on this one particular article with the general consequences of this policy.  I would have said what I said above irrespective of how WP:V read.  I have never agreed that it's appropriate to edit without regard for the truth, and I have never had any patience with those who think adherence to our policies means it's acceptable to allow lies in an encyclopaedia.  But, and this is the key point, my personal view on this particular article is not what Blueboar's proposed edit to WP:V says.  Blueboar's proposed edit says that if there is a dispute about whether reliably-sourced material may be untrue, then editorial judgment is required and the correct response is to seek talk-page consensus.— S Marshall  T/C 22:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused about the difference between the meanings of the words "lie" and "inaccuracy".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I think that an inaccuracy might be a mistake.  I think that once there's a good faith suspicion that material might be inaccurate, but we continue to say it anyway, it's become a lie.  Could you point out where I'm confused about that, please?— S Marshall  T/C 00:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not because we are not saying that it is the case, we are saying that a particular authority says it is the case. Because Wikipedia does not produce knowledge only transmit it. The average wikipedian is not, and should not be expected to, be able to be qualified to judge whether a statement published by a reputable researcher in a reputable venue is right or wrong - that should always be left to other experts publishing in the same venue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that as if it was uncontroversial—as if everyone agreed that Wikipedians really were just transcription monkeys, reporting what the sources say without evaluating whether the sources are telling the truth. I'm really quite surprised that an encyclopaedia-writer can think like that. I don't agree at all that Wikipedians aren't qualified to judge the truth. I know that there are fields, and levels of complexity, where I'm personally quite capable of deciding what's true and what isn't; and I'm sure that there are fields, and levels of complexity, where you're just as capable. If there's a disagreement then we discuss it on talk. I mean, yes, I agree that our job is to summarise what the sources say, but I think we should evaluate the sources before we use them. The evaluation process is to decide which sources are the most "reliable", by which we mean, which sources are the most likely to be true. The point is to make sure that what we write is reliably-sourced, trustworthy, accurate, and other synonyms for "true". As I said, I don't understand why you think Wikipedians aren't capable of deciding what's true and what isn't, but as you can see, the consensus is against you. An emerging but clear majority prefer Blueboar's wording, which requires sources but also requires that those sources tell the truth. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy.— S Marshall T/C 01:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet many editors have argued this very example is OR via SYN because it implies Knight is wrong. Much this same "reasoning" is being used to keep two reliable sourced direct quotes out of the Weston Price article because they imply something regarding Price.  Never mind they would fix the serious NPOV issue that article has because much of it is based on what others currently are doing with his earlier work rather than what Price himself actual said and did.  In otherwords OR via SYN is being used to effectively break NPOV in that article--wonderful.  Regarding the Hard cases make bad law that argument falls flat on its face the moment you realize that that hard cases like the Winterbottom v Wright situation eventually resulted in consumer protection laws reversing the president set forth in that case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly it implies a synthetic by begging the question - therefore it is synthesis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, hard cases make bad law. My position in this example is that we can't say the 1909 date without qualifying it, because it's a crime against the basic purpose of an encyclopaedia to publish known error.  Exactly how we qualify it is a matter for editorial judgment and local consensus.  But my position is also that we need to consider the phrasing of the first sentence in the light of the many other examples discussed on WT:V over the last eight months, and to follow this example so closely without considering the others we've exhaustively discussed is inadvisable.— S Marshall  T/C 19:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that hard cases make bad law doesn't always apply--the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire comes to mind as does the public outcry regarding food quality triggered by Sinclair's The Jungle. Sometimes the hard case is the straw that brakes the camel's back or would you prefer a world where you have a good chance of getting real Swede in your Swedish meetballs because some worker fell in the meat grinder?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, you yourself said that your intent was not to add the statement to the article, and you've brought this same issue up in multiple venues, so this appears to be a bit of a crusade. If there were some controversy covered in reliable sources about the first usage of the phrase, it might be appropriate to include the statement as S Marshall suggests. If we had a reliable source that said that Knight was incorrect, it might be reasonable to use that sources to show that Knight was wrong. As it is, we have an instance in which Knight made an incorrect statement about the first usage of the term--he is a reliable source in general for the topic, but his speciality is American studies, not etymology or philology, so as a source for first usage he is weak, there's been no evidence presented that there is any controversy amoung experts on the subject of conspiracy theories about when the first usage occurred, and Knight appears to only states the first usage date to contrast the sparse usage in the early part of the century with the increased use of the phrase in its current meaning during the 1960s. The only apparent purpose inclusion of that statement in the article serves is to imply that Knight is wrong, and in that sense it is, in my opinion, a violation of SYNTH. That appears to have been the general consensus amoung those directly involved in that discussion.

That all being said, S Marshall is entirely correct that hard cases make bad law. How we deal with an incorrect source is not just a question of V, but also of DUE, NPOV, and NOR, and very likely other policies and guidelines as well. In the hypothetical case of Las Casas birthdate, I concur with Maunus that even if we believe something is incorrect, if reliable sources agree about it, we stick with the reliable sources, and not publish our views. Let us say that one travels to Seville gets a research permit and conducts an investigation in the Archive of the Indies finding out that there are records showing that his actual birth year was 1484 and not 1474, and produces a pdf. Who are we to judge whether or not those records were the right ones to consult, that they are not forgeries or mistakes in themselves, that the pdf presented is what the presenter claims to be? Those are tasks for experts in the field, not us. The situations are parallel--we are not experts, we should not attempt to determine whether the use of "conspiracy theory" by primary sources in the 1800s is the same as current usage, that the comparison is apt, any more that we are in a position to judge in what sense a particular instance of the phrase "National Socialism" is used in a primary source, see. This is the reason we prefer to rely on secondary sources for most material in articles and advise caution in using primary sources. BG's investigation has shown that a secondary source was incorrect about a minor detail, but it can show us neither what that inaccuracy means nor the implications of the earlier usages in the context of the subject of the article. To try to do either would violate NOR. In the particular case at Conspiracy Theory, I think we took the best course, by consensus, of simply removing the material, but I do not think we can draw a significant conclusion in general from that particular situation. Each situation will be different, we can come up with rules to help us deal with cases, but not a rule to tell us what rules apply to which cases--at some point we must rely on our ability to reach consensus as to our general intent. I think that's why IAR is a pillar, to give us the ability to ignore rules when it becomes clear that applying them is not a good choice when doing so violates our goal. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 8 October 2011 regarding the Las Casas example: WP:OR states, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be..." So to have an example of WP:OR we need an example of material that has been added.

The example considers a "document" wherein it is implied that this document is not considered as a Wikipedia reliable source, perhaps because it is not accessible publicly. There is a disconnect in the example, a leap that removing bad material in an article implies adding unsourced material to that article. The example states, "Do we remove the claim supported by multiple sources, because they are now possibly incorrect?...This would make wikipedia the first media to publish the change of Las Casas birthdate with ten years..." No, a removal would not be followed by adding anything, it is as stated in WP:Editing policy, "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". Since nothing would have been added to the article, there is no WP:OR to consider. Unscintillating (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that the article shouldn't have the information presented in all literature because one wikipedia suggests it may be incorrect? That is quite similar to the situation the italian wikipedia is striking against - the power of one person to veto the inclusion of wellsourced information that they believe to be factually incorrect.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Unscintillating is suggesting that one editor can raise his/her concern that the information is incorrect... even if this concern is based on OR, there is nothing wrong with discussing the concern on the article talk page... and after that discussion, a WP:Consensus of editors might agree to omit the information. We do this all the time. We do not violate any policy if we choose to not discuss something.
 * Nothing says we have to give the date of someone's birth in an article. If our sources conflict, or if we have convincing evidence (even OR evidence) that the source we got the birth date from is inaccurate...  we always have an option of simply not mentioning any birth date. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also nothing wrong with an editor voicing his opinion on the talkpage of Elvis Presley stating that he knows for a fact that he is still alive because he saw him in Walmart in Reno Nevada yesterday and has a photo to prove it. But there is no reason to give him extra backing in the policy to suggest that his claim should influence what goes in the article on Elvis Presley or not. We don't have to mention death dates either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue presented is that an editor has a recent photo of Elvis taken in Reno, Nevada, and the editor asserts that Wikipedia has a potential inaccuracy because it says that Elvis is dead. What changes with the proposal, IMO, is the degree to which we consider the assertion.  Before, we could say that the claim is not verifiable and that we don't want to spend any time on it.  With the proposal, we analyze the assertion, because if we ignore assertions of potential inaccuracy, the effect is to leave potential inaccuracy in the encyclopedia.  At this point, further analysis seems not to be useful since the example is a hypothetical, but the idea that this particular assertion could or would "influence what goes in the article" is IMO not warranted.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anything changes. The hypothetical example you offer goes on all the time, every day in fact.  And we don't take it seriously unless there are RS saying, "yes, Elvis may have faked his death, and the authorities are looking for him", or if the topic of the article is the Elvis Presley phenomenon and there are RS supporting the Reno sighting. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I gather that you would dismiss the hypothetical editor before or after the policy change without reference to the existing WP:V policy, which suggests that it is not a good example to discuss policy change. Unscintillating (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding, "We are playing with the very foundations of wikipedia here, and doing it on a single policy talkpage." Ironically, it was another editor opposing the change who highlighted that the last paragraph on the lead of WP:V says "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." Nobody proposed to eliminate that. So, I don't see any rational basis for concern here that the other polices are undermined by this change. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Concrete example
I'd like to hear how Maunus would handle the following problem: The only source that bothered to track down the source of the phrase "Satanic Verses" is Daniel Pipes in a 1990 book of his. Pipes' summary gets cited by several other books. It contains one obvious error: the first publication year of William Muir's volume containing the sentence is 1858, not 1861; the volume was reprinted in 1861 though. This is easily determined today when Google Books has scanned all this ancient stuff and put it online, and when you can do a full-text search instantly. This was surely not so easily determined in the 1980s. Citing the publication year of a book is "original research" that is routinely allowed in Wikipedia, and based on *gasp* primary sources. So, should we dare contradict Pipes and all those who cited him, and put the year as 1858 instead of 1861, or not? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that picking trivial examples where the stakes are low such as this is not a good way to get an idea of the possible consequences of the change in policy. I would probably not object to the original research being inserted in such a case, although on principle yes I don't think it should be allowed. The reason that I hold on t that principle is that it becomes really important not to allow OR when dealing with more controversial topics of the kind that keep arbcom busy such as Balkan/Eastern Europe politics, Race and Intelligence, New Religious Movements, creationism, climate change etc. If the policy gives any leeway for OR it is in those areas is it will be immediately felt, it is not likely to make any difference regarding trivial facts like dates or where semi-celebs went to high school. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you on avoiding real OR. But I don't see how the small change in this policy is going to make something like this more likely to happen, or more difficult to combat. "Verifiability, not truth" can easily be used to argue for including the worst sources, or to verify only phrases out of context, whereas the source actually asserts the opposite, as it happened in that amusing example (which reminds me that I have to get back to writing some contents on that). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My worries come from the fact that even before the proposal is passed editors are setting a precedent for using this change to allow OR, grantedly they use small and trivial examples, but precedent is precedent and the Original Researchers out there will pull that card as soon as they can. At this point I am sure that by allowing this proposal to pass without tightening the wordings against original research and the use of primary sources to trump secondary sources, we are giving a present to those who would like to turn wikipedia into the publishing house of their ownresearch. It does sound alarmist I know, but if I am not saying this now I would be feeling very stupid when some POV-pusher or Original Researcher directed me to this policy. Now at least I can shrug and say I told you so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think if you want to know how he would handle that, asking him directly on his talk page would be best. If you asked me, the first question I would ask is why is the particular publication date important to the article? There are lots of ways of handling such mistakes that we uncover, V is just one policy amoung others. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The original publication date of a book is often easily verifiable from a first edition of a book if it contains the date, even if it is a primary source for the information. Not OR, not a problem. --FormerIP (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to engage in OR here, there is a (highly reputable and more recent) secondary source that has the correct date: Looking for secondary sources is what should be done: and then the editors' knowledge can help decide which secondary source is right. There is no need to give both the right and the wrong date in the article in a case like this – it's not an NPOV issue. -- J  N  466  23:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's convenient and useful for the case in point. For the general question, though, where a primary source shows a secondary source to be plainly wrong, we reject the information in the secondary source. Of course we do. No policy ties us to using secondary sources that are demonstrably incorrect. --FormerIP (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That type of correction should not be undertaken lightly though, and other secondary sources should always be sought (unless it is a clear error like a misquote). IIRC, in the Oslo example, editors from Oslo said that the public transport system was not in fact down, as some foreign sources had reported, citing personal experience. That alone would not have satisfied me. But the editors were then able to point to local, Norwegian sources, that described exactly what had been happening, and which parts of the public transport system were out, and which weren't. It's at that point that the foreign sources could be dismissed as erroneous, not before. -- J N  466  00:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is another answer here regarding the 2011_Norway_attacks in Oslo. In analyzing the case, I noticed that Identifying reliable sources says about news sources, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis."  The editor in Norway, in addition to his/her assertion of personal knowledge, noted that the foreign sources referred to the transportation system in ways that the local media did not.  So add two more points beyond personal assertion to establishing lack of reliability in the context, (1) foreigners reporting, and (2) lack of familiarity with the organization of the local roads.  To relate this post with WP:V policy changes, I'm not aware that the current proposal changes analysis of reliability in the context.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that source, but "then the editors' knowledge can help decide which secondary source is right" is essentially a sleight of hand. How do you determine if Pipes, who is cited by several, or Esposito—apparently cited by none for this information—has the correct date? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're already done that--It contains one obvious error: the first publication year of William Muir's volume containing the sentence is 1858, not 1861; the volume was reprinted in 1861 though. This is easily determined today when Google Books has scanned all this ancient stuff and put it online, and when you can do a full-text search instantly. In this particular case, I doubt that the exact publication date is of any real importance in any case, esp. given that we're taking about the difference between a 1st and 2nd edition of the same work. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Truth and Falsity versus Verifiability and Reliability
About 99.9999999999% (trillions of pages) of sourced material in the world is "excluded" from any given article for various reasons (including relevancy etc.) So, leaving material out is the norm. Are some saying that a consensus of falsity (and even then, only in those cases when the consensus/conversation isn't trumped by wp:npov) can't be one of those reasons? And, even further than that, the current wording is pervasively misinterpreted as say that possible falsity of material can't even be discussed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000 I would argue that a consensus of falsity on a well-sourced claim should not normally be enough to exclude something on its own. That could lead to "wiki truth" and it would violate WP:NPOV, at least if the claim was an obviously notable one, for example a very well known and frequently discusseded one. But I keep doubting whether these types of examples are relevant on this talk page, given that no version of WP:V should ever try to trump WP:NPOV on this. The practical way to discuss such cases is by looking at WP:NPOV in most cases, and quite often (at least when it involves good faith editors) it simply comes down to a decision about wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the confluence of four factors covered by your first sentence is too rare to talk about. #1 WELL sourced. #2 Not a wp:npov balancing situation.   #3 Consensus that it is false.  #4 Removal is contested.  The actual cases that come to mind to me are where all of the following are true:
 * Some weakness in the sourcing, (e.g. a rs made a mistake, an RS discussed/covered statements by an unreliable source) but where someone can still argue that it is "wp:rs'ed"
 * NOBODY (not even the people who want the material in) is arguing that it is not false. Even the people who want it in are not arguing that it is not false.  They just want it in for effect in the POV war.
 * The material is so implausible that other rs's have not addressed the question. E.G. "Ron Paul is an isolationist" or "Obama has three eyes")
 * Then somebody says that potential falsity of the statement can't even be discussed. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That clarifies your position for me, and seems reasonable. I think there are some issues where we do not even seek to have one policy which tries to tell us what to do in any exact way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Something to consider here... we keep talking about inclusion/exclusion as if these were our only options... but that is not the case. We actually have several other options when it comes to verifiable but potentially untrue information... for example: Include after rephrasing. - the most common example of this is changing a statement of fact ("The Beatles were the best band ever  ") to an attributed statement of opinion ("Rolling Stone magazine called the Beatles the best band ever  "). Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. In that case, that becomes a statement of fact, that Rolling Stone said that.  And I think one step further on the limb is "according to Rolling Stone......."   North8000 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a follow up to this... once something potentially untrue has been rephrased as an opinion, then we can discuss whether we should mention that opinion or not per WP:DUE. The answer may be to mention it, the answer may be not mention it... but we are no longer basing the decision on the truth/untruth of the statement, but on whether the opinion is significant or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Except, your "basing" statement paraphrasing the discussion is a lot wider ranging (and thus open to misinterpretation) than the discussion. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way? Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can imagine about 10 ways that somebody might MIS-interpret your saying "basing the decision on the truth/untruth of the statement" and I was afraid that someone might do that. But it was fine in the way that you intended it which was according to the details of the example. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How could someone misinterpret? Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to even write the possible misinterpretations. Inclusion based (only) on truth. Falsity being categorically a sufficient reason to exclude. Etc.  North8000 (talk)
 * Still don't see how anyone could misinterpret my comment. My whole point is that once you rephrase a statement as being an opinion, truth/falsity of the opinion no longer matters ... opinions can be absolutely false, but if they are significant we are supposed to include them. Opinions can be absolutely true, but if they represent a Fringe viewpoint they should be excluded. That's what WP:DUEWEIGHT is all about. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think you make an important and constructive point. But I note that what you mean by "rephrasing" is also the inclusion of additional material (in your example, the attribution). I note this to clarify that whenever I have written that we need more elaborate guidance on inclusion and exclusion criteria, the point is not simplyh to prohibit people from including something, but also to explain more fully what kind of material is desirable or necessary to include.

Very early in this discussion someone quoted an article by MIT prof. Garfinkle that was critical ov WP because of the "verifiability, not truth" slogan. But I do not think there was enough discussion of what he meant by this (which does not involve much guesswork as he explained what he meant) ... thus, the discussion of Garfiunkle illustrates what I see as a common problem; taking quotes out of context (one solution being, add more context, which brings me back to my wish for more discussion of inclusion criteria). Garfinkle opposed the principle because he interpreted our policies to mean that as long as you can provide any source, the view gets included. It is easy to interpret our policies this way and the effect is quite clear to me; as long as one can find a quote via Google books, it goes in. And I can understand why an MIT professor would object: a great many of the books available through Google Books represent minority views, explicitly speculative or deliberately provocative work, and in many cases, work that is simply out of date. Moreover, in order to know that the view is a minority view, or deliberately provocative or explicitly speculative sometimes onje has to read the book as a whole. And in some cases, one has to know the books or articles that the author is responding to, which the author will cite, but may not always summarize (this is very common with academic books when the author is writing for an audience presumed to be knowledgable about the topic). If the work is a minority view one definitely has to read other works to know this. and if the book si out of date, one has to read recent scholarship, much of which is not available on-line. My point is that we can keep our "verifiability, not truth" slogan (and I am arguing againstr Garfinkle, not you right now) if we required editors to include more information besides a quotation and a citation to a published source. We would need to provide not only the context for the quote but often times the context for the book or article cited. And as I said in most academic disciplines one would have to look at recent journals and books which may not be available on line. For example, if someone quoted a book published in 1950, but a search of the major journals in that field revealed that it has not been cited in the past ten years, then editors have a right to wonder whether the work is significant (journal citations is not the only means to verify this, just one obvious way; checking the bibliographies of major textbooks published in the past five years is another way). I do not consider this to be OR, I consider this to be the kind of research one must do to verify that a book or article is indeed reliable, or that a view is indeed sigfnificant. This is one thing I mean by inclusion criteria. And, as you say, the solution need not be to exclude a view, but to include it along with more information - for example, that a view published fifty years ago is widely cited as an authority (more citations); that a book published fifty years ago is widely cited, but critically (more citations); that a book that was published is seldom cited, perhaps because reviews in major journals were generally negative (more citations); that a book that was published fifty years ago is seldom cited, because research interests have trended away from that topic (and we can discuss what would provide evidence of that). Any of these kinds of comments which would be based on cited sources would add more contextual information to the text. I know I cannot speak for Garfinkle but I bet if we routinely did this kind of research to verify that a view is significant, or, if it was significant and is no longer, what happened to cause the change, and added this additioinal information, WP would have much more credibility in the eyes of other academics like Garfinkle. I hate to say this but in my experience most Wikipedians are either unwilling to do this amount of work, or they simply lack the resources to do adequate research yet insist on adding content anyway.

Many people have expressed concerns about how a change in the wording of the policy might encourage OR, but I am making a different point: while we proscribe "original research" we do preacribe a different kind of research:
 * Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

My point is that this is not enough guidance. Our editors need to do more research to be able to assess the reliability of the source and to be sure that the view is being represented accurately. We do caution editors against cherry-picking quotes but the fact is, too many editors ignore this provision, and in some cases one really has to read a lot to be able to provide enough context so that the quote will be understood in the sense intended by the authors. By the way when I say "assess the reliability of the source" I do not mean that we should fact-check; I agree with the many other editors who identify this as OR. I mean assessing the source in a well-informed and thoughtful. A simple example, maybe obvious but just to explain what I mean. Towards the end of his working life, Freud wrote Moses and Monotheism even though he was never trained or credentialed as a Bible scholar and is not considered by Bible scholars of any kind to be an authority on the Bible, and Totem and Taboo even though he was never trained or credentialed as an anthropologist and is not considered by anthropologists of any kind to be an authority on the totemism. I would agree that these books are reliable sources on Freud's beliefs about religion and primitive cultures, and may be reliable sources on psychoanalytic theory (psychoanalytic theorists are divided over how seriously to take them). But they are not reliable sources on Moses, the origins of monotheism, or totemism. Now, Freud has become such a controversial figure that most editors probably would readily agree with me. My point is that there are other books out there, written by otherwise well-respected and important scholars, which may nevertheless be highly unreliable sources on the manifest topic. I do not think we need any kind of true/false criteria. The problem is, our core policies seem to cover these points (WEIGHT, FRINGE, CHERRY) but I think that V and RS and CS could provide much clearer and elaborate guidance not just on what not to do, but on what one should do i.e. how to do the research that our standards call for. Because in my experience, a very large number of editors really do not understand how to do this research, or are unwilling to do it as it can require a lot of work. Regardless of what happens with your proposal, I believe that unless we address these problems, WP will still suffer from the same problems and from the same criticisms. I do not agree with Garfinkle about the dangers of our "not truth" slogan. But I do agree with him that providing a quote from some on-line source (including Google Books) with a correct citation can still lead to articles that give too much weight to out-of-date or minority views, or that present wholly inadequate and even misleading accounts of properly sourced, even quoted, views. One can follow the guidance I quoted above to the letter and still misuse sources. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has always been good practice to read widely around your topic before writing about it, but that piece of good practice is not enforceable, because you don't know what my state of knowledge might be, and I don't know yours. A practical policy such as WP:V should concern itself with things we can measure, test, and enforce.— S Marshall T/C 11:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I couldn't agree more with all that you just wrote above regarding being clearer about not only what we should not do but what we should do. IMHO WP:V as it is written implies a hierarchy of sources with peer reviewed journals at the top and reliable newspapers near the bottom and with some articles that is a problem.  However none of this will prevent editors from reading their own views into a passage (such as Bromley's) and saying this passage means this when it could be read several ways.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reality is that when there is a conflict, the general guidance provided becomes subservient to: "how can I creatively "mis-interpret" this in a way that helps me win" .  The proposal helps in several of such areas.   North8000 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bruce, I really appreciate the comment - I should also use this opportunity to add that you made a strong statement about the mistake that too many people make in believing that science determines "the truth." I agree with your assessment about V.  S Marshall, we will always have trouble enforcing policies.  Aside from the whole "be bold!" thing, policies (IMHO) serve two important functions: to provide newbies with guidelines that can help them edit with a minimum of conflict, and as a point of reference when there is an edit war (in my experience, the overwhelming majority of conflicts can be resolved by editors acting in good faith just by reaching an agreement on how best to apply policies to the problem).  So either I do not entirely agree with you about "enforce," or I might define "enforcement" a bit more broadly than you.  Sure, I just complained about lots of editors who aren't willing to do the work.  But this does not mean that policies are always or necessarily laws that one obeys or violates.  People are intelligent enough to take principles that can be applied in a wide variety of ways - and if enough well-informed editors are collaborating on an article (take a look at Evolution right now) they can work out how policies apply to their situation.  North8000 makes a valid point, and in my experience the best articles are ones where more than three well-informed editors who care about policy are collaborating &mdash; and the worst articles are the ones where only one or two people regularly watch the page.  Those are the pages where someone can "creatively misinterpret" a policy and get away with it.  But when you have four or five editors collaborating, they usually end up doing the right thing.


 * But S Marshall, even if you and I do not agree that policies must have clearly measurable standards, we certainly both agree that policies must be clear and practical. BruceGrubb provides a perfect example of where V is clear but not entirely practical because its standard is along only one dimension.  This hierarchy of reliability may be valid in a generic sense.  But one dimension is not sufficient to help people determine what is the best source, and how to use it appropriately.  Thinking back to Garfinkel's essay, the major problem (in my view) is that we are defining standards along only one dimension.  Verifiability = using any reliable source and the reliability of sources can be ranked along one axis.  I guess this is the simulacra of "measurable" but one axis, one variable, is not enough. I am not ready to forward a proposal because I am not sure how to word it, but I think that among all the people who have responded to the RfC there must be enough to put there heads together and work out the other dimensions and what guidelines.  As I said, we already tell people what not to do.  What is missing is clear basic guidance as to what to do.  Surely we can all agree that providing an accurate quote from a properly-referenced book published by a major press is not sufficient information to find out whether the quote is (1) the author's POV versus someone else's POV which the author is summarizing, (2) a speculative claim or hypothetical argument versus a claim that represents the author's view but that is not based on his or her research versus a conclusion based on his or her research, (3) a minority view or a majority view (I assure you: a Nobel-Prize winning scholar can hold minority views!!), (4) a view that was a majority view but is now out of date.  I am not sure if these distinctions can be quantified.  But surely, these are things editors need to know to follow existing policy.  And surely, these are things editors need to acknowledge if we want our articles to be credible.  And surely, we should be able to provide benchmarks or give enough examples of indicators or concrete guidance as to how to find out, that editors can find useful in real situations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether what you're groping towards is the long-overdue moment when we make WP:Editorial judgment into a bluelink. I think that what you're trying to do is admirable, but I think it's different from WP:V. Verifiability on Wikipedia is the need for individual facts to be attributed by means of an inline citation. It is a simple, testable, enforceable rule. What you're talking about, I think, concerns the quality of editorial judgment. It is something we have attempted to teach in disparate policies such as WP:SYN, WP:RS and WP:DUE, and to an extent in WP:NOT. I agree with you that we need to put together these thoughts into one place, and I am willing to collaborate with you in producing an essay on the subject. I do not agree that the one place should be here. Verifiability is a much smaller and simpler thing.— S Marshall  T/C 19:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * S Marshall, I am not trying to restrict the editorial judgement that must be the product of collaborations on talk page. But Blueboar's proposals are a response to criticisms of Wikipedia.  I think Blueboar and I are on the same side when it comes to this: we must take these criticisms seriously and they call for some kind of reform of our policies. Without commenting directly on Blueboar's proposal, in the coarse of this discussion several people have suggested that a key change is to get rid of the "... not truth" formulation.  I do not agree with this position, and I believe that some other key changes are required instead.  All of our core content policies are meant to guide editorial judgments (without being a substitute for judgment), including V.  That said, I am not insisting that my comments apply specifically to this page.  But I cannot reasonably ask well-intentioned editors to oppose Blueboar's proposal without offering at least a vague idea of an alternative.  And I cannot ask Blueboar to consider revising his proposal, without elaborating on the issues it does not cover.  Do my suggestions better-suit other policy pages or guidelines?  Probably!  But this is because our core policies and guidelines are linked.  V is inextricably linked to NPOV and NOR.  And V is inextricably linked with CS and RS.  My main point is this: an effective response to the criticisms motivating those who oppose "not truth" will necessarily call for revisions to more than one policy page and at least one of the guidelines pages. So I think there is a value to discuss these proposals as a package and that requires discussing them in one place.  I just don't see how I can reasonably explain my opposition to Blueboar's proposals without expressing these views on this page.  I have already said we ought to discuss the proposal to link "not truth" with NPOV - that discussion obviously does belong on the NPOV page, but if we agreed to this change, it would have major consequences for how many people view Blueboars proposal for this page.  Maybe my points really belong on RS.  I wouldn't argue against that!!  But ef we changed RS along the lines I am suggestiong, again it would have consequences for any changes to V. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I understand that. I think you're wrong to go through all these gymnastics to try to keep the self-evidently self-contradictory Toxic Triad in the policy. I think Jimbo has been right all along. But I think we will not agree, so we should agree to disagree.— S Marshall T/C 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the toxic triad? PCB? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Toxic triad: "Verifiability, not truth".— S Marshall T/C 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, you are not editing in good faith when you say we can agre to disagree. Obviously, I do not think it is toxic, and I thought it is self-evidently logical and sensible. If we are "agreeing to disagree" we are agreeing over whether it is toxic and self-contradictory.  I am happy to agree to disagree, but the only way we can do this in good faith is to agree that it is not self-evident.  As long as either one of us persists in claiming that our own view is self-evident, we are refusing to accept that the other is disagreeing in good faith.  If you want me to agree to disagree with you, then I have to accept that it is not evident to everyone, and therefore, not self-evident.  If I were to continue believing it is self-evident, then your belief means you are blind or stupid.  To me, that would be a complete absense of good faith on my part and a refusal to assume you are acting in good faith.  As long as you continue to consider this self-evident you are saying I am blind or stupid and that is definitely not a good-faith act. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can both agree to disagree with you, and simultaneously hold the opinion that the toxic triad is self-evidently self-contradictory. The two are not mutually incompatible.— S Marshall  T/C 20:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned elsewhere but it is apropos here as well: I don't think the proposed change is necessary for editors who have internalized the concept of ""summarizers and not truth-finders".  It is necessary for the external observers of Wikipedia to have in our policy a clarification of how it is actually done -- without a confusing and apparent contradiction.  As for new or prospective editors, I disagree that the shock and awe of V-not-T is helpful.  It is downright confusing. patsw (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pat, how do you feel about the way we incorporated "V not T" into the proposal... moving it out of the lede and into its own section, so we can explain it better? Do you find that confusing as well (or at least less confusing)? Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. Finally, V-not-T is getting the context it needs.  I never found it confusing.  Observing patterns of editing from new editors, I claim they found it confusing. patsw (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was getting at... do you think that new editors will understand the "Triad" better as it is presented in the proposal? (it sounds like you do). My take on this is that the problem isn't with the "Triad" itself... but with how we present it.  The triad itself isn't "toxic", but the presentation might be. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be off the grid for 10 days (until October 21st), but quickly I think that my previous idea (4 metrics determines strength of sourcing, and scaling that to the nature of the situation) would help to the limits of what is appropriate for wp:ver.  Policies place limits on editorial judgment,  but, lacking any statement that editorial judgment is a good thing (and indeed the unacknowledged main way that Wikipedia has been built) it gets treated as if it were something bad.   So maybe we need a one sentence policy:  "Subject to the limits imposed by other policies, editorial judgment is a good thing. Next a look that wp:synth is in order, to define prohibited synthesis more accurately.  Right now, if read / interpreted rigorously, all of Wikipedia (except direct quotes) is synthesis. Sorry I have to leave that comment and run away for 10 days.  :-)  North8000 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The thoughts here reflect a lot of WP:V issues that have many different origins and solutions: I don't think that there is a single remedy. patsw (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Current (or recent) events where the coverage is rapidly changing and the ratio of encyclopedic content to transient info is small.
 * Articles on controversial subjects that draw advocacy editors.
 * Articles where there are gray areas between mainstream and fringe views.
 * Articles where any sources are particularly obscure.
 * Articles where an editor-discovered primary source contradicts a secondary source already in the article, and no secondary source which references this contradiction can be found.
 * Articles where an error in the article is asserted and there's a dispute over its removal.
 * There may not be a single remedy... but there is a single method to finding a remedy... discussion and consensus building on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and also agree that for editors to have a constructive discussion and build consensus, they need some guidelines and these need to be clear. I can understand why some people find "Verifiability, not truth" confusing.  I would not object to any real improvement than honored the core idea.  I agree that more explanation or contextualization would help.  Proposing, as some do, that verifiability simply means finding a published source, which is a common view based on language that presented a minimum requirement, is a big mistake, and it is a mistake when non-Wikipedian's claim that this is all that we are verifying, and it is a mistake when newbies think that this is all they have to do to comply with the premise.


 * "Truth" is not the standard in science (I mean the contemporary positivist sciences, not science as it was understood in the 18th century). Many people have little or poor education in science and find this "shocking," and some of them work very hard to understand what the standards are for scientists, even spending years in graduate school and additional training as post-docs.  Some of these men and women go on to write prestigious encyclopedia articles in prestigious encyclopedias.


 * This encyclopedia covers other topics besides sciences, but most academic displines in the humanitis and social sciences also reject the idea of truth. Mathematics and certain branches of analytic philosophy are the only fields I know of where a conclusion is presented as "true" but in all the cases I know of this claim is nevertheless dependent on assumptions that the mathematician or philosopher can state clearly but never claims to be able to prove.


 * Be that as it may, since our coverage is, well, encyclopedic, we have additional reasons for avoiding the truth/false claims and provide our own standards for inclusion. But my point is that it is just silly to think that learning how to write a good encyclopedia article is easy, or obvious.  This entire discussion is motivated in part by our desire to increase our credibility with academics, and really, I do not see how anyone might think that this will be easy to accomplish.  I don't man that it should be hard to improve this policy, I mean we who work on improving articles should write them with the hope or expectation that it is possible for newbies not only to write good encyclopedia articles (i.e. the work required to do good research), but to larn how to write good encyclopedi articles.  By this I mean: learning how to do good research, learning how to edit collaboratively, and learning our policies.


 * Wikipedia does not require someone to have a PhD. to write an article, and I am glad about this. But it is absurd to think that we do not have standards or, &mdash; and this is the key point &mdash; there is no reason to think that our standards are so simple that one can have a competent grasp of them through a casual reading and little thought.  Anyone who thinks that "Verifiability, not truth" is self-evidently contradictory and toxic is someone who has not put the minimum amount of thought it takes to qualify one as a co-author of good encyclopdia articles.  We don't have a test that we require newbies to take to qualify them - what happens is that, through trial-and-error, and collaborating with other editors, newbies learn from experience and from other editors th value of our policies and how to apply them.  Several people who oppose Blueboar's proposals say that they too found the idea absurd at first yet now consider it essential.  I am just elaborating on why I think so many experienced editors share this view.


 * I certainly do not think that this and related policies can ot or should not be improved. I think we can explain more clearly that we do not claim that any of the views in WP are "true," we only claim that they are significant views (which if need be can be specifically attributed).  In order to include a view in WP, we avoid arguments over whether they are true or false and instead seek to verify that they are indeed significant, and that we are giving each view due weight, and that we are providing accurate accounts of these views.  And in order to verify these things, we look for reliable sources.  I do not think it is hard to explain this clearly.  But I do not expect every newbie to read this and immediately grasp why this is our policy.  Newbies have a choice: they can write articles for encyclopedias like EB, which might require them to spend 4-10 years in graduate school, or they can write for WP which means that they will allow themselves the time it takes, and be open to advice from other editors, to learn how to edit according to our policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Example
Suppose an article states:
 * Methamphetamine caused more drug related emergency room visits than any other drug in 2005, and the number of incidents has been steadily rising. Source www.ihs.gov/...pdf
 * relevant part of the pdf:
 * Meth abuse causes more emergency room visits than all other drugs


 * Washington, D.C. – Two new surveys released today by the National Association of Counties (NACo) show that methamphetamine abuse continues to have a devastating effect on America’s communities. One survey, “The Effect of Meth Abuse on Hospital Emergency Rooms,” revealed that there are more meth-related emergency visits than for any other drug and the number of these visits has increased substantially over the last five years.
 * Both surveys were conducted in late 2005. The results of the emergency room survey are based on 200 responses from hospital emergency room officials in 39 states. Most of the hospitals participating in the survey are either county owned or operated. Forty-seven percent of the hospitals say that methamphetamine is the top illicit drug involved in presentations at their hospitals. The drug next highest on the list is marijuana at 16 percent.
 * The problems are compounded because the patients rarely have health insurance. Eighty-three percent of the emergency room officials reported that people requiring treatment for a meth-related emergency are often uninsured.

Would that be a WP:RS? And would it be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH if someone objected, quoting the numbers from DAWN:


 * Drug Abuse Warning Network National Estimates of Drug-related Emergency Department Visits, 2004 - 2009
 * DAWN excludes alcohol-only visits for patient age 21 or older. Alcohol, when present with other drugs, is included for all ages.



! scope="col" width="280" align="left" | Drug ! scope="col" width="100" align="left" | 2004 ! scope="col" width="100" align="left" | 2005


 * Alcohol || 674,914 || 527,198
 * Cocaine || 475,425 || 483,865
 * Heroin || 214,432 || 187,493
 * Marijuana || 281,619 || 279,664
 * Methamphetamine || 132,576 || 109,655
 * MDMA (Ecstasy) || 10,220 ||  11,287
 * Prescription drugs ||  ||
 * Antidepressants || 148,855 || 147,294
 * Antipsychotics || 87,228 ||  104,546
 * Opiates/opioids || 299,270 || 388,858
 * Miscellaneous analgesics/combinations || 90,552 || 108,471
 * Anticonvulsants || 74,903 ||  84,237
 * Benzodiazepines || 213,054 || 269,235
 * Misc. anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics || 68,173 ||  78,854
 * Muscle relaxants || 40,493 || 53,515
 * }
 * Antipsychotics || 87,228 ||  104,546
 * Opiates/opioids || 299,270 || 388,858
 * Miscellaneous analgesics/combinations || 90,552 || 108,471
 * Anticonvulsants || 74,903 ||  84,237
 * Benzodiazepines || 213,054 || 269,235
 * Misc. anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics || 68,173 ||  78,854
 * Muscle relaxants || 40,493 || 53,515
 * }
 * Benzodiazepines || 213,054 || 269,235
 * Misc. anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics || 68,173 ||  78,854
 * Muscle relaxants || 40,493 || 53,515
 * }
 * Muscle relaxants || 40,493 || 53,515
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/..ED_Visits_by_Drug


 * The number of visits in 2006 was 119.1 million www.cdc.gov/ ... nhsr007.pdf, combined with the DAWN figures for 2006 we can say that 1 in every 1,500 visits to the emergency room is related to methamphetamine, but is that WP:CALC or WP:SYNTH ?

People seem to think that every flawed study can be balanced by other reliable sources, but people are much more willing to debunk fringe theories than they are to publish something that could be interpreted as defending an immoral cause. And seems I've chosen a bad example, first link I get is http://www.slate.com/.._meth.html. But still, what would be the concensus here? Remove the part related to this study, or present both arguments, if slate can be considered a RS? DS Belgium (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are using reliable sources. But the way in which you are using them might be in violation of NOR.  I happen to think you might be right (about editors being happy to debunk fringe theories but not to provide views they consider immoral) but this is not the fault of policy, even existing policy as written, it is the fault of this being a "Wikipedia" - Encyclopedia articles usually reflect the biases of academics and their editors, and WP reflects the bias of the mob.  Our hope is that as more and more people edit, different biases cancel one another out.  But read the essay on systematic bias - that is a hard one to fight.  Butg this page is about policy and our policies do not lead to let alone encourage systematic bias.  In thiks particular case, you may have to be willing to live with the fact that at WP a view that you consider to be untrue will be included in the article, and that a view you consider a clear and demonstrable fact may be excluded, unless you can attribute the view to one reliable source (this would be enough to spare you any accusations of OR).  If you can find a published source saying that alcohal causes more ER visits, you should have no problem.  Then, if we have two sources that provide different views, it is simple: editors on the talk page have to decide whether they are dealing with two contrtary but equally valid views, or is one source better than the other?  No policy will ever legislate specifics, just guidelines.  It is the editors at the page who need to come to some agreement that one source is more reliable than another.  That is basic collaborative editing and that is because we are a wikipedia which, after ail, is the only reason you (or I) are allowed to edit this encyclopedia in the first place. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Chipping in from the sidelines, I was right with you until you said "editors on the talk page have to decide whether they are dealing with two contrtary but equally valid views, ...". The way it works at present is that editorial judgements of validity (or truth) are not sufficient to include an assertion lacking a supporting RS, but editorial judgments of invalidity (falsity) are sufficient to exclude an assertion having a supporting RS, and to exclude the supporting cite as well (editorial judgments of invalidity being sufficient to consider a particular assertion by a source otherwise considered reliable for the topic to be unreliable for that particular assertion, and thereby rendering WP:DUE inapplicable for that particular case). I disagree with the latter portion of that, but that is the way it works. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. DS Belgion provided a few sources and I imagine there are more.  When I said "equally valid" I thought it went without saying that one can verify this through reliable sources.  But thanks for clarifying this point.  The bottom line for DS Belgium is, I think, that it looks like she should be more concerned about NOR than about V in this specific example. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One editor's opinion, the report from the National Association of Counties is not reliable in the context, see Inaccuracy. As such, it does not satisfy WP:RS, in which case the material is not used on Wikipedia.  However, if enough editors want to consider the source as WP:RS, it may be expedient to argue under WP:Inaccuracy that the due weight of the material must be reduced; such that material from the source is provided using inline attribution in the body of the article, or in a footnote.  I.e., " According to the National Association of Counties (NACo), methamphetamine caused more drug-related emergency room visits than any other illicit drug in 2005, and the number of incidents has been steadily rising."  As per WP:Editing policy, in no case should this material be presented using Wikipedia's voice.  P.S. See also How to lie with statistics.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a very good example, was it... Guess it was getting late, let's not talk about it anymore, shall we? DS Belgium (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A more pressing example
At the moment we are having a sourcing fight in Talk:List of plants used in herbalism concerning the use of a University of Maryland website as a source for claims about various plants and their use in various systems of herbalism. The big source of the fight, in my opinion, is precisely the association with a major university; I suspect if it were hosted at something like herbalismforyou.com it would be given much less credence. If one looks at articles on individual plants, one sees a long list of references at the end of each article; however, we also see a lot of extremely questionable claims. For example, we see in the article on "cayenne" the claim that "Native Americans have used cayenne [...] as both food and medicine for at least 9,000 years." Now, it is extremely hard for me to see what concrete evidence could be produced for a medicinal use that can be dated back to nine millennia ago; in a research environment I would expect a specific citation for this, and I would read the citation to see that it held up. In practice one cannot do this with their website, because while they provide a list of references, one cannot reasonably be expected to rummage through thirty-one papers on medical studies in the hope that one of them even contains the claim, much less provides an adequate citation or other support for it. And in any case it's not hard to find criticism of the program of the institute that is publishing it; even people within the UMD system (from other campuses) criticize it!

The problem as I see it is that this source isn't reliable because it is making extraordinary claims in a way that, when checked properly, seem likely to be not properly verified. I'm guessing that if I went through all the various references, I might find one that made this claim, and it might be cited, and I might be able to find the cited work and check it, and so forth until I either found an unimpeachable source, or (most likely) I found a misrepresentation, or I found the claim to be unsupported. But it's an unreasonable effort for a statement that is almost certainly false. It seems to me that it's incumbent upon those who want to put this kind of information into our articles to do the chasing down. Or better still, we should just write the website off as unreliable and cease to use it. As it is, because (a) it is at a university and (b) it presents some semblance of a scholarly apparatus, people are ignoring the manifest difficulties with the claims it makes and are insisting upon using it as an authoritative source. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been brought to my attention that UMD is apparently simply republishing material from A.D.A.M., Inc.. None of this does a thing towards increasing the reliability of the material. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have answered your own question, but if you are looking for a general principle, this is what I would ask: why is the website posting this information? Some universities give departments and faculty a lot of leeway in what they can post to their websites.  Sometimes this includes pdfs of published peer-revirewed articles and is thus highly reliable (although this does not mean that the views in the journal article are widely shared!).  Professors often post materials they want available to their students - this can include material published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it can also be any number of other things.  I really think we have to move away from verifiability simply meaning publsihed, and away from very groad definitions of what is a reliable source.  Materials made available to students might represent fringe views that the prof. wants students to read critically, or that the prof. may use as a provocation, or it may be a document expressing what was once state-of-the-art mainstream views but is now out of datge (the prof. may be making a point about the history of scholarship, or how scholars have debated a controversial topic) - in this case, there is in my view simply no way to assess the reliability of a source; the value of the source depends on how the teacher is presenting it and using it in the classroom and we have no access to this and professors often ask students to read work that does not represent mainstream or widley accepteed views.  A university website can be used to make public a conference paper.  Now, conference papers are written by credentialed scholars for a credentialied audience. But what do they mean?  They are usually ways of sharing some data that has not yet been fully analyzed, or forwarding an argument that is not yet fully developed.  I have seen articles published that are based on conference papers, where somewhere between the conference and the journal the author completely changed her analysis!  Conference papers, or proceedings of a workshop or conference, are a very good indicator of the kinds of things scholars are intersted in right now i.e. reliable sources about what kinds of research scholars of that discipline do.  But they are not very reliable sources on the views of the scholar or even of the data - often a prof. will publicise a conference paper precisely in order to invite comments and feedbvack from colleagues, who might be encouraging or critical, prior to submitting an actual article ms. for peer review by a journal (depending on the feedback they get, they might discover and correct errors in the presentation of data, or they might change their conclusions!  In these cases, the material is not being publicized to derve as a source of knowledge but rather to invite feedback from peers precisely because the author is not yet certain about the value of the contents) - again, in this case, there is in my view simply no way to assess the reliability of a source; the value of the source depends on how the scholar is presenting it and using it and why, and we have no access to this information so we cannot assess the reliability of the source.


 * So I do not think the issue is simply "whose website." Ordinarily I would consider a paper on the nutritional value of cheez-wiz on the web-page of a professor of public health to have more weight than the web-page of Kraft Inc.  But my point is that university websites, and the webpages even of Nobel-prize winning scientists, migh publicize a paper for any number of reasons and without knowing those reasons we just do not know enough to assess the reliability of the source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that UMD slaps a great big disclaimer on the webpage in question... saying that the university does not endorse the information contained on it (a polite way of saying that at least some of the information isn't reliable).  Reliability is a prerequisite for verifiability.  Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add that the question of prehistorical usage of a plant as medicine is not something that for which the authors of the references listed are likely to be reliable experts--research in medical effectiveness is not anthropology or archeology. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. I can give some other examples where chemistry publications give wrong historical information (without citing anything to boot), but I think it's not necessary. It's clear that uncited, "filler" introductory material that contradicts other more reliable source that specialize in history (of science/medicine) doesn't need to be given much if any weight. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, we don't yet have very reliable research on the medical efectiveness of a great many pharmaceuticals that MDs regularly prescribe. But if you are talking about prehistorical usage of a plant, only archeologists and anthropologists have expertise on this.  I think you are mising up "prehistorical usage" from "pharmacological properties."  The latter would be under the expertise of PhDs in public health and chemistry and pharmacology, but the pharmocological properties are not going to change from a prehistorica era to a modern era.  What changes may be how people use them, but that is not what pharmacologists research or have expertise in. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar on the facts. The university is, of course, politely saying that at least some of the information may not be true, although most Wikipedians will prefer the word "reliable" over "true" even when using them as synonyms.  I think this supports the view that "reliable", on Wikipedia, is usually a circumlocution for "true".— S Marshall  T/C 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the idea that "reliable" is a code word for "true". Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar is right. Th distinction between the two is important.  In science, some theories - Evolution, Special Relativity, the Big Bang theory - are highly reliable but not true.  Anyone who does not understand this distinction doesn't understand modern science. There is no need for the university to seek a polite way to say that the information may not be true.  Scientists care about a lot of things but I think like most adults they reserve "politeness" for their relationships with other people.  If a scientist thinks that the a certain explanation is powerful, they will say so.  But they do not use "true" because they do not mean "true".  As for data, if they think it is crap or fraudulent, they will say so too without euphimisms.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you Slrubenstein, but I do understand the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and the truth, and it's not necessary to explain it to me. The fact that there is such a difference does not mean that there is no such thing as truth, and it does not mean that we should not seek to tell the truth in our encyclopaedia. When we talk about "reliable" sources, what we mean is sources that are likely to be accurate, factual, in accordance with the academic consensus, and other words that Wikipedians use as a veil for the underlying concept of "truth".  There is no point in continuing to deny it.  The only reason why we prefer reliable sources over unreliable ones is because there is such a thing as truth.— S Marshall  T/C 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think you do understand. You don't seem to understand that scientists reject "truth" as a metaphysical concept, and that they see facts in relation to theories.  People who think that scientific theories are opinions are ignorant of science, but people who think scientific facts mean what non-scientists mean for fact (in your case a euphamism for truth) also are ignorant of science.  The fact/opinion distinction doesn't operate in science.  The fact-theory relationship however does.  As people writing an encyclopedia we should be able to communicate this; talk about truths will only get in the way of the accurate description of science and scientific knowledge. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, Are you suggesting that the word "truth" shouldn't be used on the V policy page? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prcisely. The word is unnecessay and only cuases confusion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, as in "verifiability, not truth"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, when you say that "scientists reject truth as a metaphysical concept", that is itself untrue. It's true that some scientists reject truth as a metaphysical concept.  A logical positivist or Popperian may also believe that the concept of truth, divorced from observed phenomena, is not scientifically meaningful.  But not all scientists are logical positivists or Popperians.  And besides, scientists do not have a monopoly on understanding truth.  The study of truth is philosophy rather than science (and specifically epistemology), but truth also has a meaning in mathematics, formal logic, and law, among rather a lot else.  So even if you were right to say that scientists reject truth as a metaphysical concept, that still wouldn't matter in terms of this policy.— S Marshall  T/C 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about scientists, not logical positivism (which has long been abandoned) and my statement stands. It was you who wrote that " The university is, of course, politely saying that at least some of the information may not be true, although most Wikipedians will prefer the word "reliable" over "true" even when using them as synonyms."  It is your putting words into the mouth of a source, when the source doesn't use those words that makes me question how serious you are about researching other views.  And now you write, " So even if you were right to say that scientists reject truth as a metaphysical concept, that still wouldn't matter in terms of this policy."  Well, make up your mind!  Are you this mindreader who knows what the university of MD really thinks even when they say ohterwise?  Or have you finally agreed that they wrote what they meant to write? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * May I take it that you concede those points to which you did not respond?— S Marshall T/C 21:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question yet. And you did not raise any other points. The law does not make claims about truth.  Mathematicians make proofs, but these rest on axioms which must be taken as givens, so no, I don't see truth in any modern academic discipline.  be that as it may our current Verifiability not truth policy proides plenty of room for your point: as long as we can verify trhat it is someone's view that x "is true," then we can include it.  People may well have beliefs about the truth.  We include them - as points of view, not as truths themselves.  Your attempt to argue metaphysics is just wasting our time.  And you still have not explained why you insist, contrary to any evidence, that UMD is making claims about truth when they are not.  This is a perfect illustration about how your own POV and agenda leads to crappy encyclopedia articles as you must try to misrepresent UMD.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which "crappy encyclopaedia articles" are you accusing me of being responsible for, and is this not a direct insult? Is it not you who introduced the digression about metaphysics with your long and irrelevant quibbling above?  I'm finding it very hard to talk to you, to be honest.— S Marshall  T/C 07:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of violationg NPA? I do not see how anything I wrote could be construed as a personal attack.  Did I mention any you had edited? No, I don't even know what articles you have edited.  The only thing you have done that I am criticizing is your misrepresentation of UMD.  You insist without evidence that they are talking about "truth" when they aren't.  Your claiming that they are talking about truth is just your own POV.  My point is that we need to be careful about this, or it would lead to a degrading of articls.  Anytime we misrepresent sources we degrade the encyclopedia.


 * This is in relation to an example someone else introuced, and all I am doing is reminding you of what you previously wrote. I am assuming that since you wrote it on this talk page, you think your comment has some relevance to the wording of this policy.  We are discussing a change to this policy, and I am explaining why I think one component of it is so important.  I think if we get rid of it it will lead to crappy articls because editors will have bad guidance.  Didn't you agre earlier that we would "agree to disagree?"  So why are you getting so pissy when I don't agree with you?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources and list entries
An editor who has done some excellent research in creating the list of Christian hardcore bands seems to be of the opinion that a phrase in a single album review that loosely associates a band with a related genre is sufficient to adding that band or artist to this list. Some other editors feel that the music should be representative of the style at the time and that several articles, particularly of contested artists, should be provided.

Granted, most lists don't even have a single reference for the entries, so this article is outstanding. Could we have a few people step in on the article to discuss? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut
WP:NOTTRUTH has long been (and still is) one of many shortcuts to this page. After the close of the RfC, I changed it from going to the top of the page, to going to the new section just after the lead. I also put a template box in the new section, showing that it is a shortcut to there. Bob reverted my addition of the box. I fully understand, of course, that the issues surrounding "not truth" have been a matter of contention. (After the ongoing discussions, how could I miss it!) But I think there may have been some misunderstanding in that revert. It's just a shortcut, not a statement, and it refers directly to the language that is prominently featured in that section. Bob's edit summary suggested some other possible shortcut names, and I have no objections to adding those. Unless someone wants to start a deletion discussion for the redirect page, the link still goes here, so I see nothing wrong with telling readers that it does so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a link to the section that includes and explains "not truth" is better. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I, but Bob has now changed the redirect so it goes back to the top of the page, which seems to me to be going from bad to worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that although there was previously a redirect of NOTTRUTH to WP:V since 2007, NOTTRUTH was not mentioned as a shortcut on the Verifiability policy page until it was put there today.
 * Mentioning WP:NOTTRUTH as a redirect anywhere in WP:V would give the contentious phrase more support. The shortcut WP:ASSERTIONS that was recently added should be sufficient as a shortcut without having a shortcut based on the contentious phrase "not truth". Please remember that the title of the section is Assertions of truth and untruth. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, things are still in flux, because as of the time of my edit, the consensus of the RfC has been reverted. But thanks for, at least, explaining your position in talk. I don't buy the argument that the shortcut name does anything to give support to anything other than what the text created by Blueboar says. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth." It means simply that "Wikipedia's discussion of 'verifiability, not truth' can be found here." Having a shortcut is helpful to editors (including those who are reverting the RfC!) who want to point those who say "But my edit is the truth!" to the correct place on this page. In fact, my reluctant support for this proposal was very much based on the understanding that, if the discussion of "not truth" were taken out of the lead, it would still be possible to point readers to where it is discussed. Your current edit,, which I believe should be reverted, does nothing about what appears on this page. All it does is (assuming the new text is eventually restored) target the shortcut to the wrong part of the page, forcing the reader to look around for what they were looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, I think we share the same feelings on "not truth". But the IMHO new change puts it in a section  which clarifies its meaning which reduces the problematic misinterpretations.   My thought was that IF a wp:nottruth redirect exists, sending it to that more specific explanation would be less problematic that a redirect to the general policy which could be taken to imply that wp:ver overall is about "not truth". I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What we have now is the WP:NOTTRUTH shortcut shown on the page, but not directing to where it is shown. To me, that makes no sense at all. We can discuss whether the shortcut should be shown on the page or not, but I think it's nonsense to have it direct to the wrong place. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually we should not "discuss whether the shortcut should be shown on the page or not" because removing it would cause thousands of instances of the shortcut on talk pages and in edit summaries to become meaningless redlinks. Roger (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, although I suppose an argument could be made to keep using the shortcut, but to just not display it in the box on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the shortcut WP:NOTTRUTH should point directly to the section: Verifiability (as that is the only section of the policy that discusses the issue of truth.)
 * Lets be logical here... any previous links to WP:V using the shortcut WP:NOTTRUTH were made with the intent of pointing the reader to the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... as that phrase has now been moved to the "assertions" section (and more fully explained), it makes sense to redirect the shortcut there as well. And, we should list it in the section shortcut box so people know it exists as a shortcut. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose addition to policy Previous evidence over the course of this year has shown that it is not possible to just say "not truth" without massive ambiguity. On the last day before the RfC, Blueboar objected to the characterization that was being used for the quote, "not truth", in the Rationale; and changed the characterization to "the two words". So there is already history to guide us. The current choice is whether to add a massively ambiguous phrase to the policy in an infobox, albeit without the context that would demonstrate ambiguity; or to leave it unreferenced in the policy. I see nothing close to a compelling reason to add something to the policy that already has a record of associated misunderstanding once it is given a context. Since [WP:VNT] is already taken, maybe we can find something else, for example, WP:VnotT. Unscintillating (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

description of the RfC at Template:Centralized discussion
Seeing that SlimVirgin changed the name of the RfC on this page, I started to wonder if there were other confounding edits taking place, and I had to look no further than WP:CENT to see:


 * RfC about revising the first sentence of Verifiability by removing "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

Fortunately, someone else had spotted the problem and beat me to fixing it. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily close the RFC, give people the time to read and discuss and then re-open the RFC
SlimVirgin has been posting notifications about the RFC, asking people to vote soon because the RFC is going to close in days. I think there is a problem here. This invites people to vote based on their gut feelings instead of considering the discussions and thinking deeply about the issue. Particulary the people who would rather keep the "not truth" statement will feel that all is not lost if they are quick to oppose.

But this would undo all the work that BlueBoar has put in to find a good compromize. There is nothing wrong with opposing if you have considered this compromize seriously and then still come out against. But I don't think this is going to happen. We have to remember that an RFC simply on removing "Not Truth" was held previously and that doesn't have consensus, instead you're then stuck in a 50-50 quagmire. The consequence of that was never ending discussions on the talk page.

So, I think the best thing to do is to close the vote for week to allow for new discussions and then re-open the vote for, say, two weeks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would rather suggest that we ask some completely uninvolved editors/admins to help us sort out what to do--anyone who has participated in discussions should probably just sit tight for a bit until we can get some feedback. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Iblis, its not like we're discussing rocket science, world peace, or the G-Spot here. It is just a discussion about a policy change in an electronic encyclopedia.  I am quite confident in people's ability to read the RfC and weigh in with an informed opinion in less time than it takes to boil an egg. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An RfC is not a vote. It is a discussion. It does not have to be closed for people to discuss. --GRuban (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, we have discussed, and discussed, and discussed... for almost 6 months now... the RfC was essentially a poll to see what the broader community thought of the compromise that came out of those endless discussions. I would say that the results (as of Sarek's closing) showed that the broader community approved of that compromise.  The oppose comments seemed evenly split between a) those who disliked the compromise because it went too far, and b) those who disliked it because it didn't go far enough.
 * In other words, if we actually read the comments (instead of just counting heads)... the opposition was split between the hardliners who want to keep the "V not T" phrasing in the first paragraph, and the hardliners who want "V not T" completely eradicated. I think this would have been clearer if I had set the RfC up as a three way choice... but I had promised Slim Virgin that it would be a "change or no change" choice, and I do try to keep my promises. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That was not my understanding, BB. You promised a wiki-wide RfC, and a separate section that said "keep the current lead sentence," and listed it. It was very important for neutrality to list that as one of the positive choices people could make. See our discussion here. It was after that that I bowed out of the situation, and only when I saw Sarek try to close it today did I realize that neither of these things were done.


 * I'm sorry to say these things to you. I know you worked hard on this, but I think this was not well set up, not properly advertised, and it was closed early by an admin who had expressed a view on the key issue during the RfC itself. So this is unfortunate all round. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem... I don't take criticisms personally. I am sorry that you don't think the way I set this up matches your understanding of what we discussed.  All I can tell you is that I saw the way I set this up as being what we discussed.  In any case, you could have spoken up sooner about this you know.  You knew this RfC was in the works well before we went live with it... The phrasing of the RfC and the rational were extensively discussed on the sub-page... so you had plenty of opportunity to "remind" me of what we discussed, and object to the way things were going before we "went live".  As for promising you a wiki-wide RfC... that is one promise I definitely kept. This was (and I suppose still is) a wiki-wide RfC... exactly as promised.  It was also well advertised - at the Pump, at NOR, at NPOV (see the archives of those pages for October 6th).  Blueboar (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I see "wiki-wide RfC", I immediately think Centralized discussion. Did you add it to CD? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard added it to cent on 6th October, so it's been linked from the box at the top of all the centralised discussion pages since then.— S Marshall T/C 10:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. SV, you were aware of the discussions and I'm surprised that you did not even look at this for the last few weeks--when I've taken breaks from these discussions, I have not completely ignored it. I'm assuming good faith, but Blueboar has a good point that you did have plenty of time to make your concerns known and did not do so. I am also confused by your assertion that there is no "keep the current lead sentence" option--since the proposal is for a specific change in the wording, and lack of consensus or consensus against a change is, de facto, that option. You do have a point about the closing, and I do see that this may take multiple uninvolved admins to achieve a close that will not piss off a very large number of editors. And in general I'm very concerned about some of the heavy handed discussion that has suddenly emerged in these last hours. I find it very frustrating that a process that involved so many editors trying their very best to put forth something that might be an achievable compromise for so long a period of time should be criticized at the last for not having done it right, when there was ample opportunity to make those concerns known early on. But so be it, water under the bridge, and we have to move forward.

The RFC has been advertised widely, and I think the last minute rush is not helpful. Discussions took place over months, and discussion had pretty much died down. It has just been advertised widely again, but I think it unlikely that the editors that have come here in the last few hours have really had sufficient time to look through the discussions and thoroughly consider the various points, and it is certainly the case that the there has not been time look through their thoughts and weigh them.

So, I propose that we let the RFC run for at least another two weeks. That will give everyone time to go through the arguments, weigh the options and we'll see what happens. It addresses the assertions that the RFC is for discussion of general issue (with which I strongly disagree given the length of discussions prior to the forging of the RFC and during the forging of the RFC and the simple fact that the RFC was specifically tailored to try to put these extremely long discussions to rest), and allow time for amelioration of any possible canvassing. If the center is soft, as CW asserts, we have more time to find that out, if consensus is really against the proposal, the extra time should make that clear, and if the needle swings more to the change side we'll see that and have a better notion of what to do. But I think a close after a sudden rush of additional voices would be a bad thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two different issues here and they should be discussed in separate sections: (1) was the RfC advertised sufficiently widely. (2) when should we close it.  The guidelines say that it should be closed after 30 days or sooner, by Blueboar, if we have reached consensus. If we agree that it should be advertised more widely, then I would agree to delaying the closure.


 * But I am more concerned with the fact that, as Blueboar points out, there is no consensus on the key change. It does not matter whether we have discussed it one month, six months, or a year - if we do not have consensus, we do not change the policy.


 * But I would like to propose a constructive alternative: if there is no consensus about removing the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" perhaps we can keep it in the opening but come up with a clearer and explanation of the principle with more practical guidance about how to apply it. After all, Blueboar's proposal was not simply to remove the phrase from the lead.  It also included more explanation.  I do not entirely agree with her proposed elaboration but I DO think her effort to provide a better explanation was important and points to an alternte path to consensus i.e. do not remove the phrase, but improve the explanaton.


 * If efforts to reach a consensus have failed, it just makes sense to try another approach, and that is all I am suggesting. Either way, we won't change the policy without a consensus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The RFC was clearly and explicitly on making a particular compromise wording change. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Um... Slrubenstein... when you say I pointed out that there is "no consensus on the key change"... what are you talking about? I agree that there is no consensus to completely remove V not T... but that isn't what this RFC is about.  This RfC is about my compromise language that explicitly (and in bold letters) retains V not T.   As of the (perhaps premature) closing, there was clearly a consensus in favor of the compromise. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I apologize. I think I misread what you wrote.  I thought you had pointed out that many people are adamantly for getting rid of the phrase and many are adamantly for keeping the phrase.  But if this is not hat you man, I was wrong (and I struck out the mention of your name).  For me, the larger point is that we didn't reach a consensus.


 * The purpose of an RfC is to invite outside comment, in the hopes that it produces a consensus or points to a consensus. We have not reached that consensus and I thought that you had noted that we did not receive any particularly constructive comments, constructive meaning reaching a consensus.  But if you did not mean this, I apologixe.


 * I recognize that your intention was to find a compromise. I hope nothing I have ever written expressed otherwise.  I just do not think that there is a consensus for your compromise.  That is why I see your compromise as a starting point but one that we must continue to revise ... until we reach a consensus (this is my view, but I think it follows the guidelines for RfC and for editing policy pages).  I hve tried to propose changes to your proposal that builds on your tempt to reach a compromise, but by tacking a bit in an attempt to move foreward.  If my suggestions are not constructive, I hope others will make more constructive suggestions.


 * What is clear is that our RfC guidelines say that when the RfC closes, we are to discuss the comments. If the comments help us find a consensus, great.  If they do not help us find a consensus, well, we just try to find another approach.


 * None of these comments should be read as questioning your intentions or the importance of your efforts. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe any of us involved in the discussion believe that the compromise will address all concerns, nor that it will fix the policy in stone. As you say, many people are adamantly for getting rid of the phrase and many are adamantly for keeping the phrase, and this proposal is an attempt to bridge those groups. I guess that some of us, and certainly this is my feeling, are a more than a bit frustrated by this last minute bruhaha just as things appeared to be winding down after months of work (and I did not do nearly so much work as Blueboar, North8000, and Tryptofish and other editors who have been deeply involved for a very long time). And from my point of view, characterizing this RfC as a beginning after so much preparation and discussions seems odd. For example, your suggestion, if there is no consensus about removing the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" perhaps we can keep it in the opening but come up with a clearer and explanation of the principle with more practical guidance about how to apply it was one made a number of times, but rejected by those who find the phrase problematic, and that's why the first part is not in proposal, but the second part is. Any number of us supporting the proposal disagree about the core issue, but have come to agree on a compromise to attempt to satisfy others with whom we do not agree, in order that we can move on to other issues, or further refinements of wording.
 * But given where we are, I repeat that I think we should let the RfC run a while longer, in order to avoid even the appearance of any intention in this recent increase of activity to push the conclusion one way or another. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I thank you for striking. Here is my take on the situation... leaving aside the issue of whether Sarek closed prematurely or not, I think he had justification for saying that there was a consensus at the time he closed.  First, a strait head count indicated a 2:1 majority in favor of the compromise under discussion.  While not overwhelming, this is more than just a simple majority.  Second, if we go beyond just a simple head count, and actually read the comments, we discover that the opposed comments were (at the time) fairly evenly split between those who think the compromise goes to far and those who think the compromise does not go far enough.  This indicates that the lack of consensus is among those who oppose the compromise, and no lack of consensus among those who support the compromise.  I think there is a very good argument for saying that, to some extent, the opposed comments canceled each other out.  This lack of consensus among the opposed comments should, in my mind at least, give more weight to the comments of the majority who support the compromise.  We had a solid agreement among the majority who supported and a split in the minority who opposed. In other words, I think that when we actually read the comments, there was (at the time) a much more solid consensus in favor of the compromise than a simple head count indicates.
 * Now, the decision has been made that the closure was premature and that the RfC should remain open for a few more days... the consensus that existed when Sarek prematurely closed may indeed shift between now and then. But, at the time that he closed I think he was justified in saying that there was a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From my reading of the comments, "Everyone" agrees that 'verfiability, not truth' is the goal of this policy, they just don't agree on how to say it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the events of the last day or two has seriously damaged the inegrity of the process. Editors and even admins appear to be "gaming the system" to unduly influence the outcome. A huge amount of effort and thought by a large number of participants in this process has basically been trashed. (I am expressing a serious concern here, not directly accusing any specific individuals.) Due process must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Roger (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How has the integrity of the process been damaged? It's a wiki, that anyone can edit.  More editors are now involved in the discussion.  When it is closed, then that will likely be the text for awhile, whatever that is.  Eventually a (temporary) consensus will be reached, even as to this.  There can be no "premature" close, even if one were to try. But that IS the process of a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if it is properly closed: Not yet consensus; come up with a draft incorporating the good ideas in the comments. See SIRubenstein's comments above. When we have genuine consensus, we will also have consensus that there is consensus - and so no vitriol on how to close it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree a "more lasting consensus," is by defintion the result of a "proper closure." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our definition of consensus is "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The agitation here comes alarmingly close to claiming that none of the editors who commented with less than total support have legitimate concerns (and that comprehends several of the supports, as well as the opposes).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. That is what some are saying.  Regardless, my question was, how was the process damaged? I take it your response, is that there was a premture closure.  But that was reversed.  So more people are now discussing the merits. So, it seems the process is working. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think the discussions here the last few days were bad, you should have been here over the last 8 months. In regard to the RfC and the preparation for it, I think that Alanscottwalker is correct that the vast majority of edits agree about the intent of the policy, but there's a sharp division between those who believe that the phrase 'verifiability, not truth' helps and those who believes it hinders implementation of that intent. But I do think that closing at this point will serious damage the notion of that the RfC did or did not demonstrate consensus. Some object to the early close, some object to the reopening. I think SV's posts to other noticeboards the last couple of days completely misrepresented the intent and wording of the proposal, although I'm assuming that was sloppiness and not ill intent. And I completely agree with Blueboar when he says there was "a solid agreement among the majority who supported and a split in the minority who opposed", and that consensus existing when Sarek closed. Roger's point about due process is also well taken, and I would like to see the discussions continue in order to avoid even the appearance that there might have been attempts to game the system in this case. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The past is the past (and is not really interesting to me). But as for the future, since you agree with Blueboar, and I don't see it, can you detail who disagrees with who among the opposes? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, wants it to just say "For inclusion in Wikipedia, all information must be verifiable." Period.  thinks that "truth, not verifiability" is a perfect way to get a key point across. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And both agree that the proposal does not help. This reasoning, that all must oppose exactly the same way and the support can support in a multiplicity of ways is faulty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Both oppose, period.  Try to find an actual compromise in an RFC, eh?  This RFC is in no way a compromise, despite it's incorrect titling.  And Sarek, I don't think you should be closing any RFC, much less one on Policy.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(left) The place to work out a compromise is in the discussion which precedes the next RFC. It is fairly clear what the reservations of the hesitant supporters and the persuadable opposition are; they can be met. Clearer wording may also leave fewer editors with the impression that this is a change in policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaming and consequences
I was unaware of this discussion until today when I logged in and saw the thread at AN/I. From an outside perspective I think there has been irrevocable damage done to the process of discussing this change as a result of an editor s gaming the system. I don't think there is a problem with naming names and I think those who have disrupted this process need to answer for these shenanigans. An administrator, who I have myself been very critical of in the past (so I'm not saying this out of some allegiance, trust me), gave up his tools because of the spurious accusations made by SlimVirgin in an obvious political effort to counteract the clearly developing consensus in the RfC which wasn't going her way. For shame.Griswaldo (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your side issues with Slim Vigins conduct, whoever that is, don't belong here. You didn't name names, you named one. Yet, you smeared "editors." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "whoever that is?" Seriously? It's the editor who wrote the language in this policy that the RfC suggests modifying, and who started the AN/I thread I linked to above in a transparent effort to derail the changes she clearly didn't want to her own writing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Whoever that is. Your issues just don't belong here. If want to analyze an editor or administrators conduct, take it to the appropriate forum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've stated your opinion about that several times now. I don't agree. How many times do you need to me to tell you that? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you respond with a reason, then we can move on. You want the people on this page to, what, exactly?  And what, exactly, is the consequence for the policy this page is suppose to be about? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The consequence is for the RfC, which now cannot be taken seriously anymore. You clearly don't like that idea for your own reasons, whatever those are, but that's the consequence of the damages done by SlimVirgin.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "the consequence is for the RfC" mean? What happens, do you suppose, because of that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that the process is damaged and it is due in particular to one editor's actions, which are pretty transparent (I do think that people who are complicit are also to blame but I'll edit my comment to remove others from it ...). Call it smearing if you want, report me for "smearing" someone if you want as well, I don't care. I think it is important to consider these events here where the damaged process is occurring. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it important to this policy, does it promote consensus on wording here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Specifically characterizing the debate as 'contentious' is not a neutral way to present the RfC, additionally posting on AN/I for a request to close looks alot like forum shopping since a request to close had already been made at WP:AN. Crazynast 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is important to know that what is going on here is a product of gaming. It is important because decisions will be made here regarding how to proceed given what has happened. Are you suggesting people should pretend that SlimVirgin hasn't done what she did and that this hasn't damaged the process and that we should just carry on? Because that's exactly what I hope people aren't going to do here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * is directly in contradiction with Canvassing
 * "However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate."


 * How should we carry on? What's the remedy? Do we have any choice but to carry on? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also not aware of this RfC, and honestly with WP:V being as important a policy as it is, it should have gotten one of those site notices. If it did, it should have been bigger.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That matches my thoughts on this. I see no harm, canvassing or gaming done by SV here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine too. Dreadstar  ☥  22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of you and I think it's a major problem. When an involved user doesn't agree with the result, then they don't normally get to unilaterally revert a close, extend the debate, change the language used to advertise the debate, change the debate's title, and post urgent messages seeking input from more editors.  I wouldn't get away with that behaviour.  Why should she?— S Marshall  T/C 10:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're misinformed and confused about the purpose of an RfC. It isn't a timed discussion like a vote.  Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make SlimVirgin's conduct appropriate, does it?— S Marshall T/C 10:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Before we judge people's actions, let's look at the standards against which we judge them. There are two critical issues here.  The first is, what do we mean by consensus?  I know it does not mean unanimity, but I have never heard of a 2:1 vote described as "consensus," not in politics and not at WP.  The second is, what doe we do when an RfC ends?  Our WP:RfC guidelines says, discuss the comments.  So on can just as plausibly scharaterize SarakofVulcan's ending the RfC and changing the policy without any discussion as "gaming" the system.  RfC's usually close after 30 days.  I had no objection to closing the RfC earlier and I said so, but I also expected a discussion that would include more than four or five people before deciding on a closing date.  I also think that it makes perfect sense to alert people in advance that an RfC on a policy is going to close, and not doing this can also be a form of "gaming the system."  Maybe SlimVirgin could have handled things better, but I do not see an effort to solicit more comments to be "gaming" the system.  If SlimVirgin's efforts attract only silly, thoughtless comments, well, we just disregard them.  But if more people provide any more constructive comments, that is a good thing.


 * Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We have a contentious issue and I am not the only person who does not see a consensus.  We can close the RfC if we think it is not helping - but come on, let's do it after discussion that includes more than four people, and let's give people some notice - three days, five days, whatever.  If there is a better way to handle this than the way SarakofVulcan AND/OR SlimVirgin did it, well, let's just discuss it and come up with a better way.  We can do this without attacking either one (when I reverted the change to the policy I never accused Sarak or anyone else of gaming the system, I just think they made a mistake. However we close this let's do it in a deliberative way.  And before we do it, let's try to solicit as many comments as we can.  The whole point is to try to move towards a consensus.  If we do not attract any more constructive comments, well, that is regrettable.  But if we get more WP users to comment on changing a policy?  Why not?  That is the point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So, if I have this straight, there has been "irrevocable damage done to the process of discussing this change as a result of an editor s gaming the system" because "the process" was finally brought to the attention of a very broad audience, as was promised from the beginning, but not actually done until a couple of days ago? And the "editor s gaming the system" has done so by actually ensuring as many Wikipedia editors as possible know about this? It seems fairly obvious that the conduct of the ""editor s " should be lauded, rather than condemned. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to object to: "but not actually done until a couple of days ago" ... when we opened this RfC back on Oct. 6th, I posted notices at the VPP, several other policy talk pages, CENT, and in as many other locations as I could think of ... the RfC was (as promised) widely advertised. Am I upset that the RfC has now been brought to the attention of even more people?  No, of course not.  What upsets me is the manner in which those people were notified, and the games people have been playing in an attempt to sway opinions (changing the title of the RfC, leaving notices that misrepresent the intent of the proposal, and generally trying to bias new commenters against the proposal before they have taken the time to actually read and understand exactly what is being proposed.)  That does upset me, and comes close to causing "irrevocable damage". Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

changing the name of the RfC
I noticed that at WP:V an editor had modified the link in "Under discussion". I backtracked the problem to find that SlimVirgin had changed the name of the RfC yesterday. I have corrected the name of the RfC both on this page and at WP:V. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't change it again, Unscintillating. Lots of pages have been notified using this title/link. If there is insufficient notification of this RfC, it will be invalid, so please leave it as it is, and let people comment on it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SV, Please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin you changed the title 2 days ago. What gives? Did you consider the links that had been made prior to your change? You do not own this page. I find your behavior here quite disruptive and would please ask you to back off the ownership attitude. It isn't clear to me what the more productive title is at this point, but please recognize that you're bullying people to get your way. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Very few notifications were published about the RfC when it opened, but yes, I did republish in those places, to make sure people know where to find it. There is no bullying here (at least not by me). My concern is to make sure people know this is taking place, know what it's about, and have a chance to comment. It concerns me that anyone would object to that, given that lots of people are saying they hadn't seen any notification of this. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not answer the question. Why did you change the title of the RfC? Regarding what you did write, lots of people don't see the notification for lots of discussions. So what? It has been pointed out to you that it was listed at WP:CENT since the second day after opening. Not particularly convincing SV. But that's also not what I asked, and what this thread was about. Why did you change the title, and what makes you think you have the right to do that and to enforce your changed title, weeks after the RfC started?Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO several aspects of what Slim has done on this in the last few days have been problematic. Inventing and unilaterally "enforcing" new rules just because she didn't like the outcome.  Edit warring to erase the talk page closure text even when it was left as reopened, inaccurate descriptions of the potential change posted an numerous prominent places, unilaterally undoing the closure, unilaterally undoing the change which was clearly the overwhelming majority view with or without closure.  I have not run down the latest yet, but apparent retroactive renaming of the RFC. Why has nothing been doing about this behavior? North8000 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find the new RFC title to be more accurate and informative than the old one; after all, "verifiability not truth" is the core of the issue. I have to add that less than 70% support for a Policy change does not fit Sarek's close, Consensus requires a "higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles."  Less than 70%, 75% or even 80% is certainly not a 'higher standard'.  For example, Bureaucrat elections have an 85% support threshold - how can major Policy changes have any less?  Dreadstar  ☥  22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That would have been something to bring up a month ago, not now. It appears to be an attempt to push the RfC in a particular direction, as does the wording of the advertisement that SV posted. I'm still assuming good faith, but these actions are poisoning the discussions, not helping them. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea there was an RFC on this a month ago; and yes it needs to brought up now just as much as a month ago or a year ago. If you find SV's wording on the "advertisement" to be problematic, then make a suggestion on how to change it to be more neutral. There's no doubt that this RFC should have been far more publicised than it was.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to, Blueboar did a fine job of that. My point is that instead of acting in a way that was clearly above board, SV has acted in a way that could be interpreted as trying to push a POV. Edit warring over the title of the RfC is a similar action--what discussions took place establishing consensus about that change? SV has complained about Sarek's close because he was involved. She's at least as involved as he. This is a touchy subject, and admins running about like bulls in a china shop are not helping matters any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I dare say the new name is much more straightforward and helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what name is better. The RfC was ongoing, for three weeks when she changed it without discussion, and without regard for any links that might have existed already. I was not aware of this RfC either, but then again I'm not aware of tons of RfCs that go on. Am I supposed to blame the RfC creators or commentators for my own ignorance despite their best efforts to follow standard procedures to get the RfC out there? Clearly not. Do you really condone the unilateral action of one editor to change the name of an ongoing RfC and then to edit war to keep that name change in effect, three weeks into an RfC that has already received boat loads of comments by others who all seemed fine with the title? I highly doubt you believe that is correct as a general principle, and SV has no special privileges in this regard over the rest of us as far as I know. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd think I "condone" building the encyclopedia, which always comes first. V not T is one of this website's core policies. I'd go so far as to say it's one of a very few beams which holds the whole thing up, so to speak. I don't see any bad faith here, but somehow, not nearly enough editors were made aware of this discussion over the wording on such a highly meaningful policy page. Come to think of it, I unwatched this page many months ago when all I saw as it (often) flashed by on my watchlist was bickering. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The RFC title does indeed count, the old one was inaccurate and uninformative, through no fault of Blueboar's, it was obvously done in good faith. But the edit warring to keep the inaccurate title in place is not good faith and is just plain old gaming.  There's been no reason given for not accepting the change except, "ILIKEIT".  That's fine, enjoy.  Dreadstar  ☥  23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "publicized" it was:


 * Thoroughly publicized on several pages at wp:ver, not only when put up, but for several months prior to that as the RFC-in-the-making as it was developed
 * Listed in "centralized discussion"
 * Listed at the Village pump
 * Listed at several other major policy/guideline pages.

As opposed to when the "not truth" wording (which this proposal merely moves) was put in when it was put in by one person with no request for comment or discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You know that's not true, North, so it's odd that you keep repeating it. The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" was not thought of by me, not first added by me, and was discussed on several pages by several people in 2005 before being added at all. And you know this, because you've been shown the diffs many times.


 * The policy on this page seems to have been "repeat personal attacks often enough and they will become memes." Well, it worked as far as my presence on this page is concerned. You managed to chase me (and several others) away from it, after nearly seven years of helping to maintain it. I returned only because I saw a poorly advertised and worded RfC being closed early by an admin who had expressed an opinion about the issue when the RfC opened. That seemed manifestly unfair, so here I am again. But not for long, so you needn't worry about my continued presence. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I must confess that on that last point that I was going by summaries of the history by others rather then personal knowledge. But in any event, how does the degree of input and advertisement for the insertion compare with that of the current RFC which merely moves those two words? North8000 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of one editor's conduct (in one instance many years past) is not productive. The substance of the objection to the change was that it was different, and some links would not work, and the response was that it was more descriptive and those links were fixed, to, in fact, work. So, can we get back to discussing that, if such is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted an anchor into the top of this RfC so (if I did it right) links using the old title will find it. I agree with the new title. I didn't notice this until the title was changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about removing the word "compromise" from the title

 * We have two headers now, but I'd like to remove the word "compromise", in line with Anthony's anchor, as this was one of the problems with the RfC. It's not a compromise. North8000 et al want to remove "not truth" from the lead, and this does that. So the title is misleading and I would say POV. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you make a fair point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "compromise" should be removed since it clearly is not that. Dreadstar  ☥  23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly was North8000 et al's position prior to Blueboar's RfC? If it was something more radical like, let's say, removing that phrase from the entire entry, then of course this is a "compromise." I'm new to this discussion but I've never known Blueboar to play fast and lose with words like this so I'm having a hard time imagining his RfC proposal not being some kind of mid way point between two different positions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So this is now a 'compromise' between North and Blueboar? Interesting.  This is out with the old, in with the new.  That's not a compromise, I'm sorry.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the working group that came up with this proposal (with which I agree, by the way) have put it forward as a compromise, but the word is loaded, it implies something about "a position that all reasonable parties will agree to" which is inappropriate for an RfC question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The long term difficult discussion that this compromise seeks to resolve is between complete removal of "not truth" from the policy vs. the status quo regarding that. The compromise was to keep "not truth" but move it to the next section with clarification. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Blueboar "reached across the aisle" on this. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let Blueboar once again 'reach across the aisle' and change the name of the RFC as it was originally discussed, yet seemingly ignored, and has since then been opposed. Dreadstar  ☥  00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think their point was you aren't making a compromise for everyone, only yourself; you (all) are, in fact, proposing to do something to policy, for everyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Alan. Dreadstar  ☥  00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word 'compromise' is loaded and not neutral, it should not be part of the wording of this RFC per WP:RFC. Why is this such a difficult concept?? Dreadstar  ☥  00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It arguably poisoned the first run of results, because by saying "this is a compromise," you're implying that people opposing it are unwilling to compromise. In addition, several editors asked that any RfC contain "keep as is" as a positive option in a separate section, so that people could vote in support of current policy, rather than in opposition to a "compromise." So this really has not been handled neutrally, in my opinion. The creators of the RfC seem to want to hide, in the title, and in the description, that it's about removing, or drawing attention away from, "verifiability, not truth." But why hide what you want to do, if you think people will support you? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed "compromise" per the above; a compromise between North8000 and Blueboar has no bearing on how RfC respondents should or will view the proposal. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What other editor's comments were edited? AFAICT, the only thing that was edited was the heading, which is acceptable per Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate. In this case, the new heading was far superior to the original.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing it 3 weeks later generally is unwise and I certainly object to doing so. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason that we do not editor other edtior's comments on talk pages is because we do not want to misrepresent the view of an editor. As Dreadstar points out, section headings are generally not used to express one editor's views, they are not signed, and we often change them in refactoring or to clarify the discussion that follows.  But the key thing is, the name of an RfC is not supposed to represent any one person's view.  We prohibit changing people's comments on talk pages i.e. that which comes before their signature because the change misrepresents their views.  Are you and Unscintillating and others suggesting that the name of the RfC was Blueboar's "view?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The compromise wasn't between me and Blueboar. It was put out by Blueboar as a compromise between the two groups there were locked in an multi-month debate on this. North8000 (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying to Dreadstar, as per the section you cited at WP:TPOC, "Section headers" is listed as an example of "other editor's comments". Unscintillating (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear, what I meant was were any other editor's comments besides the header edited by someone else? Editing a header is fine per WP:TPO, although questionable when it is reverted back to a poorly worded one - as this one was.  Dreadstar  ☥  17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to make this a less rancourous discusion? The purpose of announcements is to attract as many outside comments as possible and WP:AGF means we assume that people will comment on the substance of the proposal, which Blueboar posted at the top of this page.  We should assume that all comments are on the proposal itself.  We should all be able to agree that Slim Virgin's announcement was made in good faith as an attempt to more widely publicize the RfC.  We should assume the same about Bluboar.  Wikipedia's procedures and policies (like AGF like NPOV) are all based on the premise that editors with a common purpose, acting in good faith, can have different even conflicting ways of achieving this purpose.  In fact, there may be no single bst way to achieve our goal.  I realize that some people here are not upset about the actual announcement but the way it was announced.  My point is, these arguments seem petty.  We would all make more progress if we agreed that we all want to attract as many diverse comments as possible.  There is no ned to defend Blueboar, or to justify the original way this was announced, because Blueboar did nothing wrong.  And the fact that Slim Virgin had another way of doing it doesn't mean that Blueboar was wrong.  At Wikipedia, different ways of doing things does not have to mean "right" versus "wrong."  People on both sides have already said defensive or inflammatory ways.  If you guys want to go on attacking and defending one another rather than discussing how best to improve articles or policies, so be it but I am writing this with the hope that ir might provide an end to this thread and enable everyone here to move on to more productive activities. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO Blueboar's actions all along have been very cautious, seeking consensus at every step on even the smallest of items, and have not even been in question. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we want to attract as many diverse comments as possible. There are better things for most others to do.  The change debated here is not a major Policy change.  It involved no change in policy, just a change in the presentation of consistent policy.  It is mere semantics.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * North is correct above that there was real compromising between large groups, and many efforts were gone to, in order to ensure that it was so. Discussion took place over a long period, and there were even votes on many smaller points, which gave all participants a feeling for what opinions were most strongly held. That was the background to the compromise. Many people with widely varying ideas described Blueboar's compromise as a compromise, including people who did not like it. If that is not a compromise what is? What's more SlimVirgin was aware of that whole discussion. Why does SlimVirgin only participate in this matter on the basis of legalistic procedural claims and actions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "compromise" is a point of view about Blueboar's intentions. I happen to hold this point of vieww; I do think Blueboar's intentions are to forge a compromise, and that her proposal is in her view a compromise. In fact, it is my view that the proposal is a compromise, even if it is one that does not satisfy me.  Nevertheless, that I view it to be a compromise is a particular point of view, that not everyone responding to the RfC may share.  I don't question Blueboar's intentions, but I don't think that one's intentions are a particularly informative way to describe an actual proposal.  After all, as collaborative editors aren't our motives or intentions always to seek some kind of compromise, or at least, often? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slr ... huh? Please don't descend into this level of postmodern relativity, because then communication becomes impossible. I agree that this has nothing to do with intentions, but I don't see anyone else claiming that it does in the first place. I see people judging the results of Blueboar's actions and saying that they represent a compromise between two large camps of people with different POVs. If you agree with that assessment you agree with it. Leave it at that. Don't admit to agreeing with it if you don't want. That's fine too. But of course it is a human judgement, as anything we could possibly understand is. This was clearly a compromise. You might not like it, but that doesn't change what it is.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said.  And what you said is extensively established by the zillion words of discussion over many months.  North8000 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Postmodern relativism?" Wow, I honestly don't know where that is coming from.  And Griswaldo, if you are saying I did not express myself clearly, okay.  First: I agree that Blueboar's intentions were to come up with a compromise.  I do not think it is an appropriate or effective compromise.  But it is beyond me why you think I am incapable of criticising the proposed comrpomise while appreciating the genuine effort at compromise.  And if anyone thinks that this is a disingenuous statement, well, screw you - it is possible to appreciate someone's intentions while disagreeing with their proposal, and if someon thinks this is not possible at WP then it means they do not understand AGF.  Second: I agree that Blueboar's intentions were to reavch a compromise, but I do not think that this is relevant to describing what the proposal is.  We ned to describe the substance of the proposal in a phrase, not Blueboar's intentions.  If you do not see the difference between these, or do not think the difference matters, well, then we do not agree.  But do you really think my position makes communication impossible?  I think that shows a failure to AGF.  And I do not see this as a difference in some kind of metaphilosophical stance.  I just think that when publicising a request for comments on a proposal, we should try to describe the actual proposal, not the intentions of the person proposing it.  The latter is just spin (and if anything exemplifies postmodernity it is the rise of spin over substance).  Now, you may think SlimVirgin's description of the RfC proposal was not a good description of the proposal.  Maybe you would prefer "Proposal to remove "not truth" from the lead" or something else.  Fine.  A discussion over the best way to describe the substance of the proposal is constructive.  But we should leave intentions out of it.  Are we communicating, yet? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slr, I'm sorry if in frustration I expressed myself too aggressively. Sincerely I am. My point was simply that the argument you put forth is not productive. You at once recognized that in your own judgement this was a compromise while undermining your and everyone else's judgments as mere POVs. That's all I was trying to say. If you meant that you didn't think the end product was a compromise but only that Blueboar's intentions were to accomplish such then I would argue you were not being clear - you wrote: "it is my view that the proposal is a compromise, even if it is one that does not satisfy me." We are discussing the objection to the word "compromise" and I think that arguing that it's a bad word based on the notion that we're all making judgement calls about this leads down and endless road of relativism to me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You post modern relativist, you. Don't you know there is truth to be told. :) At any rate, I think some distance is advisable for most commenters in the recent hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the title back to its original (with the word compromise)... Whether my choice of wording in the title was flawed or not no longer matters... changing it at this late date breaks notification links going back to Oct. 6th when we went live with this RfC. Blueboar (talk)
 * Thanks, Blueboar. I have worked through SlimVirgin's contribution list immediately after her change to the name of the RfC, and notated the correct name where the incorrect name has been posted.  WP:V is now page protected until November 3, and editors at Template:Centralized discussion have received a block warning if incipient edit warring resumes over the WP:V RfC name.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So lets look at what has been done to this RFC in the last 2 days

 * Closure was reverted by someone
 * Change as a result of the closure was undone by someone
 * Proposal was renamed after 3 weeks, and the change retained by edit warring rather than discussion/decision
 * Someone put notices out at the pump and 2-3 other policy pages incorrectly stating that the proposal removes "verifiability" from the lead of verifiability
 * Not true Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At the Pump it says: "There is an RfC here about whether to remove from the lead of Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * At wp:nor and wp:npov it says: "There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." North8000 (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you recognize, she did not incorrectly state that the word "verifiability" would be removed, but rahter correctly state that the phrase "verifiability, not truth" be removed. You do understand the difference between a word and a phrase, don't you? Look them up, they are in the dictionary! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual text is now there. Readers can now decide for themselves whether the statement about the RFC is accurate, and whether my statement about the statement is accurate. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slr, SlimVirgin may not have intended to suggest that "verifiability" was proposed for removal, but since she said that the entire string, "verifiability, not truth" was proposed for removal, as opposed to only "not truth" and didn't clarify that the first word was to remain, North8000 and others have a very fair criticism here. What SlimVirgin wrote implies what North8000 says, and reasonable intelligent people would have thought that "verifiability" was proposed for removal since she didn't say otherwise.Griswaldo (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are right. Look, we all make mistakes.  North wonders how we might "prevail" and I hope North means "prevail in improving the policy."  I admit that this requires us to catch mistakes or errors in judgment.  But it also requires some tolerance for errors in judgment and an understanding that working together often requires zig-zagging.  I think I was reacting to what I perceived as a failure to AGF in this thread.  But you are right Griswaldo and I appreciate your taking the time to explain it this way. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Though there never was a hurry (and no mention of a 30 day rule when the question of closing floated for 2 days), someone promulgated a 30 day rule after the closing.
 * Opposes have gone from zero for three days in a row (and a total of 2 in five days) to 18 in one day (and 23 in a 36 hour period) despite not being posted in any new venues except I believe wp:npov.
 * Someone modified the proposal itself, deleting the statement of proposed action
 * Someone modified the statement at centralized discussion to incorrectly say that the proposal includes removal of "verifiability" from the lead of wp:verifiability

If this type of thing prevails, then what kind of a place is Wikipedia? North8000 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * what kind of a place is Wikipedia? Nomic?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could explain how does this topic helps improve the situation? Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO sunshine on what has been happening always helps. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not sunshine - it's just another place to argue, as can already be seen above. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we fucking about with all these half-measures? We should just change the RFC title to something like "Proposal to wreck Wikipedia by destroying the lede of WP:V!"  We should also make sure that everyone gets a chance to participate by individually messaging everyone who's ever edited Wikipedia with a neutrally-worded notification, such as "Quickly!  Rush to WT:V to vote down the evil proposal from Hell before it gets closed the wrong way!"— S Marshall  T/C 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you truly think that this is what is going on, I have to wonder whether you are capable of assuming good faith. I this really the only intention you are capable of ascribing to those who do not accept the proposal, or those who would like to attract more comments on the proposal?  You seem to be villifying everyone who disagrees with you.  And then projecting on to them your fear that they must also be villifying you.  I hope I m wrong, but your words sem pretty hysterical. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I've been able to contribute calmly to Wikipedia for many years now. I've rarely been so angry as I have been about everything that's happened since Sarek's close, but this time, I am.  I'm absolutely bloody furious.  I have an awful lot of time and effort invested in this change that I've put in over a very, very long period, in the face of bloody-minded obstructionism at absolutely every single step.  I've been accused of many things during that time, and I've taken them all calmly and in good part.  And now, at the final hurdle, we have this.  You're right: I can't assume good faith here.  I've seen far too much evidence of bad faith gaming of the system to assume good faith.  I hate this.  It makes me seethe.  I also hate the smugness of telling me to assume good faith while they do this. I need to stop posting and log off.— S Marshall  T/C 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I arrive at this point from exactly the opposite direction from S Marshall ... I am one of those bloody-minded obstructionists he talks about, being a strong supporter of the "V not T" concept remaining in the policy. (While I do think the compromise presented in this RfC is an improvement, I am perfectly happy with the current language) ... and yet I find myself as just as upset by what has occurred over the last two days as he is. My assumption of good faith has been severely strained by the shenanigans that have been taking place on this page since Sarek's closing.  I won't go as far as accusing anyone of deliberate misconduct in an attempt to influence the outcome of this RfC (what little good faith I still have prevents that)... but there sure as hell is an appearance of deliberate misconduct.  I don't really care what the final outcome of the RfC is... but I do care (a lot) about how that final outcome is achieved, whatever it is.  What has been going on for the last few days stinks to high heaven, and needs to stop... now. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What Blueboar just said, that's exactly what I think too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment:. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * VERY interesting. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still not thinking coherently about this, but I do want to thank you two for that attitude, which is helping to restore my faith in most Wikipedians. How would you feel about a RFC/U?  Worthwhile, or likely to be drowned in wikipolitics?— S Marshall  T/C 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the short answer is both of the above. My advice would be to sit back and wait until this present RfC comes to whatever will be its close. This isn't the first time I have been deeply, deeply concerned, to put it mildly. But it's always a good idea to take a deep breath, sleep on it for a few days, and then make a decision when the smoke has cleared. (In the mean time, be of good cheer! I'm far from convinced that the eventual outcome is going to be changed from where it was a day or two ago.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice how the "Support" votes have received an extraordinary boost as well. The supports are now in triple digits: but I'm not going to cast aspersions on anyone. Doc   talk  04:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at another starting point
Quite some time ago another editor wrote:
 * Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

This was obviously with reference to NPOV. But it seems to me that the first sentence is what motivates many people who support the "Verifiability, not truth" phrase (the third line, too). I do not want to propose anything specific, since my last attempt to propose specific wording (above) gained no traction. But I would like to invite everyone to consider how our Verifiability policy does and should be a support for the approach stated above (NPOV is our one non-negotiable policy, so it seems to me that it is always a good starting point for thinking about our policies). I propose the following: Verifiability is not only meant to prevent OR, it is also meant to provide guidance for people who want to add encyclopedic content in the spirit of the above conviction. I see V as a lynchpin, the guarantee that content added is "encyclopedic."

Blueboar sought to craft a compromise, and I think it is still worth discussing his compromise proposal and the comments it has attracted. So this is not meant to negate Blueboar's work. But some editors have said that we have been discussing this for months without reaching consensus, so it seems to me that nw ideas cannot hurt. That is why I am forewarding this - perhaps this provides another direction, from which we can reach a compromise. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A common implied statement in nearly everything you say is to sidestep that this proposal is for a specific set of changes, and that this proposal already IS a compromise proposal.  Also to imply that the results do not show a consensus, and to try to discount or negate this whole RFC and the months of work that led to it. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with North8000. I have often found Slrubenstein's comments such as the one he has posted immediately above to be helpful and thought provoking. I would even say that for me the better ones help justify my support of Blueboar's proposal. The Blueboar compromise is not a major change of policy, it is a compromise, and it is very widely agreed with as a wording improvement. It has jumped through a lot of hoops to get where it is. To claim otherwise is at least a minority position compared to most people who have discussed these points at length.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

North8000 keeps identifying herself with Blueboar's efforts at compromise &mdash; and then does everything possible to derail or stifle any other discussion, a tactic that is itself uncompromising, inransigent, and disruptive. You are just firghtened of anything that might move discussion away from the ay you want it to move. It must frutrate you a great deal that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Andrew, if you think that Blueboar's proposal is consistent with the above that is great! As I said, I am not forwarding it along with nay specific proposal, but rather as a point for more productive discussion. Maybe if you can convince many of those who oppose Blueboar's proposal that the proposal is fully consistent with this, it will lead them to change their opposition to support &mdasn; I cannot speak for them of course. Maybe others can propose other changes to the policy that along wtih Blueboar's will attract more support. Maybe not. But the fact is, we do not have a consensus. And the fact is, RfC's are supposed to be followed by discussion to reach a consensus. Whatever the actual outcome, my only intention is that the above quote might help move us closer to a consensus. So, thanks, Andrew. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, I have a great deal of respect for you, and you are a thoughtful person, so I have to ask if you have been following the discussions here closely over the last three months? I will not seek to explain North8000's frustration, but I think it is fair to say the Blueboar, North8000, and Tryptofish formed a troika which manage to get use to the RfC and keep the discussion during the RfC until this week focussed and reasonably calm. Andrew Lancaster's description is spot on--my efforts in these discussion have been to not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and to work for improvement in the wording. Please keep in mind that, for example, North8000 and myself have fundamental disagreements about the value of the phrase "verifiability, not truth", yet we agree that this is an improvement. North8000 has been instrumental keeping discussions on track.


 * Discussions should continue, but there the appearance that some admins have come in at the last minute to attempt to push the RfC in a particular direction. And I feel that some, acting with good intentions, have managed to set us back in terms of the nature and quality of the discussions we have had here the last 2-3 months. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a little disturbed by our use of the word "troika." There are many editors whom I respct who both opposed and supported the proposal and sometimes I think it would be great to get four or five of them together to work out a compromise that would hey presto please most people who watch this and other policy pages.  But this is just not how WP works.


 * I wonder whether we agree about the meaning of "keeping discussions on track." If you mean kieeping discussions on track until we reach a consensus that supports Blueboar's proposal, I flat-out do not agree: no "track" should be towards a predetermined outcome.  If however by the phrase you mean that we should keep moving towards some improvement to the policy that will have widespread support, well, then, yes I am fully for that.


 * I agree that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good but I also belive we should not change policy without consensus. Perhaps we agree on this too.


 * I have also said repeatedly that I believe Blueboar's intention was to craft a compromise that would help move us towards consensus. The fact that I acknowledge that his efforts were to craft a compromise does not mean that the specific proposal is the compromise I support.  A lot of other editors feel the same way.  As I read your post, I am just not sure whether you are suggesting that "a proposed compromise" = "the compromise."  In my view, they are not equal.
 * I do think that we have differing interpretations of different recent edits to the page. I think editors on both sides have made errors of judgment.  I do not question the good faith of any of them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I may not have been clear enough, let me try again. The three editors essentially mediated discussions between numerous editors who have legitimate and strong disagreements about the wording of the policy, worked to achieve compromise wording which sought to address the concerns of many editors on both sides (those who wish to remove "verifiability, not truth" and those who wish to keep it). You can see those discussions in the archives here and at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence, and anyone who wishes to understand how the proposal came about should review the latter pages, although it is a lot of reading to do. That work helped achieve enough consensus to the proposal together and to start an RfC, and that's the track to which I refer, not a specific wording or goal. Prior to their efforts, we'd loop around an around the same issues and not make any progress forward, and that had been going on for months with no apparent progress. I think without their good work, we would not have gotten that far. And yes I think I see your distinction between "a proposed compromise" and "the compromise" but I don't think I feel that as strongly as you, since I know that whatever wording we agree upon today will be changed sometime in the future--nothing is immutable here. Clearly some editors oppose the proposed wording for various reasons, and that's fine--the policy will not change without broad consensus. I hope that helps clarify my views. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nuujinn, this does help, and it certainly relieves the concerns I raised. I have one point to make - I am not trying to stir up new arguments, I just want to make sure my position is clear.  I acknowledge and appreciate the work people put into coming up with a proposed compromise.  But I do not view an RfC as the process by which a compromise is ratified, or not, by the larger community.  As I read WP:RfC, it is a means to invite comments from people who have not been involved in the discussion. Yes, I am others who have been involved in the discussion commented, but the real purpose of the RfC is to draw in the comments of others.  This can reveal an effective consensus, or it can reveal continued divisions.  Hopefully, either way, it will also yeild comments that will help move us towards a consensus &mdah; but the whole point is to attract new comments that make new points and raise new issues.  In the case of this particular proposal, the RfC shows that people are divided among those who like the proposal, those who are adamantly opposed to "not truth" and those who are adamant that it belongs in the first sentence.  I do not see a consensus for change.  I understand that this will disappoint many, but I just do not se a consensus for change.  I do not view 2:1 as consensus, as Dreadstar pointed out Bureaucrat elections require an 85% vote and we should have at least as high a threshold for changing policy.


 * WP is designed to attract large numbers of editors from diverse backgrounds. Frankly, I think WP will fail unless it can attract increasing numbers and numbers that are increasingly diverse but I suspct it is inevitable that such a large group will find it dificult to agree on many things.  In my experience, articles improve not when editors spend months and great energy trying to forge a compromise, but when compromises and consensus arise out of discussions within a few days.  The main function of our policies is to ensure that such diverse people are able to collaborate together.  For as long as I have been here, a lot of people have said that the quality of articles will not be legislated by policy but will depend on our ability to attract enough people with complementary knowledge or research skills i.e. will depend on our editors.  And I do think our policies for the most part work.  Yes, I deinitely think they can be improved, but I also know a lot of editors don't like my proposed improvements which believe it or not I have put a lot of time and thought into.  But, if people don't like my proposals, I am not going to fight for them. WP will roll along. I have seen people put a lot of work into an article, and a couple of years later not a single word remains.


 * This is a fundamentally conservative approach. The requirement for consensus makes it hard to change policies.  It is not easy to ammend the US constitution either (in fact, far far more dificult, but I hope you get the point of the comparison).  I really do agree with the principle that perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, but I also think that if Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we have over a million registered users and over 1,000 are active and over a hundred, maybe even over 200, really do care about our policies, we have to accept the fact that a great number of people may not be entirely satisfied with them.  I guess you are applying the principle "the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good" to the proposal, and I am applying it to this policy as currently worded. If a strong consensus naturally emerges for a change to this policy it will happen.  But the bias is towards the status quo.  If someone puts a lot of work into creating a consensus and it doesn't work, well, they should just redirect their energies elsewhere - disappointment will be understandable and inevitable but there is certainly no shame in it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A conservative approach, with which I entirely agree. And please note, I'm not fighting for a change in the policy, I think the policy is fine as it is myself, nor am I arguing that consensus has been achieved--I think when Sarek closed it, there was pretty clear consensus for the preferred wording, but since then, others have chimed in to the discussion, and we're not at consensus now, and we all know that consensus can change. I support the proposal because I believe it addresses a number of valid concerns raised by editors with whom I disagree, and the wording as proposed meets my concerns well enough, and that it represents a good compromise. There may not be consensus for the proposal, and that's fine with me. We've chatted about this a good bit, and I think you're thinking I'm holding a position I don't really hold, and I'll try to be more clear in the future so that we will not misunderstand one another.


 * That being said, I'm arguing against the assertions that the RfC was not well advertised, that North8000 or any of the other editors involved in developing the proposal did anything wrong or insufficient--indeed, this the proposal and the setting up of the RfC were done with extreme care, and although nothing is perfect, it was very well done indeed. Bureaucrat elections require an 85% vote and we should have at least as high a threshold for changing policy--I don't agree with your reasoning there, as elections determined by votes and RfCs are not, but that's a minor point-as you've said to me, the number of !votes does not matter nearly so much as the quality of the arguments, and I agree with you there. And I am applying the principle "the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good" to both the proposal and this policy as currently worded.


 * There have been a number of what I consider to be missteps in the process the last few days. I think that some of the recent advertisements were poorly worded and misrepresented the nature of the proposal. I think the reopening was poorly handled. I think that changing section headings this late during the process is an extremely poor decision, especially without prior discussion. Now there appears to be a rush by some (not you) to push the RfC to a non-consensus close. One admin basically said they would take anyone who disagreed with them regard the nature of consensus to dispute resolution--that's a very strong statement to make. I've seen diverse editors work together over a long period of time to reach a potential compromise, all acting in good faith, and now I see some admins (not you) ham handing the work of those editors, and that's troubling to me, and I think it works against the spirit of WP you expressed above. Things are very heated now, and I everyone should just slow and take real care in reading what others are saying. It appears that things are calming now slowly, and I hope that continues. Given the missteps, I think it's important to take extra care in proceeding. I hope that all makes sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It all makes perfect sense and with the exception of what, in principle, we mean by "consensus" I think I agree with most or all of what you say. I think that whatever date is given for closure, it should be announced on the same pages as the RfC was announced, in advance.  I wish that Blueboar could come up with another name for the proposal; I understand why BB objected to the wording that SV used, but I think SV's intention was a name that better reflected the substance of the proposal.  People who were closely involved in crafting the proposal understandably see the proposal as a compromise among them (or an attempt to articulate a compromise between others) but when advertising an RfC, which is a deliberate effort to solicit outside views, we have to consider what it is that they would be interested in commenting on, and I think that people who would not be interested in commenting on a compromise between two groups of editors would be interested in commenting on a proposal to make a change to a policy, o I think the bst name is one that summarises the change. When SV invited other suggestions, JN466 virtually restated the whole proposal. The choice between the vague "a compromise" and a reproduction of the proposal, is a false choice &mdash; it is important that different editors agree the name is neutral, and it is important that it be as informative as possible. I know Blueboar made a good-faith effort to achieve just this when first naming the proposal, but if we can come up with a new name that BB would agree is accurate and neutral, and is more informative, even at this late date, that surely would be a good thing.  I think that it should be as widely publicized as possible; I think Blueboar made a very good faith effort to do this, and I think SV was lso making a good-faith effort to publicize it even more widely.  Using a bot seems pretty neutral to me and I think accusations of canvassing were unfair.  In any event, it does seem pretty clear to me that the people who showed up in the past two days were attracted by the AN/I report; this is not canvassing but just evidence that editors watch different pages and, as we all have real jobs and families, do not alway slook at changes to pages they watch.  I do not want to be more specific about what should be done, my hope is only to show that we can agree about how it should be done.


 * But we may really disagree on the final matter: when Sarak closed it the first time, it was my firm belief that we had not reached a consensus. more comments might or might not lead to a consensus.  But my understanding of RfCs is that when it is closed we still need to discuss the comments and it is to those of us who actively paricipate on this page to reach a consensus.  RfCs are not substitutes for the editorial policies but supplements, aids.  Maunus has addressed this in comments below and I don't really have anything to add to those comments. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We may indeed disagree in this particular case, but that really doesn't concern me much, as we agree in principal regarding how consensus is achieved and gauged. People do disagree, and what is more important than the fact that they disagree is how they deal with the disagreement. I do fall into the immediatist camp--I'd much rather go ahead and make a change that has reasonably well argued as an improvement, with the knowledge that we'll immediately revisit the wording to make further refinements. And if the consensus is there's no consensus, I'm fine with that, as whether there's consensus is also a matter of consensus (otherwise, we'd just have up or down votes, yes?). My experience with RfCs in article spaces and the RfC/Us is that the discussion after the actual RfC is generally limited and a change implemented or not, but I personally don't see a real difference in actual practice with what you're suggesting and what I have seen done, since, as I've said, nothing is immutable. So from my point of view, there's not really that much difference between RfC-change-discuss and RfC-discuss-change, since any change will likely soon be followed by further discussion and any discussion followed by further changes. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC development time line

 * November 25, 2010 current round of continuous active discussion on the first sentence began
 * June 15th, 2011  The largest of many many RFC's and polls closes.  It was for a specific change that totally eliminated "not truth".   Basically a tie....no consensus to keep "not truth", no consensuses to remove "not truth"
 * August 19th, 2011 First subpage Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence is created. Another poll subpage subsequently was created.
 * August 31st, 2011 (approx, undated) Blueboar creates first draft of what will become the current RFC.  This is one of many but (IMHO) because it is the first "reach across the aisle" proposal (in addition to it's merits) it gains support and becomes prominent and the primary proposal draft.   Review of the proposal, including of proposed changes to it begins.  Minor changes are made, but no major proposed changes gain support of even a few people.
 * October 5, 2011 Proposal becomes the RFC, goes live.

North8000 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The kind of change I would like to see
I intend this section to be for proposals for how to make a kind of change that incorporates the concerns about misuse of WP:TRUTH and the wish to keep the basic principle.


 * I would support a proposal that makes it clear that verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for inclusion of information in an article AND that the decision of including a piece of verifiable information has to be based on whether the view is significant, not whether it is objectively correct. I think this can be done by including a description of what is meant by the V not T slogan after the first sentence of the guideline. Such a phrase should both deter usages of the slogan to keep insignificant sourced views "because they are verifiable" and it should deter the usage of the slogan to remove verifiable information "because its not true". I.e. it should clearly establish the kind of reasoning that is acceptable when arguing for inclusion or exclusion of information based on "V not T". Basically I think that it is impossible to avoid that some users misuse the essay in one of the problematic ways, but it is possible to make it very easy for others to spot when it is being misused, by explicitly stating how not to use it (i.e. neither to support original research based on primary sources nor to justify inclusion of insignificant/erroneous but verifiable views).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support that too, and I believe it was suggested some months ago here as a compromise. It would (a) retain "verifiability, not truth" in the first sentence, which a significant number of people support, but (b) would make clear that verifiability is a necessary conditon for inclusion, not a sufficient one. And (c) by emphasizing that the decision to include material has to be based on significance, we make clear the relationship between V and NPOV, particularly UNDUE. There was a suggestion in August to achieve some or all of this by linking to an essay, Verifiability, not truth, in the first sentence like this, then building that up to make those points, if it doesn't already. But I would be fine with making them explicitly in this policy too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These implicitly say to ignore the current compromise RFC. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now reviewed some of the history of this debate going back months. Suggestions like these were made and inevitably rejected in those discussions, as you both know since you were involved at different times. After months of fiddling with language the current RfC suggestion is what appears to have pleased more people than any other suggestion. I get you two don't like it. Great so express your thoughts in the oppose section, but don't try to bully everyone else back into line with the type of discussion you want. That's not how consensus building works. Not after months of clearly frustrating work done by a great number of other editors. Let this RfC run its course, indeed you should have let it do so already, but that's another matter, and if you don't like the final product start up a new conversation. But please don't hijack this one like this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how expressing one's opinion and providing a suggestion on an improvement to the proposal is "bullying"? We have been presented with a "final product" and been asked to say yes or no. We are saying no thanks - why should we not then propose a what we see as a better solution that might have a broader appeal? Something that could me more of a real compromise than what we are presented with here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, why not let this RfC end before trying to forge ahead? In my view you are acting as if months worth of conversation between many editors from very different perspectives (plenty who didn't want to change anything as well) is worthless and doesn't deserve even to be seen to fruition. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need to change the policy. So far, I have not seen an example of an editor knowingly adding information to an article that was wrong simply on the basis of verifiability.  And certainly not on a scale that warrants a change to this policy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the RfC
The RfC is now closed. I thought that in cases like this it is up to the person who initiated the RfC (Blueboar) to close it, but I don't think we are going to attract many more comments.

But I am concerned that some people think it is an up-down vote. According to the policy, *"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines."
 * "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes."

Well, we succeeded in soliciting a good deal of thoughtful comment. Apparently there is no consensus, but I interpret the comments to mean that (1) the current explanation of "Verifiability not truth" needs work and (2) Blueboar's proposal represents an important step forward. Nevertheless, it is still up to us to discuss how best to make use of the proposal. I believe that with some ammendments, we may be able to address most of the criticisms of the proposal, while also responding to the need for better clarification and guidance.

First, I think it is clear from discussion that V cannot be reduced to RS. Therefore, I would propose changing Blueboar's proposed first sentence to:
 * The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia represents significant views that have already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).

The following paragraph links this policy to NOR. But V and NOR are only two of our three core content policy, each of which supports the others.

Second, I think that there is considerable support for "not truth" but a need to explain it more clearly. This is where there is a need to explain how this policy relates to NPOV. I think if we do this, we clear up much of the confusion over our long-standing slogan. Therefore, I propose adding to Blueboar's proposal a new second paragraph:


 * The essense of this policy is traditionally summed up as, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia does not claim that any of the views in its articles are "true," we only claim that they are significant views (which if need be can be specifically attributed), presented in a neutral way. In order to include a view in WP, we avoid arguments over whether they are true or false and instead seek to verify that they are indeed significant, and that we are giving each view due weight, and that we are providing accurate accounts of these views. And in order to verify these things, we look for reliable sources.


 * Some significant views make explicit claims about what is true or false, or what is fact or opinion, and we include these as views of the truth or the facts. We also avoid distinguishing between facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms, what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white. Instead, we try to assess and acknowledge degrees of controversy.  Some propositions are so uncontroversial that we can put them in without citation or attribution.  Some things are so controversial that not only must we provide a citation, but a quotation and specific attribution.  And between these two extremes may be many degrees.  In all cases, it must be possible to verify the views expressed by the article.

Finally, in the new section that Blueboar crafted, I would suggest changing "Assertions of untruth" to "Assertions of inaccuracy" and generally consider changing "truth" or "untruth" to "accurate" and "inaccurate."

It is my hope that combining these proposals with Blueboar's will move us much closer to consensus, without abandoning the work and thought Blueboar put into her proposal. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "We also avoid distinguishing between facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms, what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white."


 * This is false. See WP:ASF.


 * 69.86.225.27 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this the appropriate time to close?

 * I object strongly to your reversion of Sarek's closure. There has been discussion, there is consensus by a very broad margin – and reversion rather than improvement is, frankly, disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely and strongly agree with Tryptofish. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that there was a fairly strong consensus in favor of making the changes I proposed (I would not classify the consensus as overwhelming, but it was a clear consensus), and I thank Sarek for closing the RFC and implementing those changes on my behalf. Now... does this mean we must stop working on the policy?... No, of course not.  And if Slrubenstein wishes to propose further changes, he is welcome to do so.  That's how a collaborative project like Wikipedia works.  However,I would respectfully suggest that after almost 6 months of debate, and having finally reaching a consensus on compromise language, now is not the time to consider further radical changes.  I think it best to let the issue sit for a while... see how the new, compromise language works in practice... and then, in a few months, we can return to the issue with some perspective and see if we can improve upon what we now have. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, consensus does not mean "unanimus" but neither does it mean "majority" When one third of the people who responded to the RfC do not support the change, it is just folloy to make the change.  But I do welcome your point that collaborative processes are ongoing projects.  I proposed some changes to wht you wrote, and some additions, but I was also trying to wok with what you wrote.  My changes were meant to respond to the comments of the 33% that SarekofVulcan ignored in making her changes to the policy.  I understand that some people feel frustrated that, after months of discussion, we have not reached a consensus.  But this does not mean that we look for some short-cut, to impose a change without consensus.  There is wisdom in keeping the policy as it stands until we reach consensus for a change.  Maybe a more efective approach is to break down your proposal to specific parts, and discuss each part separately &mdash; yes, I understand that your parts fit together, but the point is we have still not reached consensus and if the RfC did not reach a consensus, we should look for other processes that miggt lead to a consensus.


 * What you call "the new, compromise language" is a radical change. And I do agree with you that we should not be making radical changes.  That is, we should not be making any substantive changes without consensus.  The purpose of the RfC is to invite comments and we received many comments.  Our guidelines tell us it is not a vote.  our comments tell us that after we receive commnts, we should discuss the comments to see if they help us reach a consensus.  Let's stick to our guidelines. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish and North8000, I can't stop you from repeating, I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. But your complaints would have some value if you would explain why you don't like it with reference to policy. I quoted the WP:Rfc guidlines. and I am also following our WP:BRD Principle. SarakofVulcan was pretty bold in violating our guidelines in closing the RfC and unilaterally changing the article. I reverted. Now let's discuss. But if you want to discuss, try providing atual reasons based on 'policies and guideliness' I quoted the rules, above. You have yet to explain why you don't like editing according to our rules. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am editing according to our rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The RfC should stay open for 30 days, and there should be final push to make sure it is properly wiki-wide, as you promised it would be, Blueboar. Also, it should be closed by more than one uninvolved admin who is willing to read all the comments. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been advertised wiki-wide, in the centralised discussion box, linked from here, linked from AN/I too I see. I'm afraid that I don't think waiting to raise this objection until after the discussion's been open for two weeks, extensively discussed and finally closed by an uninvolved administrator is appropriate conduct at all.  We have a clear consensus.— S Marshall  T/C 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the close has been reverted then surely the subsequent edits to the policy should also be reverted? Roger (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For what may be the first time I've ever agreed with S Marshall about WP:V, I agree with S Marshall. It looks to me like just two editors are popping up after discussion has been going on for a long time, with listing on WP:CENT, and discussion petering out, to stomp on what many editors have been discussing constructively. And there's an ironic symmetry, considering how some editors who have argued for change were not long ago told to shorten the discussion. But, that said, sure, let's discuss this some more. I doubt that consensus will really change, but there's no harm in more discussion. I say this as someone who was never enthusiastic about making a change, but as someone who also respects consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's been open for a lot more than two weeks. It opened on October 5. It will be the full month in just a couple more days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The timing of the revert and the sudden shift to purely procedural objections are fascinating. Now that it's gone this way, any attempt to close it before 5 November will be a violation of WP:WW, and the insistence on a multi-admin close increases the likelihood of dissent and a no-consensus close, preserving the status quo.  It's frustrating, but you also can't help admire it, seeing this game played by a master.  :) But I don't think this can succeed.  What's another two weeks?  Consensus can change in that time, but I'd be amazed (and very, very suspicious) if there was a sudden flood of opposers now.— S Marshall  T/C 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I first reverted the closing not because Sarekof Vulcan had closed permaturely (although this was clearly the case) but because Sarek closed in an inappropriate manner i.e. by stating her own interpretation of the outcome as if whe were an uninvold party. This is not the proper way to close an RfC on content.  Uninvolved parties summing up the outcome is the procedure for RfCs on conflicts between two editors, not comments on changes to content.  With changes to content, an RfC is typically closed thirty days after it was opened or earlier, if consensus has ben reached, and by the person who initiated the RfC.


 * It is clear that RfCs on content are not substitutes for reaching consensus. They are requests for  comments  from outsiders, in the hope that these comments will help people working on the talk page to reach a consensus.  Once the RfC has closed, our guidelines tell us to discuss the comments, to see if they can help us reach consensus.


 * We have clear guidelines for how to close an RfC. I just want us to follow those guidelines. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When you see an important RfC about core policy drawing to a close with fewer and fewer comments (suggesting people may not know about it), you ask for more input, you don't rush to close it early. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SlimVirgin. This is a crucial RfC about core policy that has not been announced widely enough. I didn't know about it until just now, and I've been moderately active. I'm sure there are very many editors that would be shocked this is about to change. --GRuban (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's still not being widely advertised. I added it to several other RfC pages, but the RfC bot is listing it halfway down all the pages it has added it to, because of the Oct 5 date. That is, even though it has been freshly added, the bot is reading it as an old entry. But I don't want to change the date and complicate things. So we do need to get the word out further. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And now there's a sudden flood of opposers, and accordingly, I'm very suspicious. Response rates in opinion polls don't behave like this.  In the three weeks up until this afternoon, we had 66 supporters and 31 opposers for an overall 32% oppose.  This afternoon, after the definitely-not-canvassing measures we've seen, we have had 5 supporters and 8 opposers join the debate, or 61% oppose for that period.  This could be a statistical fluke, but if it continues, I would see it as a very loudly quacking WP:DUCK for targeted off-wiki canvassing by an editor or editors unknown.— S Marshall  T/C 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no off-wiki canvassing, and please stop these allegations. What happened is that people didn't know about it, because it was not advertised widely enough. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim, on Oct. 6th (the day we "went live" with the RfC) we advertised it at the Village Pump, at WP:NOR, and at WP:NPOV ... how was this not wide enough? What did I miss? Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You remember what we did for ATT? It was more that kind of thing I had in mind. Certainly at least asking the RfC bot to add it to more pages than just the policy one. And then following up several times whenever you saw comments drying out, to make sure people had seen your notices. And actually telling people in the notices what the RfC was about. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you're confident there's been no offwiki canvassing, SV. AGF is not a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the obvious.  Blueboar's messages of 6th October led to a consistent 32% oppose rate.  Today that's suddenly doubled.  Therefore the messages are reaching widely different audiences.  You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to see this, do you?— S Marshall  T/C 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find your alleged evidence of off-wiki stealth canvassing to be sadly lacking in AGF. Seriously lacking. Doc   talk  11:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not surprising, because it was seriously lacking in AGF. Seriously lacking.  My assumption of good faith has been overcome by evidence of bad faith.  SlimVirgin's consensus re-engineering exercise has been plain for all to see and she hasn't even tried to deny it.  The shift since she did this has been noticeable: from 68% support for the proposal when Sarek closed, it dipped to 32% support among the votes immediately after her actions.  (It stands at 59% at the time of typing.)  This is not proof positive of offwiki canvassing, but it certainly activates my sniff-test.  I do not allege that SlimVirgin personally was responsible for any offwiki canvassing, but I do believe that it has taken place.— S Marshall  T/C 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat a note I posted in another section, I am one of those who has recently opposed. I came here because of the watchlist notice and have no knowledge of canvassing actions by any editors.  I think it likely that a substantial number of those recently supporting and opposing are here because of the watchlist notice.  I would speculate that those who, like me, don't have WP:V on their watchlist are perfectly happy with the status quo and are hence more inclined to oppose what they see as significant changes.  That could account for your observations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Going from a proportion of 8:5 to 5:8 does not seem a big swing - it just indicates that there's a soggy centre. Whichever way round the ratio is, it does not represent a genuine consensus.  Rather, it indicates a lack of consensus.  If, after all this fuss, we don't have a clear outcome, the matter should be closed as no consensus and we should move on. Warden (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * North proposed closing on the 26th and Sarek closed it on the 28th. That is NOT a lot of time to discuss how best to close the RfC.  Maybe this is the time to close, but let's have some discussion before railroading a premature closure. Colonel Warden is absolutely correct: we do not have consensus.  I think the real question is, which of the comments that we received raise constructive points that might help us to reach a consensus?  This after all is the purpose of an RfC. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The notice was very broad. But folks who don't like the outcome will say that it was required to hire skywriters to post it in the skies of all of the major cities of the world. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No skywriters could be hired on this budget. It is, after all, run by volunteers. Doc   talk  13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Blueboar made a good-faith effort to publicize the RfC. But we have not reached a consenus. The purpose of an RfC is to invite comments from outsiders that might help us reach a consensus.  As Blueboar points out elsewhere, the RfC mostly reveals that many people are uncompromisingly for getting rid of "Verifiability, not truth," and others are uncompromisingly opposed.  Blueboar's interpretation means that the comments we received do not suggst a path to consensus.  I word it this way not because I mistrust Blueboar, but because I have not read over all the comments carefully.  I believe that the wuality of the comments is more important than the quantity - North8000, in her support, commented that many people express support or opposition without comments because the reasoning has already ben provided elsewhere.  Well, that is a good point - but it still means we can disregard those people (on both sides, support and oppose) and focus on the comments that are constructive.  I would still like to think that within all those comments, there are some that point towards a way to reach consensus, but Blueboar seems to think not.


 * This leaves us with a simple choice: (1) we continue the RfC and try to attract more outside comments in thehope that some outsider might actually make a constructive comment that could lead to a consensus involving people on both sides of the issue, or (2) we end the RfC for the simple fact that it is not helping. It was worth a try and I am glad we tried, but if it didn't work, so be it.  Tht means we who watch this page just have to seek another path to consensus.


 * If the question is "remove/keep this iconic phrase" only divides us and does not point to consensus, I propose we change the question. I have suggested that we change the question to, "Can a better explanation of this iconic phrase address the concerns of those who don't like it well enough that we can reach consensus?"  If no one else thinks this is worth trying, I invite people to propose other questions we can work on that might lead to consensus.


 * I have to say I am geting tired of some editors simply shooting down or attacking any suggestion I make. I am not here making any demands.  I am making reasonable observations and showing that we have a number of choices in front of us.  Is it possible for us to discuss thse choices in a reasonable and respectful fashion?  I will agree to any choice people here agree to, as long as it points to the possibility of consensus rather than an attempt to intimmidate people into accepting any change to the policy that is not supported by a consensus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A few comments... first, if you have not done so, please read the rational that accompanies the the proposal. This RfC is an attempt to change the question away from "remove/keep this iconic phrase".  And it is an attempt to create a "better explanation of this iconic phrase".  You have made some good suggestions... and I agree that they should not be "simply shot down" or "attacked".  But this RfC is designed to gauge project wide consensus on a different set of suggestions.  Its a case of one step at a time.  We can examine your suggestions once we determine what the consensus is on this proposal.
 * Second, may I suggest that you should actually read the comments. When you do you will discover that the "opposed" comments are fairly evenly split between those who think the compromise goes to far, and those who think it does not go far enough.  What that split indicates is that the lack of consensus is among the minority who oppose the compromise.  There is no corresponding lack of consensus among the majority who support it (ie the opposed comments tend to cancel each other out... which, I think should give more weight to the support comments).  Closing an RfC is not simply a matter of counting heads (although a simple head count is useful information).  Actually reading the comments is important.  And when you actually read the comments, you discover that there is (currently) a much stronger consensus in favor of the compromise than a simple head count indicates. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an accurate characterizations of the opposes. Who disagrees with who in the oppose column? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An 'oppose' is an oppose, no matter which direction it goes in. If you want to 'compromise', then a newly worded RFC needs to be put into place.  Perhaps one that is actually a 'compromise;' instead of this inaccurately worded RFC...it's not a compromise.  It's 'out with the old, in with the new".  That's not a compromise at all.  Dreadstar  ☥  23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any change, however minimal, amounts to "out with the old in with the new." People seem unwilling to discuss any proposals that move the phrase "verifiability, not truth" out of the lead. That's a legitimate position to have, but if it is honest it admits to an unwillingness to compromise, regarding that issue at least. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You really need to read and understand the comments preceeding mine, there are two purported positions in the 'oppose' votes, that's where the compromise is being discussed but not in the 'official' RFC, which denies both sides that are being identified above. Both those purported positions are being ignored in favor of this "out with the old and in with the new" non-compromise.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The compromise was between the folks who wanted "not truth" completely out of the policy and the folks who wanted the status quo on that. The statement about a division in the "oppose" folks was saying that there is a group within that group who support the core change but opposed the specific proposed change for other reasons. North8000 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially...
Slimvirgin unilaterally changed the title of the RfC and also added information to the proposal in a spot that made it seem like Blueboar had wrote it. And then, at some other point, added information and actually put on Blueboar's signature to it, when she was the one that wrote it. Do I have everything right thus far? Silver seren C 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the first two points. Not sure about the third one, though.  Yes, on the first point, apparently not on the final two.  It's hard to follow all of these discussions.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Slimvirgin has done admirably at obfuscating the RfC, not that I expected anything less. The wording at ANI and elsewhere so as to make people coming in to the RfC think it was about removing not truth from this policy altogether. And the adding of that paragraph to the RfC as well, so as to make it seem like Blueboar was doing the same. This is all very in line with what I expected. Silver  seren C 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how reality always seem to align perfectly with one's preconceived notions... Thanks for sharing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is wrong, and I'd really appreciate if these accusations would stop. WhatamIdoing added the extra words on Oct 13, as has been explained above, because Blueboar had not added a summary for the RfC bot. So WhatamIdoing did it instead.


 * I then copied BB's signature and original timestamp below that summary on Oct 28 (believing he had written it, and therefore not wanting to add my own signature and timestamp). I did this because the bot reproduces everything before the first signature, and I had asked the bot to add the RfC to more pages. It's quite normal to move signatures around for the RfC bot; so long as you don't change the timestamp (which would make it seem as though the person had re-signed), it's not an issue, and I had no reason to believe the summary was not written by BB.


 * What you are witnessing was an attempt to spread notification of the RfC via the bot (and elsewhere), and to format it properly for that purpose. If you would AGF just a little, you would see that. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what exactly is the issue with Blueboar removing information that he didn't add to the proposal? I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to remove it. Furthermore, the information that the RfC bot is spreading is wholly incorrect in terms of what the RfC is actually about. Silver  seren C 20:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you refer to what the RFC bot is currently finding on this page, I think that "incomprehensible" is a far better description than "incorrect". (Do take a look:  Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Image that was added to the page
I tried to draw attention to this in the earlier section about page protection, but I think it got lost in the tl;dr. Earlier today, an administrator edited through full protection (a pet peeve of mine, but that's another discussion) to add an image to the page, about the relationship between verifiability and truth. Given that there was no consensus to add the image, I request that it be removed, at least for now. First of all, it's a change without adequate discussion. What's more, we now have previously uninvolved editors coming here via the watchlist notice, and there is no way to know how seeing the image (which they will assume has been on the page a long time, and is somehow related to the RfC proposal) will affect how they respond to the RfC. We already have way too many concerns about the game changing after the RfC was reopened. Now we also have this possible skew to the results. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed and suggest the admin's use of tools be seriously looked at.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been self-reverted. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reserve Comment
I am not going to say aye or nay just now. Although new to editing here, I have followed this discussion for years. I do wish to mention that someone who is determined to either advance a point of view or who rejects a point of view utterly is not going to let little things like notability, verifiability or even established models of reality stop them from inflicting themselves upon the encyclopedia. If I were convinced the geocentric view is exclusively correct, you may be certain my mindset would be one which will turn any policy, no matter how well written to my advantage in affirming that view. (Why yes, I am active in pro rights for LGBT topics, however did you guess?) I never took the wording to mean that verifiability meant one could avoid serious, professionally carried out research with the same investment and academic disinterest which a competent scientist brings to disproving a theory. At the same time, I confess that I do not permit my students to cite the encyclopedia or even list articles in their literature reviews. I'm not smart enough to resolve the conflict. I do know that, regardless of the ultimate wording, contentious editing will remain a problem. I thank all those who have participated in this. Policy, especially for new editors is anything but transparent. Any attempt to improve it has my support. Heartfelt.Pauci leones (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my motion (or whatever you call it)
Consider Sarek's close to be the close with respect to what sits in the policy pending a potential further RFC. There is obviously no consensus to keep the current version, and there is clearly a majority and most would say a consensus (both before an after the recent burst of opposes) for the proposed version over the current version. Arguable, one brief question/comment a long time ago does not make on "involved", and there is no 30 day rule, especially since the extensive comments had dried up, and there was no objection or mention of this while the "time to close?" question floated for two days. The vastly preferred version would sit in there pending a possible new RFC by folks what want to reverse it or make further changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are calling for agree/don't responses you might want to re-factor this motion a bit, as it is hard for people to give simple responses to something in a relatively narrative form.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes
North8000 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No
The presumption with articles, a fortiori policies, is that they remain as is unless there is agreement to delete or change them. We don't need a proposal, or RfC, to find out whether there is a consensus to keep anything. What we do need is a consensus to change it. If we reach a consensus to change any part of this policy, we change it. As long as there is no consensus to change it, we don't change it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For me, the entire process became null and avoid the moment the proposal was refactored. Start again, with a clean slate on the original wording proposal and announce it properly. Why not use the process that tells us all about Arbcom elections or the Wiki meet ups in Edinburgh and Liverpool? Leaky Caldron  20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * mmmm, It's just appeared in my Watchlist options and notices. Leaky  Caldron  21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So far there is no consensus for the proposed wording. There are also meaningful worries that this RFC, which has to do with the wording of a core content policy, was not seen by a wide enough swath of editors to begin with. There are also worries that the outcome is muddied anyway, both by good faith mistakes in how the RFC was put forth and in how editors went into backs and forths hoping to "fix" it. I don't think it can be fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gwen... this RfC was advertised at the Village Pump back on Oct. 6th... it was also advertised that same day at WT:NPOV and WT:NOR (the other two of the "big three" core polices). Notice was posted to the WP:Centralized discussion page, and it was listed at the RfC notification page.  In the first day alone it received over 50 comments.  So tell me... if this wasn't seen by a wide enough swath of editors, where else should I have posted a notice?  Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the Watchlist options and notices, which has just been done. Village Pump has a fairly narrow interest group, I think and not everyone has those pages on their watchlist. A proposed change to WP:5P should have been notified in the widest possible manner. If Wiki meetups can receive that treatment surely you can agree that changing WP:V can be published there. Leaky  Caldron  22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain (for my future reference) how I (as a non-admin) would go about placing a notice on Watchlist options etc. If it is not something that I can do myself... Where do I go to request that it be done?  Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They can be added by an admin at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, after being asked for on the talk page there. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We gain nothing by having a core policy with a wording that only 4 out of seven editors agree with.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I missed something in the math calculations, but wouldn't that mean having a wording that only 3 out of seven editors agree with is even worse? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Bizarre logic that is.Griswaldo (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except I am not arguing for status quo, I am arguing for a change that more people than 4 in seven can agree with.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two flaws with Til Eulenspiegel's point. First, when someone wishes to change a policy, it is for them to seek consensus.  Second, it may be possible to redress some of the concerns that cause people to be unhappy with the placement of "... not truth" in the first sentence, without requiring a major change (def+any change that requires an RfC).


 * North, Tryptofish and Blueboar will tell me that they tried to come up with such a change over several months before the RfC with no success. I think that the lack of consensus, even when Sarek closed it, shows that all people who want to remove "...not truth" from the lead have to accept that this is so important to the policy, that it will be in the lead.  Now the question is, what, specifically, is wrong with it?  In some cases, editors flat out demand that truth be our objective.  This has never been the standard for WP. Some editors accept this, but believe that the current wording still makes it easy for editors to produce misleading articles.  I believe that we can address this without major revisions.  And some editors feel the idea is not propery or clearly explained, and this too I think we can address without major revisions.  As long as people are willing to explore these latter two options, I believe we can reach consensus on changes.


 * I think the underlying problem has to do with an exponential grwoth of the community. In the early years, the proportion of veteran editors was large enough that and the number of new editors small enough that plenty of veterans were collaborating with newbies and took the time to explain why our policies are what they ar, and how they can work.  At some point in time, we passed a tipping-point.  Now there are plenty of articles edited by newcomers who almost never interact with veterans.  It is now much harder if not impossible for newcomers to learn our ways through interaction with people who have been here since 01-04 or 05.  Since that time the number of editors has really taken off, which means that one can spend years editing with other people who arrived just as recently.  Many of these people have read or policies, some have not, and reading is often not enough to provide a satisfactory explanation.  This is a change in the culture of the community.  It creates a crisis in the transmission of core values.  But I prefer to be optimistic: all these newcomers, and new articles, do raise questions about what we really mean by our policies, that the people who wrote them never considered.


 * Are there any alternatives that might prove satisfactory to more people from both "sides"? I haven't been following this long, but has anyone ever suggested clarifying the phrase to read "verifiability, not perceived truth"? (or "verifiability, not various perceptions of truth"?)  That might go some way toward the argument that the word truth is being used in a specific nuance while being vague about that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or even more amplified, perhaps, "verifiability - not necessarily what any one editor perceives as the truth"...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yap, I agree with you - that the word Truth must be clarified precisely - actually this is clarified in two another documents: WP:Truth and WP:Original - but I think there should be something more concise and that should be in WP:Verify - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would just note that all truths are perceived or believed truths, even if everyone we know believes them. Til Eulenspiegel, I do not know whether you will consider this a real response to your question/suggestion, but it is meant to be. I have long felt the wording of V misses an important step.  We say that we have to verify stuff from reliable sources.  A big criticism of the policy (a criticism of the effect, not the wording - I think the best method is first to look at problematic effects and then ask if they can be blamed on the wording/how to improve the wording) is that it leads WP to publish anything that has been published elsewhere.  This is a broad criticism but it has some truth to it - many articles use quotes out of context, or use reliable sources that for one reason or another happen not to be the best or even appropriate source.  Personally, I think that before we link to RS in the policy, we need to make clear that what people are verifying are "significiant views" (an idea that comes from NOR).  These can be views about what is true or false, but also about what is right r wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly i.e. any value.  Then we should say that we verify that these are significant views through reliable sources.  I think the benefit of adding this kind of sentence to the introduction of the policy is that it provides an anchor for including other criteria for "verification" besides "reliable sources" - guidance as to which RS is appropriate, that we need to provide enough information so that readers can verify not only that someone said or wrote it, but that what they said is significant, and enough information to assess how significant (e.g., virtually all scholars in the life and human sciences agree that human beings are descended from a single-cell organism, which makes this kind of claim about as significant as possible.  But scholars are divided as to whether the gene or the species is the principal unit of evolution, and sscholars are divided as to what human behaviors can be explained by evolution - these views are significant, but only in the context of other, different views that are equally significant).  this at least is how I would handle it.  But I wish to make clear that I do think that V sometimes does not have the effect it is meant to have, and that this does require some change. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have faith ("faith" = "commitment," not "blind acceptance," in my culture) in our core policies. But for me this faith does not mean we must never alter them, it means I am confident that they can apply to any major problem we as editors face.  I do believe that as we face new problems, some things need to be explained better, in some cases differently.  I still believe a wiki-pedia cannot make it its editors' job to determine the truth or falisity of claims.  I think this needs to be stated in the first or second sentence of this policy, followed by an explanation of why not, and an explanation of what, then, we can and should do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhere above, someone whose signature seems to have been lost in the formatting (and I'm not interested in going through the edit history to see who it was) talks about "North, Tryptofish and Blueboar will tell me that they tried to come up with such a change over several months before the RfC with no success." I'm not sure how the three of us were conflated into a single group, and I've lost track in the tl;dr of what "such a change" even refers to, but each of the three of us took different positions in trying to find a compromise that might satisfy the community, and I was considerably less enthusiastic about any change to the status quo than the other two editors were. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I ever wrote the line to which you refer, but this was my impression, so thank you for clarifying it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we extend the RfC?
Given the last minute missteps in terms of notifications, disagreements about wording of the section, the kerfuffle at AN/I, and the edit warring that's occurred here, there, and yon, I do not believe we are at the end of the process we normally desire in an RfC. As I've said a few times, I think it's important to extend the RfC by about two weeks. That should give everyone new to discussions time to digress comments, prior participants to address newly expressed concerns, and, perhaps most importantly, everyone time to ask questions. No doubt there will be continued discussions after the RfC, so I do not see any disadvantage to such an extension, and I think continuing the RfC for a bit longer than usual will help ameliorate any real or perceived damage to the process from the activities of the last few days. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes.  I know I've thrown a lot of other ideas out, but this is also a good one. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem extending. But I think it would be wise for us to set a firm "close" date.  Then no one can complain that it was closed improperly.  Don't care what that date is... but let's set a date. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I do have a problem extending. This has gone on quite long enough now and I would very much like for it to be put out of its misery.  Irrespective of whether we close on 5th Nov or later, the closer will need to make a finding about whether disruption has occurred, and if it has, to try to subtract the effect of that disruption when deciding where the true consensus lies.  Moving the closure date later will certainly not make that process any easier or simpler, and in fact it seems to me that delay could only muddy the waters even further.— S Marshall  T/C 14:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nuujinn, North8000 and Blueboar. I think it is important to publicize the close date widely through some neutral mechanism, and whether it is five days or two weeks the sooner the better.  I wonder what S marshall's measure is for "long enough."  I also find this sentence problematic: "the closer will need to make a finding about whether disruption has occurred, and if it has, to try to subtract the effect of that disruption when deciding where the true consensus lies."  Why?  What I mean is, what policy or guideline dictates that this is what the "closer" has to do (and, if the closer is not Blueboar, then we should just pick a date and time, and that means it closes automaticall - anyone can put up the tag indicating that the RfC is closed, but the date and time is pre-determined, right?  So there really is no "closer" if we have a predetermined date)  What policy or guideline dictates that one person shoud determine "where the true consensus lies?"  This wording implies that there must be a "true consensus;" what if there is none?


 * Our RfC guidelines tell us that the participants in the talk page discussion should discuss the comments after the RfC closes. I do not think it will be that much of a challenge for individual editors to quote those comments they find most constructive.  Given how contentious this is, I have no doubt we will disagree on which comments are constructive or not, but there is no avoiding this, if editors are so emotional about this or dogmatic, it is inevitable that we will not always agree on which comments are constructive.  But if we can assume good faith, maybe we can find comments that help identify with more clarity the points of difference.  If we cannot reach consensus on some of those points, we have no choice but to move on.  with all these comments I believe at least some of them will pinpoint issues that we can reach consensus on.  One way or the other, it is for us editors to discuss the comments and continue working towards some consensus, if one is possible.  But if there is a policy or guideline that says that this is what the closer of an RfC on content proposals has to do, okay - but I have not seen it and if it exists I must have missed it and would appreciate someone providing the appropriate quote.  Cheers! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, I understand and agree completely that this has gone on a long time and that the waters are muddy. My hope is with the extra time, the waters will clear. That being said, I too am concerned about some of the conduct issues, and if you want to take those to some other venue, please let me know so I can chime in with my concerns, but if you wish to do that, you should probably go ahead sooner rather than later. Likewise, if you wish to take a look at RfC policy to try to prevent a recurrence of the same kind of problems, I'm game for that. But I would also like to say that I can completely understand your take on this, given the level of your participation in the prior discussions.


 * I think Slrubenstein's suggestion about an auto closure based on date is an interesting one. I would be concerned that the participants might not be able to determine what the consensus is, however, and I'd like to think about that a bit. One thought I had was about inviting some of the mediators to provide informal moderation, or to actively close the RfC, since they are skilled in guiding editor to consensus in contentious discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a thread at ANI where I think this question is answered. A group of admins have settled on an approximate time, based in part on when Brad will be back from being out of town. The best thing for those of us who feel strongly about how the process has gone is to get out of the way, let the admins do their thing, which I'm sure they will do thoughtfully and in good faith, and then see where things stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Implications to WP:FRINGE
I have not voted/commented at the RfC yet, and in honesty am unsure of my vote still because I find the current wording fine, don't think the new wording is any worse though, and can see an argument for adopting it based on compromise more than anything else. That said, I wanted to address a criticism of the support side that I've seen over and over, that there are no examples of times when "not truth" causes actual problems. I don't agree, and the example I'm thinking of is one I've seen come up at the WP:FT/N more than once. Fringe claims are often so absurd that there are no good sources directly refuting them. Fringe advocates trot out all kinds of sources that make a case for their claim and say, "well can you verify that this is rejected by scientists?" At times this literally cannot be done, not by way of a clear source, only by way of the "truth" or the best approximation of it we might have by applying common knowledge from the sciences to the situation. It would be helpful, in these situations, to have the words "not truth" be so prominently displayed in the policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good point. I do not think that it requires abandoning the iconic phrase, but I do think Griswaldo is right that it calls for clarifying one or more policies.  I think that we need to make it clear that providing a published source is by itself not evidence that a view if significant (i.e. not fringe).  We ought to leave some things up to the common sense of editors, by which I mean explicitly stating that providing a reliable source is a minimal requirement, and that if a significant number of editors (which, in most cases like this, is simply "two") believe that the view is fringe, it is the editor forwarding that view who has the burden to demonstrate that it is not.  I once added content to the Judaism article that is a notable view across all modern movements of Judaism, and some other editors argued that it is fringe.  This required me to add seven or eight or more citations, but in addition to convincing the other editors it made the article better, both because I had to provide a clearer explanation of the view, and readers now have many more sources they can turn to if they want to know more.  I have no problem with putting the burden of proof on the person introducing new material.  I don't know if this belongs in V or CS, but I would support adding something like this, or strengthening it if it exists.


 * Griswaldo also raises an important point, that fringe views are often not discussed by the major sources. Novice editors might counter that you cannot argue from the negative, but I think this is another mistake we can address in this policy or adjunct guidelines.  It starts again with "reliable source" being the minimum for inclusion.  I think that here or in RS we need to provide more guidance about appropriate sources.  For example, a book on the superiority or inferiority of Jews (I am actually thinking of a real WP article) may fulfill our minimum reliable source criteria.  But if this is not a fringe view, one would expect positive book reviews, or for the book in question to be cited favorably, in mainstream academic journals in psychology, anthropology, and Jewish studies.  If the person wishing to introduce the view into an article can produce no evidence that it has been reviewed or cited in the major journals, it is simply not notable.  If it has been cited or reviewed, but negatively, it is notable enough for inclusion, but as a fringe view.  This requires editors to be able to
 * identify the correct academic fields,
 * the mainstreamjournals of those fields,
 * and the difference between a positive or negative citation.
 * I think we have a right to ask editors to do this, and to say so in policy. Cheers! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but this is just one of the problems you see on science pages. One has to keep in mind here that typically a problem like this on a science page doesn't escalate a lot and is settled without Admin intervention, because in most cases there is an objective truth out there that is accessible to editors via properly reading and interpreting the literature and discussing things. It can require some effort, though, and a "not truth" statement in the first sentence of an important policy page is not helpful at all. But because these sorts of issues are typically resolved on the talk pages, the friction with the policies is not noted and we've ended up with poicies that work well for settling disputes on politics pages (where disputes often escalate a lot), but which don't work well on science pages (editors there don't typically use the policies to settle disagreements)


 * I wrote up the proposed policy (now an essay) WP:ESCA some time ago, based on my positive experience of discussions on talk pages of some science articles. While these discussions were against the spirit of Wiki-policies, they helped a lot with the editing of the articles. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand why your essay failed as a policy - but I think it is a very good essay and more people should know about it. I guess my question is do you think any of the suggestions I just forwarded, above, would address to any significant degree the issues you raise?  The italics is because in my experience we can never solve all the problems at once and we have not choice, for pragmatic reasons, but to work on them in small chunks.  If you do think that the suggestions would help, do you think that it is worth making an actual proposal, here or at RS?  Not now, heaven forbid!  But once things have cooled down?  I think if you and I could agree on a proposal, however limited in scope (perhaps necessariy so), and Grriswaldo too, then that proposal would probably be acceptable to a wide range of people. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you get around to ascertaining whether your proposal is acceptable to a wide range of people or not... make sure you post a notice about it on everyone's Watchlist options... apparently that is now a requirement. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm far more worried that this opens the door fringe theory advocates to push their theories. Right now, "verifiability, not truth" one of the best tools we have to address the unwarrented promotion of fringe theories.  But to address your concern, Griswaldo, how often does it happen where something can be sourced to secondary sources without also there being debunking from secondary sources?  The types of articles I've worked on (9/11 conspiracy theories, Lunar landing hoax, Obama isn't a natural born citizen) all have secondary sources with debunking.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest, pardon me for saying so, but that is exactly the mindset that I would like to see disappear from the project. We spend far too much time on project sharpening 'tools' to wage war against the hordes of barbarians we see around us - large swaths of the project have taken on what I can only describe as a paranoid intellectual jingoism. It makes editing suck.


 * Fringe theories do not need debunking; they need caging. Fringe theories will debunk themselves if they are given fair and neutral treatment within a carefully clarified context. Assert they are wrong makes us look non-neutral, and motivates advocates to try harder, thus escalating tensions on the page.  If the main reason you want to keep this language is because it is a tool used to battle fringe advocates, then I honestly think it should be removed immediately and with prejudice.  That's not even remotely consistent with the principle of collaborative editing.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ludwigs2: When I write about fringe theories, I explain what the fringe viewpoint is and then what the mainstream viewpoint is, and let the reader decide. That's about as fair as one can reasonably expect in a Wiki.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is such an old point of contention. Please allow me to summarize an argument I have made easily 50 times on project in various venues.


 * Science does not adjudicate truth; science validates theories. Editors who think or claim that established scientific results are 'true' do not understand the nature of science, and are always operating form a socio-political position rather than a scientific one. In most cases, they want to claim that something is 'true' so that they can present a 'valid' theory in a watered-down way that meshes with the low level of scientific literacy prevalent in the general public.  Basically it's a little white lie designed to put people on the right track through an appeal to authority, without actually raising their level of understanding.


 * While I don't object to the 'little white lie' on principle, it opens a door to some very irritating NPOV problems. Editors end up expanding the 'truth' rubric via synthesis, and using it to attack all sorts of topics, many of which aren't more than tangentially related to science.  I can't tell you how many pages I've edited where people have used the following 'logic' (scare-quotes intended as such):
 * Science is 'true'
 * Topic X is 'not science'
 * Topic X is false
 * it is morally wrong to disseminate false information
 * Editors or sources discussing topic X are 'unworthy', and should be suppressed
 * And then what should be a mild-mannered discussion of the validity of a fringe theory (validated, refuted, untested, unconfirmed), devolves to an ideologically-driven, deeply personal dogfight over ontological principles that are well outside Wikipedia's scope.


 * I know as much about science as anyone on project, and more than most, and I would very much like to see wikipedia improve people's understanding of science. But I need to point out that we do not improve scientific literacy by writing fringe articles from the perspective "this topic is false because science says so, and anyone who says otherwise is stupid and evil", which is what a lot of fringe article disputes boil down to.  Removing the 'truth' bit - if it does nothing else - will put an end to that kind of mindless scientistic dogmatism and save fringe page discussions from a whole lot of intractably senseless conflict.-- Ludwigs 2  17:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) It happens more than one might think, since often the idea is fringy enough that reliable sources don't bother to address it much--things that are found in the press are easy to deal with, but fringe ideas not receiving much attention can be problematic. One example that comes to mind is Tired light--finding sources to place that in the appropriate context proved to be pretty difficult. I agree that "verifiability, not truth"  is one of the best tools we have, but many editors have expressed concern that it opens the door to "verifiable but wrong", hence my support of keeping the phrase in the policy and improving the wording. To my way of thinking where is it located in the policy is not critical, since it is valid regardless of placement, and the first time one is likely to encounter it is not here, but rather when another editor cites it and (hopefully) explains it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not having any trouble finding secondary sources about Tired Light. I'm finding literally dozens of sources.  I can't post them all, but here are the first three. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but look over the talk pages--there are some journal articles on the subject and other sources that appear to confirm it, at least to some editors, and the argument is that the sources they present show it's not being treated fairly. If you'd like to watch the page, that would be a help, the more the merrier--mostly it's died down lately, but I'm sure it will go nova again, pun intended. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors who say they can't find sources, are out of luck per our policy, no source, it does not go in. Ideas and information are not orginal, here.  The source exists, you just have not located it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus, it is not enough just to provide a source, in many cases - and we have been clear about this for many years! Sources must be used appropriately.  One has to contextualize a source - who wrote it, when, for what audience, all of these may be necessarily to identify a view properly and to assign it proper weight.  Sometimes, one cannot rely on Google to find a source, one needs to go to a library, or access J-Stor, or avail themselves of the other resources librarians use for identifying relevant sources and for knowing how to use them properly. Maybe we need to provide better guidance on this, but it does not have anything to do with truth/not truth, it has to do with how much work an editor is willing to put in to do the appropriate amount of research which usually involves more than just "quoting a book." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand we have Energy Catalyzer, which looks on all the evidence like a cold fusion fallacy/scam. Getting a balanced article is being hampered by credulous mainstream reporters whose technological literacy is so low that they adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude when there is really no chance that this thing works as promised— or maybe they are afraid of lawsuits, but in the end the result is the same: a lot of "notability" which isn't worth much. Or to take another recent example: we managed to get rid of a bogus UFO claim, but what it took in the end was finding the original image, and everyone seeing that the statement being passed from UFO site to UFO site was clearly untrue.


 * Most fringey stuff is sourceable to some degree, other than stuff people just made up. A lot of it goes unrefuted in the literature because the usual skeptics haven't gotten to it, for whatever reason. Verifiability is not protecting us from seeing this stuff included in Wikipedia, because after all people have a website or something like that to link, and therefore it's verifiable. Some of us mused that it would be worthwhile to declare that topics in some fringe areas could be held non-notable until they were refuted by a reliable source. As it is, we have problems with these sources because when they say things that are manifestly untrue, or which can be readily verified to be untrue, supporters of the fringe material appeal to "not truth" in saying that we cannot attack the veracity of the material. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it is not that this kind of thing cannot be handled--the question is can we frame policy to make it easier to handle? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say? The point is that (in my opinion) "not truth" isn't helping us with fringe; it's actually hurting us. THat's one of several reasons why I have supported the revised version. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand--I'm supporting the proposal because I think it does a good job of balancing the concerns of editors like you who think the phrase "not truth" hurts us and editors like me that think we need the phrase for it's rhetorical power. POV and fringe editors are hard to deal with, and in fringe areas sources can be slippery. I don't want to remove it myself, but I can see validity in the opinions of those who think it hurts us, hence my desire to make the explanation of "not truth" as clear as possible. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The perspective we're taking here (and this is also a reply to Slrubenstein), is not complete, and then the policies/guidelines we are thinking about won't fully address these sorts of problems. We are making hidden assumptions about knowledge that is a bit too simplistic, it's good enough for many of the Wiki articles we have, but not all.

To make this better visible consider how one should program an intelligent bot to edit Wikipedia in the way we are doing now. Here one should at first forget about controversial issues that we typically argue about. Simply consider editing some simple article that ten year old children can edit without problems. Clearly, such a bot would necessarily have to contain a huge amount of information to simply be able to understand the meaning of simple statements in sources.

A simple model of real Wikipedia editors is then to assume that we are all such bots who have the same internal knowledge, who read sources containing new information. This is what the Wiki policies implicitely assume but they don't make this assumption explicit. Ignoring this internal information leads to the often discussed issue about statements that are already verified by the internal knowledge, like "the sky is blue". But, of course, the model is an oversimplification. People have different amounts of internal knowledge and you can absorb information from sources to expand your internal knowledge.

The policies implicitely assume that the internal knowledge is only about very basic things that allows us to correctly interpret what sources say. We are not allowed to apply the concept of "truth" to the external knowledge from sources, we should stay agnostic about that. Within such a model, "Verifiability, not truth" will work. Where this model is a bad approximation, it will break down. This is e.g. the case for science articles that go into details. An article like the one on Global warming, is still a "high level" science article written mainly from tertiary sources. In such cases, the model will still work.

But if the distance to the primary knowledge is smaller, like e.g. the article Planck's law, Methods of contour integration, then the editor needs to be a lot more familiar with the primary knowledge to be able to edit correctly. Here the concept of truth really has to be used to the information that is edited in the article.

You can get disputes when different editors have wildly diverging internal knowledge. If what is internal knowledge to me is necessary to correctly interpret what a source says, but that same internal knowledge is external knowledge to another editor, then that other editor cannot verify what I'm writing from my quoted source alone. He would also need a source for my internal knowledge needed to interpret the quoted source, but combining the two would be a violation of WP:Synth. An argument by me on the talk page in such a case could to that other editor look like I'm editing from a "truth" perspective, so the current wording of this policy is an obstacle. Count Iblis (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice. I think I mostly understand this, but there is one particular question. Could it be said that at one level the policy of verifiability is that what we take as "truth" is to be based on external knowledge that we can all examine, not on any private or "revealed" bases which cannot be examined? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I reject the use of "truth" because scientists and philosophers, as well as researchers in the human sciences, generally avoid it. Be that as it may ....


 * This is a bit of a tangent, but it is meant to follow from Count Iblis's comment. I think when WP was first created it was with the believe that veryone out there with an internet connection have among them a great deal of expertise on a wide range of topics, and if they all just edited articles on the topics they had genuine expertise one, the result would be a good encyclopedia.  If you do not believe me, just go back to 2002 and you will see many pretty good articles if we are competing with Encart (but not EB), and no citations at all. This works as long as the basic premise &mdash; that the topics people are most interested in are also the ones they know the most about &mdash; holds.  It should be pretty obvious that this premise holds for the kind of people who write EB articles, but not the kind of people who read EB articles.  And therein lies the rub, since our writers are also our readers.


 * Then, the number of editors began to take off, and the result was a much greater percentage of editors who were interested in reading articles ... and then editing articles ... on topics on which they had no expertise. This is when JHK left the project and if any of you were around back then, it was a big deal that she left, and she left a letter providing reasons that are eerily like what Mangoe wrote.  This is when this became apparent that NOR and V were written, and an ever-growing number of policies and guidelines.  This is when people first started citing sources, first using harvard style, and then as this development progressed, the current system.  I think that this regulatory regime developed with precisely Count Iblis's assumptions: assume that editors are bots who have no internal knowledge.


 * Now we have entered a new stage, where the number of registered users has exploded and I think it no longer makes any sense to try to imagine the "average" editor, at best we are bimodal: a small but growing number of people with PhD's or graduate students (we always had some, but I bet that the percentage of people with higher degrees started high, then went ay down, and is now on the rise again as we have become the largest on-line encyclopedia and more established academics edit), and a much larger number of people who Mangoe is talking about. I agree about the problem, but I simply do not believe "not truth" is the problem.  I think that the problem is that our policies and guidelines (NOR, V, RS, CS) are too restrictive for the increasing numbers of university professors, and inadequate for the increasing number of fringe POV-pushers (a less elegant way of making Alexander Pope's point about the dangers of "a little learning.")


 * If I am right I think two conclusions follow. First, we can and should fine-tune policies like V and RS.  I never thought RS was adequate, because it never effectively addressed the issue of, "appropriate sources used appropriately."  But I do believe that a combination of "not truth" and source-based research (appropriate sources used appropriately) is the solution &mdash; this is basically an attempt to encode in our policies and guidelines the rules we teach advanced undergraduates and graduate students for how to do library research (short of, developing their own synthesis or argument).


 * Second, policies will nver be enough. There will always be the kind of editors Mangoe describes.  The problem is, there are not enough of the other kind of editors (ones with advanced degrees or the same research-skills and resources that good professional researchers have) to squash them in talk-page discussions.  Twenty or thirty people will devote huge amounts of time to editing the articles on Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or whatever is the flavor of the month, but we are lucky to get more than two or three editors who already have the expertise, or know what work they need to do, to work on articles on Hilbert Space (which as an act of faith I trust satisfies the professional mathematicians among us, but trust me, is not accessible even to the average universiy graduate), or Charles Taylor (a philosopher who is far more important than our article explains) or James Joyce's Ulysses ... there is still a very wide world of academic research that is represented WP either by accurate articles that are inaccessible to laypeople, or accessible articles that simply ignore most of the scholarship.  Given the relative paucity of experts, whenever a finge POV-pusher shows up, the qualified editors end up being worn down.  The most qualified editors have the least amount of time, and are easily out-gunned by the liliputians.  I just do not think policy will ever be enough to handle this as long as WP is the the encyclopedia anyone can edit (i.e.not Nupedia). WP's success is ultimately hinged to a demographic gamble: that we will become big enough that all the good edits will erode and erase all the bad edits.  There are economists who believe that marketplaces are truly rational, because all mistakes are ultimately corrected.  I am not saying I agree with these economists, I am saying that WP is set up to operate on the same premise.  And if this premise is correct, the larger the market (read: number of active editors), the better it will work.  It's just an analogy, if you don't agree with the economics claim just ignore it.  My point is still that if WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it will only work if the growth of knowledgable and skilled researchers outpaces or minimally matches the growth of the fringe POV-pushers, and this has not happened yet.  The question is, will it?  nd I do not know. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You actually neglect large group of WP editors that might be critical to this questions. The bulk of "regular critical editors" that are neither (real) experts nor fringe POV-Pushers. They are also the ones that primarily use the policies to keep fringe & POV at bay. So the question is not simply will experts outpace or match the POV & fringe pushers, but whether the combination/cooperation of experts and regular editor will outpace the POV & fringe pushers. Much of the success of WP is due not relying on experts editors only and realizing that much of our material doesn't really require an expert to produce a not optimal but reasonable (first) article, that exactly the difference between us and Citizendium & Co. Of course is WP still an experiment or a gamble if you will. However we already know that in many regards the alternative (avoiding the gamble and going the Citizendium route) is not working anyhow. At least in terms of practical usage Citizendium & Co are light years behind WP and are likely remain to remain so for decades. So if we want to have something usable for the present, smart and fine tuned "gambling" seems to be the only option.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) A thought-provoking comment. My impression is that Wikipedia is slowly losing the "demographic gamble" to which Slrubenstein refers. The project is burning out expert editors faster than they are joining, and recent statistics suggest even the everyday sensible folk are slowly declining in numbers. But the fringe enthusiasts are on a mission from God. Not only are they tireless, but they have no qualms about sockpuppeting and other niceties. It's unlikely that anything will be done to address this, as it's  happening too slowly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Boris, Kmhkmh: All I can say is that I think that's a wrong attitude. It dichotomizes the project into good citizens and barbarian hordes, and sets these 'regular critical editors' up as Judge Dredd figures wielding policy like a gun.  Trust me, that particular cure is far worse than the disease.  Have you considered the possibility that we are losing reasonable editors by droves mostly because of the hostile atmosphere that exists on so many pages? because of the policy lashings any new editor is likely to get if s/he steps onto the wrong page?  I'll tell you frankly that the main reason I keep editing on project is that I have an ornery aversion to being chased off by thugs.  If I didn't have that particular personality quirk, I'd have decided long ago that the project simply wasn't worth my time, so I totally understand why people with common sense leave.  We have collectively set up an environment that privileges obsessive, petulant ideologues, and so we've got them in droves on both sides of the fence.


 * It's a sad situation. It's not really that difficult to fix, but nobody really wants to fix it (it's one of the qualities of obsessive, petulant ideologues that they refuse to accept restrictions on themselves even as they demand them for others - silly power game - so all 'fair' solutions are off the table by default).


 * well, as it is… The two of you have apparently given up on the concepts of collaborative editing and consensus decision-making.  I'm not sure how to feel about that.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Ludwigs has written up above. The culture of Wikipedia is to blame for people leaving in droves, and the only way it is going to change, is when admins start enforcing the civility policies.  That's not going to happen, so expect to see more editors leaving in the future. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My post can be read as dividing WP into two groups but that was not my intention. For one thing, Kmhkmh is quite right about the third and much larger group, and I credit them with the quality of many of our fine articles.  I am looking at a much narrower range of articles, one on largely if not purely academic topics,  For a long time, Evolution had two or three editors with advanced degrees and an additional two or three who may not have advance degrees but know enough; this led to a good article, and enough people with the time to keep away the creatinist-fringe.  Recently a few new editors with advanced degrees have taken to revise the article entirely and I think this will result in an excellent article and also, enough people with time to protect it from the POV fringe.  But my point is that there are a host of over articles that almost never attract the attention of the majority of hard-working volunteers that Kmhkmh mentions.  And yes, Ludwigs, I do think that in many of these specific articles once and divide the editors into two groups: one or two editors who really know their stuff, although not enough to write a thorough and well-rounded article, but enough to write a decent article &mdash; and then every once in a while some unregistered user comes by to insert their opinion.  This is normal and the one or two editorts who really know the topic can easily tell if the edit is constructive or unconstructive, and handle it.  But sometimes the situation Mangoe writes about occurs, the situation that led JHK to leave and leave with us her fairewell letter.  this is when one or two absolutely fanatical POV-pushers make it there business to ensure that the article expresses their views.


 * My point was, because these articles do not attract the large body of editors Kmhkmh mentions (ones committed to core policies and willing to do research), it is up to the one or two genuine experts to hold off the fringe POV-pushers and they inevitably burn out because genuine experts have too many other real-life time committments, and the POV-pushers do not let up. I am talking about this particular situation.  But I believe it is very common in articles on all topics that have been objects of considerable academic research.  This may not be even the majority of our articles, but it is a huge number, and it is the quality of these articles that academics base their judgment of WP on (like MIT professor Garfinkle, whose essay sparked one of the discussions about the problems with this policy - one or two archived talks ago).  Mangoe, like JHK, was talking about a specific range of articles, not all of them.  And I think Kmhkmh's third group largely tend to other articles.  The demographic gamble I am talking about applies to these articles.  No, it is not good citizens versus barbarian hordes, in this case.  It is people who actually have the expert knowledge already or have the resources so they can easily and efficiently research major points, versus fringe POV-pushers, and neither group is large, neither group is a horde.  That is my point!  As long as the number of experts that work on an article are small (and also come and go - unlike good citizens they seldom stick around very long), and the large "good citizen" group occupies themselves with work on other articles, ones that they are more interested in and can research more easily, then the small numbers of fanatical fringe POV-pushers will have a disproportionate effeect.


 * And my ultimate point was, policy reform in these cases will never be enough; it didn't solve JHK's problem, and I don't think it will solve Mangoe's, as I think they are essentially the same. The solution is demographic: aa large and diverse enough community of editors that articles on Hilbert Space, Charles Taylor, and Stéphane Mallarmé have thirty editors actively working on them rather than three.  The thirty editors could include a few academics and a few graduate students and twenty of the editors Kmhkmh describes, and if one or two fringe-POV pushers come and spend several hours each day persistently inserting poorly-researched misinterpretations, popular misconceptions, and their own views, it won't matter because they will be so vastly outnumbered that their bad edits will easly be fixed by the many other good editors watching the article.  The problem is, many WP articles DO have these thirty editors actively watching and editing - and a great many more WP editors do not.  In the former case, WP works.  In the latter case, it does not.  This is what I mean about a demographic crises.  Kmhkmh's middle group of editors are not yet large and diverse enough to populate academic articles as they do so many others.  The result is a great many articles on academic topics that provides just as much as someone who took an undergraduate course, or was willing to do the equivalent amount of research, knows about the topic (which barely scrateches the surface).  These areticles are stable only if - ironically - they are of such little interest to to most readers that fringe-POV pushers never look at them.  Ludwigs, if it helps, think of my bimodal model as describing two kinds of articles, rather than two kinds of editors.  There are articles that attract large numbers of good-faith editors, and these articles are stable because in large numbers everyone cancels out the mistakes of others.  The other kind of article attracts very small numbers of editors (e.g. the three articles I named).  These articles are potentially highly unstable because all it takes is one persistent POV-pusher to disrupt it.  I don't think this is an idea any scientist would have trouble understanding.  I am thinking of Laplace's law of errors applied to astroniomical observations, Maxwell's demon applied to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Hardy-Weinberg equation in population genetics; in each instance large numbers lead to stable outcomes.  We boast about the large number of registered users, but what really matters is how many active editors are working on Hilbert Space, Charles Taylor, and Stéphane Mallarmé  compared to how many active editors are working on Barack Obama, Kim Kardashian and How I met your mother. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I think some people here believe in good faith that removing "not truth" from the policy or at least the first line might attract more academics or people with comparable expertise (for this comment, please just bracket the question of whether this is a good or bad goal - let's just assume it is our goal for sake of argument). I understand the motive but do not agree with the means.  One of my reasons I have already stated - many in the physical, life and human sciences do not believe in "truth."  But either way, this is simply not the obstacle to their adding to our ranks.  First of all, the more specific and unpopular the topic x its complexity (say, Mallarme, Hegel, or Lacan), the fewer real experts there are.  These experts are probably overworked, and if they are going to write more on the topic on which they have great expertise, it will be for publication rather than WP because universities do not give its employees ANY credit for contributing to WP, when it comes to promotions or raises.  These people are often already over-worked or over-committed.  Many make their living by writing, and thus have very distinctive styles, which fit academic conventions but are not suited for an encyclopedia especially Wikipedia - I am sure we have all read articles or parts of articles that were well-informed and a pleasure to read butwere written "essay style" and thus destined to be edited for style. And finally, they usually do not work collaboratively but are rather used to publishing single-authored works, which means many of them find the ease with which anyone else can screw up their thoughtful work really really irritating.  I do not think that even the strictest policy regime will make WP more appealing to these editors - if they want to write for an online encyclopedia they would have gone to Nupedia, which has peer-review and protected articles.  Ultimately, the problem is that we are a wikipedia.  All of these debates over policies, in my opinion, are attempts for us to deal with something we really do not want to admit, that the very vact that this is a wiki and that Jimbos's ambition is an encyclopedia anyone can edit has some very very bad consequences.  Policies are necessary and help and I am all for them (and if you read my very first post to this thread I suggest some changes to policy that I really do think would help) but they will not in my opinion ever solve the bad consequences of our being a WIki.  This is why I bring up what I call the demographic gamble.  It is the wiki nature of this project that means that it can only succeed (in producing excellent articles on arcane topics) IF the community of editors is sufficiently large and diverse that articles on Hegel, Lacan, and other topics that are complex and difficult and not especially popular (yet, very important in academe) are sustained by relatively large numbers of active editors who are not only well-informed and willing to do quality research, but simply are in large-enough numbers to cancel out one another's defects or limitations, and large enough so that the impact of a fringe POV-pusher, no matter how persistant, will be as effective as a sandbag against a tsunami. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: I think you misread my comment. First of all experts are often or usually "regular critical authors" as well, namely anytime they edit outside their professional domain, which most do. Second I was explicitly talking about the combination/cooperation of experts and "regular critical authors", i.e. I was not talking about the self proclaimed "sheriffs" that might unnecessarily bug experts over formalities and unimportant stuff and hence burn them out (no argument from me there). I was talking about the fact that the success of WP is due to the cooperation of those too groups, in particular the "regular authors" supporting experts to handle Pov pushers and vandals, so that expert do not get worn out or overwhelmed by them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein: Yes to some degree those groups work on different types of articles, but imho there is still some overlap. I agree that in highly specialized articles experts might often be on their own against POV & fringe pushers, but even there regular authors can helps against vandalism or obvious forms of POV pushing (such as citing weird sources), that otherwise might overwhelm an individual expert authors or for which he simply might not have the time to fight them. In addition they often can help with basic maintenance issues (spelling or grammar mistakes, categories, various templates, interwikis, internal links...). Another thing that is worth a thought. While it is true that for a highly specialized article only one POV & fringe pusher might cause a lot of harm, this articles nevertheless might be less likely to become a target to begin. At least those forms of POV & fringe pushing which are meant for an larger audience often stay from those highly specialized articles as they do not provide the desired audience. For instance the ideologically or religiously motived POV & Fringe pushers are highly unlikely to mess up Hilbert space but they pester other articles instead, where regular authors might be of more help.

I agree that the that "anyone can edit"-concept has bad consequences, there's no denying that. But again I see no real alternative. We more or less know that moving fundamentally away from that concept is not working. The projects that tried to work without some "anyone can edit"-variation have all failed in terms of producing a comprehensive general encyclopedia within 5-10 years and are likely to do so for the next decades as well. The basic reason behind that is, that (voluntary) experts alone even without any disturbance of POV or fringe simply lack the man power for the job. WP relies on the fact for most topics unless they are highly specialized you don't actually need an expert author (say PhD and up) but (university) textbook knowledge/content can actually compiled by people (advanced or smart enough) students or people with lower or no degrees. Those guys may not always produce very good or perfect articles, but they usually can compile the textbook contents into articles that are "good enough" for a general encyclopedia. So what we can and should do is looking for ways to minimize the bad consequences of the "anyone can edit"-concept (for instance certain restrictions on IPs or new editors, flagged revisions, article ownership for experts, locking down of certain reviewed articles, etc...), but we cannot abandon the concept itself without giving up the goal of being a comprehensive up to date general encyclopedia. It is a trade off between an (uniform) excellent quality of articles and universal coverage. But universal coverage with a "good enough" quality has been the way for which most conventional general encyclopedias opted in the past and it is also what has made WP so useful and popular in practice.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to be arguing at all against Wikipedia or more specifically its being a wiki. I am here, after all.  My only point is that Wikipedia's problems have origins that have little or nothing to do with policy, and that WP will meet our hopes and aspirations only under certain conditions.  I have repeatedly pointed out that these conditions prevail at a great many articles.  But this thread began by raising an issue concerning fringe theories, and theories that are so fringe they are not even notable, and which are a problem at many article son scientific topics.  This is a serious problem, and my point was the conditions that prevail to make WP work at some articles do not prevail for a huge class of articles, and this is a problem that will not be fixed by changing any of our policies.  No one said anything about abandoning the concept of "anyone can edit."  Certainly, I made it clear that I support it.  But I reject the "trade-off" argument.  It is not satisfying to those of us who care about the points JHK or Mangoe and others have raised.  Also, I think it is inaccurate.  The "trade-off" view of WP applies only if one looks at WP over a relatively short period (say, a couple of years).  If one looks at WP from its inception to the present, one sees that the actual trade-offs have changed, and have changed in ways that are quite understandable and perhaps predictable.  Understanding how the trade-offs have changed, have taken different forms during different stages of Wikipedia's growth, might help us forecast changing tade-offs in the future, help us better locate problems, and devise more effective strategies for managing them.  This is after all one of the main interests of science, and one would think that among the editors of an encyclopedia, there are some who have the skills to analyze this problem and help develop strategies.  For almost every academic I know, WP still falls far short of the "good enough" standard of established encyclopedias.  I guess on the bright side, WP's shortcomings has made it much easier for college professors to spot plagiarism! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Nobody claims that trade offs may change over time (which however doesn't negate the principal nature of the trade off in principal) nor does anybody negate that the wiki concept has serious issues that cannot all resolved via policies (in fact I named various non policy remedies above). Also I don't think anybody would argue that policies apply to all articles in the same fashion, of course they need to adapt somewhat to given context or particular class of articles. However while better/additional ideas to manage those issues are wanted, we cannot expect to resolve them completely as they are innate to the wiki concept to some degree. And the wiki concept we need to keep for the reasons I outlined above. As far as "good enough" is concerned however my perception is rather the other way around, I see an increasing number of academics that consider WP articles mostly/often as "good enough" as far as the purpose/scope of a general encyclopedias is concerned. This is still our primary project goal and the bar against which we have to measure up to. Also some of the academic criticism that I've seen over the years is imho actually missing the point somewhat, because they simply ignore our primary goal and measure WP against criteria that general encyclopedias tend to fail in general. It is quite an interesting experience to look up various criticized cases or the exemplary article you've listed above in conventional general encyclopedias such as Britannica as their treatment is the measuring bar for "good enough".


 * As far as the (wanted) development of strategies beyond mere policies and analysis related to them are concerned, this is wrong location to discuss them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A question of compromise
I voted oppose, not because I oppose the additional text but because I opposed the removal of "v not t" from the lead. Going over the oppose votes, it seems a lot of people feel the same way. Reading a lot of the support votes, I find quite a few that misunderstand the purpose of this RFC (i.e. they think that V not T is being removed entirely, rather than being moved and clarified).

My question is: is the attachment to removing the phrase very high, or is the support camp more concerned with the additional information? Is keeping the lead the same and still adding the clarification a possible compromise that would make both camps happy?

Regardless, would it not be better to have a separate RFC for each of these issues, as it's easy to be opposed to (2) but not opposed to (1) and vice versa? N o f o rmation Talk  03:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with retaining the current first sentence, but also retaining the extra clarification in the new section of the proposal (though not exactly as written, e.g. "assertions of untruth" is unclear). But I believe this was proposed several weeks or months ago, and the proponents of first-sentence change opposed it.


 * The problem was there were too many proposals and polls, over too long a period, so people got fed up and confused. That meant by several options that might have worked well got forgotten about. Ideally, the RfC would have offered more than one option, including the current wording as a positive choice (though, again, not so many options that people got bewildered). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that Noformation thinks some of the Support votes are misunderstanding the proposal ... the reason I find his/her take on this interesting is that I have the exact same concern about many of the Opposed comments (ie that many of those who oppose the proposal are doing so because they think the proposal seeks to remove VnT from the policy entirely, when it definitely does not).  I suppose it is possible that there are people on both sides who did not really read the proposal and rational, and are commenting based on a misunderstanding the proposal... but the uninvolved admin who closes this can take both possibilities into account when he/she closes.  Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it's quite clear if you read the comments that both the support and oppose lists contain misunderstandings (e.g. saying that "verified" and "true" are synonyms, which they may be in some uses of these terms but are not in Wikipedia-speak). The conclusion I draw from this is different to yours, which is why I oppose the change. Key policies need to be expressed very succinctly; any lengthening, even if it produces a clearer explanation when read fully, is likely to be counter-productive. "TL;DR" is the reality. As a former university teacher, I know only too well from marking examination scripts how annoying it is when a carefully constructed and precise formulation which took ages to develop is mangled by those who didn't spend long enough studying it, and I can see that you and others who have spent a long time on this feel the same. But there's a key difference: I could fail students and hope they got the message when they had to repeat the examination; we can't test and fail editors. I conclude that the policy needs to be "sweet and simple". "VnT" is doubtless over-simplistic and potentially misleading, but I think it is the least worst alternative so far. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Peter, based on your last sentence, I come away the (perhaps mistaken) idea that you oppose the proposal because you think "VnT" is being removed from the policy. Is this the case? Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I gave that impression; I do understand that it's still there in the proposed wording. The logic of "TL;DR" is that it has to be very, very prominent, which is why I still prefer the current position in the first sentence. One problem is that, as other people have noted, we're being given a proposal which has multiple changes. There are certainly improvements in the explanation of "VnT" in the proposed version which I think are very worthwhile – but not the removal of "VnT" from the first sentence. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Blueboar, you are correct and I should have been specific; it's clear that there are people on both sides who misunderstand exactly what is happening in this RFC. N o f o rmation  Talk  19:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the closing admin can take that into consideration. My guess is that the votes based on misunderstanding will essentially cancel each other out.  And if this ends up in yet another "no consensus" vote... we have some excellent comments on both sides to work with as we move forward. If this attempt at compromise does not work, we can keep discussing until we find a compromise that will work.  Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct and optimistic, which is good. The only caveat is that there will be an indeterminate amount of votes that will be impossible to parse as being misinformed, but I don't think that's really an Achilles heel here.  I guess the only thing to do now is wait and see how the RfC closes.  N o f o rmation  Talk  20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes consensus?
Going solely by the numbers, I see 88 in favor of this change, 59 against the change and 4 who are neutral (as of this writing). 58% is clearly a majority, but I'm not sure that constitutes concensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For RFAs, support must come in somewhere between 70% and 80%, with a bit more weight given to sundry comments, maybe. For a core policy wording shift which has been as fraught with woe as this one, I'd say consensus, with weight given for comments, would need to be closer to 80%. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's one opinion, and what is it based on? Also baring a policy/guideline addressing RfC consensus specifically this is clearly the applicable policy - WP:CON. Specific percentages looked for at RfA have nothing to do with a request for comment. Why not ask what the correct percentage is at AfD (as opposed to RfA)? At least that question arrives at the correct answer, per the policy I linked, that it isn't a vote count. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All the more reason to keep this RfC open for 30 days or more, and allow SV to request the MediaWiki site notice to advertise it more widely. We want more opinions, not less. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, keeping it open longer could help, the mess might tidy itself (or not). Griswaldo, I think you'll find that the threshold for consensus here is high, wontedly somewhere near 75% support through meaningful, good faith comments. I've never seen something closed as consensus on en.WP with a simple majority, taken as a vote or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you are not familiar with the AfD process which often dips below 75% without defaulting to non consensus. Also, your characterization of this as a serious change ("core policy wording shift") is misleading. It's a minor word change meant to clarify the existing policy and not to alter it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Also there's a a daisy chain effect between 2 arguable points.  Saying that such a super-duper majority is needed to make a wording change which is just a clarification.  And then defining the super-duper -majority as such a high number. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)AfD is not the same thing as RfC for a policy change. Usually articles are deleted for reasons that are easy to anchor to policies.  We descide the result of an AfD based on the number of votes weighted according to the validity of their arguments for deletion according to recognized criteria.  I think it is pretty obvious that the threshold for changing policy ought to be higher than the threshold for deleting the article.  Where Griswaldo and I may agree is that after an RfC on policy, it is essential to discuss the comments, and not view it as a straight up-down vote. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * North800 has inadvertently touched upon something that has brought us to this point. It is almost impossible to make a wording change to these policies without having years of discussion.  There needs to be a fast track route so that the editors who wish to make simple changes to improve the clarity of the policy can do so without having to spend years of their lives embroiled in a dispute.  We need something like a Wiki-wide referendum to make these changes.  The current process obviously doesn't work. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)There is no major change to policy here, just a slight clarification in the wording aimed at the same meaning the policy is supposed to have now. That's not to say that opposing the change isn't legitimate, since it is, but characterizing it like this is inaccurate. Policies are clarified all the time without RfCs, and without huge super-majorities of large numerical scale. That's usually how it happens in fact. The only difference here is that this word change has been contentious. So it is inaccurate to insinuate that policy page changes usually require or should require this kind of input first. The present circumstances are brought on by the fact of contention not the fact of being a policy page.Griswaldo (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure - changes to substance requires consensus, but not all changes are substantive. I definitely do not think that any change this policy requires consensus!  But people may disagree as to the seriousness of this particular proposed change. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Things tend to bog down when there is no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not saying I'm for or against that, but that will be an equally lengthy process in and of itself. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Less than 70% support for a Policy change does not meet any standard of Consensus, unless there is some overriding Policy issue involved (such as in XfD's, where the Policies are more important than the number of iVotes). Consensus requires a "higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." Less than 70%, 75% or even 80% is certainly not a 'higher standard'. For example, Bureaucrat elections have an 85% support threshold - how can major Policy changes have any less?

And yes, this is a major change; saying right up front that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" is a significant and important criteria for this policy. Truth is a powerful thing, but it is extremely subjective. Too many times have I seen edit wars and angry editors trying to oppose or promote 'truth' over verification. "Verifiability, not truth" is a powerful statement, and one that sticks with you, and it needs to be prominently stated, not hidden somewhere down in the policy. Happy Melon above says it well "the simple phrase "verifiability, not truth" is one of the handful of iconic phrases that define Wikipedia", and Olive's "The phrase "verifiable not truth" has enormous impact first because of its placement, it opens the policy, and second because it is highly succinct and memorable." and CWinger's compelling testimony "I think the current wording is more powerful, with the emphasis that Wikipedia is not seeking "the truth". I remember that made a major impression on me as a new Wikipedian."  So yes, a signficant change indeed. One that requires a high level of consensus. Dreadstar ☥  21:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the anti-change party's best hope is for a "no consensus for change". It's only to be expected that people with that opinion will say an 70% majority is necessary, and that no account should be taken of the gamesmanship involved in engineering this outcome.  My position is obviously otherwise.  If we wanted a supermajority for every contested change to a policy, and we also said that an involved editor could summarily revert a close and reopen the discussion and readvertise it using different language without sanction, then we might as well decide that our policy pages are graven in stone and lock them all down as they are.  In my opinion, Sarek was not "involved" by reason of that one comment.  It follows that the revert of his close was spurious, and that Sarek's close should therefore be restored as the new consensus version.  The subsequent discussion should be taken as a separate RFC about whether to restore the previous version.  Thus we have an outcome consistent with normal custom and practice and we have the satisfaction of seeing the gamesmanship fail to achieve its end.— S Marshall  T/C 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, that leaves the version favored by the vast majority in place pending any further proposal or RFC's, including any to reverse. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is Policy and Consensus that laid out the percentages and timelines I mention above, not disgruntled, game-playing "anti-change party" members - whoever they may be. I for one am getting tired of the constant accusations and attacks.  Take it up the chain if you feel that strongly about it, but quit complaining about it here.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do please feel free to show us any policy that specifies any minimum required percentage for changes to policies or guidelines.
 * And I'd like to add that IAR itself, one of the most cherished and widely supported policies, received only about 85% support, which is one of the highest levels ever. It is unrealistic to expect any significant policy change to receive that much support, much less more than that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Any chance of actual consensus on the issue has been thoroughly destroyed after the badly worded notifications that were made. We should just go with the proper close that was already done. The only reason there was opposition to it was because the people who disagreed with the changes didn't get the close they wanted. Silver  seren C 22:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus for Sarek's close, and that's significant on its lonesome. Additionally, I don't think it was a valid close to begin with, which makes it even less likely it will be restored.  And what, we disenfranchise all the editors who have voted since that time?  Bad idea, bad precedent.  The RFC should have run for the full 30 days, you can't get past that.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except all of the voters since then have, based on how they worded their votes, likely been influenced by the incorrect wording put on various noticeboards. Silver  seren C 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be true if SV's wording had been incorrect, however it was more accurate than the current/original RFC title. Even if SV's wording was biased or incorrect, it is obvious from reading the oppose votes since then that they do indeed get it, iow, they understand what this RFC is all about.  So I don't think concerns over SV's wording are valid.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the RfC title, i'm talking about the wording of notifications that made it seem like this was a proposal to remove the "Verifiability, not truth" phrase from this policy completely, when it is not. It is moving it to a lower part of the policy, where it can be fully explained and not be misinterpreted as it is so often by new users and by the media. Silver  seren C 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the oppose comments since then clearly talk about the positioning of the phrase, several that I pointed out here; so I don't see that as a major issue. And indeed, the first step to getting rid of a comment is to bury it; although I try to AGF about that.  :) Dreadstar  ☥  23:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I explained here, I think we should accept the proposed version. Putting asside my ow opnion of what I prefer (I would prefer much more radical change than what is proposed now), the reason why 58% is good enough for accepting the change in the text in this case is because of a combination of a few factors. The current version has less than 50% support, and the people who are unhappy with the present version are not going to "agree to disagree" and drop the matter, i.e. the discussions will go on. But the people who want to stick with the present version don't like endless discussions with no end in sight. The problem for them is that because they are in the minority, they can't stop those discussions, in fact they are always under pressure to participate in RFCs on this matter. Which is why they would rather want this all to end once and for all.

Then, if you have something that has close to 60% support, it is easier to discuss further changes from there in a calmer way. The version is more stable, you then don't get this effect where people who would rather do something else, feel pressured to yet again give their opinion here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar: No. I'm afraid you aren't going to get me to shut up about gamesmanship on this page. I'm still much, much too angry about it, and as you can see from this page, I'm far from the only one—editors on all sides of the debate are concerned. Yes, I do think the matter will need to go to dispute resolution as a separate matter. I observe that SlimVirgin has already been desysopped by Arbcom for summarily reverting her fellow admins once, and I think we're looking at an established pattern of behaviour from her. But the fact that dispute resolution will happen once this RFC has closed, does not mean that the gamesmanship shouldn't be mentioned here. It absolutely should. The fact that there's been gamesmanship should be reflected in the outcome.  I understand why you, as a change-opposer, don't want me to keep saying this, but I'm afraid that's tough luck.— S Marshall  T/C 22:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you're free to do as you please, I'm merely pointing out the proper process for this type of thing. And there was no use of Admin tools in this affair, so the ArbCom case you mention doesn't apply.  To me, your continued, angry, threatening, accusing comments merely weaken your position, so it's no skin off my teeth.   I've been down that path a few times meself... :) Dreadstar  ☥  22:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly very angry about it indeed, and I'm certainly spitting the same accusation again and again like a machinegun, but I don't think I'm threatening. Just accusing and angry, and mentioning dispute resolution when you specifically prompted me about it.   Please don't get the wrong idea about me: I'm actually a very reasonable man and even though I've been here and working in contentious areas of the encyclopaedia for much too long, I've never been to DR and I have a pristine block log.  You just happen to have met me on one of the very few occasions when I've really lost my temper.— S Marshall  T/C 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally understand and sympathize; may we meet in less volatile situations in the future! Dreadstar  ☥  23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

3:2 is called a landslide in the real world, that means 50% more on one side compared to the other. That's 60% of the total. Anything higher than that is preposterous. Someone said 75%, that would be 3:1 in favor of the change!; a tactic for preventing any change. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet we manage to have admins appointed never with a consensus below 70%. The ideal consensus is closer to 100% than 51%. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Appointing someone to a power has nothing to do with re-arranging wording. And in real politics, a majority is all that is necessary for running anyways. But, of course, that's when it's a competition, but adminship isn't, it's a bit different from that and applies to neither a competition or this RfC. Silver  seren C 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Landslides in US presidential elections are a quirk of the electoral college system, they happen because a small percentage majority in votes, state by state, can cause a "landslide" of states going to the candidate, who winds up taking, 47 or 48 states in the electoral college with only a 3 or 4 percent majority. US presidents aren't elected by consensus. Not the same thing at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That percentage (>75%) is like something you would require for a constitutional amendment, where you are fundamentally changing the nature of something. But that's not what we're doing here. What we're doing is a rearrangement, a reordering. That's something that should only require a simple majority or, if really necessary, somewhere around a 60% support ratio. Silver  seren C 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is exactly what we are doing. We are making a fundamental change to a core policy - the closest thing wikipedia has to a constitution. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But we aren't changing anything, we're just moving it to a different location on the page. Yes, we're removing the idiom from the lede, but we're using it elsewhere accompanied by a more explanatory paragraph that is to reduce confusion that stems from the idiom itself. Nothing is actually being changed, WP:V still means the exact same thing it did before, the policy page just explains it better with the change. Silver  seren C 02:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've argued at some length above (now archived) why I don't think that argument holds. The motivation for the change is to allow for a specific kind of editing that takes "truth" as its starting point, and which I think will inevitably result in Or problems becoming more rampant than they already are. If the change has no consequence as you say then why would the supporters even bother to instate it? There is some kind of logical disconnect in the argument you are making. This is not just moving information - it is moving information for a reason. The reason is the problem, and what makes it a major change.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly a change. If it were a simple reordering of words, there wouldn't be a problem.  This goes beyond that, moving (and indeed changing} one of the core, prominent, iconic and memorable statements of policy.  That's major.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think the new section is incorrect in how it explains the phrase? Moving a phrase from the lead to another section of the entry isn't exactly like changing the constitution.Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I covered that issue in some detail here. Dreadstar  ☥  02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For good or ill, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS rules all - we don't do things by simple majority or a straight up or down vote. Consensus is generally determined by strength of argument and adherence to Policy, if there are good arguments on both sides, then the number of supporters may come into play. Generally, as a rule of thumb, those numbers are, for example, 70% support for passing an WP:RFA and 85% for WP:RFB, there no mathematical consensus percentage at 60% that I know of. Dreadstar ☥  02:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is WP:RFC and your percentages are meaningless. Read WP:CON which is the actual policy that governs consensus and tell me where your magical percentages are. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said WP:CON contained 'magical percentages"...lol....the percentages I'm pointing out are standards accepted by a majority of editors, depending on circumstances, and are not meaningless, obviously. As a matter of fact, it makes those percentages actual consensus in the areas I referred to above.  I'm saying I haven't seen such a low percentage as say, 60%, define anything consensus-wise on WP.  But then, I haven't seen everything.... :) What WP:CON does say is this, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles."  A statement that I thinks makes clear that we do indeed need a higher level of consensus to make changes in policy, a higher level than...what?  I say as high or higher than RFA or possibly even RFB.  Certainly not 60% or less.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, from WP:Consensus: Consensus, on Wikipedia, is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. In other words, consensus will tend to be closer to unanimity than 50/50 (zero consensus either way), which is why "at least 75%" gets brought up so often. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. How much consensus does it need to introduce a change in an run of the mill article in a dispute? 2 against one is usually enough yes, but 3 against 2? (rarely), 3 against 4 (never), etc. This is the relevant measure. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maunus's reasoning here, and definitely think that consensus should be closer to 100% than it should be to 50%, and 60/40 is not close enough. I did vote oppose, but this is something I've always felt very strongly about. I think if an argument is truly well reasoned, then it should not be unreasonable to expect that it convince more than 70% of a given sample of people.   N o f o rmation  Talk  02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What matters is what we want to achieve. The ball is in the opposer's court. They can't have it both ways. Either let Blueboar's proposal be implemented with the 60% or so votes and then one can move on with discussions about furher changes which are then less urgent. Or oppose the changes, but then you'll have to deal with far more freqeunt discussions about this "not truth" issue all over again with RFC posted quite frequently about new proposals.


 * Note that asking random Wikipedians whether or not "Not Truth" should be removed will yield a 50-50 split. That was observed in discussions here quite a while ago. This issue is contentious, because there is a drive by editors to actually edit this policy page to actually get it changed. In case of some other policy page, you may also have such 50-50 split when putting forward some proposal, but there will then not be such a drive among editors to actually change things. I.e. the 50% who would find the proposal better won't find the present wording so bad that they would be motivated to get it changed.


 * In this case, because there is a determined effort by the people opposed to "Not Truth" in the first sentence, the fact that there is 50% support for the status quo is not a healthy situation. Then the best thing to do is to try to get a compromize proposal, and that is what Blueboar did. Now, it's then not simply the wording of the compromize that convinces people to support it, it is also the fact that people can see that this moves the process forward. So, if you think that the new proposal is just as good as the old one, you may have intitially voted against (because why fix something if it ain't broke), but now you would support this in order to move the process forward.


 * The people who voted before SlimVirgin placed the additional notifications were more aware of the long discussions on this page, and they would then tend not to be a priori negative about Blueboar's proposal (if it is ok. then you would not oppose just because the old version is also ok.). We have 31 people against and 66 people in favor till that moment. The people who voted since that time split approximately 50-50, precisely what you would expect when you confront people with this question for the first time. We have 42 opposers and 35 people in favor since the notifications by SlimVirgin.


 * Suppose then that the RFC is to be closed as no consenus. Then that won't stop the discussions and the edits to this policy page. It is likely that the people who want to change things will do so with more vigor, because they have seen that they can get to 70-30 instead of being stuck at 50-50. So, the pressure the opposers will face is a lot greater than what it was before Blueboar started his effort. Count Iblis (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it wrong. "opposers" aren't just opposing change - we're opposing this particular change. Of course we can go on to make other proposals for how to change policy in a way that solves the problem of some editors abusing this policy, and eventually one of them will achieve real consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, so you have this choice of continuing the discussions about that issue. What won't work is closing these discussions while keeping the wording as it is now. Before Blueboar started his work, some people here were getting sick and tired of having to continue the discussions and they were invoking WP:DEADHORSE, but that doesn't really work if there is just 50% support for the status quo. Count Iblis (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting analysis but you are making some assumptions. For example, don't assume that editors who have not commented recently have not been watching this page for a long time,  but were reluctant to jump into the fray until  now. The fundamental issues are no necessarily unclear to those who have commented with out benefit of the long drawn out discussion. In fact I'm  not convinced such discussions can cloud the issues. Just  a few thoughts to add into the mix.(olive (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but the spectre of "far more freqeunt discussions about this...with RFC posted quite frequently about new proposals...with more vigor" just doesn't override WP:CON. It may even be close to threatening WP:DISRUPT; not that I take it that way, but really....  :)  And, perhaps someone will come up with a proposal that gains consensus.  Perhaps even this one will, it ain't over till it's over.  I was certainly aware of the long discussions both here and on the subpage, but after a while, it was just tiring to watch.  Which is probably why I missed the RFC.   04:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With all the other safeguard policies and "checks" regarding what is even to be considered "verifiable" (WP:RSN, for instance), I still find it difficult to believe that this simple phrase of "not truth" (that is there to "startle" and then be explored by the uninitiated by further analyzing policies and guidelines - which is crucial) causes so many problems. Why have so many understood it for the last six years? Why do we even have to get into what is really "truth" vs "untruth"? If anyone can convince me otherwise: I will happily change my vote. Doc   talk  05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Like the literature from which it is drawn, en.WP is awash in reliably sourced "untruths." Knowingly posting a cited "untruth" to en.WP is blockably bad faith. Mistakenly posting a cited "untruth" to en.WP can be handled through policies such as WP:RS, WP:BLP and consensus sooner or later. Meanwhile, the first meaningful threshold of inclusion is that a reader can verify (truly check) a cited source which has been put forth in good faith as reliable, rather than rely on the outcome of some editor's own original research as to what's truth and what's not. There is likely only one truth but the pith is, our knowledge and understanding of it is tightly bounded and shifting. Hence verifiability, not truth has been and is a core policy of this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

3:2 is a landslide (which is 60%). Anything higher than that would never be achieved for any issue where there is a division of opinion, and could be used to block any contested change. "Not truth" got put in there by one person with little or no discussion, got into its current context in a similar manner. Now there is a landslide opinion for a compromise which moves it and explains it. This blockage attempt requires that 3 items (2 off them being very shaky at best) all be true:


 * 1) That shifting and explaining the term is a major change in policy
 * 2) That such requires a consensus (this one is fine)
 * 3) That a a "consensus" is some impossible-for-any-contested-issue 2.33:1 (which is what 70% is) super-duper majority, and by a process where posting it here, at the pump, in centralized discussion and some other policy pages is not considered "enough notice".

By that standard the insertion and elevation "not truth" did not have even 1/100th of the process/support required and so it should immediately get completely removed/reverted. (or as a minimum, go with the compromise which passed by a landslide) North8000 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus can (and does) change. If you think that the phrase should get completely removed/reverted because of the "1/100" factor many years ago: go for it. No compromise passed by any landslide, and the votes are still being cast. Doc   talk  11:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very troubled by some "side remarks" some people keep repeating. An RfC is not a "vote," it is a request for outside comments; it is not a substitute for collaborative editing ivnvolving anyone who wishes to participate, it is a part of the process, and that process involves following RfCs with discussions of the comments and renewed attempts to seek a consensus, if not for the proposed change, then for whatever change can achieve a consensus.


 * It is unfair and unproductive to lump all people opposed to the RfC as an "anti-change part" because they do not form a party, and are not uniformly or unanimously opposed to change. It is unfair and unconstructive to continue to insist that they are "gaming the system" when what one really means is "they have frustrated my desire."  I know that some people sincerely believe that the proposed change is minor and we don't need consensus, or that the proposed change is major but that as of a few days ago there was a consensus.  S. Marshall admits she is angry and can no longer assume good faith (or, at least, felt this way yesterday) and I know others feel the same way.  I truly believe that S. Marshall and others believe that their views are the product of recent experiences, and in fact accept that this is so up to a point.  But past a certain point these beliefs become the cause of the conflict.


 * That is what "assume good faith" is all about. It does not mean that in your heart of hearts, or based on a careful analysis of all of the data, you have proof that everyone is acting in good faith.  It is not a "truth claim," an assertion that it is true that everyone is acting in good faith.  It is a pragmatic position.  When editing with strangers who have radically different views of what is true and false, right and wrong, the only way to collaborate is to act as if you believed everyone else is acting in good faith.  North has made it very clear that she thinks I am just bullshitting and maybe others here do too.  Maybe one reason is that they detect that I am not really sure that others are acting in good faith, even when I say that I do.  If this is the case, let me be clear: I do not know whether North, Marshall, Silverseren are acting in good faith.  But I do know &mdash; I must "truly believe" &mdash; that if I am to achieve anything at Wikipedia, I must strive to act as if I believe that marshall, north, Silver are acting in good faith.  I must make my heart believe this, at least for the duration of my on-line activity.  If we cannot do this, the project cannot work.  Doing it is a pragmatic position.


 * If an editor, regardless of what he or she actually believes, is not capable of acting as if i.e. "assuming" all other principal editors are acting in good faith, then there is no point in participating in this discussion. I am writing these words because I am bracketing my emotions and my gut feelings, and am manning up and assuming good faith for the sake of the project.  If this is not good enough for the pious, well, sorry, but it is both the best I can do and all that i am required to do.  It is also what you are required to do as well.  I know that between some editors there is years of animosity and cynicism.  I also believe that trolls exist and one way or another need to be driven away from Wikipedia.  But the fact is, Slim Virgin, SilverSeren, Tryptofish, S. Marshall and I have been editing here for years and have not been banned so we are not trolls, no matter how we feel.  That requires us to assume good faith on one another's part.


 * And the consequence of assuming good faith is this: even if you think that there is no conceivable rational or sensible way that an adult human being who suffers from no cognitive impariment can possibly think that this is a major change, or that we do not have consensus, we have to accept the fact that other editors acting in good faith think you are wrong. I acknowledge that rationale adults sincerely believe this is a minor proposal and that there was a consensus.  I really am capable of assuming good tfaith and accepting that some editors here see the world differently from me (if you do not believe me, maybe it is because you are incapable of assuming such good faith yourself).  We just have radically different understandings of what is going on here.  And if it were just me, I would walk away.  But there are many experienced editors who share my views.


 * 'And this is the proof that we do not have consensus! This is what consensus is all about!  From my reading of the above, Silver Seren and S. Marshall are so convinced that they are right, that they simply discount anyone who does not look at things the way they do as alien subversives, people with some hidden agenda to disrupt, which means that they do not count and once you subtract them you are left with your precious consensus. But we do not reach a consensus by villifying people we do not agree with or do not even understand.  That is not an authentic consensus.  The fact that you feel so frustrated and cheated of the victory you believe you had achieved simply shows that there actually is no consensus.


 * This is my "faith:" Wikipedia does not view a lack of consensus as a problem (let alone an evil).  In seeking to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it assumes that editors will be divided on all sorts of issues, divided most passionately, divided to the core of what they believe is true or good.  That this occurs at any article or on this talk page is not a failure, it is the expected state of affairs.  Since it is not a failure or an evil, no one is to blame.  The first motive behind our policies is to create a framework for people who are so passionately divided that they cannot even comprehend how someone else can believe ... ( ... in a theistic god or no god, in Darwinian evolution or creationism, that GW Bush was one of the greatest US presidents of the 20th century, or Reagan, or Clinton, or Obama, that it is spelled colour, or color, that the death penalty is righteous or a sin, that "not truth" belongs in the first sentence or in the third paragraph or nowhere, that this is or is not a major change, that we do or do not have a consensus ...)  And this is why we make the very bold statement that "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia."


 * You blame me and others for this lack of consensus. But as long as you cannot assume good faith and lump with with a "party" of people who are "anti-change" or intent on "gaming" the system, you will never achieve a consensus.  There is only ONE path to consensus, and it is called "assume good faith."  I cannot tell you what to think when you go off-line, just as you cannot tell me what to believe when I go off-line.  But as long as we are here, together, this has to be our fundamental principle.  Language matters, and if I said anything that offends someone please tell me and if I understand and good faith is involved, I will apologize.  Can everyone else here say the same?  What matters is not what you think in your mind, what matters is how you are willing to treat others, here, now. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been a lot of talk about AGF, but I'm not sure that that is the main issue.  The main issue in most folks minds is that that a group of folks are doing clearly visible things (eg what Slim did, plus others inventing new rules) which are "not right" to prevent the change from happening. And nobody has questioned their motivations, and I think that it is widely assume that they feel that their end objective is what's best for Wikipedia. So, it is questioning their methods, not their motivations or sincerity.   I mean, can you imagine in real life, an election or game where your score/vote was 50% higher than mine and I said "that means you lost"; if your score is less than double or triple mine, you lose?  I don't see where that is a matter of good or bad faith.


 * Probably the one area where the "assuming" IS needed is the large sudden huge new burst of disproportionately "oppose" votes where this hasn't been advertised in any new venues except wp:npov. And there folks have vaguely questioned it but nothing in relation to any individuals. And even that has been secondary.  North8000 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your clarification. If you do not mind I would just like to voice two concerns.  First, given what you just wrote, I would think that you would not want anyone to think that you are challenging the recent comments because you think that they cause you to lose the vote.  I understand, you are questioning the methods.  But you also seem to be questioning the outcome.  Would it be completely unreasonable for some people to wonder whether you would have this same reaction if all of the new comments in the past two days were in support of the proposal?  I am not trying to offend you.  I am only asking that you consider how your statements might appear to someone who does not share your views.  So that was more of a question than a comment, and you do not need to answer it (because I am not questioning your intentions, I am only asking you to think about the effects of what you are saying in terms of how the people who took the time in the past couple of days to comments, for example, might interpret them),  I ask because you say you question the methods, not the intentions, yet you keep invoking their intentions, which is to prevent change or to win.  In your above comment you still make reference to intentions.  My second comment is a pure comment, take it or leave it: I do not see this as a vote.  i do not see this as being about winning or losing.  I do not think it is constructive to view it as a vote which one might win or lose, when we are supposed to edit through collaboration and consensus.  And finally, I do not know what policy or guideline supports this interpretation that it is a vote which one wins or loses. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand but I will try to answer. In my mind, I have moved the "burst of votes" off to the side as a sidebar issue for the very reason of AGF.  Does that address your main question which seems to be about that?  I do see this as people trying to invent rules so that no change that they don't like can pass.  I mean, for heavens's sake, "not truth" went in with little or no discussion, but they claim a huge majority in favor of just moving it is not enough to merely move it?  That will make plenty of people livid, or in my case, see it as an abuse/manipulation of the process, something worth shedding my blood over far more than any outcome.   As I indicated, even in these very page, I have been at peace with many outcomes that were the exact opposite of what I wanted because it came from a proper process.   On the last question, I don't know, you'll have to ask the folks that are saying that votes count, and if it doesn't get a super-duper-majority  of 2.33:1  (70%) or 3:1 (75%) it fails. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I'm one of the new oppose votes. I came here because of the watchlist notice. I also agree that 60% would be too low a threshold for consensus for a controversial change like this to a core policy; I'd like to see at least 70%.  I say "controversial" based on the discussion, not based on an assessment of the impact of the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slr., this apeears to be needed: THIS IS NOT A VOTE. (emphasis added). It's a means of reaching consensus through discussion of favorable or unfavorable views of a proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case, the RfC was intentionally set up to be (at least in part) a poll. The purpose of the RfC was to gauge whether a specific compromise that had been reached among a sizable but local working group of editors, (who had already spent several months in discussion) is acceptable to the broader community. It was never intended to be the end of the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic on the proposal, but given this is a core policy, we have to have a high level of consensus to make changes. Even if we take the matter as a vote, 58% is nowhere near enough. The quality of a Wikipedia policy is not just in what it says, but also in how much it is supported.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As Uninvited Company notes above, the toxic trio was added virtually without discussion, and it has remained in the policy more because of persistence than any genuine consensus that supports it.  In the past, I have described the process involved in entrenching it as "stealth editing".  Far from being a core part of our policy, it has always been controversial and widely disliked.  The idea that it can't be removed by anything short of a supermajority at an RFC that must be of 30 days' duration and must be advertised in particular places and in particular ways is nothing short of special pleading.— S Marshall  T/C 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To call it "the toxic trio" when you are referring to policy that a great many people support is flaming. How else can one read it except as a deliberate attempt to inflame?  You are free to question it, challenge it, say you do not understand it or do not like it or whatever, but as soon as you say you are talking about "the toxic trio" there is no point in anyone who has a different view talking to you.  Is that what you want? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * History has proven that having a view that "not truth" anywhere in the policy a disparagable, very bad idea does not preclude compromise. The current proposal IS a compromise which S Marshall reluctantly agreed to support despite it being far from what he (and other who also compromised) strongly preferred which was total removal of "not truth" from the policy. Folks just do not seem to understand this. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, thank you for posting your view succinctly on this occasion. I would be very grateful if you could continue to be similarly brief. It's not "flaming" to call it the toxic trio.  The word you're looking for is "hyperbole".  Since Sarek's close was reverted, this discussion has been characterised by an awful lot of hyperbole on both sides; you will see the "oppose" !voters describing the phrase as "iconic", as "the foundations of an encyclopaedia", "the point of the policy", "a rallying cornerstone of the community", and similarly hysterical remarks.  One would think, from the opposes, that we were trying to amend scripture.  Are these people "flaming" me with their view?  No, and I'm not flaming them.  I'm expressing myself forcefully.— S Marshall  T/C 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point about hyperbole. But I think toxic goes beyond that.  I do not consider it hyperbole if someone says that "not truth" is essential to Wikipedia, and I would not consider it hyperbole if you replied that it is utterly unnecessary and useless.  Or, misleading.  Or, trivial.  Am I right that all these words describe your view of the phrase?  I am trying to come up with very strong language that clearly contradicts what you are calling hyperbole.  I wouldn't call them flaming, "toxic" to reasoned discussion.  Maybe my point involves context.  Many people showed up for the RfC but did not write a real comment.  They relied on hyperbole as a rhetorical device, which express their sentiment but does not move the discussion forward.  It is expressive but not constructive.  Had you written "toxic trio" in the same context, expressing your view in the RfC instead of a thoughtful comment, I don't think I would care.  It is in the context of actual discussion that I think the phrase itself is toxic.  You might counter that the hyperbolic language found in many oppose comments is equally unconstructive.  If someone on the talk page (I mean, in discussion rather thanthe RfC) replied to a comment of yours with such a toxic use of hyperbole, I wouldn't blame you for calling the person out on using language that is not conducive to discussion.  To appeal to hyperbole for the sake of analogy, if someone pulls out a gun you can either pull out a bigger gun, or you can quietly ask the person to put the gun down.  If your life is actually at stake, maybe the first choice is the right one, but in a conversation I think it is always the wrong one.  I guess you and I just disagree on this.  Also, sorry you find my prose so tiresome. I can bullet-point it for you, if you prefer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flaming is personal. If I called an editor an idiot or a fool, then I would be flaming them. I am not. I am using hyperbole and disparaging language, but the target of my hyperbole is a phrase in a policy, not another editor. Do you see?— S Marshall T/C 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see it. Perhaps my point was, I see a difference between saying (and this is just my example I am not putting words in your mouth) "I think that is a stupid idea" in response to someone, versus constantly referring to it as "the stupid idea."  I am guessing you think I am splitting hairs.  maybe we can agree that it would be good if people of whatever opinion tones down the hyperbole? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really much point, is there? Toned down, moderate, consensus-seeking behaviour isn't working in this RFC.  We tried that, and we won.  And then look at that AN/I thread.  You can see that there are no admins on Wikipedia who have what it takes to take any action about SlimVirgin's blatant consensus re-engineering.  She's going to get away with it free and clear.  So I might as well say exactly what I please.  We'll get a compromise rather than a decision no matter what.— S Marshall  T/C 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh* You did not win.  And I do not know which is more the problem: that you believed you did, or that you actually think this is about winning versus losing.  You don't have to reply, I know you do not agre with anything I just wrote. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when people spend too much well-intentioned time investing in a topic, objectivity goes out of the window. It should be clear from the number of "O" votes that there is something unacceptable about the proposal to many contributors. Better to get that level of concern identified and dealt with rather than claiming a Pyrrhic victory on a much smaller sample of opinion. Instead of blaming and finger pointing, (a) get over it (b) construct a properly managed, correctly implemented fresh RfA which you manage to ensure that it isn't corrupted half way through. And, no, that is not what you had before it was closed and reopened. Leaky  Caldron  20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what we had, and no, the fact that you weren't personally invited to participate via your watchlist does not invalidate Sarek's close. And no, I'm not in any danger of "getting over it".  No other bloody editor on Wikipedia would get away with the stunt SV pulled and it totally blows my mind that that AN/I thread failed to lead to sanctions.  And no, there was nothing Pyrhhic about Sarek's perfectly well-reasoned close.— S Marshall  T/C 20:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter so much about actual or perceived "winning" & "loosing"? Getting policy changes right takes time. This attempt may have misfired. Just start again. You can take your issues about Admin. behaviour to another level. I'm on no individual's "side" - but I'm naturally pleased that a large number of further contributors have been able to comment on this. Leaky  Caldron  20:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't understand why this policy change is the optimum compromise, Leaky_caldron, because you haven't been participating in the nine months of discussion and very careful negotiation that led up to it. Some of the recent !votes upset me very much, because they're clearly off-the-cuff opinions from random passersby who, with absolutely no understanding at all of the reasons why Blueboar's proposal is worded as it is, take it on themselves to criticise him.  I do not think that the closers of this debate will read the tens of thousands of words of discussion that led to this proposal, because they are volunteers coming to this cold and they will have to take shortcuts.  They will weigh one !vote very similarly to another, which will make Random_Editor_03's complete bloody ignorance just as good as Blueboar's hard-won thought and knowledge.  Many of the recent !votes are saying things that the working group considered, worked around or rejected upwards of six months ago, and the drive-by opinions are coming in so thick and fast that they can't be dealt with.  I mean, look at this drive-by !vote from Crum375, an administrator who has made a total of five edits in the last twelve months (and who's never knowingly disagreed with SlimVirgin even when he was active, but that's another issue).  He's not going to come back and engage in reasoned discussion with those of us who've been at this for all these months, is he?— S Marshall  T/C 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given past history, I'm increasingly uncomfortable about the process here. Are we to believe that Crum375 just happened to check his watchlist right after the watchlist notice was placed? Well, I guess stranger coincidences can happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying go back to the drawing board. I'm saying relaunch this one properly and communicate and manage it. You'd have to agree that some of the support comments are equally as bad as the oppose you've highlighted. Leaky  Caldron  21:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that one has to acknowledge months of discussion to appreciate some people's feelings of frustration. Guess what: I have been involved in this policy on and off for years.  Many people who were not present seven or eight months ago also have put a lot of time into discussing this policy on the talk page, if you go even further back in the archives.


 * The explicit purpose of any RfC is to solicit comments from people who have not been involved in discussion. That is the purpose.  We turn to previously uninvolved editors because we need their views.  To minimize the value of the views of people who have not been involved in 9 months + of discussion defeats the whole purpose of any RfC.


 * Finally: I do not believe "negotiate" is a fitting metaphor for what goes on here. In fact, I think it is counter-productive language.  A negotiation implies two, sometimes more, partis with clearly defined interests and some kind of leverage that gives everyone an equal stake in an outcome.  The aim of a negotiation is to maximize the outcomes for all parties.  But none of us editors have any leverage.  Zilch.  We are all volunteers.  Wikipedia will go in S. Marshall if you never show up here again.  Ditto for me; if I disappeared, WP would continue spinning around.  The community of editors is an amorphous body the membership of which is in constant flux, which is reproduced on a small scale at specific pages.  So there is no optimum solution, no negotiators.  The amorphous community of editors express their views creating periods of consensus of varying length, but these are always moments in an endless process.  To view this proposal as the optimum solution to a negotiation among a small number of editors is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia.  This is not about pleasing a limited number of parties as best possible. The fact that you have spent so much time at this page does not make your opinion count any more than Crum375, and if you think I am wrong you never should have supported an RfC. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not support an RFC. My view was always that a phrase that had been added without a RFC could be removed via the same mechanism.  The issue was forced to RFC against my better judgment, but I reluctantly accepted the consensus that an RFC was necessary.— S Marshall  T/C 22:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions:
 * 1) If this is indeed the optimum compromise, there should be a reason for its optimality which can be stated without reading nine months of discussions. What is it?
 * 2) Relatively minor changes in wording would have attracted many of the opposes; they might even have reasssured the irreconcilables that this was not a change of policy. Why not make them and come back? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, that's a perfectly reasonable question but I hope that someone else will answer it because I'm finding it extremely difficult to summarise our very long deliberations in a few easily-digestible paragraphs. If nobody else does, then I will try.— S Marshall  T/C 08:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since nobody else has tried, then, I will. From previous RFCs, what we know is (1) that the current version of the first sentence is strongly popular with a significant minority of editors, but it does not quite enjoy a majority support, and (2) that the major issue among those who dislike the current version is VNT. When we look back over the long history of that particular phrase, we see that it was introduced into this page in 2005, at the same time it was removed from WP:NOR.  It was originally introduced into a draft version of WP:NOR in this edit by SlimVirgin.  It appears as a fully-formed a separate section, and is fully explained in context.  Subsequent edits have stripped the phrase of all context, shortened it from a full section into three words, and placed them in bold at the start of the policy.  And we can well imagine why: each time the point needed to be pressed home to someone during a dispute, there must have been a further attempt to emphasize those three words and focus attention on them, again and again and again.  VNT is certainly a convenient stick for beating difficult editors over the head with, and there was a natural tendency to enlarge the stick.  But the working group felt that policy should be more than just a tool for winning arguments, and that VNT would be much more acceptable if it was better explained.  Examples of tendentious editors misusing the current version to introduce errors into the encyclopaedia were found and discussed, and although strongly disputed by the VNT faithful, they were eventually accepted as a problem by the working group.  Hence Blueboar's compromise, to get it out of the lede and explain it properly.  In fact, nobody in the working group thinks this particular explanation is perfect—it's a springboard for further improvement—but what the working group did agree was that the way to achieve something everyone could live with ("consensus") was to remove VNT from the lede and return it to its proper place in separate section where it can be fully explained.  The working group are, I think, satisfied that this is the best compromise, not just in terms of harmony between editors, but also in terms of making the policy clear.  I think most of us would also agree that as presently written it is a little too wordy, and should be improved by the normal editing process.— S Marshall  T/C 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the question of what constitutes a consensus... I would say a 2/3 (66%) majority would qualify. Here in the US, that is the fraction needed to overturn a Presidential Veto and ratify a Constitutional Amendment... both good real life precedents for determining consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Blueboar. I can see all sorts of reasons why it's a bad idea to express consensus as a percentage.— S Marshall  T/C 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the group of closing admins will look at more than just the percentages. I hope they'll also look at the strength of the arguments, and at issues of process. And they know that whatever they do will be closely scrutinized. In that regard, percentages are only a guideline, subject to good judgment, and what we discuss here really doesn't obligate the closers. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right, Tryptofish. Because as in RfA's (and any other exercises like this) you'll get your sock votes, your "one-off IP votes", your "Rip Van Winkle" votes, and so on. It's to be expected: and hopefully sorted out. Doc   talk  02:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Been gone a couple days. Yes, including the assertion that a clarification change such as this needs a super-duper majority to pass, which I think is false.

Proposal to restore diffs directly under the title
I posted links to the current and proposed versions under the title, plus a diff between the two, but someone keeps removing them. I object to this removal. With a lack of diffs, and an uninformative and arguably misleading title, it's not immediately clear what is being proposed. The diffs make it very clear.


 * Current policy
 * Proposed policy
 * diff

I can't see any reason to remove these, so I propose they be restored as soon as possible. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Given that the diff is available, it is a useful thing to have. -- J N  466  02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Blueboar's concern that people with small screens/large fonts may fail to see both halves of the proposal in the diff, especially as so many editors already seem to be under the erroneous impression that the proposal would get rid of the phrase "verifiability, not truth" altogether. That makes me slightly less enthusiastic. If the diff is shown, editors should definitely be reminded that they may have to scroll down to see both parts of the proposal – both the change to the lead sentence, and the new section on "verifiability, not truth". -- J N  466  15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as well though I'm willing to hear justification for its removal. N o f o rmation  Talk  03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stop rewriting the RFC midstream, mmmkay? They're redundant, they're ugly, and we don't need the edit summaries that come with them.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realized that it was you who removed them today. Unscintillating removed them yesterday.  That is not "rewriting" anything. They're diffs, helpful because they show clearly at a glance what the proposal involves.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Sarek, "redundant, ugly, and we don't need the edit summaries" aren't good reasons for removing them. My understanding is that SlimVirgin is trying to inform readers and potential RfC participants about the proposed changes.  That would seem to outweigh your reason for removing them. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the proposed changes that are described in their entirety immediately below? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan: I thought you were uninvolved? I would have supported your re-instatement as admin, but after these comments, I think any re-instatement requires a more careful examination.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try. In my opinion, I was UNINVOLVED at the point I closed the RFC, as I had only asked one question for clarification, but it's quite obvious that went out the window several days ago. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only other link showing the reader the diff appears 7,381 characters (with spaces) later. What is your objection to informing the reader at the beginning, with links directly to the changes?  Blueboar's RfC "summary" is extremely long, and we want to service readers who want to see the proposed changes without waiting for the last paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the diffs add an immediate clarity and concise information at the top of the RFC, where clarity and concise information should be. Dreadstar  ☥  03:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Provides clarity, now, and for the record.  The edit summaries are not worth worrying about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with changing the RfC - including the title and any explanatory information - more than halfway through the RfC. We need to be consistent. The RfC should not be changing now. Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed - I am concerned that including the diffs could (unintentionally?) bias the RfC... since changes are highlighted in bright red, but additions are not, someone looking at the diffs will have their attention inappropriately drawn to only part of the proposal... the proposed changes to the first paragraph... and they may completely miss the fact that the proposal also proposes adding a new section. That additional section is central to the proposal - it is where the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" (the phrase that everyone is so concerned about) is being moved to and explained.  I am concerned that someone looking at the diffs will assume (incorrectly) that the proposal seeks to remove "V not T" entirely (which it definitely does not do).  Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians are used to reading diffs. This diff shows clearly what the proposed changes are. If you like, we can write "Scroll down to see all proposed changes". SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as long as the two diffs are accurate. If i understand Blueboar correctly, the concern is that some but not all parts of the proposal are highlighted.  A reasonable concern, but surely, this is a problem that can be easily fixed while still providing people with links the the different versions.  Perhaps it calls for creating a sub-page that shows the complete policy with all proposed changes highlighted e.g. using strikeout for deletions and a different color for additions.  Is this not technologically feasible? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If (and this is a huge if) it is technologically feasible to create something that highlights both the proposed changes to the first paragraph and the proposed addition of the new sections in exactly the same way, I might be willing to change my opinion. I would have to see what it looks like to know for sure. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - The RfC is, IMHO, too long. Letting editors see the actual change being proposed adds clarity to what exactly is being proposed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors already see the exact changes being proposed -- they're listed at the top of the RFC, and they're very straightforward.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know that. IMO, the RfC borders on WP:TLDR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just referring to the changes themselves as straightforward, not the content. One replacement, one addition.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still one huge wall of text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Blueboar: I think there's always a big risk people will not read or read carelessly and given the amount of effort put into this I can understand his concern. At the same time allowing editors to see what the changes will look like is a visual clarification step that is useful and possibly important. Can we add a note reminding people to read all, highlighted and not?(olive (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Oppose. I accept that it adds much needed clarity. But over 200 editors have now !voted. They are not all going to swing back here, review the diffs and change their votes. This is at least the 2nd change to the critical intro of the RfC. How can a closer determine a consensus when the very opening statements of the RfC has been changed 3 times? As I've said elsewhere, it's a lame duck. Close now, pause. Come back in a couple of weeks and communicate and manage it effectively. Learn from the mistakes, move on. Leaky  Caldron  16:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, when you come back, write the new RfC with diffs, if you like. But above all, revise the proposal in the light of the comments; it may then have an actual consensus, without WikiLawyering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, sort of - it would have been nice for those of us who are daft, but on the other hand it looks like it's a bit late now, and having the list of links like that was indeed kind of ugly, and the visual separation of the parts themselves seems to be even more of an issue. Perhaps putting all of the changes in one box with the diff links inline would work better, if this thing's to be done again?  -— Isarra (talk)  16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The title of this proposal, "Proposal to restore diffs directly under the title" is erroneous, as SlimVirgin incorrectly asserts that I removed these diffs, yet what is being proposed here for inclusion are not the diffs that I removed.  As such, it is a fox wearing sheep's clothing, and anyone who says, oh, that is ok, what is there now is good enough, but doesn't require that the title be corrected, makes themselves a party to the disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this not clear?
I really don't see the need to include diffs... the changes and additions being proposed are placed in boxes to highlight what they are... as follows:

The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.
 * 1) change the opening paragraph:
 * 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:

How is this confusing? Two parts... 1) a change to the first paragraph, and 2) an addition of a new section. Nice black boxes to show exactly what the proposal is. The more I think about this, the more I think that adding diffs will just make the proposal more confusing (and potentially misleading) Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is clear, but visual information can give varying levels of information. The RfC content is embedded in explanatory text which means editors don't have a sense of how it will look and read in the article itself. The diffs increase clarification, make it clearer. Can something be done about highlighting the proposed addition?(olive (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Something may not be strictly necessary and yet be desirable. It often helps to see things in their proper context.  After all the desired context for this proposal is not this contentious RfC but the actual policy, which many hope will be improved through these changes, right?  it is the policy that matters, right?  I think it will help many people better assess whether they like or do not like the proposal if they can see it in its proper context, i.e. read the wntire policy.  I write this knowing that this might generate more "support" comments.  You and others have argued that these changes do not radically alter the substance of the proposal.  If you are right, this will be clearer if we can read it in context i.e. read the revised proposal as a whole. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... OK... I think the Proposed policy link (showing people what the page would look like if the proposal were implemented) is fine, and probably would clarify things. (although I would place it after the text of the proposal, but before the rational.) My strong objection is to the diff link (do to the highlighting issue and the potential that it would actually confuse readers as to the intent of the proposal). Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My reaction when I saw this on Sunday night was that it was unneccessarily visually complex. As Slru and Littleolive say above, you don't get the same impact as you would in Article style. It may be a minor point, but I would suggest displaying it as it will look so as to remove the overburden of transcluding it from the boxes and bullet points. My 2p. Leaky  Caldron  20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying... My goal with the boxes was to highlight the fact that the proposal was in two distinct parts. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has become a train wreck
Honestly, the RfC has become a train wreck for the many reasons stated by both supporters and opponents of the change. Right now, no matter how the RfC is closed, there are so many different problems and accusations flying around that both supporters and opponents can rightfully claim the process was flawed. Closing the RfC - whether yay or ney - is only going to result in more heated debate on whether the process was fair. Here's what I think we should do: scrap the RfC, wait a period of time to allow emotions to calm down (at least a few days, perhaps a few weeks) and then we can create a brand new RfC that attempts to address the issues - whether perceived or real - with the current one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I hate to say it but I agree. I don't know how this is going to be closed one way or another.  If it's "no consensus to change," the support side is going to have a rightful claim that it was the result of wheel warring, politicizing, etc.  If it's closed as "consensus for new version" then the oppose side is going to make more accusations of flaws, bias, etc.  I think it's pretty much fucked, so I agree a new RFC would be the best course of action.  I also think that the new RFC should have a very clear definition regarding the amount of time it will run, where it will be advertised, and what "consensus" will mean.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, there really is no good policy guiding us as to what will constitute a consensus for this type of policy change.  The admins involved in the closing of this RFC have a very tough job ahead of them, and I don't think it's going to be over regardless of the close.  N o f o rmation  Talk  02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have disagreed with this yesterday, but I'm very concerned now to see that someone even removed the diffs showing what the proposed changes would be. Especially with such a long proposal, it's important to let people see (easily) for themselves what is being proposed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd let it go until after the US Thanksgiving holiday. Since most Wikipedians are from the US they might be in a better mood assuming no one burt the turkey or they didn't have to sit by their mother-in-law. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really fancy that. Just leave the RfC open for a few more days (Newyorkbrad suggested until 10 November at AN/I). By then everyone should have calmed down again. If the change goes ahead, the wording can always (and will anyway) be tweaked further later on. -- J N  466  03:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the RFC will be closed in some way, the losing side can then contest that in a court in Florida, asking for certain votes to be declared invalid and a recount based on that. Count Iblis (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC which results in the doubling of participants is a success, not a "train wreck". I think editors have forgotten what an RfC entails. That's understandable given all the whinging and crying and shouting and personal attacks by users who thought they could have a quiet RfC. That's not how these things work. Reality is a messy business. Step outside your basement once in a while. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Viriditas: I'm not sure what you said had to do with anything to do with what I just said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Count Iblis: And when the losing side loses (it doesn't matter which one), they'll have legitimate gripes. Editors will continue arguing and nothing will be solved.  We'll just be back at square one.  In my mind, the question is whether we want to resolve the issue - one way or another - or keep arguing about it for another 9 months?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This has become a train-wreck in only one sense: a small number of good-faith editors had conflicting ideas of how to improve this policy, and a small number of editors (Blueboar, Tryptofish, and North8000 I think) put a lot of effort into forging a compromise between these two sides. They then decided to post an RfC.  Some people seem to have viewed an RfC as a vote that would result in the proposal either passing or not.  But an RfC is explicitly a "light" way to help resolve conflicts, by explicitly soliciting the views of people who had not been active in the discussion, and it is explicitly not a straight up/down vote.  This means that the RfC has an effect opposite to the intentions and expectations of this samll group of editors.  Most simply put, they lost control, and although losing control is kind of the whole Tao fo Wiki, it does not feel good.  And for the past few days, these editors - the ones who thought they were negotiating a compromise that only needs majority support to effect a change in the policy - have gone ballistic.  At least one of them has been honest enough to admit that in many cases she can no longer assume good faith.


 * I think Jayen466 is right, that if the RfC runs for another week or ten days (as long as the close date and if possible time is publicized widely and well in advance) things will likely cool down. Frankly, I think that the real solution would be if all people who viewed themselves as parties to the "negotiation" or "compromise" completely (and of course it has to be voluntarily) stepped out i.e. refrained from making any comments at all on this page until the RfC ends.  Ihave written a lot of comments on this page and I will gladly stop editing this page until the RfC ends.  The RfC is a call for outsiders to comment.  Ask a couple of members of ArbCom or bureaucrats to ensure that the RfC is widely publicised and that the closing time and date is widely publicized in advance (i.e. that the procedures set out in WP;RfC are being followed), and will then close the RfC at that time, and then let the RfC do what it is supposed to do: invite comments from uninvolved parties.  The procedure with an RfC is, after it is closed, people discuss the comments.  Let all the people who were actively involved in this voluntarily step out, and when the RfC closes they can step back in and discuss the comments, and see whether the comments help move us to a consensus, or show that no consensus is possible, or point to a different consensus.  This is what it will take for things to cool down.  And suddenly, the train-wreck will disapppear. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words about my (not particularly successful) efforts to get people to compromise. I'll leave it to others to assess whether or not it's accurate to describe me now as having "gone ballistic". But please understand that I had made it very clear well before the RfC was opened, while editors on the sub-page were telling me to go away because I argued that the proposal was going too far, that I very definitely do not suffer from the delusion that I have any kind of "control" over the process. So there is no issue of me feeling like I lost "control" that I never believed that I have. When I point out things that I think are improper, it is because I believe that they are improper.


 * As for whether this is a train wreck, well, yes it is. But I am actually pretty confident that it will eventually get sorted out. Let the community comment, and take a thoughtful look at the conduct of those whose conduct requires a thoughtful look. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to single anyone out with the "go ballistic" remark, and in not naming one (or more) person, people might think I am referring to all people. I do not think it applies to everyone, and I also think it applies to people on all sides.  Perhaps it would be more constructive simply to say: this process might proceed far more calmly if all the people who were actively involved in these discussions prior to the RfC, on principle, refrained from participating in discussions until after.  Some editors believe that there were purely procedural problems.  These concerns were discussed here, and appropriately so, but at this point if anyone still has these concerns i.e. if the discussion here has not yet staisfactorally resolved them, perhaps they belong now at AN/I. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anything can be deciphered from this mess in its current form, and while I recognize the hard work and good faith that went into addressing this long-standing problem the right way, this RFC is a trainwreck in more ways than one, I couldn't decipher it, I still haven't deciphered it, a review of this talk page and ANI and user talk pages shows all the problems, and although my messup may be among the most dorky, I'm still not sure that I'm clear on the whole matter. I do agree that closing this out, waiting a few weeks, and re-launching a new and thoroughly advertised RFC might be the best way forward at this point (IIRC, we had to do the same for the ATTRIBUTION debate a few years ago). It's a pillar, and we should get it right-- I've given up trying to understand what went into this with all of the restarts and rewords (partly out of embarrassment that I didn't decipher it correctly the first time). My view is, I want "not truth" gone, but fixing it via that attribution business allows for UNDUE POV, and I've given examples elsewhere. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been unable to get consensus even to put forward the proposal to remove "not truth" entirely (and believe me, I've tried hard). See this poll.  In my experience editors grow extremely obstructive when this is proposed.— S Marshall  T/C 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that scrapping this RfC and launching another one would be a good idea. Because the policy in question is one of the core ones, it's natural that heated debates are taking place and in this sense a poll is a pretty good way to encapsulate the views. Many people have already expressed their will, many others will pretty soon. If they see that this RfC has been scrapped, some (or worse - many) of them may not vote once more and repeat their opinions and arguments, which may ultimately lead to distorted results and look like a forumshopping. In this context a new RfC would make the time people dedicated to current RfC futile and devour additional one. The best cure for the raised issue is indeed just give this RfC, especially its poll, more time to ripe and become more representative and pronounced, as has been proposed. As something is to be done with WP:V, ignoring RfC would be heinous and ungrateful IMHO. Brand meister  t   22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Separate sections for support and oppose leads to bias
In a large RfC such as this one, readers arriving at the page see first a great number of support comments if the comments are separated into sections. This leads to a subtle bias in favour of support. I appreciate that this makes counting easier but an issue as important as this one needs the framework of the debate to be scrupulously neutral.  Spinning Spark  09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect may I ask how you have arrived to this conclusion? Psychological studies? I'm not aware of any evidence that this is actually occurring or that it does occur generally in similar circumstances.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He raises a simple point that, IMHO, should be rather intuitively suspect to anyone giving it a moment's consideration. If the placement of the positions is, indeed, bias-irrelevant, then simply reverse them for the remainder of the RfC. It should take all of about 10 seconds of editing to effect.
 * As it is plausible that this RfC may be heading for some type of reincarnation, perhaps consideration can be given to applying a side by side table format which will, at least, mitigate any suggested/implied ordering bias. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, but those inferences are just opinions. Are you a psychologist? A sociologist? A social scientist of another sort? Someone who studies human behavior? The effects of these types of things on human behavior are not usually in line with what non-experts assume they are by way of "inference." Switching the positions around at this point would be confusing and strange. I've never seen that done in an RfC. What I have seen, throughout Wikipedia, is that when oppose and support sections are created separately at RfCs, RfAs etc. they always follow the same pattern. Support comes first, followed by oppose. Are you saying there is a systemic bias towards support in our very conventions? If anything, the fact that this is how its always done, should sway your inferences in the other direction, because you'd think Wikipedians are used to this format. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am saying, putting the "support" comments first introduces a systematic bias to support. I am surprised that this comment is being challenged, it is a well-known effect amongst professional pollsters.  It is a form of response bias known as starting point bias.  See  for instance.  Spinning  Spark  13:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The effects of these types of things on human behavior are not usually in line with what non-experts assume they are by way of "inference."
 * An interesting postulate...but "not usually in line" is rather unpersuasive.
 * Are you a psychologist? A sociologist? A social scientist of another sort? Someone who studies human behavior?
 * Nope, just a plain old wikipedia editor with a healthy sensitivity to WP bias issues.
 * ...If anything, the fact that this is how its always done,...
 * I believe I recall at least several prior Rf*s where responses were not segregated. It may be a better way to do this. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Spinningspark, "starting point bias" seems to only be mentioned in terms of economic valuations. Ironic that you badly misuse citations in a comment on a discussion about verifiability.  No other poll system lets you see what people before you have voted and detailed rationales of it.  You can't apply any kind of traditional studies to our system, it's unique.   For example, people may be equally biased to oppose something that they see is succeeding so far just because they are afraid of the status quo changing.  As well, they might be more likely to support a failing proposal because it's the "underdog", or they feel like the opposition is missing a redeeming trait of the proposal which they believe should be highlighted. Gigs (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The context for this and for a traditional polling system are vastly different.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)My point is that when they are segregated this is what is always done. RfA is a good example of this being the norm for instance. It is a format that most Wikipedians are more than used to. Support goes first, oppose goes second, neutral goes third.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * RfA is exceptional, because it is, by design, an actual vote; the count matters. In other contexts (AfD, RM) most polls mix supports and opposes in chronological order; there are exceptions when the number of comments is very large. So this arrangement is reasonable, but not normal.


 * In short, this is another reason to be skeptical about the claim that the ever-declining percentage of support, now barely over 60%, is "consensus".  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not "ever-declining" at all. There as an upsurge of oppose initially that took it down from 66% to around 60% and it's been pretty steady since then. If you look at Nov. 1st only, for instance, there is an uptick of support actually. 20-9 is the margin for today so far in favor of support. So you're observation is wrong. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been watching hour by hour. All I can see is that this discusssion began with a handful of people declaiming that 2/3 was "consensus"; when I commented before this thread,  nearly 2/3 was "consensus"; now 60% is "consensus". Where will it end? Is 51% "consensus"? how about 47%? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about 39%? Is that a consensus? -- J N  466  19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about 42%, although that would also be non-consensus since it's the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. A supercomputer said so, so I think that's best. Dreadstar  ☥  02:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From my personal perspective... 2/3 (66%) qualifies as a consensus (this may be my perspective as an American.. but here in the US, it takes ratification by 2/3 of the states to enact an Amendment to the Constitution, it takes 2/3 of Congress to over turn a Presidential Veto and 2/3 of the senate to end a fillibuster... that fraction seems to work well in real life, so I suggest it here on Wikipedia as well). Let's not start declaring consensus (or lack of consensus) now... we still have several days to go.  A lot could change between now and then. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor correction. It's 60 votes to override a filibuster, but yes 67% is generally considered a consensus where I'm from. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not run for admin, either of you; I will have to very strongly oppose you. The examples you give are from governments, which usually do not have the space to leave matters undecided; we are not one; we do not have to act. Our policy is to look for what almost everybody can live with - and another go-around should achieve that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely the majority needed should vary according to the number of votes cast overall (?). The more voters you have, the more likely they are to be representative of community feeling and so the slimmer the majority you ought to demand. Hypothetically, if a valid vote from every active Wikipedian could be obtained then there's no good reason why the thing couldn't be decided by a margin of one editor. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The community feeling is clear enough; this is not a question of sampling error. The proposed change is not consensus; it could be if people would only read and reflect the comments, instead of trying to Wikilawyer the outcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again your opinion is not reflected in the actual trends going on here. There was an upsurge after SV's AN/I post and the ensuing drama fest for oppose .... since then the trend has been reverting back to where it had been before that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a policy RfC, which is different from a content RfC, in that it's not possible to scrutinise the votes and see if they are all in line with policy. So, the issue of whether changes to the text mid-flow invalidate the process put to one side, every vote is equally valid. It really is just a numbers game and it really is about how many people vote, IMO. All we are looking to answer is whether a prevalent view within the community can be identified. There's no logical basis for demanding any particular special threshold be crossed. If it's genuinely not possible to discern a community preference, then we will have "no consensus". But that doesn't arise simply because an arbitrary threshold has not been reached. --FormerIP (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Septentrionalis - for one, I did not vote support. I do not fully support this proposal. Secondly as the second line of WP:CONSENSUS reads "There is no single definition of what 'consensus' means for these purposes," I think that's not a questionable effort to try and say my definition of consensus is somehow wrong. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to lay down a single definition, unsupoorted by policy or practice. If the sentence you quote has any meaning, any such attempt is -well- wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Point is that any definition that is lower - or higher - is no different. Any definition that tries to require unanimous consent is also the same because that's trying to hit a percantage (100%). ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * {left) Which is one reason that WP:Consensus has said for some years that "consensus" (on Wikipedia) does not mean unanimity. (It does in the real world, but what is that to us?) We don't aim for any numerical value, even 100%; we aim for the greatest degree of agreement that is readily achievable - and for something to be policy, we expect that level of agreement to be quite high. This text isn't; too many opponents, and supporters, have suggested changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Without judging whether the current version has consensus or not, what makes you think any future versions will gain more support without alienating others? While I agree that if this went around again and some things were changed there might be a higher level of agreement, I cannot see given the statements here of getting anywhere near some of the extremely high percentage numbers thrown around because some people - on both sides - seem unwilling to let "venerability, no truth" be removed from the lede or kept at all and those people seem to constitute a high percentage of the people likely to comment and vote. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Several opposes are over fixable problems with the wording. Those can be attracted.


 * Also, the responses as to what should be done are cross-ways to the !vote; many people (supporters, opposers, and most of the neutrals - Cynwolfe may be clearest) would be happier with this if verifiability not truth were left in the lead; probably more than those who oppose its presence altogether.


 * And many of those who oppose its presence altogether are !voting on the wrong proposal. Some actually oppose what the policy now means - and not just the phrase; their remedy is to form consensus strong enough to reverse core policy - much more than two-thirds, and they don't have even a majority.


 * Others misunderstand what the policy now says: we do not mean opinion; truth is not enough. The phrasing from which this arose puts the hypothetical: what if Professor Hawking told you over a beer that his latest publication was just garbage? It is true that he thinks so; but you can't put it in Wikipedia - our readers have no reason to believe you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Two thirds is not consensus
We define consensus as "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The repeated claim that we can achieve consensus, not by amending the proposal to take account of the concerns raised, but by blowing them off and charging ahead with the proposed text exactly as it is, is destructive to comity - and will produce a worse text that following policy would.

When we deal with a genuinely unamendable matter, like RfA, we rarely act on anything like 2/3 (and the only occasion I can think of was  extremely controversial, only justified as being the restoration of an admin). To propose we should do when amendments are both possible and desirable is bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

8*All I ask is that this invalid argument be dropped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope and expect that the closing admins will decide what does or does not constitute consensus here, and I see little good to be accomplished by using this talk page to, in effect, try to lobby for how the RfC should be closed. Philosophical discussions of consensus in general should (if anywhere) go to WT:CONSENSUS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson, what should be dropped is these attempts to define consensus as a numerical figure. You are oppose !vote #24.  Your opinion that the bar for consensus should be set high is noted, and I think most opposers would agree.  The supporters would, I think, feel otherwise.  My personal opinion is that you and those who agree with you will succeed in stopping this change from going forward, despite its clear majority support. The counterargument is that if an RFA led to a promotion by general acclaim, or an AfD led to a delete, but then the closer was reverted without discussion by an interested party and the discussion was re-advertised to try to achieve a different result, then the subsequent closer would need to take account not just of the final tally, but also the underlying strength of the arguments and the previous close.  They would give weight not just to the surface aspects of the debate before them, but also to the original close.  They would need to try to subtract the effect of any bad faith or gamesmanship to help them discover where the true consensus lies.  But personally my expectations are low.  I do not think SlimVirgin's bad faith will be seen in its true light; experience with Wikipedia makes me think it will be fudged, overlooked and forgiven, forcing a no consensus outcome.— S Marshall  T/C 19:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * could we please not declare consensus or lack thereof until the RfC closes ... we still have a few days to go. It may be that there will be a clear consensus.  It may be that we will end up with yet another "no consensus".  Both results are valid.  If we do end up with yet another "no consensus" we can go back to square one and work out a new proposal that takes into account the comments from both sides, and try again.  Remember, the goal isn't to get some specific language placed into the policy... the goal is to find language that resolves the legitimate concerns of both sides in the debate.  That is how we achieved the compromise language we are voting on now... and it would be how we achieve any future compromise language.  Everyone needs to be willing to step back a bit and actually listen to what the other side is saying.  If it comes to trying again, fine... we now have even more information to work with.  That's a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree with both of these comments. (And I voted oppose because a support with the same alternate proposal and reservations would be effectively ignored: counted as whole-hearted unconditional support - as the example of those who qualified their support shows.) We don't need to go back to square one; this is a valiant attempt. It needs to be rephrased in the light of the comments - and it would need that even more if it winds up inserted into text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no rush nor reason to close this by the fifth. Newyorkbrad and Black Kite have said that they will attempt to close it by November 10th.  Until that time, I suggest that the active supporters of this proposal begin to examine the oppose comments (and the conflicted supports) and attempt to incorporate their concerns into either a restatement of the current proposal or into a revised proposal.  RfC's work best when there is an active effort to work towards a modified version that will have consensus. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, this proposal is the modified version that is, in our opinion, the most likely to achieve consensus. It's the outcome of nine months of very closely-reasoned argument.  If there's going to be a revised proposal, then it has to come from newcomers to the debate, because we've tried absolutely everything else that we can think of and this is genuinely the best that we can do.— S Marshall  T/C 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, the purpose of an RfC is to break through the stalled discussions and inflexible editorial positions that lead to gridlock and "no consensus" results. If you want to ignore the comments of hundreds of members of the community and act like a roadblock to good faith negotiation, then that is your choice.  Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Viriditas is making some very good points here. Although I personally am getting so tired of this whole debate that I would prefer to see some finality following this RfC, it it definitely correct that editors who favor a proposal should pay real attention to those who oppose it. It's absolutely false to say that the present proposal is the best that anyone can do. I know. I was there while it was being developed. And I warned that there were things in it that would get pushback from the community. And I was told, in effect, to go away when I said that. But there are still things that can be changed that would make the proposal more widely accepted. The purists need to realize that they will be frustrated if they overreach. But, that said, I'm not yet convinced that this proposal is going to fail in its present form. I'm really impressed with how many members of the community have proven to be more receptive to the changes than I was myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think SandyGeorgia made a good point about the reliable sources noticeboard (rather than, or as well as, the article talk page) being a good place to hash out concerns about a sourced statement. This is something we could include ("If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and/or the article talk page, ...") -- J N  466  02:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We could decide this by an RFC. If we have a larger fraction in that RFC that say that there is consensus for change than the fraction that voted in the current RFC for Blueboar's proposal, then we should implement that proposal. Most people will tend to vote the way the voted in the current RFC. What matters is how undecided people break down and if people who voted to oppose in this RFC would still agree to close the RFC as consensus to change or vice versa. So, you want to measure the difference between the fraction that voted to support in this RFC and the fraction that will support to close the RFC as consensus for change.

If the support for there being a consensus is larger than the fraction of supporters, that means that the momentum lies in the direction of inplementing the proposal. If its the other way around, then that would mean that the community has more reservations of actually implementing the propsal than suggested by the fraction that actually voted to oppose. In that case, it would be better to stick to the present version and have more discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Viriditas, I'm not acting like a roadblock. I'm saying that this is genuinely the best that the working group can come up with. I think my position is pretty far from inflexible. Over the past nine months I've made substantial amendments to my original view and I've allowed myself to be persuaded to support Blueboar's proposal. In reality, I'm with Jimbo: I want the toxic trio gone completely, if at all possible. But in the interests of harmony and out of a genuine desire to achieve something everyone can live with ("consensus") I've fallen in behind Blueboar's compromise. The comments of these hundreds of members of the community have all already been considered by the working group. There have been no epiphanies in this discussion, no new revelations, no brilliant suggestions about how else we could go forward. The question is: Do we want the toxic trio in the lede or do we want them in their own, longer paragraph immediately after the lede? At the end of the day it's a very simple either/or option. We know the wording isn't perfect and will need to be refined by the normal editing process, the question is whether the community is behind the compromise or not. If your position is that we need a whole new compromise, then that's up to you, but as I said, the impetus for that will need to come from those who weren't on the previous working group, because people like Tryptofish and Nuujinn and I have done what we can together. Without fresh eyes and fresh input, I don't think we can meaningfully improve on Blueboar's compromise.— S Marshall T/C 23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's well said. I think a number of editors misunderstand the degree to which supporters of the proposal actually disagree about the core issue, and fail to grasp the work that went into crafting what was proposed. I do see lots of the arguments that we mulled over reappearing here now. I am also struck by the notion that people keep talking about !vote ratios, when my understanding was that such were really irrelevant, and the key question was the quality of the arguments. I'm content to let a group of uninvolved admins decide the outcome. And Viriditas is absolutely correct that we should all look closely at the arguments, I would say on both sides, since we have a good data set here to work from, but I'd rather not recast the RfC as it stands now, since there have been too many changes already. Let's see how it goes and proceed from that when we get there. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Without plowing through the nine months of discussions, then this is a form of words that is plastering over a deep division in the drafting committee. Is it between the loud, but few, voices who genuinely oppose this policy and those who merely like to clarify it? If so, this is appeasement; no form of words will actually solve any problems here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's anyone who genuinely opposes this policy, then they're not here. As far as I can tell, everyone participating on this page believes we should have a policy called "verifiability" and that verifiability should be a minimum criterion for inclusion.  There are some who oppose particular ways of wording this policy.  But a desire to move VNT from the lede into a separate section is a pretty far cry from "opposing this policy".— S Marshall  T/C 19:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not follow all this business about saying there is no consensus for a change unless it is overwhelming. I agree that unless there is a clear consensus for change one should stay with a status quo. However if one has a couple of hundred people along then there is no need for a two thirds majority, just the balance of the argument should be judged. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then do read WP:Consensus until it sinks in.


 * If those who set up Wikipedia had meant Wikipedia to run by supermajorities, let alone majorities, our policies would say so; they say the opposite; Wikipedia is not a democracy. That does not mean that nothing can be done; but the way to do things is to amend the proposed text until it does have an overwhelming majority. I think this can be done; at that point it will be the opinion of almost all Wikipedians (polled or unpolled). That's what policy pages are supposed to be; if it is not consensus, do not say it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In practice that isn't remotely practical. The only time majority != consensus is in a situation where the majority are arguing against a standing policy which is assumed to have a very large consensus to begin with. However, in the case of changing a policy, for which there is no larger to consensus to fall back on, the only thing that can be viewed as consensus is a large uncontroversial majority. There simply is no other way to do it. You can't make a case that 5 people represent consensus if 20 opposed them for example. You couldn't even make that case if 4 people opposed them.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think one can say the status quo has a consensus in this case. There is such a large number of people come in on this that one has to either say the policy is null and has no overall consensus or else the new form is consensus. Saying the old form still has consensus when it does not is just silly. It was a consensus. It no longer is. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make the point here that, even if a two thirds majority was a consensus, this proposal has not come anywhere near a two thirds majority. I have tallied the totals at frequent intervals, and "support" on every occasion has been at 60% ± 1.5%. That is simply not a large enough majority to represent a consensus on a major policy change. Scolaire (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson wrote
 * “Then do read WP:Consensus until it sinks in. “
 * If those who set up Wikipedia had meant Wikipedia to run by supermajorities, let alone majorities, our policies would say so; they say the opposite; “


 * The policy WP:Consensus did say so before PMAnderson recently changed it. Before PMAnderson’s recent change, the policy WP:Consensus said,
 * ”Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.”
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed one sentence, after this discussion, in which nobody objected to removing the idea, and some supported it. The reference to "majority" was put in, without discussion, some months ago; the proponent joined amicably in the discussion, and asserted was that his major point was that we do not require 100% agreement. He is correct, and the policy still says so.


 * An unqualified majority vote is, however, inconsistent with the rest of WP:Consensus and with WP:NOTDEM, which I did not write. It may, under extremely rare circumstances, be supportable under IAR, but no such case has been made here.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Scolaire: the proposal is not a "major policy change". The policy itself is not changing, only our wording of it is changing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree there. The change to WP:CONSENSUS was more what I would have said was a major change and it was done without an RfC. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need to take a pragmatic approch to defining a major versus a minor change - I mean, there is no single absolute and universal measure. If this were a minor change, it would have been easy for editors on this page to reach consensus prior to the RfC.  We do not need an RfC if there is consensus for a minor change. The fact that people were not able to reach consensus earlier, and the fact that this RfC has brought forth so many concerns and questions as well as outright opposition to the proposal is the best evidence that what is proposed is not a minor change. I understand that many editors perceive this as a minor change.  My point is that too many editors do not share this perception. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Polling

 * Here is the new Occupy Verifiability slogan - [[File:60% pie chart.png]] "We are the 60%." :)Griswaldo (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * { Office pool: how long until someone wants to split off with 61%? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Karl Popper

 * I was recently directed here by Slrubenstein. I thought I would post a quote from Karl Popper and a few other philosophical reflections that might help with the discussion:
 * With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of these defenses of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.
 * Verifiability falls within the notion of reliability and the quest for truth - it provides the evidence and links to resources where the information is stored and replicated into literature. Facts are like mini-hypotheses embedded in our language, and as Karl Popper believed "observations exist only as interpretations of the facts of nature in light of present theories, not as the facts of nature themselves." Hence, the verifiable links are like arrows pointing to citable observations, but they are not to be conflated with untestable truth on the nature of reality. The quest for truth is a virtue, but do not praise the idol nor "the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty"; see Gould (2000) to learn about Baconian idols in the philosophy of science and "natural truth". My post refers primarily to scientific philosophy, not metaphysics nor other forms of inquiry - but science has a lot to say about truth, verification, reliability, and the idol of certainty. I would recommend a statement that says: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability in the persistent quest of truth" - or something of that nature. It is the malleability of theory not its rigidness that nets the best ideas. Proof is the demonstration of theory and the evidence that supports it. It is a publicly verifiable exercise, because "facts are the world's data" If you are seeking a means toward adjudication on the verifiable evidence, such as scientific consensus, it must be a collective venture. Should it come down to a vote? Perhaps, but scientists like to set the terms before hand - e.g., "I will reject at P>0.05" and then launch the test. If a poll is taken a posteri you will be trapped in endless debate (see above) over what is acceptable. Set the rules a priori and a lot of problems can be resolved, e.g.: A poll will be taken and >55% is required for the change to take effect, for example. The rules of engagement should be open for discussion in the persistent quest of truth. Editors need to ask if the information is reliable enough to act on or deposit into wikipedia. The rest is down to hope for humanity to deem what is and what isn't reliable enough to act upon. Truth should be reliable as it leads to predictable outcomes, but never dogmatic.Thompsma (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued attempts to discredit the RfC before it finishes need to stop
Will people please stop trying to discredit the RfC before it finishes? I'm sick of hearing about what percentages are required for a consensus, how the ordering of support/oppose/neutral sections is biasing the RfC (despite being conntional), how the original wording needs to be changed for this or that reason, and now how voicing plain agreement with the proposal as written is apparently not worthy of being counted in the evaluation of the RfC. Before the drama fest started at AN/I a great number of people had commented in this RfC already. Many of them were regulars here (of drastically different perspectives), but not all of them. Many of them were long time contributors to the encyclopedia, and some admins. Those individuals were perfectly capable of discussing the proposal without all this crap. What happened in the interim? I wont speculate but I've heard a lot of people claim that this RfC is garbage who really ought to look in the mirror because it appears to have been pretty clean before they arrived. So enough already! Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The best way to stop discussion is to just stop discussing, not commands to Stop. At any rate, people "discussing word changes to the proposal for this or that reason" have happened all along, and should certainly continue.  It's a "request for comment." So, comments welcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)